User talk:Mdikici4001

January 2017[edit]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Guitars (Mike Oldfield album), even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. LiberatorG (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of computer security hacker history[edit]

PROPOSED EDIT OPPOSED

The discussion's consensus appears to oppose the inclusion of the modification into Timeline of computer security hacker history. It's worth to note that Mdikici4001 has proposed that the modification is to be placed into a Russian Wikipedia article instead. A notice will be put up on article talk page to inform the results. 115.164.83.124 (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:The1337gamer User:LiberatorG I found the following edit in Timeline of computer security hacker history which is constantly being removed in a suspected wikihounding incident:

*March: A hacker who calls himself Cyber Anakin has reportedly breached the databases of Russian online portal KM.RU and game company [[Nival (company)|Nival Networks]] to avenge the shootdown of [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17]]. The data breaches from the two entities are confirmed as legitimate by security researcher [[Troy Hunt]].<ref>{{cite web|url= http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-teen-hacker-is-targeting-russian-sites-as-revenge-for-the-mh17-crash|title=A Teen Hacker Is Targeting Russian Sites as Revenge for the MH17 Crash}}</ref>

In your honest opinion, is it worthy to be readded to the article? I myself can't find any convincing reason to struck the text off. Mdikici4001 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my modification of the edit to make it less awkward:
* March: Teenage hacker "Cyber Anakin" dumped the database contents of two Russian websites in an attempt to avenge the shootdown of [[Malaysia Airlines Flight 17]]<ref>{{cite web|url= http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-teen-hacker-is-targeting-russian-sites-as-revenge-for-the-mh17-crash|title=A Teen Hacker Is Targeting Russian Sites as Revenge for the MH17 Crash}}</ref>
Comments? Mdikici4001 (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As a matter of fact the discussions about the edit did started by others at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history, but the discussions appeared to be dominated by only both the banned Bugmenot123123123 and the suspected WikiHounders Coltsfan, Calton and most likely Bradv.
The original discussions at the article's talk has since been closed for "no consensus", so I choose to ping all of you here to get a clearer and fairer consensus on how to do with this edit.
In fact, I revived the discussion about the edit here instead of there to prevent this conversation from being disrupted by both the banned user and the suspected WikiHounders. Who knows if both of them are watchlisting that talk page?
~~Next, how do I report a suspected Wikihounding incident?~~Mdikici4001 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Deku-shrub and User:King of Hearts to here. Mdikici4001 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the event were sufficiently notable, the entire data breach would have its own article. If you can build a whole article around this (which I doubt) maybe it'll deserve inclusion into the history of hacking Deku-shrub (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deku-shrub Somebody did actually create the article at a certain point but it was subjected to a controversy because it's more like a borderline case.

WP:LISTN: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable"

WP:LSC: "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list"

A solid benchmark for an inclusion criteria for that list has to be set, otherwise it'll turn to WP:BATTLEGROUND or perhaps WP:ANARCHY. Mdikici4001 (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My draft proposal of the inclusion standards of the 2000-2020 hacking events into the list:

1. A reliable independent 3rd party source that gives a hacking act an in depth coverage (e.g. news report) or its own encyclopedic article must be cited or referenced.

2. In respect with the inclusion consideration into the list, both White hat (computer security) and hacktivism-related events usually takes precedence over the mundane hacks whose motives is financial gain or "just to show their 1337 skills to their pals".

3. On the hacktivism topic, it depends on which agenda that guide the hacker's hands. If the agenda is associated with that of international incident or anything that is global in terms of scope, the concerning hacktivism act can be included here. But that doesn't mean that every hacktivism events that is connected with an international incident in any way should be included since it will clog up the list. If the incident is local in nature, scope and impact, hacktivist acts whose agenda is based on that is discouraged from the list.

4. Per number 3, I have come up with an equation. If there's only 1 to 5 hacktivist acts related to an international incident, the notability criteria can be very lenient and you can include them all. But if there's thousands of hacktivist cyberattacks connected to something like the Israeli-Arab conflict, the criteria becomes stringent so we include only 1 to 5 hacktivist events as opposed to thousands.

5. If the number of hacks concerning a hacktivist agenda spiked to tens, hundreds or perhaps thousands from one to five in a timeframe, stop adding further items and retain the one to five items already in the list unless something else exceeded the former in terms of notability. In the last case, the more notable items must replace the less notable ones.

6. Black hat hackings whose motives include financial gains, skill flaunting or "just for fun" are generally discouraged from this list, unless the effects from these type of cynical acts gains enough steam to unanimously fulfill WP:EVENTCRITERIA.

7. Cyberterrorism and state sponsored hacking events, like the Stuxnet attack against fission reactors and 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak, should be guaranteed to be included into the list. Major cyberwarfare events which got its own article must be included there too, for example December 2015 Ukraine power grid cyber attack.

8. Generally items related to the computer viruses must be merged into Timeline of computer viruses and worms, unless the merging is deem unsuitable. If that occurs, the issue must be judged with a case by case basis by opening a discussion on the list's talk page.

9. A data breach whose number of affected records are in the magnitude of millions or above normally takes precedence over that with only tens, hundreds or thousands of records.

10. Normally "skiddie" acts like DDoS & website defacement must give way to that of unauthorised release of confidential data, exploitation of an undiscovered vulnerability and cyberterrorist events that results in human or/and property casualties in real life. In the case of DDoS, this rule can be overrided if the extent of the effects from the hacking act meets WP:EVENTCRITERIA, like the DDoS that brought Liberia's internet down

11. Exploits and hackings that are really cheating in online games must be excluded from the list, unless they get their own articles by meeting WP:GNG and WP:EVENT standards.

12. Hackers who'd been arrested at one time like Kevin Mitnick and Ardit Ferizi normally takes precedence over the hackers who are still at large (e.g. The Jester (hacktivist) and Cyber Anakin), though this should be an optional standard IMHO.

13. Events whose uniqueness is more related to the hacking itself (e.g. first of its kind types) has far more priority over those whose uniqueness is more connected to it's alleged or real motive.

The 12 13 rules in the proposal are slated to be interdependent to each other

Mdikici4001 (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the article, it is intended to list "important events in the history of hacking and cracking". I would define an important event in the history of some topic to be an event that shaped its history. In other words, an event that had some significant impact on the direction or development of the topic over time. These are the events that it would be important for someone studying the history of the topic to understand.

This may include many first-of-its-kind events, such as an event that began a new style of hacking, or that required some new kind of defense, or that had a significant impact on the public's view of hacking. However if the only thing that is new about a particular event has nothing to do with the hacking itself but only with its alleged motive, and the alleged motive is to avenge some other event that is also unrelated to hacking, it is difficult to see how that event would be important to the history of hacking. -- LiberatorG (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:LiberatorG Added number 13 per your proposal. Suggest wholesale and impartial cleanup of the list at a time to purge "events that had nothing to do with the hacking itself but with it's alleged motive". Try forking by creating "Timeline of hacktivist events" to serve as an avenue for the soon to be removed hacktivism mentions. Mdikici4001 (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article already claims to list "important events in the history of hacking and cracking". To be clear, I was merely explaining what that means to me in response to your question and did not make any proposal. If you want to propose a change to the criteria then that should be discussed on the article's Talk page, so that people interested in the article will see it and have the opportunity to participate. -- LiberatorG (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:LiberatorG After I reviewed your opinion and did a careful investigative work on the subject re edit I feel the Cyber Anakin footnote is better suited in this Russian Wikipedia article though a Russian speaker has to translate my edit and put it there. Concurrently, I do suggest purging all footnotes from the list which has same notability level as that of Cyber Anakin's to avoid bias accusations. User:King of Hearts is right, the article must be moved to a more clearer title like "List of notable computer security hacker events". If others want an avenue to record the soon to be purged hacktivism events, I suggest them to fork out the list Timeline of hacktivism events to include them there. In that sense my draft proposal can become their benchmark or reference for the future list's criteria. Mdikici4001 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After my further review of all opinions, particularly that of User:LiberatorG, I've decided to:

1. Not add the Cyber Anakin edit into the list.

2. Ask for the rest of the hacks which has same notability and/or importance level as that of Cyber Anakin's or lower to be purged from this list to give a due weight. This has to be done immediately.

3. Have someone proficient in Russian language to translate my edit and put it into the said linked Russian article.

4. My 13 rule proposal to be considered as a benchmark for editors who want to add/delete contents from the list.

If there are no further dissent opinion regarding the above decisions, I will ask others to close this discussion ASAP.

Mdikici4001 (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chat with Sro23[edit]

User:Sro23 Now I manually ping the 4 users with their talk page. Mdikici4001 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sro23 Uh oh, I got ironically blocked by an administrator who is one of the users I've pinged to here. If a rough consensus is here, somebody else should make the change on that article. Mdikici4001 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Bugmenot123123123? Sro23 (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but I came here after I saw his Reddit comment. https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/ Is it wrong 4 me to be influenced by a Reddit comment? Mdikici4001 (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAN. In general, it is sort of frowned upon. Sro23 (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sro23 Other than that I strongly suspect that a Wikihounding campaign against the permabanned user might happened after I checked some of the article deletion chats and the original discussion about the edit that he participated. Do you think that this is caused by his Reddit comment that could have offended the potential Wikihounders? Should I sound an alarm? Mdikici4001 (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sro23 Either way we're looking at a classic Streisand effect as his Reddit OP reached over 60 upvotes. Mdikici4001 (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sro23 The discussion has started ;) Mdikici4001 (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sro23 Please assess the consensus of the edit discussion and close it accordingly. Mdikici4001 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed and closed the discussion per Mdikici's request. A notice has been posted in talk page of Timeline of computer security hacker history about the outcomes. 115.164.83.124 (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:King of Hearts Why? Can I still keep the discussion "Timeline of computer security hacker history" on my talk page going even with the block? Mdikici4001 (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay per Sro23 I could have unwittingly became a participant in an off wiki canvassing attempt. Still can I keep the discussion about the edit alive here? Mdikici4001 (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:King of Hearts Either way the discussion has started. Mdikici4001 (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has ended. I can go back to play Minecraft. Mdikici4001 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]