Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:764 (organization)

Should this article be protected from editing?

It seems to be a frequent target for edits that aren’t vandalism per se, but do still end up needing to be reverted because they are unverified WP:OR, soapboxing, or speculation concerning 764 or the com. Given the very nature of this topic, it seems likely the article will become and remain a magnet for such things. Perhaps it would be better to indefinitely protect this article and then if new users think it should be changed, they could make their suggestions on the talk page instead. It might be worth doing this for other articles/topics of a similar nature, as well (as has already been done over at Blue Whale Challenge). Any thoughts? 173.27.3.111 (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't protect articles prior to them attracting problems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's attracting problems of WP:BLPCRIME — Safety Cap (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term "com"

To be clear, "the com" doesn't refer only to 764. The "com" generally refers to the entire cybercrime community in the West, including SIM swapping, database dumping, and credential stuffing. The "com" should probably have its own article, though there is overlap between 764 (also known as the "extortion com") and the "com" at large. 2601:644:9100:DA90:7D62:8C4F:BAF0:FE51 (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have proof of that? Because none of the sources care to make this distinction, and we cannot do original research. Given this field especially. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is that their uncited claims are just as valid as yours. I believe it is likely true that it's short for community due to the fact that "com" is indeed the first letters of "community". More research is needed on this issue but I'd like to remove it due to the principle that lacking information beats false information. I'll await your reply before doing this though.
Towelbin (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Rupnow

She has confirmed connections to the Antioch High School shooter. Should a section about her be added? Kommikoira (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless sources tie her to this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find any sources suggesting this Towelbin (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"ties to 764 and similar groups"

this wording implies that he would have had direct connections with these groups, but the source speaks only of “ideological ties”, which does not necessarily imply that he was in contact with these groups. I'd suggest being very careful about mentioning “ideological” so as not to cause confusion. GloBoy93 (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking about? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry - I'm talking about the Antioch school shooter, Solomon Henderson. GloBoy93 (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I've reviewed the sources and agree, so I've rewritten the statement. Thanks for pointing it out. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Investigation

I'd like to see this become a Good article. I'm going to work on getting it up to standards.

Towelbin (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What must be done:
Add illustration. This may not be possible, as I believe we have a moral obligation not to promote Bradley. Wikipedia is not censored, but there are perhaps some better images out there. I suggest we forgo the illustration entirely rather than use him. I nominate [1]however it is not members of the cult and would need to reflect this well in the caption. My thinking is that body writing is a prominent manipulation tactic.
Proofreading for the other 5 criteria
Towelbin (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:764_(organization)