Talk:2011 PlayStation Network outage/Archive 1

Archive 1

Main article?

On the PSN page, there's a section hatnote saying "Main article: 2011 PlayStation Network outages" which links here. This article should be deleted, because it isn't actually a main article. There is far more information on the PSN page. McKay (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I don't buy your argument at all. The page was only created less than 12 hours ago and someone is already looking for an excuse to delete it. What a joke. I mean come on! Give users the chance to develop the page. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the deletion template - I've removed it on the grounds that the page should be given a few days to develop. The deletion template will only discourage editors to not improve the page for fear that there work will be to no avail, therefore I've removed it. I am one of those who will improve the page in the coming days. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is still developing and is going to be expanded accordingly over the next few days. Keep it up editors! Ajcadoo (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is completely pointless. Half of it is a copy of what's in the PSN article, the rest consists of more headings than content. All information regarding this event easily fits (and belongs) within the main PSN article.Chris TC01 (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As above, please allow editors time to develop the article. It's been less than a day since it was created and already you want to delete it. This is an important event and deserves it's own article. It's the biggest attack and longest downtime for a gaming network in the history of the internet. Give it time to develop. There is bound to be a hell of a lot more information in the news as Sony continue their investigations. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 23:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it's a lot better now. I just don't like "main pages" that contain far less content. I decided a little prod would work great one way or another. Looks like a lot has been done to clean up. Nice job guys. McKay (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm agreeable to all of this, but at some point, I truly feel like the article name will need to be updated/changed. You can't get more vague than "PlayStation Network outage." I mean, how many have there been in the past? How many will there be next year? I'd love to see it changed to "PlayStation Network outage of April 2011", or at least "PlayStation Network outage of 2011." That at least allows the article to be standalone, should (and will) other PSN outages occur in the future, and to disambiguate this outage from past outages. My two cents. --Schmendrick (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A better title would be 2011 PlayStation Network outage. G₩PSP0907thAdvisory 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Since april is Month 4 of a year, Probably best to keep this page as is and then it will categorize later years/months as headlines to this page. Mnemnoch (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A citation is needed under the "Sony Response" section regarding Patrick Seybold clarifying a few points. Well, the article is locked so I am unable to edit it. The link to the article in question is here: :

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/04/26/clarifying-a-few-psn-points/ MrsMcEntire420 (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)MrsMcEntire420

Anonymous Involvement?

Shouldn't there be any information about the widespread speculation about possible Anonymous involvement and relating to the incident with Geohotz? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  18:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the credible sources I've looked at mention Anonymous at all. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 18:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It is mentioned though on both the Anonymous and Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz article. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  18:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion any mention of Anonymous should be avoided unless you can find a credible source which clearly indicates they were involved (e.g. BBC NEws, The Guardian, The Washington Post). People are often too quick to blame groups like Anonymous and this only makes them more widely recognised and lets them take credit for things they didn't do. Extremists should only be blamed if you're sure they did it. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't come across any credible sources which report that Anonymous are involved - yet, anyway. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So whys the Hotz article justifiable? FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  22:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the Anonymous and Sony Computer Entertainment America v. George Hotz so that they only contain the facts published by credible sources - that Anonymous have denied they are responsible for the intrusion and that Sony and the security firm they've employed have yet to identify a culprit. There is no need to identify Anonymous on this article. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 23:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

With an attack claimed by the group earlier in the month, and with Sony even stating in their FAQ that they were unsure, the question/topic should remain open. Mnemnoch (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What extremists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.18.232 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Stealing personal data has no use to Anonymous. They're attacks are done generally for some sort of cause. Since Anonymous has no leader or headquarters, they can't really make money off of it. And they would be targeting Sony itself, not user's personal details. People overestimate Anonymous' ability. They have some skilled hackers, but since they mainly do DDoS they're strength is in numbers. You could get monkeys trained to type one URL on a keyboard to do a DDoS attack. Additionally, they've never done anything without announcing it here: http://anonops.blogspot.com/. If they had pulled this off, they'd take credit. They love taking credit. What could anyone do in response, arrest their non-existent leaders? 98.16.48.130 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's not, somebody has tried to make it look like Anonymous is responsible: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/05/04/sonys-response-to-the-u-s-house-of-representatives/ ggctuk (2005) (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's intriguing. I found two other pieces: here and here. But something smells really fishy: Anonymous usually leave their whole motto as a calling card, not just one line of it. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a false flag operation. However, I think it is now fair to mention Anonymous in the article because Sony have official mentioned them - giving a background of their animosity towards Sony, their initial denial of being behind the attack, Sony's accusation and any further comment Anonymous releases. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What more do you need than this?

We discovered that the intruders had planted a file on one of our Sony Online Entertainment servers named “Anonymous” with the words “We are Legion.”

Mnemnoch (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What's so difficult about pretending to be Anonymous? --69.108.137.221 (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

42 > 45

The article says:

The PlayStation Network has 42 million user accounts[citation needed] with personal details, and such a theft of data would make it one of the largest data security breaches in history,[7][8] surpassing the TJX Hack in 2007 which affected 45 million customers.[9]

How does 42 million bypass 45 million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.123.58 (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The sentence structure is confusing. Mnemnoch (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't, don't know where you go that from. PlayStation Network actually has 77 million user accounts with personal details, which surpasses the TJX Hack of 2007 which affected up to 45 million customers. Stevo1000 (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This issue was already fixed by the time you made your comment. The way it read initially made it seem as if the numbers of the PSN were contradicting each other. 42 million would be correct for what was on the home page of the PSN website, however Sony did release in their FAQ that this was 77 million large. Mnemnoch (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of PlayStation Network Users

Wikipedia:Expert_editors, Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, and Wikipedia:Consensus is where all of this will end up. The links are either authoritative or they come from an expert who is properly WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:NPOV and WP:RS or it doesn't exist at all. Mnemnoch (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem solved. The reference makes it a Material_fact now.

IP Edit Abuse

Please add a lock to this page to prevent IP editors from continuing to abuse the article. Thanks. This does not need to be added to articles that need revisions for that category, only semi-protected. Mnemnoch (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to request it at WP:RPP - X201 (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have requested a semi-protection on the article. G₩PSP0907thAdvisory 12:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It was declined, although this suggests the IP anon addresses are not a big deal at the moment. G₩PSP0907thAdvisory 13:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the history between when I requested this and now, obviously the IP editors started showing up en force. I'm re-requesting this as it is apparent the longer they stay down, the more abuse that will come to this page. Why can I get a lock on PSN and not the PSN outage? This confuses me. Mnemnoch (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you can request semi-protection again if you want, I already have. G₩PSP0907thAdvisory 07:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There you go, its protected. G₩PSP0907thAdvisory 10:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The page has descended into a mess

Sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of this page. It was reasonably organised 12 hours and what we needed was more references, now its just a mess. The page is in dire need of a coherent structure. And I hate the timeline down the side of the page, hopefully it'll be moved once the outage comes to an end. Stevo1000 (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree about moving the timeline. Also, I think that their explanation for the days should be shorter and more summarised into the article, rather than the entire thing in a quote box. Perhaps that part should also be further down the article. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  15:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need a timeline at all? I agree it's current layout isn't pretty. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Timeline has some good information, but like Freakmighty said the points are much too wordy. I think they should be summarized with only important points then expanded (if need be) in the article. That might make it look better where it is even.. Rike255 (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the response by sony section but, funnily enough, the same could also probably done to the timeline. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  21:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has descended into a mess. With people wanting to edit war and do so as admins, and not putting a lock on the page has turned it into what it is. The person who had changed the timeline said this in their history: "Move timeline to a right-aligned, smaller-text purple box, as it is in Essjay controversy. Moving P. Seybold press statement from "Timeline" to "Criticism of Sony's handling of incident" section, as it fits well there too."

Someone has gone back and mass edited the dates to be day/month/year when WP across the board has month/day/year. Just noting this because that's 70 differences throughout the entire article that has to be corrected. Mnemnoch (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Done with dates. Cleaned those up.

I hate how the timeline is sitting there on the far right of the screen, trying to steal attention from the introductory paragraphs while looking like a misplaced fifth wheel. The layout of this isn't pretty at all.Chris TC01 (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Passwords stolen?

The Daily Telegraph reported that "If the provider stores passwords unencrypted, then it's very easy for somebody else – not just an external attacker, but members of staff or contractors working on Sony's site – to get access and discover those passwords, potentially using them for nefarious means."

Okay, I know this is a quote from their site, and that we have to go on it as clearly a fact because these guys said so, but really, who else has confirmed that passwords were taken? Or for that matter, that the passwords were unencrypted. Oh, because Sony said that "user information" was not encrypted? Or because Sony only explicitly stated that credit card information was encrypted? Notably, I don't think user information ever includes passwords, it's usually called account information instead if it includes passwords. User information always seems to mean: Name, Username, Address, Phone Number, Gender, Age, and that's about it. Shardok (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Eurogamer also reports that according to Sony passwords have been "obtained" and suggests that the passwords must have been unencrypted.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-04-27-ico-confirms-it-will-quiz-sony-over-psn Chris TC01 (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In both their FAQ page for the 'problem' and the email they sent out, they stated that passwords were obtained (in addition to email addresses, usernames, etc). The article being quoted didn't get it quite right: passwords should be hashed (and salted, and re-hashed), not encrypted. Encryption suggests you can get the original password back (decryption), and anyone with the slightest concern for security wouldn't make that (easily) possible. But, if they're warning people that they got passwords, that means they were either stored in plaintext or only hashed once. Since they aren't trying to put a positive spin on it... yeah, probably plaintext.

That said, you might still be right, Shardok. Even though they've said enough to make it certain that they weren't protecting passwords (pretty much a fact), they haven't explicitly admitted it yet, and the article is probably being given undue weight here. Were they obtained? Yes. Should it be written so definitively? Probably not. Even if the source is normally 'reliable', they can't really be considered reliable for specific facts, since they don't actually know any yet. 72.88.50.100 (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In a May 2 statement Sony clarified this issue: user passwords were hashed. The article should be updated to reflect this. http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/05/02/playstation-network-security-update/ Xamnidar (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Article Name

Well, firstly, the name of this article was pretty clear before when it said Playstation Network outage, as it explained that the Playstation Network was down, but only temporarily. Shutdown implies a permanent downing of the network and might give many people the wrong idea, not to mention that it is less likely to be found by that name. It was first reported as an outage from Sony, and I think that this is the most easily recognizable way to refer to it. Maybe another way might exist, but I think calling it a shutdown just gives the wrong ideas about it. Shardok (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Shutdown was the term used when Playstation executives temporarily ceased the network's running. I changed it from outage, since outage means it was wiped due to power, and changed it to shutdown, since hackers forced the network to do so. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:13 29 April 2011 (UTC)

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/04/21/latest-update-on-psn-outage/ They specifically refer to it as an outage there, although yes, that is before they stated the cause of it. http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/04/27/qa-1-for-playstation-network-and-qriocity-services/ But again you find them referring to it as an outage in that article, and in almost every post they make about the subject. Where did you find them referring to it as a shutdown? Shardok (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Definition of SHUTDOWN

the cessation or suspension of an operation or activity

Examples of SHUTDOWN

<the factory resumed operation after a brief shutdown for repairs> Chris TC01 (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Though the definition it uses gives two opposite examples in its explanation. A cessation is permanent from most of the results I can find, or intended to be permanent. Whereas a suspension is always meant to be temporary. Playstation Network suspension sounds kinda weird though. But regardless, I still feel outage is the way most people would think to look for it, either that or Playstation Network down (which definitely would be a bad title). Shardok (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The definitions aren't contradictory at all. A shutdown can be permanent or temporary. Maybe "temporary" should be added to the article name. In my opinion you can't call it an outage when the network has been shut down willingly. Chris TC01 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point about the fact Sony have closed PSN down of their own accord rather per se, a technical fault which consequently causes an outage. I wouldn't be keen on '2011 PlayStation Network temporary shutdown' as long page titles aren't ideal. Stevo1000 (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

An outage is defined as "a temporary suspension of operation (as of computers)" according to http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=outage You really can't get a more clear term than that. Shutdown is ambiguous because it generally implies permanently. We use the term outage in the IT industry often for both planned and unplanned downtime of a service. The article name should be changed back. Rike255 (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Outage is ambiguous as well, because regular readers associate it with an involuntary loss of power/electricity/system functionality. Personally, I had no idea an outage could be planned/scheduled. Chris TC01 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What about Playstation Network downtime? It clearly states that it isn't permanent, was likely intended, and is not from any form of involuntary loss of systems.Shardok (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with the overwhelming majority on this. The rationale that Sony executives have used the term 'shutdown' is irrelevant. At the end of the day, it is ambiguous and misleading as it suggests PSN has been shut down permanently - which is incorrect as Sony are working to get the Network back up. ;Outage; is a far more suitable term to use in the title and it should be changed back. If anything, 'Shutdown' is not suitable at all.Stevo1000 (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, Sony executives haven't used the term shutdown, they've used the term outage to refer to it. I gave several sources of Sony referring to it as an outage, whereas AutoParts wasn't willing to cite where he saw them referring to it as a shutdown.Shardok (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a bit late to chime in, but I typed PSN shutdown into Google, and plenty of reputable sites refer to the current event as shutdown. I also dont know how 2 vs 2 is an "overwhelming majority" for one side, but then Im not too accustomed with how these things work here. Btw, the very first sentence of this article calls the event a shutdown. Not too consistent I think

Moved back to outage as per the points raised in the above discussion. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 08:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably for the best seeing how is they have yet to say this was going to be relaunched in phases starting this week. If they don't re-launch it after then, I may change my mind. Mnemnoch (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rename to 2011 PlayStation Network outage.

Even if no other outages have existed before this, the article name gives the feeling that there has been more than one outage. I feel we should rename the article to include 2011 at the start of the article name. Rainbow Dash 14:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

How does "the article name [give] the feeling that there has been more than one outage"? On the contrary, that's precisely what appending "2011" would imply. Such disambiguation is called for only if there has been (or later is) another major outage. —David Levy 16:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The same proposal has been given before. I said that this current event could be archived and then the timeline updated as 2011, 2012, etc. It's better to do that. If anything the page should have been called 'outages'. Mnemnoch (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent related events

I was pondering, would it be best to make this into an article covering the general controversy surrounding both the subject matter and the recent hacking of Sony Online Entertainment? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If anything, the Sony Online Entertainment article's recent history needs to be clarified and then more clearly related to the outage on this article. Mnemnoch (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Section to cite theft of data

SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT ANNOUNCES THEFT OF DATA FROM ITS SYSTEMS -- [1] Hope this helps. Don't have time to add it. Mnemnoch (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Another 25M users' info hacked

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/hardware/Sony-Another-25M-users-info-hacked/articleshow/8149713.cms

Sony's Internet security crisis deepened with the company revealing hackers had stolen data of another 25 million users of its PC games system in a second massive breach for the consumer electronics giant. -Abhishikt 05:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Second Hack

This second hack was not of the PSN servers, but instead was done to SOE. Chances are it will get very confusing if the two events stay on the same page, however if a second page were made it would currently be a stub right now with just about as much information as that last paragraph at the top says. I do think a new page will be needed eventually however, but I was wondering how others thought on that point. Shardok (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't merge it there should at least be a mention because even though the servers are different the hacks are probably the work of the same people. There is no info from the FBI or anything to confirm this but that's how many people feel Darkcat1 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a second hack as the title of Sony's PR is "SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT ANNOUNCES THEFT OF DATA FROM ITS SYSTEMS - Breach Believed to Stem From Initial Criminal Hack of SOE". (see above for link) Also, as I've stated many times before, this page should be categorized to reflect events individually as they occur. There is no need to make a page for each event when there is already a page announcing it to happen the first time thus putting the first event out of sight and out of mind. Mnemnoch (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's Not a second hack as is clearly stated, technically it was the first hack. Yes, it likely was the same people. However what I was pointing out was that instead that it seems weird to have a section titled Sony Online Entertainment outage under the page PlayStation Network outage. People looking for information on why SOE is down wouldn't check the page about why PSN is down and vice versa. Not to mention that at one point it says 25m users were hacked, then as the person reads further they see 77 million. The reactions listed here don't apply to the SOE hack, but solely to the PSN hack, as does most of this page. Unless you want to change the name of the page and section off the two hacks separately within the page, I think it makes sense to do 2 separate pages eventually with the reactions, responses, etc separated. Shardok (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I've stated, it would be most appropriate to make this article about the general hacking of Sony-related services (specifically these two (one) hacks). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How is the SOE intrusion related to the PSN/Qriocity intrusion? Was this a second attack on SOE? -- While the two systems are distinct and operated separately, given that they are both under the Sony umbrella, there is some degree of overlap in design. The attacks were similar in nature. This is NOT a second attack; new information has been discovered as part of our ongoing investigation into the criminal attack in April.

http://www.soe.com/securityupdate/recentupdates.vm

Hopefully this will clear things up...or convolute them even more. They seem to be pros about not answering questions in a clear and concise manner. Mnemnoch (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Japan

I removed the WikiProject Japan template. The only connection to Japan this article has is the fact that Sony is based in Japan. The attack took place in America and affects the whole world. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 21:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it is of interest to a company whose origins are specifically in Japan. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see both points being relevant. Perhaps you should call a NPOV. Mnemnoch (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly true. We don't usually just allow indiscriminate placement of country WikiProjects on articles remotely related to a country. Otherwise, we would have {{WikiProject United States}} on Paris Hilton, {{WikiProject China}} on Edison Chen sex scandal, and {{WikiProject Africa}} on Out of Africa hypothesis. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge section from SOE page

The page as is pretty much states what the SOE page should already. I think if anything the SOE page should be cleaned up now and any additional details merged into the section on this page. Mnemnoch (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If this article was to be merged, it should also be renamed. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 02:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this event touches more than just the PlayStation network. In fact, as far as I can tell, it spans to all of Sony Online Entertainment services. Therefore, it should probably remain on the SOE article, or perhaps be renamed to focus on the larger aspect of the SOE breach, not just the PlayStation aspect. 174.50.109.176 (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

After watching this video it seems that the PlayStation Network breach and the SOE breach were two separate events. If both events are to be included, then the page should probably be renamed, but if the SOE aspect was left on the SOE page and linked, then this page could remain as it is. 174.50.109.176 (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am only quoting Sony. They said that they could "possibly be related" in their own words. Mnemnoch (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The SOE breach should stay on the SOE page. They are separate companies, an average user would expect to find the SOE breach in the SOE article. - X201 (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. SCEA and SOE are one in the same. The Station accounts and the fact that they are different LLC's are the only thing that is separate from the two. Mnemnoch (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It still falls under the purview of Sony Corporation is what I also mean to say. If the attack were towards Nintendo or Baskin Robbins, I could see the point, but we're still dealing with Sony on this. Mnemnoch (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree as well. The media considers both breaches part of one big attack. They should not be separated out into different articles. Chris TC01 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you both misunderstand me. I'm coming at this from the point of view that the SOE section should not be removed entirely from the SOE page. To have an SOE article that didn't mention the attack would be silly.- X201 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now I understand and totally agree. Of course there needs to be a mention of the attack in the main SOE article. Chris TC01 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood now and agree. Thanks for clarifying. Mnemnoch (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to add a quote to the timeline for May 7, that will show that the SOE outage directly is affecting the PlayStation Network outage. Mnemnoch (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Letter to Bono Mack and Butterfield, U. S. House of Representatives

See here for Sony's/Kazuo Hirai's reply to the US House of Representatives on "The Threat of Data Theft to American Consumers" - http://www.flickr.com/photos/playstationblog/sets/72157626521862165/ It would also be worth noting within the document that Sony identifies themselves as Sony Network Entertainment America and Sony Computer Entertainment of America. Mnemnoch (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The document referenced here is going to be used to verify against what claims are made on the existing page. If those claims are not accurate or need to be expanded with details pertinant to this article, they should be handled first after consulting this document for Material fact. Mnemnoch (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Current Event

This is still a current event. Whoever took off the current event template should stop until the network is back online. Mnemnoch (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of stuff is getting lost due to incorrect vandalism repair. Its nothing malicious, just people doing the right thing but unfortunately doing it wrong. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to restore the reference on the Status field. - X201 (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality when Facts become unclear

When I see this and then I see this - both reporting to be written to the letter by different people - I begin to think I am watching a very fuzzy line disappear. I don't like people, or companies, not being truthful. Take it for what it is, but I lose the ability to be neutral at this point on the subject. Those are the latest updates. Both identical. Each written by different people. Mnemnoch (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

They only claim to be Posted by that guy. I don't see what the problem is there though. So the company has one press release written up, and just puts the name of the respective director of communications' name on it. I wouldn't be surprised if neither of them wrote it, but instead some secretary wrote it up for them. Shardok (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Then it seems that by logical deduction the statement found here made by Sony Online Entertainment will probably reflect the same update from Sony PSN over the weekend. "We wanted to let you know that our games will not be up this weekend." They've been dead on accurate thus far, so it would seem the events of being online would correlate to the PSN status. They have been using automation (scheduled tweets in Tweetdeck for instance) to post events if you watch close enough. I digress. I am aware of secretarial/intern/assistant activities within a Corporation, and especially the execution of requests from a Director or Officer, and I am equally familiar with the capabilities of a blog like WordPress (which they use). But...one would expect in a corporate environment that the person signing off, or whomever's name is being used, is a result of the execution of that particular person's request. To clarify further - if all of this other than what we've seen is written by individuals who may not be the people behind it, but rather the Corporation, then I think that we should remove names like Patrick Seybold. At the same time, this again brings in the fact that I would rather see and document what is encyclopedic, such as key figures within a Corporation, instead of completely ignoring them. Mnemnoch (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words, what is Corporate verifiability if the person attributed to comment or make a comment isn't the person making the comment but a form of WP:SOCKPUPPET on their blog. Making a fake employee or entire division of people because they were all automated, or a similar cited network that could do what we've seen done in this attack, how can we trust what that person has said to date and without ACTUAL verification? Mnemnoch (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Third Attack Hoax (May 7 2011 UTC)

I have seen articles on the Internet circulating via CNET UK of a third attack to PlayStation Network. I have found no facts confirming this thus far and the article I saw syndicated cited an IRC chat room conversation overheard by a third-party to the author. A lot of articles on the page that are cited, or at least were cited in the past, have been speculative in places that do not give them credibility, over dramatizing the titles for shock value and usually not a source that can claim expertise to reference from when it's all said and done. Mnemnoch (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly I've seen reports of a 3rd attack against Sony's websites but not PSN or SOE. I still need more confirmation before posting info on it anywhere but there seems to some evidence for it.Darkcat1 (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This article

This article is one of the most disgusting I've seen for quite a while. There's a collective of spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and over-complication. This article is far too big for the event and what it describes. To add even more laughs, the opening sentence is completely wrong. "The 2011 PlayStation Network outage resulted in the theft of approximately 77 million Sony PlayStation Network and Qriocity accounts as well as the suspension of all services worldwide after an "external intrusion" circumvented the security placed on the network." Ok, so the outage resulted in 77 million accounts to be stolen? Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 10:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

A foreign concept perhaps, but you could just fix it yourself. Give me bad grammar over bad attitude any day of the week. If all you are interested in is mocking the editors who made these mistakes, then you have no purpose editing Wikipedia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 12:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest or knowledge in this subject, but I can spot a bad article. For a response to your personal vendetta, please see my talk page. Kind regards, Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 12:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have never edited this article at any point, so I am lost as to what personal vendetta I may have against you. If you continue to be uncivil, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you can see this problems that this article has. Don't issue warnings to me, I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know the rules. Perhaps I did overstate and overreact to the problems of this article, but there's no doubt that this article requires a fundamental rewrite. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 23:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If you had said simply that without insulting the editors, this discussion would have probably resulted in a constructive discussion of its contents. I issued a warning to you because you made a very blatant violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to point out these "spelling mistakes" and other issues that so "disgust" you? I don't see any spelling errors, and so remain sceptical about the value of the rest of your assessment. Otherwise I'm generally underwhelmed by the helpfulness of your contribution here, although there is a certain comedic irony in the grammar of your second sentence. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

HAY GAIS, I fixed the spelling error. The article is saved! Axem Titanium (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hurrah! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You would have thought that me adding the cleanup tag would have been enough not to incite an attack by anonymous... Glad you all picked up on the PCI Compliance thing before making mean comments. Mnemnoch (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Current or not?

Well, the current template was just removed from the page, so I went over and read the page on that template. "As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters or other breaking news." The reason given for its removal was because that is the sole purpose of the template. It always seemed like the reason for the template was to draw attention to the fact that it is a page about an ongoing event, or a rather recent event, warning that the page may change drastically at any given time. This page seems to fit that as new information keeps being released by various people. Most recently being the information on the lawsuits and the compensation Sony is looking into offering. I think the template was removed unduly by an overzealous editor. Shardok (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely a current event. I replaced the template. Please leave it there until the outage is over. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} —Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC).

I put the template back on. Eddievhfan1984 (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't. That is not what the {{current}} template is for. It is only used on articles where it is expected that a large number of rapid edits will take place, for example, during the days after the Sendai Earthquake or the first few hours after the death of Osama Bin Laden. Templates on Wikipedia aren't to be used as you wish; they have an intended purpose. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand. However, I still feel there should be something to indicate that, even admittedly, that the outage is ending, the event has not "passed" (to be further confusing), and while not highly in flux to the same extent as the page being edited on the same day the event started, there is still going to be more information being put in this page in the not-too-distant-future. Is there a location I can bring something like that up? Eddievhfan1984 (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As long as somewhere within the lede that there's a line that goes along "...is currently..." or "...has yet to be resolved", I guess that's ample explanation that the situation is quite recent. It shouldn't be too hard, after a quick read through the lede and article, for a reader to be aware of this. Many editors, currently and in the past, have advocated that a page should not be "overly-advertised" to be recent, especially through the use of templates. There have been quite a number of discussions before on other pages; the general idea is that the {{current}} template is only to be used when a page may end up with edit clashes due to recentness, and in all other cases, it isn't quite justifiable to "show everyone" how recent a topic is. ...But then again, not without saying there are plenty of editors who dispute this consensus as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Typo

On the 30 April 2011, Sony Computer Entertainment CEO Kaz Hirai reiterated this and said the "external intrusion" which should down the PlayStation Network constituted a "criminal cyber attack".

On the 30 April 2011, Sony Computer Entertainment CEO Kaz Hirai reiterated this and said the "external intrusion" which shutdown the PlayStation Network constituted a "criminal cyber attack".

should down to shutdown, middle of the line, it won't let me fix it

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.23.194 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed. I changed it to "On the 30 April 2011, Sony Computer Entertainment CEO Kaz Hirai reiterated this and said the "external intrusion" which had caused them to shutdown the PlayStation Network constituted a "criminal cyber attack".", since the intrusion itself wasn't what caused the shutdown - Sony did that - but it is why it was shutdown. Thanks for the heads up. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 15:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

I've converted the Timeline in to a separate template. The big block of text was becoming unwieldy at the top of the article and is an unwelcome surprise for new editors. The timeline can be edited here - Template:PSN outage timeline - just add references as normal and it will all be sorted out when the template is transcluded onto this page. - X201 (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That was actually rather helpful, I'm not a new editor, but even I found it confusing at the top whenever I saw it. Shardok (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Reversed. There is no need to split the timeline into a template. It will serve one article. --tblack93 ^{Talk · Contributions} 02:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with tblack93 - templates are intended for material that is repeated across multiple articles. But if tblack93 and X201 agree to re-create the template, I would accept it. However other admins might think differently. I have added comments to help confused editors. I see no need to restore the edits at PlayStation Network outage/Timeline. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two points here. The Timeline and whether or not it is better as a template or article code is now a separate discussion. The actual deletion of the template is the one that is of greater importance. The template was not a speedy candidate; and definitely not a G8 one before the incorrect page move. The template should have undergone a proper deletion nomination and discussion. I am seriously considering taking the matter to WP:DRV to get the template re-instated. I disagree with the way the template was deleted (Page move + Speedy) and feel they go against the spirit of WP.- X201 (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• What a lot of fuss over nothing. To make it clear: if tblack93 agrees, simply re-create the template. There is no need for DRV. If the re-created template survives, I will restore the deleted edits under it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• After re-reading this, it's not a lot of fuss about nothing when anyone can contribute. X201 makes a very valid point that should not have been so rudely answered. Even though it may not mean something to you, it obviously means something to him. Mnemnoch (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that the template was inappropriate. It would have been used on one article and it would have achieved the opposite effect, namely, to make it more difficult for inexperienced editors to find and change its content. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Move the template so that it states 2011 and then can be worded so that if subsequent attacks happen later this year, it can simply be used as a template for further attacks, if any. Mnemnoch (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

GOALS FOR ARTICLE

POST ALL MAJOR ARTICLE CHANGE REQUESTS HERE PLEASE

Please check and make sure when editing that you are writing in the correct tense or correcting things to be in the correct tense now that the network is back online. Mnemnoch (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

how 'bout we make this talk section just "Goals for Article" so we can group them all together and don't wind up with a bucketful of "Goal" headers (deliberately not 'bold' out of courtesy for Mnemnoch)? Personally I think we need a See Also section in addition to finding some way of neatening References and the footer box...I get dizzy looking at the bottom third of this page.

As for See Also: http://us.playstation.com/psn/ Official PSN Status site

VulpineLady (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Changed name and added note at the top. Thanks. Mnemnoch (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

UK Data Protection Act

Could someone who can edit the article, please update references to the UK's Data Protection Act to include a link to the data protection act article? Data Protection Act 1998 86.20.200.99 (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. A constructive IP. Imagine that! - Another n00b (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If constructive IPs were such a rare occasion, there would be no anonymous editing on Wikipedia. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 23:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that. Thanks for helping, whoever you are. Mnemnoch (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome :) 86.20.200.99 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Free PSP/PS3 games table

The two are mashing up on my view really badly, even when I view it in regular 100% mode (I use 120% in Opera 11.10 be default, on a 1024x768 resolution). I suggest splitting it into two tables, one for PS3, the other for PSP, to resolve this problem. I would do it myself but I really don't like mucking around with wikitables. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It already is two tables, they're just set up in columns. I hadn't considered low-res screens like yours (I guess you're using a netbook or something). I'm working on it at the moment so I'll split them up again at the same time. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Only 13% of web visitors use 1024x768 now? [2] I remember when that was top dog. Anyway thanks for fixing the problem. In case you were interested, this was how it looked on my computer screen [3]. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. That is a rather strange rendering error; I'd have thought it'd just have made the columns narrower. I guess whatever it is Template:Multicol does to split it up doesn't effect tables, so it's good to know for future reference - thanks. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 22:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not to move. The 2011 creates unnecessary disambiguation. Unless, in the near future or another year, there is another large scale outage, in which further disambiguation is needed, a move will be needed. KiloT 20:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

---

PlayStation Network outage → 2011 PlayStation Network outage – Uncontroversial move; the boldface in the lead sentence and the navbox in the bottom add the year, and it would make sense to add 2011 as the network has been down for small periods before, so this risks being seen as the only outage, rather than the Big One. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Why don't you just go ahead and move it? –CWenger (^ • @) 18:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  It's move protected, so I can't. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  Ahhh, OK. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral Support: I see no reason not to, and it does prevent potential ambiguity.Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 18:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC) (see posts below) Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, before everyone here gets all move happy, please see former consensus on this same topic. As is should be fine. When further outages occur, then it can be added onto the page and categorized as such. I see now reason that in its current form that it would create any ambiguity. Mnemnoch (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I really doubt that this specific problem will last outside of 2011. If another hack occurs later in the year, it will be a subject of its own notability. Support. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This particular outage is over, yes. Duly noted as contained and over with. That's why the WP:CURRENT tag is gone. But, that doesn't mean that another one won't occur this year, as you said. And it will be notable enough to be a subject. On its own, well... Why are we all in support of this when you could have a timeline of outages? Until it is 2012, the article title nominated is silly because....The same could be said about the March 2010 PSN crash. I don't even see a paragraph about it, much less letters to Congress. Hrmm. It did happen. But no article. No paragraph. No ambiguity. No controversy. ZERO prose or encyclopedic value at all noting something historic. Sony told users NOT to use their PlayStation 3's. Don't you think that's worth writing down somewhere? Regardless of the prose, speculation or off-handed commentary, it DID happen. DISAGREE -- Now, I'm not 77 million people, but, I was that one guy who put it in the news and who contributed a lot of the material before anyone else. I work in this field and I have no bias other than I enjoy Sony products. At the same time, I enjoy Microsoft products all the same, so please refrain from shouting fanboy. The behavior witnessed in 2011 is the same as in 2010 where we didn't get an answer at all except "We apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused"[4]. Sweep this one under the rug if you must because that's exactly what you're going to do if you move this article. 77 MILLION IDENTITIES STOLEN. I've also yet to see anyone challenge this with the SOE (which is in the same building, get with the ballgame) outage to around 100M total Sony subscribers with potential ID Theft. That is the largest recorded in history and I WELCOME anyone to show me that it's not because I've been looking for days now. 2011 PlayStation Network intrusion would be more fitting. But, what's a few letters going to do. I've yet to read anyone give a worthy article name to even move this to and that's why everyone here needs to stop trying to go in 77 million different directions and work on cleaning up the article first before you worry about what it's called. There's plenty more facts to be pulled from the letter to the US House of Representatives as well as the on-going ups and downs that are occurring to the network as of this timestamp. Be bold. Mnemnoch (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mnemnoch, but I don't follow how any of the above has anything to do with renaming the article. Actually I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make about anything in the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

One more short comment, why not be bold and leave this as is and start a trend documenting and entering content which covers every major outage. This is listed on WP:CRIME, we are not traveling back in time and these computers are only getting faster. Mnemnoch (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

With regard to "the March 2010 PSN crash", may I point out that while it doesn't have an article of its own, it is documented at PlayStation 3#Leap year bug, and that it wasn't a problem with the PSN, but a problem with the (non-slim) consoles themselves. (However, there is potential for ambiguity there, since people looking it up may not know why/how it happened and may assume it was a network issue.)

I wouldn't be against having a timeline of outages, but AFAIK, there has only been this one (as I said, the March 2010 thing was not a PSN issue). If another one happens, I see no reason not to have a separate timeline article (this is a pretty long article as it is) but until then, this is the only one. While on that point, perhaps renaming it as 2011 PlayStation Network outage would be a little premature, since there is no need to disambiguate it yet (it can be done when/if it happens again).

Quote: "Sweep this one under the rug if you must because that's exactly what you're going to do if you move this article."

What? How does putting a date in the article title "sweep it under the rug"? I don't see the connection.

You (Mnemnoch) say "I've yet to read anyone give a worthy article name to even move this to". I don't see that this is an argument against moving it, but is rather a comment that you don't think either name is good. If you have a better suggestion (2011 PlayStation Network intrusion?), please put it up for consideration - we can't discuss it unless you propose it. What we are essentially discussing here is "which of the names (current or proposed) is preferable?" - if you want to suggest another (like Escape Orbit has below) go ahead, and the discussion will expand to include your proposal.

I'd say that a title that references Sony or Sony Network Entertainment (I'm pretty sure this is the division that handles Sony's network stuff, including the PSN and SOE's systems) rather than the PSN may be better, since SOE's servers are not part of the PSN, yet the intrusions are clearly related (although the link between the two intrusions would have to be well sourced).

By the way, what you (Mnemnoch) posted is difficult to read as it's just a wall of text that (seemingly) jumps from one train of thought to another several times, and is verging on tl;dr; please use paragraphs in future. Also, please don't use ref tags on the talk page - displaying them requires a references tag/template which causes issues with the "new section" button (the refs section has to be moved to the bottom manually every time a new section is added).

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the WP:TLDR and linking, but I thought it was relevant and appropriate. Thanks for showing me the link to the 2010 event. Should I create a sandbox for references and point to that when in discussion instead?

Yes, you would be absolutely correct in calling the entity who repaired and maintains the network Sony Network Entertainment America. I even tagged it in the article and there is very little to no information on this entity -- and not much to go off of. Perhaps Sony does not want to draw attention to them. Even a stub would do.

In regards to the link in 2010, the PlayStation Network did not function, which would imply an outage in definition or relation to the meaning of the word. Links off this page document the event as it occurs. And yes, it is a confirmed Y2K type bug. I had even speculated that before it was even announced as such. Remove the links if you have to, that's perfectly fine.

And finally in answer to your question, if we're going to move it, why not summarize it and then put it under the same section the 2010 outage/bug is under too so no one ever sees it. But that probably isn't correct because the PSP as well as the PS3 were affected. And sorry for the tone, and it's the best way I can explain it, but I believe these sort of things should be easily accessible. I agree with how EscapeOrbit has suggested it, especially if that is the overall consensus for dating and chronologically sorting articles throughout Wikipedia (such as he references tournaments).

I guess to satisfy my own ultimate request, I am going to have to go create a class rating of network outages in some level of severity or measurement. I think it would be a useful contribution to future and past technology related events. Mnemnoch (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Quote: "In regards to the link in 2010, the PlayStation Network did not function, which would imply an outage in definition or relation to the meaning of the word."

No it doesn't. As I understand it the PlayStation Network did not function for those effected by the bug due to the problem with their systems; models which weren't effected could still connect. To say the PSN was down because effected systems couldn't connect is like saying a car that is out of petrol (that's gas to Americans) can't drive, therefore its engine is broken; while the end result is the same (car that cannot drive) it is not the same thing.

Quote: "And finally in answer to your question, if we're going to move it, why not summarize it and then put it under the same section the 2010 outage/bug is under too so no one ever sees it. But that probably isn't correct because the PSP as well as the PS3 were affected."

I really don't know what you mean. Before you seemed to be saying that moving it from PlayStation Network outage to 2011 PlayStation Network outage would somehow be "sweeping it under the rug". I really don't get how that is the case (how is it any less "visible"?). Even if it were, there's nothing to stop us from making PlayStation Network outage redirect to the new page name, at least until another one happens. Yes, putting it in the PS3 article would be inappropriate as it is a PSN issue, not a PS3 issue (unlike the 2010 one which was a PS3 issue and wasn't a PSN issue), but no-one has suggested that. The reason the March 2010 issue is like it is on the PS3 page is because there isn't that much more to say about it, so it isn't notable enough to have its own article. If there is more to say, you are free to add it and when it gets too large suggest splitting it. Bear in mind that while a lot of things were reported at the time in the gaming press, many of them were unsubstantiated rumours or just inaccurate, so those things don't belong.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Keeping this short so we stay on point. In regards to the 2010 event, I've already cited references. A global problem with the PS3 Firmware has caused an outage and system failure to systems both online and offline from the PlayStation Network. The entire network was offline. Even changing the clocks to the correct date did not solve the issue, which is contrary to something needing fuel to work. Sony released very little details other than it being a bug. But nevertheless, no one was playing on the PlayStation Network because of it.

Just after the last quote you have of me stating this being an outage, you validate my point of visibility. I know what petrol is. It's not as if I'm in a hut in some third world country, completely isolated from the world and just found Wikipedia one day. But what I'm getting at is simple. Because it was hard for even myself to find the PlayStation event from 2010, and didn't until you showed me, that it would seem to be just as detrimental to change the article title thus creating the same effect.

And I'm still really trigger-happy on going to go find or create some sort of sorting method for network attacks and classify this event in means of severity. At least that way, it won't go unnoticed. Mnemnoch (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"In regards to the 2010 event, I've already cited references. "A global problem with the PS3 Firmware has caused an outage and system failure to systems both online and offline from the PlayStation Network." "

This is actually pretty ambiguous and to me reads as "there is problem (that is not specific to any particular country) that has caused problems for users regardless of internet connectivity, but also specifically related to connecting to the PSN". Quite apart from that, as I said, there was quite a lot of false and misleading info floating around in the media about the issue. Sony themselves stated that the issue only effected "fat" users and that it was a connection error on the PS3 itself - see this post on US the PlayStation Blog and this post on the EU PlayStation Blog.The PSN wasn't down, it simply couldn't be accessed by the majority of users (quote: "We are aware that some users are experiencing error code 8001050F and a network connection failure when signing on to PlayStation Network. Those of you with the newer, "slim" PS3s (120GB/250GB) seem to be unaffected").

For further proof, read these: quote "The problem appeared at approximately 4 p.m. PST Sunday, when some PlayStation 3 owners found that they could not log in to Sony's PlayStation Network. Gamers received messages with the cryptic error code "8001050F" (pictured in the screenshot above). The Twitterverse quickly dubbed the problem "ApocalyPS3," and gamers wailed about crippled consoles and lost data.", wired.com^[5]; quote: ""We have found out that some users are experiencing a network connection failure when signing on to PlayStation Network," said Sony in a statement." telegraph.co.uk^[6]. Also, from the source you give (which incidentally looks like it would fail Wikipedia's rules on what constitutes a reliable source, as it seems to be self-published): "This problem affects the models other than the new slim PS3."^[7] There are plenty more where that came from.

"Just after the last quote you have of me stating this being an outage, you validate my point of visibility… Because it was hard for even myself to find the PlayStation event from 2010, and didn't until you showed me, that it would seem to be just as detrimental to change the article title thus creating the same effect."

I still don't get your logic here. I really don't see the link between it's hard to find the 2010 issue and 2011 PlayStation Network outage is a title that makes it hard to find. How are those two ideas linked? If 2011 PlayStation Network outage is a hard title to find, then of course it shouldn't be used, but I don't see how it is in any way, especially given the ability to create redirect pages.

"I know what petrol is. It's not as if I'm in a hut in some third world country, completely isolated from the world and just found Wikipedia one day."

I wasn't suggesting you were, I just wanted to make sure my point was clear to anyone who may be reading it. I have met a large number of people online, mainly but not exclusively Americans, who get confused or simply do not understand someone who uses British English terms. It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, I was just trying to make sure I was understood.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read what has already been written. I don't want to discuss this subject further as I think my ideas are clear enough to be understood. I have also alleged earlier that anything written on the PSN blog isn't exactly verifiable. If you don't understand this, please go read this and my previous reply before these comments were made as it has it's own section on this talk section. Mnemnoch (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"I'm still really trigger-happy on going to go find or create some sort of sorting method for network attacks and classify this event in means of severity. At least that way, it won't go unnoticed."

I really don't see how that can be done - you'd have to take into account numerous variables, including: number of users, type of information compromised, how important that info is (which is likely largely subjective) etc. It may also be considered original research, depending on how you do it. If done right though (i.e. you find a classification that lists its severity rather than creating one or assigning it a value based on an existing one… although depending on the system that might be considered a routine calculation), I see no reason not to. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 21:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done it before. I can do it again. You have the basic idea. Mnemnoch (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"Please read what has already been written. I don't want to discuss this subject further as I think my ideas are clear enough to be understood."

Oh, I have. Either you are making no sense or your choice of words is appalling, because what you have written is as clear as mud. I have explained why I don't understand your point, quote: "I really don't see the link between it's hard to find the 2010 issue and 2011 PlayStation Network outage is a title that makes it hard to find. How are those two ideas linked? If 2011 PlayStation Network outage is a hard title to find, then of course it shouldn't be used, but I don't see how it is in any way, especially given the ability to create redirect pages." You say to read what has already been said, but you haven't explained the link between the two ideas, so doing so is pointless. Even if we ignore think link for a moment, how is 2011 PlayStation Network outage any more "hidden" or "unfindable" than PlayStation Network outage?

"I have also alleged earlier that anything written on the PSN blog isn't exactly verifiable."

Yes you have alleged. Fortunately what you allege isn't what is taken as fact and I simply don't buy it (and neither does Shardok by the looks of things, so there is at least a loose consensus against your allegation). It is the official company blog and what is posted there is the official company position. As Shardok said in reply to your post: "They only claim to be Posted by that guy. I don't see what the problem is there though. So the company has one press release written up, and just puts the name of the respective director of communications' name on it. I wouldn't be surprised if neither of them wrote it, but instead some secretary wrote it up for them." Nowhere on the PS blog does it claim the post was written by the person who posted it. In some cases it might have been, but usually it is probably just a re-post of an official press release.

I find your post "Making a fake employee or entire division of people because they were all automated, or a similar cited network that could do what we've seen done in this attack, how can we trust what that person has said to date and without ACTUAL verification?" a little worrying. Where are you getting this "making fake employees or divisions" thing from and what exactly do you meen when you say "…because they were all automated, or a similar cited network that could do what we've seen done in this attack" - that doesn't make any sense. The words are all in English, but they don't really mean anything when written together like that. What is the subject of this sentence? Also, what on earth do you mean by a "cited network"? Given the context, it seems you are trying to say something like "How can we trust the blog if who they say wrote the entries isn't actually who wrote them", but it's so hard to decipher that I can't tell.

Regardless of that though, what about my other sources? Are Wired and the Telegraph "unverifiable" as well, because they seem to have the same view as both PS blogs. What about Eurogamer? What about the BBC? I could go on.

The only place you have linked to is a self-published blog for a web design/hosting/SEO company, which on its own means it fails WP:SELFPUBLISH, especially given that the author isn't listed and the site isn't a recognised source for such info, but according to your user page you own the company (or are at least president of it). The very fact you are using your own company's blog as evidence for something that is counter to the official position and what is reported by various reliable sources (and so is likely to fall under WP:Fringe) is astounding, but to then turn round and call the PS blog "unverifiable"… there are just no words. You cannot prove that you are right by quoting yourself (unless what you are trying to prove is that you said something, but that isn't the case here). I don't know who wrote the blog posts you linked to, but given what you have already said ("I was that one guy who put it in the news and who contributed a lot of the material before anyone else") I think that it is likely to have been you. Incidentally, what news and what material are you referring to? What sources do you/the author of the blog use? If you can provide a decent source that states that the PSN was down (including slim users and, if possible, PSP users) then fair enough. However, Sony's official line and what was reported everywhere that is considered reliable as far as I can tell (and even from your blog as I pointed out) was that "fats" were experiencing a connection error as a result of the date bug; that is not a network outage.

BTW, I have put "unverifiable" in scare quotes because pieces of information may be verifiable or unverifiable, not sources. I think the word you are looking for is "unreliable" (unless you are talking about whether we can verify the reliability of the source of course).

"I've done it before. I can do it again. You have the basic idea."

What have you done before? I hope you don't mean you have "created a sorting method for X" because if you did, to put it simply, you were in violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy and would be again if you did so now.

Anyway, not to forget the original topic here - you don't think the article should be moved to 2011 PlayStation Network outage because it would be "brushing it under the rug" or would simply make it harder to find. Please explain this position further, as you are yet to give reasons for this assertion.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 04:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You cannot say that you are unbiased (quote: "I work in this field and I have no bias other than I enjoy Sony products") or that what you have written is clear enough to understand - nobody can do that about their own work. People miss their own biases and will obviously be able to understand their own writing better than someone else since it was their thought processes that produced it. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 04:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:CTDAPE - STOP. Mnemnoch (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

---

• Disagree. I can see the logic of renaming the article, but don't like the proposed naming. Placing the year at the start seems to suggest that the year is a significant element to the subject. Kind of like it was a yearly scheduled tournament, and it needs to be differentiated from the forth-coming 2012 PlayStation Network outage. Can I suggest something more like PlayStation Network outage (2011)? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems a fair criticism; if it is renamed along these lines, might I suggest PlayStation Network outage (April-May 2011), since we don't know if there will be another, unrelated, one later in the year. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

EscapeOrbit, While I'm not sure why you didn't understand my last response, you summarize the mutual concern over the renaming very well. Thanks.

Alphathon, I think that unless there's a wider range of outages, it may be more appropriate to stick with the year. When we get that specific with dates, it could imply that there are other categories that are preceding or following that particular range in the same year. If another attack/event/outage/et al. occurs, that may be entirely appropriate. However, we are dealing with an international company so if they go down, it's serious enough that you see the very same response that is documented in the article. Mnemnoch (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And please, please, PLEASE before anyone else makes any more remarks about renaming this article, read ALL comments preceding this particular talk section. Most every single one of the issues here have already been addressed or dealt with by a majority of people, despite there not being a formal consensus. Mnemnoch (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'll be honest, I haven't read the entire discussion on this page and will only comment on the nomination. There is no need to add "2011" to the title because the "2011" would serve as an unnecessary disambiguation. If the network has been down for other smaller times, those times were clearly non-notable, as they don't have an article on them. Iff there is an equally significant "outrage" next year and no primary topic could be determined between the 2011 and 2012 incidents, then there would be a reason for moving the page. However, at the moment, the incident covered by this article is clearly the primary topic of the term "PlayStation Network outage" and there is no need to add a disambiguation into the article title because there might be another incident at some later date. Jenks24 (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

PSN Coming Back Online Again

As of 14th May the PSN's being brought back online again, starting in the US on the Saturday and in other countries including the UK on the 15th. If someone with the relevant priviledges could edit the article to reflect this, that'd be great. Thanks. Closeratio (talk) 8:58 pm, Today (UTC+1)

It's already mentioned in both the lead and the timeline section, quote: "On May 15, 2011, various PlayStation Network services began being brought back online on a country-by-country basis, starting with North America. These services include: sign-in for PSN and Qriocity services (including password resetting), online game-play on PS3 and PSP, playback of rental video content, Music Unlimited service (PS3 and PC), access to third party services (such as Netflix, Hulu, Vudu and MLB.tv), friends list, chat functionality and PlayStation Home. This accompanies a firmware update for the PS3, version 3.61." Note that the press release was made in Japan, so the date represents Japanese time (was the 14th in the US, but 15th in Japan).

Also, you seem to have removed part of the previous section, presumably by accident, so I have restored it.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 20:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that, my fault. Also yeah I remember doing that too but I don't know why, apologies.

Closeratio (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And it's down again...too many users all trying to change their PW's at the same time :P This: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/05/15/update-on-service-restoration-rollout/ was posted a couple hours ago and they're still having problems. They're getting all kinds of flak from their FB "fans" over this. VulpineLady (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WP is not a discussion forum nor is a news source. Facebook isn't credible as a source at this time. PSN is verified online. This is related to the password update they stated they were correcting. Reference twitter for @PlayStation and not the Facebook mob for the facts. Mnemnoch (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sony directs users to follow the blog first then the Twitter for Updates and I do believe the "Official Sony Blog" supersedes Twitter as a WP source. Note that I included the relevant source link (Blog).

and this was not meant as a "news blurb", but as illustration that the outage isn't over, yet, as Sony continues to experience technical issues (in this case failure to anticipate demand). FYI the twitter account also references this: posted 8 hours ago that they're taking it down for 30 minutes and that it's taking time to process the que. Note too that the "live map" hasn't been updated in over 24 hours, now.

I happen to like Sony, but they obviously need better IT people on staff. VulpineLady (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read where it is applicable to have a discussion and where it WP:ISNOT. (WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria) All the best. Mnemnoch (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The "disucssion" was over the status of the outage/restoration and which source had higher relevance, both issues seeming relevant to developing events at the time (correct me if I am mistaken re: sources). As far as what to be included, I was thinking an exploration/extrapolation of sorts on Sony's IT Security (or lack thereof as they had no dedicated CyberSec personnel until after PSN was taken offline); I'm just not sure how to "do it up" especially as the idea isn't fully formed yet even in my own mind. Note that this continues to be a developing story with the latest News Reports released just over 12 hours ago. Forgive lack of bold and log in, but I'm ill and not up for it tonight. Find starter links below, feel free to extrapolate as needed to meet Wiki's sourcing standards: At least 4 separate arrests in 2 countries and now a possible connection to LulzSec (as opposed to ANON who have continued to deny involvement). VulpineLady (talk)

from 10 June: http://playstationlifestyle.net/2011/06/10/anonymous-members-arrested-in-spain-over-psn-attack-government-hacks/ and http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/three-anonymous-members-arrested/

from 21 June: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/21/uk.sony.hack.arrest/ and http://playstationlifestyle.net/2011/06/21/possible-lulzsec-suspect-arrested-might-be-connected-to-sony-hack/

71.51.174.61 (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm Bias?? Deletion Candidate Surely

A dedicated Wikipedia page, and a massive discussion page, but absolutely nothing about the 15 Day (and more damaging) Xmas/New Year 15 Xbox Live outage...

http://kotaku.com/341008/

I would also bet money that if I bothered to create one, it would be almost instantly marked for deletion..

I think it's clear what the true intent of this article is, and thus a candidate for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeskincowboy (talk • contribs) 07:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Has your "Xbox outage" caused the leaking of millions of credit card numbers and dozens of butthurt politicians? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Make an article about the Xbox outage. There are plenty of reliable sources regarding the event, the legal cases, and the compensation. as long as your article is sourced from reliable publications (see WP:VG/RS for examples) then you'll be OK. Don't accuse us of bias just because an article on another subject doesn't exist. If anything I think the majority of edits to this article have been by PlayStation users wanting to get the facts straight, and raise the article above the level of a petty fanboy point scoring exercise that most forums seem to have descended into. - X201 (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. As long as it is sourced properly there should be no real justification for putting it up for deletion (I don't see any notability issues). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 12:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Your paranoia is showing. Did Xbox live have a security problem? What's that? XBox only had an ordinary server problem? Sit down and be quiet, kiddo. And if we were biased towards the PS3, wouldn't we be trying to suppress information about the outage? --69.108.27.112 (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding that Xbox Live outage is more damaging than PSN's? I am a PS Fanboy, and yet, I think PSN Outage is more damaging. Let's be rational.w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? Unless that was misdirected, I didn't say the XBox incident was more severe than the PS3's, I said that XBox's downtime was miniscule compared to PS3's (which was about network security and not about being able to play games) that it didn't need an article for it. --69.108.27.112 (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's not have another pointless "mine's better than yours" console war argument here; head for the forums or IRC if you want to do that. Stick to Wikipedia policy. I personally do not see how having any specific amount of time in relation to server access downtime is notable enough to warrant an article. This article, on the other hand, is different in that it is caused by a security breach. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Arrest made

Check out [8] and [9] for a future new section in the article. Thanks! --24.154.173.243 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Lulzsec taking credit?

I'd say it's a pretty important thing to not be stated in the article. 98.24.154.187 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected so they can't. I'll take a look and see if I can find a source for it (I hadn't heard about it); if you can provide one that'd speed things up. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 00:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Anon could always register, though. Here are some sources. [10] [11] Axem Titanium (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to be auto-confirmed to edit semi-protected articles, not just have a user name (that's when pages are locked), so they wouldn't be able to do it for at least 4 days. Anyway, it's too late here, (3:25 am) so I'll take a look tomorrow if no-one else does it. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 02:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Section title "Sony Compensation to users for disruption" should read "Sony Compensation to users for account security breach"

or something similar.

I called Sony to confirm this. They reported that individuals who owned PS3s, but did not have accounts on PSN before the security breach, were not eligible for the "Welcome Back" program. A manager said that it was due to the fact that the program is not for downtime, but for those whose accounts were at risk during the security breach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.128.10 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Responsibles

The article is accusing Sony for that crime. Sony is not a criminal.

Who did this attack? Why there is no mention of responsibles? Who is behind this?--98.196.233.8 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)