Talk:2024 CrowdStrike incident

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

Cyber

Is any reliable source calling it a "cyber outage"? The only footnote using such a term is a CBC article which uses the term "IT outage" in the title. Nemo 10:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know Reuters and DW are calling it a cyber outage. But with that being said quite a number of outlets are calling it an IT outage too. Is there any huge differences between these 2 terms? S5A-0043Talk 10:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page was originally called "July 2024 global IT outages" but was moved without any explanation. ―Panamitsu (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term "IT" in titles is not a great practice – it relies on jargon and as an acronym, it is too English-centric and does not lend itself to ready translation. Cyber or computer outage has its advantages. I do agree moves like these should be discussed. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to read the talk page before moving the page, but I would say that the current '2024 CrowdStrike incident' is a fine title. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's really bad form to unilaterally move the page without getting some form of consensus. Please don't do that. - Fuzheado | Talk 11:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AP is calling it a Global IT outage, but I think global cyber outage would be better. JoseMoranUrena (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Cyber" is deprecated; "IT" is universally understood, and as such hardly jargon. kencf0618 (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may overestimate how much the average reader would know what "IT" means when seen in isolation, especially since it is an English acronym which even further narrows its understandability. It would be useful to find out what other Wikipedia articles have the term "IT" in its title, as I cannot easily think of any. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See, I'd have assumed 'IT' is actually one of the most recognisable initialisms in the world, even amongst non-English speakers with little to no previous exposure to English. But it is an assumption; I could very well be wrong. Perhaps erring on the side of caution is more advisable. Regarding other titles, you appear to be correct: I can't find that many using 'IT' to my surprise. I note with similar incidents, we have e.g. 2012 RBS Group computer system problems, 2023 FAA system outage, 2017 Bank of the Philippine Islands systems glitch. GhostOfNoMeme 09:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural distraction: please archive this in the same volume as the large move discussion, because there are anchor jump links between them. Jruderman (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which Windows OS?

The article doesn't specify which Windows versions. Are the versions 10 and 11? Unsure whether CrowdStrike still offers updates for its software on Windows 7. George Ho (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be W10 systems that are affected. Presumably CS developed the update on W11 and didn't test it on properly on W10. --Ef80 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Cyber Security News it is at least Windows 10 and 11, although I don’t know where they have this information from. BeigeTeleprinter (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Cyberstrikes own blog It is stated as being Windows 7.11 and above. I changed this already based on this source, but I'm not experienced here so please let me know if I've made a mistake.MeshBlair (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Windows 7.11"? Is there such a thing? (Not to be confused with iCloud for Windows version 7.11, superseded by version 7.12 and later ver 14.1.) George Ho (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MeshBlair, you're misunderstanding the source. When it says, "Customers running Falcon sensor for Windows version 7.11 and above [...] may be impacted," that version number is not referring to Windows, but to "Falcon sensor for Windows". That is, that 7.11 version number is referring to the Falcon sensor, not to Windows. —Lowellian (reply) 01:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, you're definitely right now after a re-read. Sorry about that! MeshBlair (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a personal note, in my workplace only the windows machines with a TPM were affected, the older windows machines without a TPM were unaffected. This has some interesting security risks for the future. 124.170.217.121 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DMY dates and American English?

This combination seems inconsistent with MOS:TIES. Using MDY dates seems more appropriate. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally written with tag {{Use New Zealand English}} and dmy dates [1]. We should not be defaulting to American English and date formats for a worldwide event. MOS:TIES does not demand use of American English, since it is a worldwide event, and the fact that it's a US company is trivial in comparison to the worldwide nature of the event. If anything, it should be switched back to New Zealand English (or similar Commonwealth English) as per MOS:RETAIN. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It currently says to use American English. It's about a faulty patch released by an American company for computers running an operating system from another American company. It was first observed in virtual computers running on a cloud computing system of an American company, and the source of the problem was identified about three hours later by another American company. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The impact is worldwide, but I don't believe it's fair to say the US connection is "trivial". CrowdStrike and Microsoft are American companies. GhostOfNoMeme 15:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And so is Google, which was who identified the source of the problem. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's about a worldwide outage that affected many companies and countries, not just the US. That's enough reason not to default to one countries' spellings/date formats, and apply MOS:RETAIN instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if it's going to use DMY dates, it shouldn't be using American English. If it's going to use American English, it shouldn't be using DMY dates. The current combination doesn't make sense. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with a switch to {{Use New Zealand English}} or {{Use British English}}, then, especially in light of the article's use of {{Use dmy dates}}. I have no strong opinion. But the current mismatch between dates and variety of English is worth addressing. GhostOfNoMeme 15:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a worldwide event, and the very first revision is clear in using {{Use New Zealand English}}. Per MOS:RETAIN, it should be used in this article. MOS:TIES does not apply since CrowdStrike is not the subject of the article, and the event itself is worldwide. You could just as easily say that MOS:TIES should be with Australia/New Zealand since the majority of early impact/reporting was in those timezones. Melmann 16:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is that it happens worldwide, and especially in Australia/New Zealand. Why not use {{engvarb}} instead, and dmy dates. It should not use American English. ToadetteEdit! 16:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not "especially" in NZ, AUS -- but due to timing of the update, NZ/AUS noticed it before USA. 1.159.91.86 (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BarrelProof that we should be using American English, given that the companies involved are all American and the impact seems to be spread pretty evenly worldwide. I don't see that it's especially bad in Australia/NZ, that impression may just be because of the time that it started (2PM AEST vs midnight EST) leading to it being noticed earlier there, or also customized search/news results based on user location. Kdroo (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage (and considering MOS:RETAIN per the above) I think it's best left with New Zealand English (and dmy dates). GhostOfNoMeme 18:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is insufficient justification for enforcing NZ English here. We have American companies on both counts - Microsoft as the main platform, and CrowdStrike as the one that caused the error. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:RETAIN is settled policy and therefore plenty of justification. If you wish to argue for MOS:TIES then you need to build a broad consensus for the change. Melmann 08:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on which variety of English should be used, but as to your comment MOS:RETAIN is settled policy, the top of that page actually says that it's a guideline, not a policy. Thus, if there is consensus on this talk page to use American English here, I think MOS:RETAIN can be overridden in this specific case. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly concur with User:Epicgenius. We're talking about an American company and the largest impacts of its error were felt by American companies, especially airports and airlines. MOS:TIES should control here. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very single-minded, America-centric view of the issue. If you want to see the article abandon one region, the move should be towards something standards based, not another region, regardless of economy size. BlakJakNZ (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is very US centric!! I oppose any change. 92.40.196.209 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with retaining NZ English, or some form of worldwide English - this is a worldwide event, not specific to the US. pcuser42 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NZ English is not worldwide English, is it? The most common and established English variants are American and British. Out of the two, American seems to make more sense due to reasons stated above Oneequalsequalsone (talk | contribs) 23:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per other reasons stated above, effects of this incident were felt worldwide, not just in the US. I don't think the ties are strong enough to justify US English given the massive scale of what happened. pcuser42 (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily saying this article should use it, but the closest thing to worldwide English is Oxford English, corresponding to {{Use Oxford spelling}}. It is used by the United Nations, the International Organization for Standardization, the WTO, NATO, the ICRC, and many other international organizations (see the Oxford English article for further detail). It is also very close to Canadian English. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For this particular article, there is a clear and close connection to the United States, and I think it would be best to use American spelling and MDY dates. (I didn't directly say that before, although my comments may have leaned in that direction.) CrowdStrike is a U.S. company that makes a product built to work in the context of an operating system made by another U.S. company. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:RETAIN justifies keeping UK English over US English. There is no basis to go through changing s -> z, etc. However, I don’t think we should keep it as NZ English - that’s an odd, niche choice which leaves editors wondering if there are any peculiarities about that regional variant. There is no geographical or political nexus to NZ here. Local Variable (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:RETAIN says to keep the variety of first significant contribution, in this case NZ English. No English variety is more justified than another, as there is no objectively correct way to write English. The only other valid argument for WP:ENGVAR change is MOS:TIES, but it does not apply since this was a worldwide event.
Also, American English is niche as well, only 17% of English speakers use it. Melmann 11:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with other editors that MOS:TIES applies here. Consider the WannaCry ransomware attack article: the attack used American NSA tools and targeted Microsoft Windows machines. Both the NSA and Microsoft are American, and yet the article uses British English and dmy dates (with the only talk page discussion explicitly invoking MOS:RETAIN). This event may have been caused by CrowdStrike, a US company, but the article is dedicated to the incident and outages that resulted; a truly global affair, just like the WannaCry attack. I don't think there are particularly "strong national ties", here, so MOS:RETAIN applies. GhostOfNoMeme 12:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you call the first contributions significant? Also, it results in confusion. I don’t consider RETAIN binds us to it. Unlike a change to US English, it doesn’t require overhauling the article. It is simply a recognition than NZ English is not appropriate. I think it’s also important to hear in mind why retain exists - it’s fundamentally to stop wars between contested variants where two might arguably apply, and disputes between US and UK English causing big edit wars. Neither applies here. Local Variable (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to using {{Engvarb}} instead of NZ English. pcuser42 (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument rests on the assertion that NZ English is not appropriate, but I've seen no evidence to support this. No variety is more or less appropriate. There is no with benefit in spelling things with -ise or -ize, it's merely that advocates for the Oxford/American variety are not used to it. But if we're writing in such a global pluricentric language such as English, putting up with a non-local variant is simply the price of admission. For a global event such as this one, the dice fell on first contribution being NZ English, and thus we retain it. Melmann 14:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain expressly provides that consensus may be to the contrary and a change is acceptable if it reduces confusion. It is incredibly confusing to have a regional variant with no link to the article. And no, it is instead the price of adopting too harsh a view of policy leaving no room for consensus-based decisions. Local Variable (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The standard ISO 8601 for dates is YYYY-MM, YYYY-MM-DD or YYYYMMDD and should be used in all articles whose expected viewership is more than regional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:aa00:151f::193b (talk • contribs) 19:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia guideline MOS:BADDATE does not consider that date format acceptable for Wikipedia. It says to use it "Only in limited situations where brevity is helpful". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MOSTIES this article should be in American English: both Crowdstrike and Microsoft are U.S. companies and this event originated in the United States. TIES supersedes RETAIN when there are clear national-ties to a subject as there is when the two companies most involved are from one country, and the company which identified the cause is also from that country. Avgeekamfot (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree with this application. It’s a worldwide incident. Local Variable (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reasoning hasn't necessarily held in the past. The WannaCry ransomware attack involved two American entities, the NSA and Microsoft, and yet the article uses British English per MOS:RETAIN. Both were global incidents; the source of the incident being an American company doesn't make for a "strong national tie" in my opinion, otherwise we'd use British English for the BP oil spill. ;) GhostOfNoMeme 12:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Focus on the big picture. We're talking about an cybersecurity incident where the majority of the impact was sustained in the United States, in terms of the number of people affected and potential monetary damages incurred.
For three days, the Delta subreddit on the Reddit site has been full of horror stories from traumatized Delta passengers, crew and other personnel dealing with the airline's worst meltdown since 2017. YouTube has plenty of videos too. Thousands of people spent the weekend living rough in Hartsfield-Jackson because Metro Atlanta doesn't have enough hotel rooms for an emergency like this. Smaller numbers have been reported at other airports like Minneapolis and Salt Lake City. And the end of the mess is still nowhere in sight, with 500 more flights cancelled by Delta this morning. With about 5,000 flights cancelled by Delta to date, we're talking about several hundred thousand people who are now stuck waiting for days for seats on later flights, or having to spend several thousand dollars for last-minute tickets on other airlines or other modes of transport to salvage their travel plans. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolcaesar We're talking about an cybersecurity incident where the majority of the impact was sustained in the United States, in terms of the number of people affected and potential monetary damages incurred.[citation needed] Melmann 14:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's basic arithmetic. As most experienced travelers are aware, Delta's fleet of 988 aircraft is the largest in the world. They claimed to have passenger load factors over 90% this summer. Assuming a conservative number of about 150 booked passengers on average (although Delta also flies over 430 A350s that can hold over 300) and over 5,500 cancelled flights, we're talking about at least 825,000 people affected by flight cancellations. That's not including the millions more whose flights were delayed.
The CrowdStrike outage got a lot of press and then in most countries, everyone rebooted and rolled back the affected Windows PCs. Then the story went away by Monday. In the United States, the story is still going strong on the fifth day in all major national news outlets (television, print, and online) because Delta is stuck in the middle of an operational meltdown with passengers and baggage stuck all over the country. For example, the NYT, the LAT, and the WP ran stories this morning. The point is that it was an American incident and it is continuing to have the greatest and longest lasting impact in the United States. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have reliable sources corroborating any such statistics? We can't rely on WP:OR. GhostOfNoMeme 21:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered to click on the first link in the comment, you would find a source cited in the first sentence of the article that says Delta's fleet currently contains 1,274 aircraft. But I don't think you're really interested in getting an answer to your question, and the specifics aren't especially important here. Delta is a large airline – apparently the largest commercial fleet in the world. It dominates the Atlanta Hartsfield–Jackson airport, which is the busiest airport in the world. (The number of A350s looks like an overcount – they appear to have 30 of them.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I was asking specifically regarding 825,000 people affected by flight cancellations, not fleet numbers. I'm aware it's a rough calculation. Maybe it's even an accurate one, I don't know. All I'm asking is whether we have these statistics in reliable sources. GhostOfNoMeme 22:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered to click on the first link in the comment, you would find a source cited in the first sentence of the article that says Delta's fleet currently contains 1,274 aircraft.
Also that article isn't even consistent in the figure. It opens saying 988 aircraft. The first reference then gives 1,274, but the reference given under Current fleet says 988 again. GhostOfNoMeme 22:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The exact number doesn't matter here. This isn't an article about Delta. If I understand correctly, the 988 number is six months old. What difference does it make here? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're using these statistics to reason during a discussion I would argue it matters whether they are correct or not. GhostOfNoMeme 01:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When thinking about which spelling convention to use in an article about a software bug disruption that wasn't caused by Delta and didn't affect the airplanes themselves, it doesn't matter whether Delta has 500 aircraft or 1500 aircraft in its fleet. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The spirit of my initial reply was to question the use of WP:OR ("[which] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources") in making an argument based on these statistics. Melmann merely asked for a source and I think that's a very fair request; what followed in response seemed like WP:SYNTH which I simply queried. GhostOfNoMeme 02:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this justifies a change to US English. This is simply not an incident which can be said to have strong national ties to any one region. National ties, perhaps, given CrowdStrike and Windows are American. However, the article is about the incident, not those products. It was a worldwide incident. The argument the effect on America was greater is questionable and in fact its effects were first noticed in Australia/New Zealand. Even if there were national ties to the US here, which is doubtful, there are not strong ties. Certainly not ties strong enough to overcome the force of justification to RETAIN. The article should not be changed to US English. Local Variable (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And regardless, for the claim that the majority of the impact was sustained in the United States to be of any merit in this discussion we absolutely should expect some non-WP:SYNTH reliable sources. Back-of the-envelope calculations mean very little. And even if we grant that claim, would it establish "strong national ties"? I'm doubtful. GhostOfNoMeme 03:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stick to New Zealand English because of MOS:RETAIN. To change it we need clear consensus and we're divided here.... I apologize on behalf of my fellow americans who are so unfamiliar with seeing different types of English lol 92.40.196.205 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 July 2024

2024 CrowdStrike incident → ? – Two reasons: the first is that the lede of this article is straightforward; it instead say that there is an outrage, before saying how, where the title is derived from. Second, most reliable sources often refer this event as an outrage. The title should at least be moved to a title containing "outrage". ToadetteEdit! 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "outage" is redirecting to "downtime". The servers/computers are crashing and not working due to the drivers not working.
Support move. Oppose any title that does not include "CrowdStrike", as there may be other worldwide IT outages in 2024. Also oppose the specific phrase "CrowdStrike outage", as CrowdStrike did not suffer an outage, but caused one. Jerdle (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poll for best new name

2024 CrowdStrike incident (no change)

2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft outage

2024 CrowdStrike outage

2024 CrowdStrike update outage

2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft IT outages

"IT system" - the type of outage
"IT systems" - plural, and maybe also the type of outage

2024 Microsoft outage

2024 Microsoft outage caused by CrowdStrike

2024 Microsoft Windows outage

2024 global information technology outages

2024 global IT outages

2024 worldwide IT outages

2024 worldwide tech outage

Global IT outage of July 2024

  • 9/10 -User:Jruderman (my secondary proposal)
  • 6/10 -User:FloridaMan21 (problems of outage could reach into August)
  • 8/10 -User:Terovian
  • 3/10 -User:GhostOfNoMeme (not a big fan of a title ending in month/year; it's uncommon)
  • 3/10 -User:Ahecht
  • 1/10 -User:Gluonz (I would prefer a change of "IT" to either "information technology" or "technology" and a change of "outage" to "outages"; also, the title is formatted quite awkwardly)
  • 8/10 -User:Trigenibinion ("IT". Is it outage or outages? Has there been another global (but "small") tech outage in july 2024? July can be removed next year if there's not another one)

Global Microsoft–CrowdStrike IT outages of 2024

July 2024 global cyber outages

Other options?

I am neutral, but would like to hear thoughts. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Microsoft–CrowdStrike IT Outages of 2024, inspired partially inspired by the name the Washington Post Universe Youtube Channel. FloridaMan21 (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote. However, the best option from this could be put forward for discussion. But just to be clear, the winner of this poll will not automatically become the title, particularly if it is inaccurate or not in accordance with naming conventions. Local Variable (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once the polling slows down, what do you recommend as the next step? Pick one, then discuss whether to adopt it? Pick two or three, then discuss the choice between them? Jruderman (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seek input from relevant WikiProjects or RfCs. Failing that there may not be consensus to move and the discussion is simply closed. Local Variable (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness, Slate calls it Y2K Lite. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 CrowdStrike oopsie! 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this made me chuckle a bit rofl Daisytheduck talk to me 22:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your submission to worst title suggestions. It has been accepted. Jruderman (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Global Microsoft Windows and cloud outage of July 2024 . Both events overlapped and combined, CrowdStrike not an outage and not the single reason, unknown reason for cloud outage, all cloud products, other global tech outages possible, can happen again, July can be removed next year. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Global Microsoft cloud and Windows outage of July 2024 . This makes it more clear that we are talking only about Microsoft's cloud. I write cloud because we know Azure and Office 365 went down Trigenibinion (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this list, the discussion was getting quite unwieldy to sift through. Added my 10/10 score to what I think is the most clear and concise option. pcuser42 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This polling request is too complicated. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer it. It's less complicated then the Requested move chaos. FloridaMan21 (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I couldn't tell where any consensus was in the comments above. If there isn't a consensus on one option in this poll, at the very least it could help prune down all the options to a shortlist for people to vote on if they find this list too complicated Terovian (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This probably isn't the perfect solution but indeed the discussion above was becoming a muddled mess, especially with many well-meaning editors saying they support or oppose "the proposal" without clarifying which of the many, many proposals they are addressing. GhostOfNoMeme 02:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment withdrawn. It did seem to help find a signal in the noise. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once we choose a title, I sure hope CrowdStrike doesn't cause another global outage during the remainder of 2024.

:(
Your device ran into a problem and needs to restart in a loop forever

Jruderman (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, we can close this on Friday. Hopefully no more outages 🤞. FloridaMan21 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could turn that into a UBX... though a regular screenshot of the real error screen would be good for a Commons gallery -- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using it like a userbox on User:Jruderman, but with inline HTML. Do you want to help turn it into a template? Jruderman (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recap

The polling has helped us identify the strongest candidate titles from each family. It's time to return to discussion, this time focused on how well each title balances the requirements for article titles.

Among the CrowdStrike titles, we have a division over whether to include Microsoft:

  • 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages
  • 2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft IT outages

Among the non-CrowdStrike titles, we have a division over the position of the date:

  • 2024 worldwide IT outages
  • Global IT outage of July 2024

Some comments from the first discussion phase that I'd like to draw attention to:

Naming policies and guidelines:

Second phase of discussion

  • I've created a #Recap section above to help everyone catch up. It includes a list of the four titles I believe are the strongest from each category, links to two excellent comments I wish I had read earlier, and links to the three policy sections that will be the focus of this second discussion section. Jruderman (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer CrowdStrike-related over CrowdStrike–Microsoft. "CrowdStrike-related" is an as-neutral-as-possible modification of the common attributive use of "CrowdStrike outage" while achieving clarity. "CrowdStrike–Microsoft" is used in some sources but not enough to justify Wikipedia taking the stance that the two companies are ~equally responsible. Both options raise similar questions "related to the company(s) in what way" but at least "CrowdStrike-related" owns up to the fact that it leaves the question unanswered. Wikipedia rarely uses compound attributives for reasons other than commonname-associated recognizability (Tay–Sachs disease, Michelson–Morley experiment). The parsing (as a compound attributive) might not be obvious to readers who aren't familiar with the complete phrase, even if it is obvious to me (a person with keen enough eyesight to see the en dash and who recites MOS:ENBETWEEN every night from memory as he falls asleep). Jruderman (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have little to add except to say that your argument is very well-reasoned and I completely agree. I strongly prefer CrowdStrike-related. I hope we can reach a consensus on this. GhostOfNoMeme 18:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the limited precision and information content of CrowdStrike-related, I just don't think we're going to do better (among titles mentioning CrowdStrike). caused by a faulty configuration update to CrowdStrike clients is far too long and irrelevant. caused by CrowdStrike takes too strong a stance. We could try 2024 outages of CrowdStrike clients, but I worry that it undersells the magnitude of the incident. Jruderman (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a list of my strongest candidates
    • 1: 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages checkY I think its our best bet, and on the bright side, Its a lot better than the current title.
    • 2: 2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft IT outages Very strong title too, close to being 1st
    • 3: Global IT outage of July 2024
    • 4: 2024 worldwide IT outages' Sounds too much like a list
    • Alternative title: 2024 Global CrowdStrike Software Outages FloridaMan21 (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the first one you mentioned,
    Daisytheduck talk to me 22:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the blame aspects of mentioning CrowdStrike, I just can't bring myself to care either way. The ultimate causes were the continued use of memory unsafe programming languages and a near-global unwillingness to intervene in market failures until it's too late (a phenomenon some on Twitter refer to as "capitalism"). There are dozens of companies that could have caused a catastrophe of similar magnitude for similar reasons, and it happened to be a company called CrowdStrike that I hadn't heard of until this week. I'm sure as hell not going to stump for the title 2024 Stroustrup–Reagan global IT outages. Jruderman (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setting aside comparisons, I wholeheartedly endorse 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages as meeting the requirements of an article title. Mentioning CrowdStrike is the right thing to do on commonname and recognizability grounds. CrowdStrike-related is neutral enough on blame when considering reliable sources. IT outages (plural) is accurate and helps communicate both the magnitude of the event and the scope of the article. Date-first aids in recognizability as an event by being consistent with how Wikipedia often titles articles about events. The rest of the title sounds specific enough that readers are unlikely to mistake it for a yearly-list type of article. Jruderman (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the initialism IT because it is an established term-of-art meaning something like "the use of computers at scale by organizations". information technology is long and doesn't quite have the same connotation. technology is too general. Jruderman (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 for IT. I don't like "information technology" because unnecessarily expanding well-known initialisms/acronyms is unnecessary and somewhat ugly, in my opinion. GhostOfNoMeme 20:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing that bothers me is that we seem to be rejecting two prominent non-CrowdStrike titles for different reasons: 2024 worldwide IT outages for sounding too much like a yearly list, and Global IT outage of July 2024 for its unusual order. What are the best candidates for non-CrowdStrike titles that have neither of these problems? Jruderman (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest not looking for a non-CrowdStrike title. A bad update from CrowdStrike was the direct proximate cause of this set of outages. It is the one thing that all of the affected systems had in common (aside from being computers that run the Windows 10 or 11 OS, but the other 99%+ of Windows machines were not directly affected). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"IT system outages" vs "IT outages"

Alright it's time for what might be our simplest !vote section.

Based on the cardinal polling above, it looks like everyone slightly prefers IT system outages over IT systems outages. We can ignore the latter.

That leaves two possibilities for the title's tail: IT outages and IT system outages.

You know what's not bad for choosing between two options? A little thing Wikipedians call "!voting". Jruderman (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments that disregard policy entirely. IT outage kinda makes me wonder what happened to the IT team. IT system outages has the right cadence to follow a monster term like "CrowdStrike-related" or "CrowdStrike–Microsoft". I like that IT system outages might be more understandable to people who aren't familiar with the term "IT" – they still have "system(s)" to work with. Jruderman (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
  •  

Motion to conclude

  • Snow. 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages is a clear favorite in both the poll and substantive discussion. We've also had focused discussions on possible small variations on the title, such as alternatives to "CrowdStrike-related" (subthread) and "IT" (subthread), and the unmodified title has clear consensus in each. I think we're ready to conclude. Jruderman (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow. We now have a clear favourite. pcuser42 (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow per nom. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 07:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow. I believe we've reached consensus here. We had a healthy discussion with many viewpoints and valuable arguments raised. I think this title is a clear favourite. GhostOfNoMeme 09:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this discussion. Selecting a new title for this article has been complex, with many interacting factors to consider. Nevertheless, we kept the discussion on-track and well-organized. Additionally, I have awarded eleven participants with 2024 CrowdStrike-related special thanks for their crucial and unique contributions. [Instead of replying here, please reply on my talk page or on the special-thanks talk page (which will also serve as a hub for stress relief, humor, and hijinks)]. Jruderman (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show. Common usage in the media doesn't include "Microsoft". --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     13:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow. As per above FloridaMan21 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. 2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft IT outages is more accurate. The file was only for Windows and Office 365 went down too. This should not have happened with a user-level API. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trigenibinion wait Now that I think about it. I do agree that "Microsoft" should also be in the title. I shall strikethrough my previous comment. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 17:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait 2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft IT outages is so much better. FreeGuy789 (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • — FreeGuy789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch, same for Diaryofawimpykidlover below. Both accounts about 1 hour old and seemingly created just to vote to include Microsoft in the title... GhostOfNoMeme 19:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both accounts votes should be disqualified. FloridaMan21 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait. I created this account just to say that the title most want is inaccurate. I'm a IT worker and Microsoft should be included in the title. Diaryofawimpykidlover (talk)
    — Diaryofawimpykidlover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Support (without adding Microsoft): There is a temptation to add some expression of blame for Microsoft. That's not the purpose of an article title selection. It would make the title less concise without helping identify the topic. Also, this wasn't a Microsoft-as-a-company problem; Microsoft is a huge company with many products and service offerings, and this problem was specific to Windows and affected less than 1% of Windows machines. It would be pure editorializing to put Microsoft in the title. Most of the "Wait" people saying to add Microsoft in the title haven't even provided a reason, much less a policy/guideline-based reason. In the polling, "2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages" had a median rating of 9, and "2024 CrowdStrike–Microsoft IT outages" had a median rating of 2.5. There is a clear consensus here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, hopefully The Crowdstrike-related title goes through. FloridaMan21 (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Besides the user-mode API, wasn't it Microsoft who chose to use CrowdStrike with Office 365? Trigenibinion (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Microsoft 365 doesn't use CrowdStrike, and as the article mentions that they are completely different ZalnaRs (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The article states that many airlines failed because of Office 365, so this outage is actually two things at the same time? Trigenibinion (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The article does mention that, but the connection is not very clear. Office 365 is barely mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and is not discussed in many sources. I looked at the sources that are cited, and they provide no real clarification. I'm guessing it was primarily a matter of Windows servers being operated by some companies that subscribed to CrowdStrike – e.g., as company-specific Outlook servers. I don't think Microsoft itself was using CrowdStrike. (Of course, some servers could be hosted on Azure, but it's the customer who chooses what's running there.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand that Office365 can only be provisioned by Microsoft. Trigenibinion (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait/neutral though I favor the "2024 CrowdStrike-related...outages" pattern. (Moving longer comment to proper discussion area above). Fuzheado | Talk 19:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't like -related. Too verbose. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Would "2024 CrowdStrike system outages" or "2024 CrowdStrike computer outages" be acceptable? - Fuzheado | Talk 19:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think the blame should be put only on CrowdStrike. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's overwhelmingly CrowdStrike in the headline and in practice. Putting Microsoft into the headline is WP:UNDUE. FWIW, German Wikipedia has called their article (translated) "Crowdstrike computer outage 2024" - Fuzheado | Talk 20:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed regarding the inclusion of Microsoft. I very much oppose that. (Just a side note — Ausfall can be translated as both 'failure' and 'outage', with the former being more common. The verb ausfallen means 'to fail' or 'to malfunction'.) GhostOfNoMeme 20:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The people who chose to install CrowdStrike are also responsible. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And the people who chose not to have good redundancy and well-staffed IT cleanup teams. There's a lot of blame to go around. I think CrowdStrike-related strikes a good balance of blaming an entity we all agree deserves at least some blame, avoiding an editorial stance on exactly how much blame, and selecting one of the causes with the broadest recognizability. Jruderman (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There were other options that assigned no blame. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural request. Let's try to keep this section focused on the snow question only; try to be brief but do link to substantive comments that you add to the appropriate discussion sections (or sub-threads that already exist). I have refactored several recent comments in this section along these lines. Jruderman (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for putting in that link. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is the first time I participate in such a process. I arrived late and it is very confusing. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is an unusually complicated move discussion. I'm trying my best to keep these ad-hoc procedures clear. If you notice something that's confusing, please tell me on my user talk page (or fix it yourself if you can). Jruderman (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exhortations. CrowdStrike-related lovers, please have some patience and acknowledge that the evidentiary requirement for "we don't agree yet" is lower than that for "my version is better". Microsoft includers, please think carefully about whether you are likely to prevail, as well as whether CrowdStrike-related outages is enough of an improvement over the status quo that it might be better to accept it for now and open a second move discussion where we can take our time to discuss the merits of mentioning Microsoft. Jruderman (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. And wait. There is no reason to expedite this request because there is not an obvious problem with the current title requiring an urgent move. Local Variable (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snow. As per above. Daisytheduck talk to me 22:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At this point we have several arguments for snow and several for wait, so it might be best to explain in a little more detail than "as per above". Jruderman (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avoiding circularity. I don't know whether this is a real risk, but try not to !vote "Wait" just because others are !voting "Wait", or "Snow" just because others are "Snow". Remember that we are trying to determine whether the substantive discussion, much of which is in (or reflected in[a]) the second discussion section, has reached a snow-level consensus when weighted by the strength of policy-based arguments. Jruderman (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moot: More than 7 days have passed since the discussion started. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Miscellany

    Parting statement from Jruderman

    It has been real. We managed to turn chaos into progress, multiple times over. I have been impressed by everyone's ability and willingness to adapt to new procedures as I make them up on the spot. We have been serious. We have been silly (but never in inappropriate ways). I think we're on track to select a great title.

    But it's time for me to reduce my involvement. I need to take some time off to recover from a fidgeting-induced injury. And honestly, it wouldn't be fair for me to have heavy influence on the final moments after sorta controlling the discussion for so long.

    By consensus among the eleven participants who have received awards, you have my permission to cross out my Wait and reply to its spot with a new comment including the sentence "Jruderman has Bowed out".

    During this discussion, I've learned a lot of things about Wikipedia and a few things about myself. Including: I might be good at this? Next step is finding out what "this" is. Last sentence is worded in a silly way but I am 90% serious.

    Please watch my user page, subscribe to my blog, and follow me on Twitter. I will be posting a lot about this experience. And I have some exciting things to share over the next few weeks.

    (Reply on my user talk page, not here)

    — Jruderman (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Addenda on how to select procedures and make them work

    — Jruderman (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have more procedure ideas up my sleeve that I'd love to try some time. I'd also like to learn more about how procedural innovations turn into within-overton-window options, then into guidelines, then into policies. Please reply in the threads linked just above, or on my user talk page. Jruderman (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Jruderman's final request

    !voting options include "Undecided", "Too busy", "Declined to participate in this nonsense", "Jruderman would wait", "Jruderman would snow".

    I'll set up the table rows one at a time in order to send pings (not because I think this is urgent, but just to ensure that all eleven of you are aware of this optional process). Jruderman (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Entrustee Stance Comments
    @ToadetteEdit: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @Corporal: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @The Nth User: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @Lowellian: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @Wugapodes: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @Jax 0677: Undecided
    @Local Variable: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @Gluonz: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @Fuzheado: Undecided (or not yet decided)
    @Trigenibinion: Jruderman would Wait
    @FloridaMan21: Jruderman would Snow

    Discussion of Jruderman's final request

    Is this an actual vote? Some form of consensus? But weighted how? Based on the accuracy of your mental model of how Jruderman thinks? I'll leave it to you to decide how to conduct this piece, if at all. Jruderman (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Footnotes

    1. ^ To explain what I mean by "earlier substantive arguments were reflected in the second discussion". First, some earlier arguments were summarized in the section, or pointed to with hyperlinks. Second, the arguments against e.g. "cyber" were not repeated because "cyber" was clearly not on the path to titledom by the time the section was opened. Third, arguments from earlier sections that were judged as more persuasive were more likely to be reiterated. All of these factors helped keep the second discussion focused and readable. -Jruderman

    Is the Southwest Airlines, bit necessary?

    Firstly, Is it needed? Do we need to list the companies that weren't effected? Also the article linked is very speculatory. "Some are attributing that to Windows 3.1. Major portions of Southwest’s systems are reportedly built on Windows 95 and Windows 3.1" AidenT06 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @AidenT06 Doesn't add to anything of value to the article, agreed. PipitSweet16 (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Windows 3.1 is thirty years old. This is nonsense. 24.40.254.80 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly a weirdly specific (and perhaps embarrassing) reason for not being a CrowdStrike customer. 3df (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AidenT06 I also agree. While humorous, the Digital Trends article links to another article written by a Forbes.com contributor, which is generally unreliable. The Forbes article itself then links to The Dallas Morning News which quotes someone saying Southwest's systems look like they were designed on Windows 95, without really confirming anything. Limmidy (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to see if this is notable enough (as per wp:n) to include see if major news publications anything about this if not it can be omitted,
    Thanks
    Daisytheduck talk to me 22:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact remains that Southwest and FedEx remained operational, and for the same reason. kencf0618 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    But it’s not relevant. I could list thousands of companies that had no issues AidenT06 (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    List thousands of global airlines.kencf0618 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alaska does not use it either. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Flybondi and LATAM were not affected. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling a finite and countable number of clients "innumerable"

    made me stop reading this entry right after the first sentence. Unscientific, hyperbolic, and unfactual. 50.46.244.66 (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the definitions of "innumerable" is "too many to be counted". You're just arguing over semantics here. 0xC0000005 (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Entry: the sky is red
    I: that's factually incorrect
    You: it is factually incorrect but you're arguing over semantics
    lol 50.46.244.66 (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Innumerable" in English means more than whatever narrow definition you're giving it. It fits. GhostOfNoMeme 03:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hyperbolic??? Perhaps, a bit; but it's hard to count while the full extent is currently unknown. "Innumerable" in the vernacular sense does not mean "uncountable" in the mathematical sense. DWIII (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a real problem. Wikipedia articles should generally avoid hyperbolic language. I see this as a definition of innumerable: "too many to be counted (often used hyperbolically)". You admit the usage in the article doesn't follow the mathematical sense, so it is hyperbolic and that's unnecessary and just bad. The idea that the crashes can't be counted is also stupid. CrowdStrike knows exactly how many computers received the bad update. Not all of them crashed, but this is a strict upper bound. Using "innumerable" in an encyclopedia article when there is a known upper bound and reasonable estimates on the lower side is simply a very poor choice. 165.189.255.50 (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "A large number of", perhaps? It seems very difficult to quantify right now. GhostOfNoMeme 06:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We now have the opposite problem – "caused a large number of" understates the impact. Trying better middle path wording: "caused widespread problems as computers and virtual machines running Microsoft Windows crashed and were unable to properly restart." - Fuzheado | Talk 12:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good, I like that. Hopefully we get hard statistics (e.g. "$x devices impacted") in reliable sources, at some stage. I've searched but, unsurprisingly, I see nothing yet beyond guesstimation. GhostOfNoMeme 13:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Numbers are starting to come through now - approx. 8.5 million devices [2] pcuser42 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They were innumerable because they hadn't been counted. It took a while to estimate... kencf0618 (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Innumerable means cannot be counted not too lazy to be arsed.
    BTW, the $ damage was already being estimated while we discuss whether the number of clients impacted can be determined. 50.46.244.66 (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to check your definitions. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/innumerable - "Of a very high number; extremely numerous" pcuser42 (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure "caused many outages, but we cannot be arsed counting" is exactly encyclopedic in tone. Jerdle (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why take down paragraph on Amazon's issues?

    @Valereee:, why did you delete the paragraph on the disruptions that were suffered by Amazon? The contents were clearly referenced including quotes and were from a published source i.e. CNBC, the American business news channel. You didn't even put a reason, just a straight delete. Microsoft–CrowdStrike issue causes ‘largest IT outage in history’

    On WP:Blogs it says: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" and following on "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story."

    The deleted paragraph was taken from a CNBC blog, but the subject seems to justify its inclusion. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like that was an edit conflict. Valereee (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've added it back, please check my work! Valereee (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good, thankyou for your help with this matter. Richard Nowell (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-correlatable information from NoypiGeeks

    I've been trying to find another source that would confirm that "telecommunications, radio and TV broadcasts were affected in the Philippines" and "Supermarkets in the Philippines were affected due to crashed POS systems." as asserted in the NoypiGeeks citation (https://www.noypigeeks.com/computers/windows-outage-affecting-workers-industries/) but the other sources only stated disruptions in some government agencies, local airlines and banking services, but none in relating to telecommunications nor broadcasting. - 2001:4453:59F:A200:DD0D:5C5D:B60F:C71 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been confirmed that telecommunications are not affected in the Philippines, so I have deleted the statement about telecommunications. AnimMouse (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    the citation for elon musk removing crowdstrike requires paying or signing up for an account. is this allowed? 81.100.136.25 (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @81.100.136.25 Yes, see WP:PAYWALL. I marked that source as needing subscription just now also. Aveaoz (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yes but it’s not a hard to access source, just linking the tweet would be better? 81.100.136.25 (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Linking both to a tweet and a reliable source discussing it is probably best. Tweets are not presumed notable by default. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    XKCD

    Randall is being nicely topical — see XKCD 2961 published on Friday. Is it too soon for an "In popular culture" section? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The way I see it, citing a third party work can only be justified if WP:RS commentary uses it as a point of reference. Us just choosing to feature a single webcomic over any other (I'm sure many hundreds were made on the topic) seems arbitrary. Melmann 11:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Responsible Software deployment - Duty of Care

    I understand why my previous talk contribution on this matter was archived.  This is a hot topic and the talk needs to be kept manageable.  However, that also meant I could not work out how to  respond to a reply that claimed my concerns were well out of scope of the article.  Hence this note.

    My concern is that the article does not even consider the wider duty of care that this software incident highlights.

    It is probably too early to find out what risk management work was carried out by Crowdstrike that failed to prevent the risk of an incident of the scale and severity of this one. Such work should have generated documentation that would guide and reassure customers and their system administrators of the risks involved.

    So it isn’t too early to ask what information and systemic support did Crowdstrike provide to their customers and their administrators to reduce the impact of errors of the type encountered in this major incident.

    This is a generic issue that needs addressing across many businesses, especially IT ones, that can deploy changes very quickly at scale.

    To help address this, this article could usefully have a section on related risk management, prevention and mitigation approaches.

    This section could cross reference articles on related issues such as:

    Legal liability for addressing  the impact of this incident.  

    Legal duties of different parties potentially affected by similar major incidents.

    Insurance and similar schemes to support legal challenges or compensation.

    Concepts such as a duty of care by companies that are relevant here.  See:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

    That article refers to Duty of Care Risk Analysis. See:

    https://www.docra.org

    Though relevant, that Docra work’s level of rigour is seriously compromised by the significant commercial interests that are associated with it.

    From my test experience with a large telecoms company, I believe there should have been processes in place to seriously reduce the risk of incidents similar to this one having such a major impact in various sectors of the economy.  The danger of large scale rollouts of changes to named pipes causing blue screens that totally broke the software and that automated reboots did not correct the problem is a key example.

    For example, the early detection and reporting of problems on large numbers of virtual machines should have delayed or stopped further deployment of this software to less easily managed machines.   This strategy clearly had not been seriously considered. CuriousMarkE (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Theories of Liability

    Gross Negligence

    Lenord French of Lawful Masses has argued that CrowdStrike could be liable under "gross negligence". Unlike simple negligence, you cannot use a contract or terms of service to limit your liability for gross negligence.

    CrowdStrike Faces Massive Legal Challenges, Can't Hide Behind Terms of Service - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byZHIoqi8oo 165.225.36.178 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear, are you proposing a change or suggesting something in particular? If you want this added to the article, locating some reliable sources would be a good first step. Keep in mind talk pages are not forums. GhostOfNoMeme 23:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    May we change the archive period to one day?

    The talk page is 130 kB. May we change the archive period to one day? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The current period (90 days) definitely seems too long... GhostOfNoMeme 00:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even switching to three days might be enough as that would archive over 25% of the talk page discussions automatically. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with 3 days. That seems like a reasonable duration for a fast-paced article such as this, with significant discussion being generated. GhostOfNoMeme 00:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the duration to 3 days. It can be shortened if necessary, but considering the activity this seems about right and is consistent with similar articles' talk pages. GhostOfNoMeme 01:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest manually archiving sections (See: User:Elli/OneClickArchiver) and keeping the archival period less aggressive. I've changed it to 5 days and archived some threads. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Archival of move discussions

    Once the gigantic move discussion is concluded, I would like to immediately move it to an archive page so that external links are less likely to become broken. This is the kind of thing that could attract attention from Twitter and press. I plan to tweet about it, at least.

    I suggest setting aside "Archive 2" for just #Cyber and the big move discussion. #Cyber goes with it because it's also a move discussion and there are relative cross-links between them.

    And maybe we can put an editnotice on the archive page, since less-experienced editors may end up there. Like

    This is an archive page containing closed discussions. Please do not modify it. You may start a new discussion at Talk:2024_CrowdStrike_incident#? or chat about the closed move request over there →

    Fuzheado, do you know the right way to do this, so that subsequent archivals automatically go to "Archive 3"?

    — Jruderman (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not who you pinged, but the simple way would be to let ClueBot III handle things. Right now it is archiving to Archive 1. When it fills up in another 40k bytes, it will try to move to Archive 2. However, if Archive 2 is manually created and already past 75k, which it would be if the only thing archived in it was the move discussion, then ClueBot III should automatically move to Archive 3. There is minimal downsides to doing it that way to my knowledge. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that idea. If you can help support doing that it would be great, as you have more insight into the particulars of ClueBot III than I do. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Size

    How large was this binary file? kencf0618 (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kencf0618 not sure what you're talking about but currently the file size of the article is 188,553 bytes. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 11:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CloudStrike's faulty file Trigenibinion (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kencf0618 not sure what you're talking about but currently the file size of the article is 188,553 bytes. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 11:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_CrowdStrike_incident&oldid=1236954391"