Jump to content

User talk:GeneralNotability

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Demize (talk | contribs) at 01:40, 20 July 2023 (Kevin Mitnick: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Not sure what to do with a user conduct problem? This is a good place to start.

You've got mail

Hello, GeneralNotability. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Yamla (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is all so sad

A threat or intimidation coupled with outing or appearing to out someone. Add to the implied tone is that another editor, an editor of longstanding, said in WIKIPEDIA's voice "We". WE. He was stating you and me and every one around Wikipedia..."We" all somehow know who this anon is. Personally I find this edit summary to be one of the most stunning things I have ever read on these pages. Shearonink (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What’s happened?

Hi GeneralNotability. I see you blocked User:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ with a log statement that can’t be followed. And Scottywong. What’s happened, in very simple terms, or a link, please? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, following a (months-long) technical and behavioral investigation and after conferring with several other CUs, I am very confident that ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ is the same person as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gustin Kelly, a rather nasty abuser who has been at this for a while (much longer than the linked SPI indicates). The link in the block log goes to the extensive documentation of the connections written up on the checkuser wiki. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #584

Tech News: 2023-28

MediaWiki message delivery 19:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 arbitration committee election RfC discussions moved to 2023 talk page

I have moved the discussions under Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022 § Topics to review for 2023 to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023. Please feel free to continue discussion on the 2023 talk page! isaacl (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

isaacl, thanks for getting that started. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

Wikidata weekly summary #584

Tech News: 2023-29

MediaWiki message delivery 23:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse Me.

I would like to be globally locked from my Wikipedia account. I don't think I'm fit for editing on this website. Do you think there is any chance you can do that for me? Rice the improver (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Mitnick

You may have missed the additional source I added: SecurityWeek, a reputable third-party source, independently confirmed Mitnick's passing. demize (t · c) 01:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

demize, I'm quite skeptical of all of this, and honestly I'm not convinced SecurityWeek did anything more than read the same obit and call that their "confirmation". GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't see why the obit itself is questionable--that obit site has been around since 1999, is used by a lot of different funeral homes, and seems to be trusted well enough by other media (see BoingBoing, who's also picked up the obit now: https://boingboing.net/2023/07/19/kevin-mitnick-1963-2023.html).
That aside, SecurityWeek isn't just reading the obit, they specifically claim to have independently verified it: "SecurityWeek sources have confirmed Mitnick’s passing, which was first reported in an obituary posted at Dignity Memorial, a Las Vegas funeral home.". If we can't trust SecurityWeek, are we just going to wait until CNN reports on it? I'm sure they will, but they'll probably just use SecurityWeek's early reporting and the obit, so by your logic here I don't know if we should trust them either. demize (t · c) 01:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
demize, my thinking is basically this: Mitnick is suddenly announced dead, from a cancer that has never been mentioned before, our only source is an obituary published a few days after the fact. I'm not saying that he definitely isn't dead - but I'm also acquainted enough with hacker culture (and, if I'm not mistaken, a couple big hacker conferences are coming up soon) that I can believe that this is someone's idea of a prank. I'm very reluctant to trust claims of death without bulletproof sourcing from extremely reliable sources. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm pretty involved in the hacker community; SecurityWeek is definitely a trustworthy source here, as one focused specifically on our community, and I've heard independently through other members of the community that this is reputable.
Mostly, though, I'm hoping to make sure that the article is reasonably and properly sourced. When I restored a revision of it to add in the SecurityWeek article, that was because it was the most complete revision of the page since the news dropped; currently other people are still editing it to add in the same details, but with less (or no) sourcing and care for the overall layout.
I can certainly understand the skepticism, but at this point it's pretty clear (to me, as someone in the security community, even just from the SecurityWeek article) that this is the real deal. And editors continually reverting each other over this doesn't do anyone any good.
In fact, regardless of what state you restore the page to, I'd suggest fully protecting it for the moment--this has just hit Reddit, so we're gonna see a lot more people coming in to edit it now. demize (t · c) 01:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]