Talk:2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:29, 18 July 2018

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 60 days

Politics: American Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Computer Security: Computing Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Internet Start‑class Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Explain relationship between two pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_attacks

The hacking started in 2015. The FBI warned D.N.C. in 2015. 2601:14F:8005:B810:55AD:9880:EA67:C083 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about this guy?

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/gywynw/a-jailed-russian-hacker-claims-he-can-prove-he-broke-into-the-dnc-server

2601:14F:8005:B810:E0C9:4234:613:D78E (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A better time line, please

Intelligence agencies knew as early as 2015 that the Russians had penetrated the systems of the Democratic National Committee. How? And they warned DNC who apparently ignored warnings.

Clapped suggested in public on or about May 18, 2016, the political organizations and campaigns were being hacked.

Crowdstrike called in to fix DNC hack in May, exact date?

DNC press release June 14, 2016 and WaPo article same day acknowledging hack.

If this is going to serious piece, it needs better reporting.

2601:14F:8002:CAD2:2CD7:D608:4C8A:CA57 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DNC suit against Russia, Trump, and Wikileaks

Suit filed today. This would appear to be the correct article for inclusion.[1] O3000 (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pffft, still no suit filed alleging that the DNC and the Clinton campaign "conspired to disrupt" the Sanders campaign. Or that the "Swiftboaters" "conspired to disrupt" the Kerry 2004 campaign. Not to mention al the "conspiracies to disrupt" the Gore 2000 campaign. I guess it's all OK except when foreigners are involved? What law(s) are they alleging have been broken? Of course, the Clintons have never accepted bribes from foreigners </sarcasm>. wbm1058 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least I guess this means they will finally have to make all the evidence of the hack public, and allow defense experts the chance to debunk it (or not). wbm1058 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-hacking and copyright laws. O3000 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The correct article for inclusion is probably Democratic National Committee cyber attacks. ^Falling_Gravity 17:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now it has its own article. ^Falling_Gravity 17:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DOJ Indictments of 12 Russian GRU Agents for DNC Hacks

Article needs a big update based off https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download Froo (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 60 days

Politics: American Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Computer Security: Computing Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Internet Start‑class Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Explain relationship between two pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_attacks

The hacking started in 2015. The FBI warned D.N.C. in 2015. 2601:14F:8005:B810:55AD:9880:EA67:C083 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about this guy?

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/gywynw/a-jailed-russian-hacker-claims-he-can-prove-he-broke-into-the-dnc-server

2601:14F:8005:B810:E0C9:4234:613:D78E (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A better time line, please

Intelligence agencies knew as early as 2015 that the Russians had penetrated the systems of the Democratic National Committee. How? And they warned DNC who apparently ignored warnings.

Clapped suggested in public on or about May 18, 2016, the political organizations and campaigns were being hacked.

Crowdstrike called in to fix DNC hack in May, exact date?

DNC press release June 14, 2016 and WaPo article same day acknowledging hack.

If this is going to serious piece, it needs better reporting.

2601:14F:8002:CAD2:2CD7:D608:4C8A:CA57 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DNC suit against Russia, Trump, and Wikileaks

Suit filed today. This would appear to be the correct article for inclusion.[2] O3000 (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pffft, still no suit filed alleging that the DNC and the Clinton campaign "conspired to disrupt" the Sanders campaign. Or that the "Swiftboaters" "conspired to disrupt" the Kerry 2004 campaign. Not to mention al the "conspiracies to disrupt" the Gore 2000 campaign. I guess it's all OK except when foreigners are involved? What law(s) are they alleging have been broken? Of course, the Clintons have never accepted bribes from foreigners </sarcasm>. wbm1058 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least I guess this means they will finally have to make all the evidence of the hack public, and allow defense experts the chance to debunk it (or not). wbm1058 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The correct article for inclusion is probably Democratic National Committee cyber attacks. ^Falling_Gravity 17:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now it has its own article. ^Falling_Gravity 17:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DOJ Indictments of 12 Russian GRU Agents for DNC Hacks

Article needs a big update based off https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download Froo (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dates need to be more clearly noted in each paragraph throughout this article.

I am asking for more clarity within the article on dates, and all other major events. Under sub-heading : Responsibility, topic, Cybersecurity analysis, this paragraph:

The FBI requested (on what date did they ask for this?), but did not receive, physical access to the DNC servers.[58][59] The FBI did obtain copies of the servers and all the information on them (on what date did they obtain this?), as well as access to forensics, from CrowdStrike, a third-party cybersecurity company that reviewed the DNC servers.[59]

Revision as of 17:29, 18 July 2018 edit Two Wrongs (talk \| contribs) 277 edits →‎Dates need to be more clearly noted in each paragraph throughout this article. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:29, 18 July 2018 edit undo Two Wrongs (talk \| contribs) 277 edits →‎Dates need to be more clearly noted in each paragraph throughout this article. Next edit →
Line 118:		Line 118:
	Under sub-heading : '''Responsibility''', topic, '''Cybersecurity analysis''', this paragraph:		Under sub-heading : '''Responsibility''', topic, '''Cybersecurity analysis''', this paragraph:

	The FBI requested '''(on what date did they ask for this?)~~'''''Italic text~~'', but did not receive, physical access to the DNC servers.[58][59] The FBI did obtain copies of the servers and all the information on them '''(on what date did they obtain this?)~~'''''Italic text~~'', as well as access to forensics, from CrowdStrike, a third-party cybersecurity company that reviewed the DNC servers.[59]		The FBI requested ''(on what date did they ask for this?)'', but did not receive, physical access to the DNC servers.[58][59] The FBI did obtain copies of the servers and all the information on them ''(on what date did they obtain this?)'', as well as access to forensics, from CrowdStrike, a third-party cybersecurity company that reviewed the DNC servers.[59]