Jump to content

Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

GamingFront.net

It's a pretty new website that was recently defaced by some evil channers.

It was kind of a non-event since it was only 403'd after an hour, but I thought I'd mention it on the off chance it was considered noteworthy.

Well, thanks for the breaking news, but Wikipedia isn't like Encyclopedia Dramatica. You can't just record the epic exploits of the *chans here. It's supposed to be a verifiable encyclopedia where all statements are based on sources known for being trust worthy. If and when this gets reported in the media, it will be considered noteworthy and can receive mention here. For now, we wait and see.--Cast (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Chanology =/= Anonymous

I noticed the header for this article mostly makes reference to Chanology. Chanology was an just a schism of Anonymous and any information regarding the Scientology protests should be moved to the Chanology page.

Anonymous hates Chanology. That should be made clear in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.29.48 (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous doesn't get to choose who's in and who's not. That's what it means to be Anonymous. There is no homogenous (or even heterogenous) identity - merely namelessness. 131.111.200.200 (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Thats why all information regarding Chanology should be kept on their separate page; because they are not nameless, they're Chanologists. Either merge the pages, or keep them separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.29.48 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a verifiable reference that states that those who protest Scientology are NOT Anonymous? Because there are several reliable references that state that they ARE, and as such, the mention of Chanology is quite valid. DigitalC (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Then there should at least be a page on Hackers on Steroids, Internet Hate Machine, /i/nsurgents etc. If Chanologists have their own article, the hackers should too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.29.48 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Do they have reliable sources like Chanology does? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
There is mention the the Inernet Hate Machine on this article. There are not enough reliable sources to create its own article. DigitalC (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The moment Anonymous takes on an identity it is no longer Anonymous. The very fact that you can point out a group of people related to the Scientology debates and label them is proof of their non-Anonymous status. Aside from that, there's also the fact that they're going exactly against the intended purpose of Anonymous. These people are outsiders that only refer to themselves as Anonymous to be cool. OriginalAnonymous (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read, Anonymous HAS an identity, and that identity IS "Anonymous". By your logic, "noname" brand foods literally have no name, even though it's name is "noname".Oldfag (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.71.185 (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

They may be "members" of the Anonymous (which has no members, because it's a phenomenon/meme and not a group), but like the OP says it's an offshot (and the organized one). The real Anonymous in the news was in the Fox report on "hackers on steroids" and the guy who got v& for "messing with football". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


The guy who got vanned was just a blogger making a competition who happened to post his story in 4chan as part of said competition. I would never think the levels of idiocy uttered agains the protests in the chans would ever get to wikipedia in this form but here is what should be said about this: Anonymous is not a group nor an organization, so saying that the protesters in project chanology are a break away or outsiders is ridiculous to say the least. Saying that the protesters use the name Anonymous to look cool is not only ridiculous but also shows a lack of knowledge about them that is staggering for anyone wanting to get real information about this concept. The usage of the Anonymous imagery and "name" comes from the content of the first video and if said video used another concept and another imagery, people wanting to protest the Church of Scientology would have adopted it. Anonymous is a concept and a meme which aplies to anyone using the lack of identity provided by the internet or the use of face obscuring devices such as masks, to do something one couldn't do with an identity and not obeying to an hierarchy of command, such things include criminal actions,pranks activism, vigilantism and many more(including posting on imageboards(who would say?)). The internet hate machine reported on foxnews was nothing but a gross misreporting of actions of skript kidies, online griefers and small time hackers that happened to use the lack of identity in their actions, hence being anonymous. Anonymous as a concept applies to thousands of people, who may not partake in the same actions, and even disagree heartly with the actions of others who have the concept aplied to them. The messages above me come from the mindset that claims that the Anonymous image or concept is property of a group of specific sites, namely the chans and that there is such thing as a real and a false Anonymous, there isn't. Anyone not included in a command chain and using the lack of identity to take a course of action, be it good, bad, neutral, moral, immoral, amoral, chaotic or organized. Saying that that the protesters are no longer Anonymous because their actions are not aproved by the chans is like saying the habbo raiders are no longer Anonymous for the same reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.165.124 (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

711chan administrator calls for an end to attacks on Scientology
This should be included in the article, since 711chan was initially the place where 'Chanology' was first organized. It's been said before, the administrators of the *chans now ban everything about Scientology, so this is a pretty big omission. --Blackfish711 (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Uh...... is investigative journalism from Wikinews a reliable source?....... --Enric Naval (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
True, he wasn't able to get booked on CNN. But it's a personal interview with the site administrator.
So yes, it is a reliable source. --Blackfish711 (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I reluctantly agree that it's reliable enough for sourcing an interview with 711chan's admin. Altought anyone could have made up the interview, and altought it isn't verified with audio or video, wikinews does have a sort of reputation for fact-checking and it has an accreditation process (I think).
I was going to suggest bringing it to WP:RSN reliable sources noticeboard, but first I checked the archives and found some positive discussions on, here and here. this last one spawning another discussion at WP:V here, altought I can also see later negative comments here.
I see that a rectification of Plasma's position [1] was not included on the final article. I would suggest citing also Church of Scientology: "'Anonymous' will be stopped"
Also notice that this doesn't verify that neither 4chan or 7chan support raids or have stopped supporting them. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any reliable sources for 4chan or 7chan (yet), but this should be enough to prove that there are sections of Anonymous who are against the protests.
--Blackfish711 (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this is enough to prove that. You should just go ahead and add it. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it can be considered reliable. On a case by case basis, nothing in the interview states that 711chan was calling for a stop to the attacks, only that they should be organized/planned elsewhere (on partyvan). There were many comments to this effect directly after the wikinews article came out, on the discussion pages of the article. It certainly doesn't verify the statement that "there are sections of Anonymous who are agsint the protests". For one, this is pre-protest and was about the DDoS raids and black faxes, and secondly it doesn't state that the admin is against the attacks, only that they should be organized in another place. - DigitalC (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Once the actual edit is done, we can change the text to fit it to what the source actually says. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Habbo Hotel

What about the raiding of Habbo Hotel? shouldn't this page mention that?24.90.116.17 (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's already mentioned on the article, search for "Habbo". Apparently, there was only one reliable source mentioning those raids. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That's beyond stupid. There's thousands of witnesses, videos, pictures, forums, fan sites, as well as the Fox News report.
This should at least be included for posterity. --Blackfish711 (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Witnesses, forums, and fan sites are not reliable sources. I don't recall the Fox News report mentioning the Habbo raid. DigitalC (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Watch the video again. Habbo is mentioned rather prominently. --Cast (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Here's this: http://herald-zeitung.com/story.lasso?ewcd=c3706c60d72e1832&-session=HeraldZeitung:40DA3C4E11880 --William Ortiz (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Also --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

More on the recent Pool's Closed incident in Texas.
The "Virtual Attack" article implicating Anonymous also referenced a youtube video, Re: Update: Woman Mis-Interprets Internet Meme as Racist, as a personal attack against the woman. It may be something that can be briefly mentioned as part of the internet's response to her. It may be best to incorporate all of this into a single section on Habbo, now that those events are getting fleshed out. Any other sources on the Habbo raids? We may have enough for at least a minor section now.--Cast (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

These also are also frowned upon in most of the chans, seen as infantile and as a source for unwanted attention to them.

Someone do the Habbo part. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No U!--Cast (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Group?

The articles is currently titled "Anonymous (group)". It's not a group; it might be several group, or it might be several things that aren't really groups, or it might be something else, but "group" is a misnomer, so this page should be renamed. Calling it "Anonymous (internet phenomenon)" or "Anonymous (mass noun)" or something might be better. . . evildeathmath 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources on the article always call it a group. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
And the sources on the article are almost always wrong in that regard. Alas, no original research. :<. (Steampowered (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)).
The sources may be wrong, but they are at least verifiable. DigitalC (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable to the wrong information. Anonymous has many a groups in it, all of which blame everyone else for it's problems. Now gtfo pseudo reporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butthax (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 July 2008)

Where's the gnaa?

why do these trolls get an article but the GNAA doesn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guypimpin (talk • contribs) 06:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because GNAA doesn't have reliable sources, that's why. Remember that wikipedia doesn't include stuff just because it happens to be true (I kid you not) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New source

New York Times did a story on 4chan (and thus, Anonymous). Might be useful for the article. 75.178.83.47 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid this isn't useful for this article. This is a great source for 4chan, but Anonymous only gets a very brief reference, and only to Project Chanology, which is already well summarized here. We won't be needing this piece, but it's interesting reading. Thanks for the effort.--Cast (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pool's Closed Ref

I just removed a youtube video link from the article. However, if anyone knows the date of broadcast, this could become a reliable reference, WITHOUT the link you youtube. - DigitalC (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

dunno... you could check here maybe --Blackfish711 (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
How about we link this ksat.com page instead [2]. It has a date and it links to the video. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New Article & potential new section

This article, "Swatted", by the Metro Spirit, has some very good coverage on the Internet Hate Machine aspect of Anonymous. With write ups on "Swatting", the in-fighting over Project Chanology, and info on the "subculture" of Anonymous, we can add to previous sections and create a new section on the subculture of Anonymous. I've been meaning to add such a section for a while now, as this is not the first time its come up in articles. The dark humored, culture of satire in pursuit of humor has been mentioned in half a dozen articles or radio interviews, I believe. --Cast (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ten out of Ten

I raged. 118.208.88.33 (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For Great Justice!

Quote from the article: 'Anonymous typically justifies their actions by claiming that the raids are "for great justice"'. Heheh...Noboy else notice this meme, or has it been mentioned elsewhere? Ah well, I got a kick out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.15.120 (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the meme. Theres a page on wiki somewhere. All Your Base are belong to us, that sort of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.15.120 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hal Turner

So like... Hal... there should be media on him right? More power to the hate! Kakama (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Switched to school of thought

Since Anonymous is an idea not a group shouldn't it be switched to a School of Thought just an idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharingangeass (talk • contribs) 23:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any source that actually calls Anonymous a school of thought?? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I doubt by those words exactly, but there is likely a source. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin & Yahoo!

There's some more info and sources here if anyone wants to add it in to this one (though a different perspective will need to be taken for this article, obviously). Giggy (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Over 9000?

I haven't read the Variety article referenced in the text, but that's more likely the "Over 9000" an in joke. I'll change the article to reflect it. (I can't demonstrate because Over 9000 is presently locked.)

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't reflect a humorous tone when they said 'about 9000 people'

They were probably mislead by the meme, but it definitely wasn't stated 'jokingly' 209.183.6.10 (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The turnout at the first few protests was somewhere between 5000-8000 people, so its quite possible that there are now ~9000 involved.
Changed it back :)
--Blackfish711 (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. It took a while, but I think we got it.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Theres no viable way to count Anonymous, and the "9000" figure is obviously an extension of the Over 9000 meme, whether intentionally or by being misled. Its simply not professional to include a figure like that, it would be like saying Anonymous is ranked at 6969 people, or just replacing the article with a big wang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for 48 hours. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, never mind. I got two articles mixed up. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's E mail account in Yahoo

It was Said that Anonymous restored Governor Palins E mail account after it was hacked, Is that true, and does Anonymous know who originally did the hacking

IMHO I don't think there is ever a good reason to hack an e mail account, except for Maybe the President of Scientology. Really though no private e mail should ever be hacked, private correspondence is an innate right, except by due process as specified in the US constitution. A protection we all benefit from. Even the President of Scientology, deserved or notTherubicon (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Source for the email being hacked [3]. Let's see if it gets picked up by a good source (not sure if networkworld is good enough) --Enric Naval (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
They're just repeating what wikileaks was saying. Anyone could go out there and do something that gets attention, and then say "Anonymous did this", even if they were the only one involved. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's an astonishing example of ignorance and propaganda. I hadn't previously heard of Caleb Howe, apparently another Sean Hannity-in-training. As you can see from the comments, the article succeeds in getting many people to think Anonymous and the hack are part of an Obama 'dirty tricks' campaign.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/17/left-wing-group-hacks-palinss-email/?icid=100214839x1209546907x1200538338
It's up to the rest of you if you think it's worth putting in the main article.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


After reading this, which seems to be a very detailed account of board postings at 4chan with some background details that this article has a wrong turn on the story. I've concluded that the email was hacked by some guy and then turned over to Anonymous. He figured they would be the best people to wreak havoc but one of the people on the board did the "right thing". Thoughts? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I think it happened too (most of the stories I read seemed to generally say something similar). (See section below) I wrote it from the 4can perspective, writing it from an Anon perspective would be a bit trickier and I don't yet have any great ideas on the best way to go about it. Giggy (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote part of the section using the Michelle Malkin source, as it appears to get all the details right, I don't think that we can't find a better source for the details, and two other editors above seem to find it fine. Now, from WP:RS: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.". This source is published on her personal website, however she is a prominent columnist publishing on a lot of mainstream newspapers. Anyone has a problem with using this source? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
That seems fine so long as we are depending on it for facts alone, and not any editorial opinion. Kelly hi! 21:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oprah?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7mn4mo-QYE

"Does not forgive, does not forget" seems like an obvious reference to anonymous. Does anybody have any more information on this? I just got home and found this video in my email and nobody seems to have a full story on it. --64.252.33.255 (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have reached any media outlets yet, give it a little time. (87.127.104.65 (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC))
I just had to remove a section on the article created for this event. The above post is correct; until it gets out into the media, Wikipedia's rules forbid us to talk about it. It's about making sure researched facts get printed. Since wikipedia's editors can't all be taken at their word, we have to go by sources with a reputation we can trust. Until the media starts hitting on this story, keep it on encyclopedia dramatica.--Cast (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Attack of the Show featured it, that seems notable enough for verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.7.84 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I checked their official page[4] but can't find the Oprah thing. Can you point at a link or at a video feed inside the official page where it refers to Oprah saying this? You know, from here in Europe it's a bit difficult to sintonize american and australian TV channels like G4tv :) It would be enough if some reliable website like the G4tv mentioned the prank. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a youtube recording.[5][6]

use of the verb 'hacked'

does anyone think that the use of 'hacked' is sort or a catchall? it sounds more accurate to me to say that the account was compromised, as the perpetrator gained access by use of security questions.--Anthonyinsanity (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a problem with the media. They don't like to get bogged down by little details like that, so they throw "hacked" around a lot. I'm inclined to agree with you, and it will be a minor change. I'll go ahead with it.--Cast (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually believe the opposite - compromised is a bigger cathcall, IMO. Email hacking is about as traditional a hack that I have seen. 'Compromised' isn't really gone to mean anything to a layperson. It seems to be a buzzword that is used here in reference to logging in and password security. XF Law (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I should explain that this is my point. My own wording makes it seem that I'm calling out the media for being vague, and am trying to be more specific. In fact, the media is being very specific, but the "specific" term used by the media is being misapplied. There was no hacking taking place. The more useful term would be "compromised", which while being a catchall term, can refer to illicitly attaining the password information. Ironically, while I criticize the media for being vague, the bigger catchall term is the more appropriate one. That's my perspective, at least, and I'd like to stick with the term that is more accurate (thanks to not being so at all). Hope this clears that up.--Cast (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I do see your point. I also see the media is using the word the way it was originally intended. The account was hacked, regardless of methodology. In recent years, the terms hacker and cracker are constantly reinvented with positive and negative connotations. My thinking is that whoever did this called his or her buddy and was like "I hacked SP's email," not "I just compromised someone's account." :) XF Law (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

new source

Some1 plz check this recent Wired blog explaining the past exploits of Anonymous, and scavenge all useful details, and correct erroneus stuff. I already partially checked out the Habbo raid part. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Another good source from someone who starts to "get it". The so-called group called Anonymous, by Chad Perrin. It's an IT blog hosted by the BNET network, owned by CNET, published by CBS. This isn't some gossipy "livejournal" blog, so technically it can be considered a reliable source. It can be used to fill in more of the etymology, composition and meme subsections.--Cast (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pool's closed

Should the Pool's closed incident involving Mary Alice Altorfer be included? Media sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAo7kRDrUmU , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0MWz8eTSzs Demonrats (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Those sources both violate copyright law, as the uploaders most certainly are not authorized to use that footage. Not something that WP should link to. Is there print media available? XF Law (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I use this when in doubt. XF Law (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This was addressed in the archives. I already included a paragraph on the Altorfer incident, but I never got around to adding proper citations. I'll get around to it. --Cast (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Some comments from reading the article

Lead section: "Anonymous is said to number about 9000 people"

The significance of this number should be explained and it probably shouldn't be there at all since it came about via trolling and is thus not a reliable source even if it was printed in Variety. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, Giggy has finally nuked that sentence, asking "why do we even waste our time with that?", [7] and I have to agree with him; the number is useless without an explanation of how they counted the members or citing the source they got it from. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Assault on the Epilepsy Foundation forum|The thread has since been deleted" is mentioned in relation to 7chan

Nothing in the article that I can find explains the transitory nature of the *chan forums, if the reader did not know about them in advance he would naturally assume that the deletion of 7chan's thread was an anomaly rather than something that happens to every thread. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just 4chan

/b, to be more specific. It should be noted that the whole "Anonymous" thing came from 4chan, and while it has permeated to other forums (facepunch, I guess), 4chan is still the home base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.89.240 (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As always, a reliable source should be provided for the assertion if it's to be added to the article. Giggy (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Malkin

Per WP:RSN#Anonymous letter posted on political blog, I've removed the citations to Malkin's blog. Anything that can't be sourced should be removed promptly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

person pleads guilty to hacking scientology computers as part of anonymous

As reported by Wired: [8] and California's Attorney Office [9]. Spotted on Slashdot [10][11] --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be placed on the Project Chanology page. This page only summarizes the main event; not the detailed minutia of the ongoing affair.--Cast (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I hadn't thought of that see below --Enric Naval (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You're right, but it fits the criteria of the other media-related incidents. If anything link to the part of the project Chanology page which deals with it in more detail. Just because it relates to Scientology doesn't mean it can't be on the main Anonymous page.Spidern (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I have been thinking about it. I think it's the first time that someone recognizes being a member of Anonymous in front of a justice court, and we should include the details of what happens to him, and maybe rewrite a bit to put the focus on the Anonymous membership and on working for anonymous, as this is the only reason for him appearing on this article (for example, changing the title[12]). Btw, the two sources don't mention "Chanology" anywhere, and the Chanology article only has a one-liner about him at the end of the Internet activities section. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for a more descriptive title, the problem is just that it makes it aesthetically less palatable. You'll also notice that other titles don't contain "anonymous" in them, because the notion that they are involved with Anonymous is implicit (being on the page). Additional note: notice that the texas pool incident doesn't even use the word "Anonymous" in it's description. Something should be done about that. Spidern (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Argh, I can't think of a good title. I can only think of "Attacker of Scientology claims being a member of Anonymous" --Enric Naval (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
"Self-proclaimed Anonymous member pleads guilty to hacking Scientology website"? XF Law talk at me 21:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
hacking --> attacking, apart from that, it looks good --Enric Naval (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Man. I'm so old school that I forget there are more specific terms for what was once under the umbrella of a hack. Crack, hack, attack. It's all good. Nice catch! XF Law talk at me 21:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Recently an editor removed the section again. I'm going to have to agree with the reason given; this whole section is undue weight given to a single individual. Lets not let the focus escape us. This is related to Project Chanology. The DDOS bombardment this ex-Anon took part in was part of Project Chanology, and trying to split it off seems like toying with sources. Each source that I've seen so far recognizes the action as being part of the larger anti-scientology DDOS attack that took place in January. It does not matter that these sources do not mention Chanology by name, as they are referring to the events of Chanology. It also does not matter that the Project Chanology page does not mention him enough. Go there and edit it to increase the mentions of him if that will add to a researcher's knowledge on the subject, provided it does not add undue weight there either.--Cast (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I think that Cirt struck the issue at its hearth[13] --Enric Naval (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
That is one of the first instances where I have seen WP:BOLD really nail the issue. All this civility on the Anonymous page is ironic. Pleasure to work here ;) XF Law talk at me 06:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Unauthorized access of Sarah Palin's Yahoo! Mail account

Moved from main page until unsourced claims are settled with documentation. This is too serious to leave on mainpage in its present state. -- Fyslee / talk 02:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Main article: Sarah Palin email hack

On September 17, 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's personal Yahoo! Mail email account, which critics allege that she used for official business in order to get around public record laws,[1] was compromised, and screenshots of photos and messages were posted over the internet.[1] News of a Yahoo! mail account owned by Palin appeared on one of 4chan's boards, and several readers of the board tried unsuccessfully to hack into the account.[citation needed] The account was finally compromised by an individual who successfully guessed the answers to the security questions that allow one to reset the password.[citation needed] He then realized that he had only one proxy for protection and thought of what would happen if the FBI got involved.[citation needed] He panicked,[2] published the password on 4chan's "/b/" board, thus allowing all posters to login into the account, and he erased all the information from his own system and disconnected himself from the internet.[citation needed]

About that time, one of the readers of the board decided to change the password to stop people from logging into the account, and then warn Palin of the hacking through a mail to one of her friends.[citation needed] However, this person then accidentally posted the new password on the board, and several readers of the board tried at the same time to use it to set a new password.[citation needed] Yahoo! software has security measures in place that triggered an automatic "freeze" which prevented anyone from accessing the account even with the correct password, and the account was later deleted by Yahoo!.[citation needed] The freeze occurred before all emails accessible on the account could be downloaded.[citation needed] Anonymous users later passed all the information that could be retrieved before the freeze to Wikileaks, which published it.[3][1] The individual who originally hacked the account later complained that he had "passed the torch" to Anonymous users after doing all he could do well, and that "the white knight fucker came along, and did it in for everyone"[citation needed].

The FBI and Secret Service began investigating the incident shortly after its occurrence. On September 20 it was revealed they were questioning the son of Mike Kernell, a Democratic State Representative.[4] The handle used by the hacker when making his post pointed to him, this evidence was inconclusive because of the frequent pranks pulled at that board,[2] but later, the proxy service provided its logs, which pointed to the residence where he was living.[2][4] At age twenty the son, David Kernell, is a self described "Obamacrat"[5] and a student at the University of Tennessee. FBI agents served a federal search warrant at the Knoxville Tennessee residence of David Kernell in the early morning hours of September 14, 2008. Kernell, according to witnesses, fled the scene when the FBI agents arrived. [6] Agents spent 1.5 to 2 hours taking pictures of everything inside his apartment. Kernell's three roommates were also subpoenaed and expected to testify the next week in Chattanooga. [7] A grand jury is set to convene regarding the case on the 23rd of September. Kernell Sr. told Wired that he was aware that his son was a suspect, but he did not ask him anything about it over concerns that he may have to testify in court.[8] David Kernell was indicted on October 8, 2008, for his connection to the intrusion.[9]


It is also much too long, a very short summary about the connection between the "hacker", the breach of the email, and 4chan/Anonymous (used the Wired sources) should be enough. A few sentences at most. DigitalC (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There is too much that is unsourced here. It doesn't read like an encyclopedia, but like a teenager's scribblings. -- Fyslee / talk 03:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
"but like a teenager's scribblings." Maybe I'm missing something, but I believe this is rather well written, if not a bit long. CompuHacker (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio - Texas Pool Incident refs

I am removing links to youtube which are copyright violations. The actual links of course can be found in the edit history. I will attempt to turn these into proper cite news references in the next few days (does anyone know the date of these broadcasts?), but my current connection does not allow me to watch the videos, so I can't do it yet. If anyone else feels like fixing them, go for it. DigitalC (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Also popular: dressing as the anti-Scientology protesters Anonymous

  • Derrick, Lisa (November 1, 2008). "WeHo's Paucity of Palins Points to Political Drag". The Huffington Post. HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. Retrieved 2008-11-01.
I think it is interesting that "Anonymous" has made it into society in general as a meme to such a degree that dressing up as anti-Scientology "Anonymous" protesters for Halloween as a form of political protest costumes is now commonplace along with costumes of zombies and lingerie models. Cirt (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

oh lawd

7chan.org, an imageboard that has been described as a stronghold for Anonymous 10/10 :D 71.176.161.136 (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

7chan banned me because somebody else on my network requested CP D: Strangely, though, the ban was applied a day before it actually took effect, it says the IP was banned on the 13th but it didn't start blocking posts until the 14th. Lawl. 89.31.50.93 (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability of a lot of this stuff?

A lot of the stuff on this page seems to be pretty weak - apart from the Fox News 11 report and Project Chanology, how much of this is actually relevant? Some of this stuff doesn't even seem to be related to anonymous, such as the assault on the Epilepsy forums. Just because you're on the internet and are anonymous doesn't mean you're Anonymous. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability only matters in terms of whether there should be an article or not. However, even so, the Epilepsy forums section makes it clear that it was alleged that Anonymous (not anonymous people) performed the acts. DigitalC (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
One quick note: once that there is an article on a topic, you enter into which viewpoints/sources about the topic are more notable and which should get more or less space or even appear at all --Enric Naval (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous didn't attack the epilepsy forums. It was Ebaumsworld and they keep trying to pin it on us. CompuHacker (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately the media reported it that way, whether eBaum's instigated it or not. Because the media reported on the incident, it is notable and should probably be on the Anonymous page detailed here.
(Note: Blaming Ebaumsworld is the favorite pastime of many a young Anonymous.)CompuHacker (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Lol, I think that he didn't get the joke. Of course that poor Ebaums didn't do it :D
Even the ED article http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Epilepsy_Foundation claims that it wasn't scientology. It blames 420chan and then accusses 7chan of stealing the fame for the attack. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know that the incident itself, nor the hip-hop incident, are even notable in the first place. People attack websites all the time; its not an uncommon occurrence, and oftentimes there will be a brief bit of reporting in the media then it will die away. Its not really notable. Really, apart from Project Chanology, I'm not sure that much the group has done is notable in any real way. It seems like people are simply adding new, very inconsequential, incidents onto the article; I'm not saying they're being bad, but I don't think this stuff really belongs on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The epilepsy attack is notable because it was "possibly the first computer attack to inflict physical harm on the victims"[14], and only notable attacks get reported on Wired (notice it's "www.wired", where articles are posted, and not "blog.wired", where minor news get covered in blog format). mind you, it's not an original attack because it was attempted previously by someone else[15], it just appears to be the first *successful* attack
The hip-hop attack appears to be notable too by wikipedia standards, as it got covered on MTV's website and got a note on the NPR's website (the two sources on the article). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
However, this creates an inextricable link between the protest group under the same name, which to many may appear to cast their actions in a negative light. This is one reason why it is necessary to move this page to a more descriptive disambiguation term; because many people may mistakenly think that the two are somehow part of a larger cohesive group. Spidern (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
"Project Chanology" IS Anonymous. They are both the same Anonymous. However, there is no possible way to confirm that reliably or properly source it. Also, I believe that Anon should be labeled a... well, the only way I can describe it is "religion", but it doesn't match up. A group of people that share similar ideas? I don't know. If that helps. CompuHacker (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Chanology may be Anonymous, but Anonymous is not Chanology. They are NOT the same. DigitalC (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DigitalC. Also, alot of people say they are Anonymous and the name is associated with many different events. However, you cant just label everyone that has said they are Anonymous as one group. TyranaRaptor —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC).

I apologize, let me restate that. There are several different types of Anonymous. Habbo raiders, Chanology raiders, Bill O'Reilly raiders, etc. All of them collectively operate and are aware of Anonymous, it's memes, it's culture, etc, but don't all participate in the same activities. Say for example, some might browse ED and operate in Habbo with friends, and some might exclusively use the Partyvan wiki and participate in Chanology activities. I agree with an above comment, Anonymous is a "group of groups", but not because Anons come from all walks of life, but because they are all aware of each other but do different things. I'm working on a better explanation. CompuHacker (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And to note, I beleive blaming eBaumsWorld is also a meme. ViperSnake151 15:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No no no no no. Anonymous is only active on chans. If people who are anonymous want to organise raids on one target all the time they get their own forum and are no longer anonymous, just like the patriotic nigras. Chanology does not take place on any chan and is not part of Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.237.3 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a group.

If they interact with each other, accept expectations as members of the group and share a common identity, it's a group regardless of what anyone says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.57 (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I believe it is a culture or common identity. For example the American Biker (Biker culture) is an identity with a group being the Hells Angels. Likewise Anonymous is an identity with a group being made from individuals who visit or are registered at the 4chan webboard. Given the fact that Anonymous, is literally, anonymous it is difficult to claim that any members actions are representive of the whole. Thus, it would seem appropriate to refer to individuals and not the culture. --Frozenport (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Project Chanology

Why does this say that project chanology is a peaceful protest? The last 5 major attacks against epilepsy support websites were planned on Chan threads, and any one of those attacks had the potential to kill or seriously injure a victim. many people needed to go to hospitals, some had to be treated for pulled muscles. Thats not a peaceful protest by any stretch of the imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.65.211 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Because Project Chanology is run by people that consider themselves part of "Anonymous", and yet do not take part in the trolling of random websites. Just because "Anonymous" attacks, protests, or helps a group, site, individual, does not mean that the same "Anonymous" will do something of the exact opposite to different set of groups, sites, or individuals. Project Chanology had nothing to do with the attacks on epilepsy support websites, anymore than "Project: Reconnect" had anything to do with the trolling of Oprah's discussion boards. --70.237.214.192 (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wtf. The so called project chanology does not take place on any chan. It has nothing to do with Anonymous at all. Just because they have the same name does not make them the same group. Its like saying the WWF wrestlers save pandas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.237.3 (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming you consider yourself a member of Anonymous, or at least a Channer. Please Lurk Moar: Though Anonymous is not as a whole involved in ending the Co$'s transgressions I can assure you that we (Project Chanology Anonymous) are part of the very same Anonymous which posts on the *chans. Not all *chan Anons are in Project Chanology, however most if not all in Project Chanology are *chan Anons. 70.70.97.117 (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A name change

It is generally considered as a blanket term – not tied to any monolithic group – for the vox populi or members of the Internet culture.

Actions attributed to Anonymous are rarely connected to an organized group.

Quoted from the article, the explanation directly contradicts the "(group)" description in the title. I am moving this page to Anonymous (internet culture) because I believe that it provides a better overall description of the phenomenon in question. One main purpose of the page is to document notable media reporting on usage of the term, which can easily provide the false impression that all the aforementioned events were perpetrated by an organized group with this name.

In short, any individual or group can apply the label to themselves. Ergo, the incidents described herein should not be directly tied to each other under the false impression of an organized "group". Spidern (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a very, very poorly-considered idea to move this article without reaching consensus among editors of the article first. the skomorokh 17:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with a change, but it should be just Anonymous (internet) or (web) as the existance of a 'culture' is just as debatable as the existance of a 'group'. This would fit with the guidelines at WP:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles which says that it should be "the subject or context to which the topic applies" which in this case is the internet and be the simplest term possible. --neon white talk 18:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Admittedly, I suppose it may have been a bit hasty to make the change without first discussing it, and I appologize. To remedy the situation, let's discuss it now. I am open for "internet" as a disambiguation term. Spidern (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Restored to Anonymous (group). This name change and move was made with zero prior discussion or consensus. Discuss here first, then go through WP:Requested moves please. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I apologize for my move which was made in haste without first discussing it. So lets discuss this now. Due to the aforementioned points, I suggest that we move the page to Anonymous (internet culture). As it stands, the article is a member of the already existing Internet culture category. As described in the definition: "Cyberculture is the culture that has emerged, or is emerging, from the use of computer networks for communication, entertainment and business." I am also not opposed to moving it to Anonymous (internet), however I believe that this is less descriptive and is better placed under culture (as Anonymous is a direct result of internet culture seen on 4chan, encyclopediadramatica, and others). What are your thoughts? Spidern (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree the name needs to be changed. How about Anonymous (chan) or 4chan? Verbal chat 09:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous (4chan) is far too specific. Although the phenomenon emerged from sources such as these, they are certainly not limited to those sites. Spidern (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I like the Anonymous (internet culture) idea. I think it's better than Anonymous (internet) because the latter could be confused with internet anonymity. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Where does the idea come from that name changes always have to be discussed first? Spidern, speaking as an admin who handles a lot of move requests at WP:RM, you were justified in BOLDly moving the page. It was moved back, and now it's being discussed. This is entirely healthy and good, per WP:BRD, and there is no need to browbeat an editor for making a move that seemed to them like a good idea. No one need attain consensus before making an edit that they do not know to be controversial, and that includes page moves. No harm, no foul.

On topic, it's true that Anonymous isn't a group; it's more of a generic Internet identity. Would a name such as Anonymous (identity), Anonymous (Internet identity) or Anonymous (screen name) make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, GTBacchus. I am not sure if I agree with identity because we are not dealing with internet anonymity in general here. What we're dealing with is a specific mode of usage, which is notable as per the references listed. What we are describing is the phenomenon of unnamed users committing actions with a sometimes shared goal. It is for that reason that I suggest "internet culture", because the phenomenon has arisen directly as a cultural aspect of the internet. Spidern (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we're talking about a very specific usage. I didn't intend the name Anonymous (identity) to refer to anonymity in general (which is a sort of lack of identity), but to the specific identity/role, emerging from 4chan, participating in the Chanology project, etc., whose name is "Anonymous". It's a specific identity or pseudo-identity that many people assume when acting in certain modes, as you say. I'm not sure what is the best and simplest way to get that across. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
After further consideration, it came to my attention that Anonymous in this context may be best described as a meme. Quoted from the meme article:
A meme (pronounced /miːm/)[1] consists of any idea or behavior that can pass from one person to another by learning or imitation. Examples include thoughts, ideas, theories, gestures, practices, fashions, habits, songs, and dances. Memes propagate themselves and can move through the cultural sociosphere in a manner similar to the contagious behavior of a virus.
I present an alternative to my original proposal as Anonymous (meme). When you think about how the idea for Anonymous emerged, it is apparent that all of the elements necessary are present for it to be considered a meme. Generally speaking, the phenomenon requires an idea to emerge whose execution is propagated by a fuzzy consensus among users through online communication. Having witnessed other internet memes, I believe that the inception, propagation, and general behavior of Anonymous certainly falls into this category. Spidern (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been some good back and forth discussion above. I think it may be productive to set up a straw poll. Let me know if you would like me to set that up. Cirt (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, let's push this forward. Spidern (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think its a group in the sense that it is a group of people. The fact that it isn't well-defined isn't, I think, very relevant. What does Christianity include? Who chooses? There's lots of people who claim various groups (Mormons, for instance) aren't really Christian. I think the same fuzziness applies here. Anonymous is definitely not a meme, though the name may qualify as such - but this article isn't really about the name, its about the group/internet culture. Its either a group or a culture. I wouldn't be opposed to moving it to (internet culture), but I wouldn't support it, either. I definitely would oppose moving it to (meme), as it isn't one. There's really no good reason to move it from (group), as I think it describes them fairly accurately, and no less accurately than (internet culture) would. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The primary difference is that we're dealing with a collection of individuals who emerge spontaneously without meeting in public. Group implies a certain unity which simply isn't present in this case. Anonymous is also not even necessarily a group, individuals can assign the label to themselves arbitrarily. If an action is notable enough and gets media coverage, people [who will be looking up this page] will ascribe it to Anonymous. That is one reason why I believe it more closely resembles a meme than a group. In the end, the media and general public are more concerned with the act (or acts), rather than the assembly of people themselves.
A group in the traditional sense shares a general consensus of some sort (in varying degree) in order to be considered a single group (i.e. Christians believe in Jesus, a corporation works towards selling their products, a therapy group shares an ailment). That single consensus is not necessarily present here. Whether mainstream Christians accept them or not, Mormonism and Christianity both share a belief in Jesus. In fact, since Anonymous can be applied to people with practically any belief, you may consider it a grouping of groups. With Anonymous, the consensus is much less defined as a whole. In short I think that the word "group" carries connotations which may give some people the wrong impression. Spidern (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be most appropriate to describe them as Anonymous (collective). Most websites associated with anonymous use this term when describing themselves, for example:
"Anonymous is not a person, nor is it a group, movement or cause: Anonymous is a collective", from Encyclopedia Dramatica encyclopediadramatica.com/Anonymous
"We are a collection of individuals united by ideas", from WhyWeProtest.net http://www.whyweprotest.net/en/#a1
"We are the internet protocol collective of Albany", from AlbanyAnon.org http://albanyanon.org/
MaxwellHansen 07:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


Analysis of sources

I started going through the most notable sources to se what they called Anonymous, but by the second source it was already clear that they call it a group.






Notice also how the sources constantly refer to the members of Anonymous and how Anonymous is composed by people X and people Y, and how the members of Anonymous do stuff. A meme doesn't have "members". An internet culture has members, but it's never called that on the sources, that I know of.

Notice this US Department of Justice press note regarding a self-confessed Anonymous member "an underground group called “Anonymous.”" [21].

Srlsly, even Scientologists call it a group. Insisting that Anonymous is not a group is just WP:OR original research unless you provide sources saying that it's not. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your position is well justified and sourced. However, if we are to take the position that Anonymous is in fact a cohesive group, I believe that the media incidents must be reconsidered. There is no evidence linking any of those incidents to Anonymous as a single group beyond media speculation. Spidern (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that using the title Anonymous (group) means we're taking a position that Anonymous is a cohesive group, or any particular kind of group. The article lead makes it clear that there's no "monolithic" or organized group. I don't see the word "group" as carrying much weight in the direction of cohesiveness. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not, all I was worried about was first impressions. My single biggest concern in all of this discussion was to eliminate the implicit assumption that Anonymous is a single group. That very idea is being pushed with great force in several circles that I am aware of. However, Enric has a point about sources, so I suppose I will have to abandon the idea at this point. Spidern (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw "collective" too, but check the Collective article: "A collective is a group of people who share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project(s) to achieve a common objective." . On wikitionary wiktionary:collective the nearest meaning is "(grammar): Expressing a collection or aggregate of individuals, by a singular form; as, a collective name or noun, like assembly, army, jury, etc." or "A farm owned by a collection of people.", where wiktionary:Collection would mean "2 Multiple related objects associated as a group." --Enric Naval (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Even when its not discussing Chanology protesters, the media reports it as a group ("Wired seems to think it was the group Anonymous... - RealtechNews). However, 2 other sources about the Epilepsy attacks called them an "internet collective". Is there any support for a rename to that, or should we follow the majority of the reliable sources and keep it as (group)? DigitalC (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure the media can be trusted on this, they commonly refer to Al-Qaeda as an 'organisation', whereas more academic sourced understand it as an idealogy or movement due to it's lack of organisation. It should be find to represent the views of the media but to rely on it for definition is dodgy in my opinion. However it should be note that disambiguation isnt intended to be informative but nevertheless should be accurate. --neon white talk 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:TITLE states: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." WP:V states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So, what we need to do is follow the sources, and use what the majority of the sources use, because that is what the "greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". DigitalC (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Message to Scientology" video

"Message to Scientology", January 21, 2008

Added this video to the article. It is embedded alongside the article text, and can be played at the same time while reading the article. Cirt (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You are a winrar. -Raziel (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Texas Pool Incident

Wait, what does this have to do with Anonymous?

This source attributes it to Anon. Skomorokh 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"Pool's Closed" is an old meme spawned from the Habbo Hotel raids, one of the (very) early activities of Anonymous. Without Anonymous the meme would either have never existed or died out long ago and the entire Texas incident would likely never have occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.237.93 (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Longcat HTTP Flooder

Anyone feel like researching that and including it in the article; my friend is in Anonymous and he uses it to spam sites. Such as scientology.org. TechOutsider (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)TechOutsdier

I added a mention of Anonymous members writing custom flooding tools. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Poor grammar

I was just preparing to comment on the grammar of the logo, until I read the following (And why is the grammar incorrect? I am curious as to whether or not this is some sort of jest.): -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"None of us are as cruel as all of us" is a faulty construction. "None of us is as cruel" is correct. Can a member of Anonymous please fix the motivational poster so that we might re-upload the image and help disabuse some of our less charitable readers of the notion that you guys are a gaggle of illiterate morons?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's referring to the proverb "None of us are as smart as all of us", I believe. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The construction is arguable, I suppose (Not which one is correct, but if the plural is acceptable along with the singular). However, if you google the proverb "None of us are as smart as all of us", you will find that None of us is... is more popularly used. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's are. Us is plural, are is plural. It's also British. But it's how we roll. 199.227.204.3 (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

'Us is plural, are is plural' doesn't exactly justify the correctness of the grammar. The conjugation of 'to be' should correspond with the third-person present. However, if that's 'How ye roll'; so be it. I'll say that it's justified. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

99chan.com

There is no reference to 99chan.com in that reference link, and the site doesn't even appear to exist. It should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.47.135 (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll search for this phantom website. If I find it and it seems to be a part of this "Anonymous" thing, I'll add a hyperlink directly to the site for clarification. T4G0E (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been to this site a number of times, and they actively deny any relation to 'Anonymous' or 4chan.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blorgenblop (talk • contribs) 09:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Is that a typo? The reference mentions a 711chan but no 99chan 122.104.54.134 (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Since the reference mentions 711chan and not 99chan (doubtful this website even exists) I changed the text accordingly.ZerglingChamp (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Awsomeness

I'd like to point out that after the Fox 11 broadcast, thier website was down for a week XD!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeroth101 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Texas Pool = awesome

One of the somewhat-common cases of non-malevolent Anonymous humour. She had the right to be concerned - attracting the attention of people from a site that has been known to be malevolent - but the joke itself was not malicious. In short, I loled. 207.210.29.71 (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And what about BoXXy?

eh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploft (talk • contribs) 03:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boxxy. Anyways, the sources didn't mention any relationship to Anonymous. There are no actions initiated by Anonymous, just people arguing about her at /b/. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous is defunct

What about the recent disbanding of Anonymous, they finally elected a leader, but he was actually a spy for "The Collective", a anti-cyber terrorism group and he disbanded the group.--24.171.0.229 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just find a reliable source for it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

SS Free

Hacking of the SS Free's old forum: [22].--24.171.0.229 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Planet Mac

They hacked Planet Mac (the world's largest resource for Mac gaming]]), sources are: Planet Mac's website.--24.171.0.229 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo! Answers

They have been raiding Yahoo! Answers lately. Go on Yahoo! Answers and look at just about any question, they are saying "Anonymous will not stop, so just DIE IN A FIRE, I hope my answer helped".--24.171.0.229 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

terrorist project

This belongs in WikiProject Terrorism, granted it is defunct, but that doesn't mean they didn't used to be terrorists.--24.171.0.229 (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually, it's the wikiproject members themselves who decide to put an article under their project. You should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism and propose them to consider including this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Still waiting for your reliable source confirming Anonymous is defunct at the moment. Adambro (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't say of a reliable source, sources aren't really Anonymous's style, but I know some members of Anonymous and they got kinda pissed when they found out.--24.171.0.229 (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Anonymous is not defunct. It's not even an organistation per se, more a way of expression. 129.67.37.150 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
HA... —Preceding unsigned comment added by PieSoup (talk • contribs) 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Quote:"sources aren't really Anonymous's style"

Woot, faulty logic.  Aaron  ►  04:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course they're terrorists they blow up vans.

Proposed removal of references to enturbulation.org

I propose the removal of said references since the site no longer exists. Also, it was more or less affiliated with the Chanology movement, so that page should be the one with any references, albeit in the past tense, of course. Ukvilly (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that since enturbulation.org no longer exists, it cannot be described as being associated with Anonymous. As you note, it may be appropriate though to make reference to the website in the Project Chanology article in the past tense. I've therefore removed the reference to that website. Adambro (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The site just renamed to whyweprotest.net. Just rename the domain and the links work again. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Also removed whyweprotest per spam, advertising, and promotional linking guidelines. If they are known for the site (i.e., the site is notable), then it would have a high page rank, and it would be verifiable and cited in reliable sources that are secondary to the group. --slakr\ talk / 00:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, lemme clarify, removed the link to it in the lead section, not in the references. A reference might be appropriate if it's necessary, but could be original research. --slakr\ talk / 00:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removal of references to Project Chanology

As Project Chanology dies. it has been asked from numerous anonymous communities to no long link it with anonymous the group. Instead have it as a action taken by member of the group anonymous. Not everyone that is anonymous participated. --Rolontloss (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we have no reliable sources claiming it is dying. Second of all, we do have reliable sources claiming that Chanology is linked to Anonymous. Not everyone from anon needs to participate for it to be linked. After all, not EVERY anon participated in Subeta, or Habbo, or Hal Turner or any of the other things that /b/ or /i/ has done. Not every anon goes to 7chan, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be linked to Anonymous. Therefore, unless you show us some Reliable Sources that say it isn't linked, we respectfully deny your request to remove it. Firestorm Talk 17:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.partyvan.info/wiki/Chanology_is_not_Anonymous /convo --Rolontloss (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has very strict guidelines on what constitutes a Reliable Source. Wikis in general do not meet this criteria, and, as someone who is familiar with janus zeal's work, I wouldn't consider him a "respected authority" in the study of Chanology. gb2/i/. Firestorm Talk 18:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I was very heavily involved in Chanology until recently. 173.65.196.10 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Since when did "everyone from anon" do anything? Also, it's related. Sowwies.  Aaron  ►  04:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Texas Pool == Anonymous... What?

you need rigth now come up with some evidence that this was actually not just some pranksters that had gotten the images from the internet.

One: There's no way it could be sourced. Two: Anyone who used those images to that effect has effectively "become" Anonymous. CompuHacker (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Omg, When wil you wikijewpedia people learn.. ANONYMOUS IS NOT SOMEONE WHO JUST POST AS AN ANONYMOUS USER THERE IS A WHOLE CULTURE BEHIND IT KTHNX. also picture dont make you anonymous. You can find them on google. --Rolontloss (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm laughing quite a bit at CompuHacker. We apparently cannot source who was actually behind it, but again we apparently can claim a group of individuals responsible. Even though those individuals had no connection to any group, all of which has no source to back up his claims to the contrary, and were in fact ACTUALLY anonymous...rather than from a group "called" Anonymous. This whole article is a joke. Even its basic material would be shut down in even the most contested articles. Its a sad, sad day when ED can hold more factual and sourced information than a wikipedia article. 60.230.201.56 (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Harlequin
Haha, you write that as if Anonymous is an organized group. Anybody can claim to be part of Anonymous. You are a joke. 83.78.7.101 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The source for that section blamed Anonymous, that's why it's here. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This probably isn't a very useful thing to say when one considers WP policy, but.. "some pranksters [...] from the internet" pretty much sums up most, if not all, of Anon. There isn't really any solid way to connect Anon to anything, since it's not an organized group and anyone can do anything in the name of Anon. kthxbai  Aaron  ►  04:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this necessary?

A bunch of 13 year olds got on Fox news under the guise of a 4cham meme, and it's worthy of an article? Please. It's bad enough 4chan is thought of as nothing more than a raidpool for these people, but to have a Wikipedia article on "Anonymous" is going a bit far don't you think? 75.62.40.223 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the page, search for "This page was previously nominated for deletion", and click on "show" on the left of the box. You will see three deletion proposals that failed. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The partyvan.info wiki is a very illegal website and should not be linked onto Wikipedia. THe site links to warez, hacking tools, even how to make a botnet, so i really dont think it should be linked. PieSoup (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it only link to those things, or does it host those things itself? I think that if it is just linking to them, it is legal (or gray area). Anyway, most/all of the chan sites had illegal content on them at one time or another, so I can't see a problem with linking to it for the sake of accuracy (wikipedia links to thepiratebay, and that it totally full of warez). Maybe there should be a disclaimer, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob634 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As one of the admins of the partyvan wiki, it does not host ANY of the files. It just linked to them. Maybe people should do research before they make sure outladish claims. Please add the link back. If you have any questions use the partyvan wiki and leave something on my talk page http://www.partyvan.info/wiki/User_talk:Admin --Rolontloss (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok then im putting the link back 74.76.228.93 (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Re-removed per spam, advertising, and promotional guidelines: very low pagerank site intending to gain exposure by linking in a visible location on the main article. --slakr\ talk / 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
then I will get rid of the link, but the site itself is relevent enough to be mentioned MaxwellHansen 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Color of template "Anonymous and the Internet"

Please see Template_talk:Anonymous_and_the_Internet#Styling.2C_syntax. There is a discussion there regarding color/style of template {{Anonymous and the Internet}}. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Dusty the cat

The reason that I removed this is because there are no sources that attribute this incident to Anonymous. Rather, it is 4chan /b/ that many articles referred to; 4chan#Dusty the cat has a practically identical section on this. Even the section on this article only mentions 4chan /b/, and not "Anonymous". This most likely falls under WP:OR; you cannot make inferences that "Anonymous" as a group was responsible for this. Scootey (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We also have references that say that 4chan /b/ is part of Anonymous. I'm going to revert this, but after that i'll practice WP:1RR and not revert again. I request that you do not re-remove it until there is consensus on this talk page one way or another. Firestorm Talk 20:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
To me, the question is what exactly is it that makes it so that something can be labeled as an action of "Anonymous" as a group? Does the fact that groups previously associated with the actions of "Anonymous" (such as 4chan, 711chan, EncyclopediaDramatica, etc) did something make that particular action an action of "Anonymous"? Or is it that the people that perpetrate trolling attacks/protests/etc identify as "Anonymous" (as with the majority of "Raids and invasions" on the page, such as Project Chanology, Hal Turner incident, etc) that makes it attributable to "Anonymous"?
If it is the former, then there are COUNTLESS possible incidents that could be added to the "Raids and invasions" section beyond what is there now. You could practically say that almost any Internet meme/trolling activity/etc is an action of "Anonymous". Instead, those events should probably have a section on the page for the community that they are most closely associated with (for instance, the "Dusty the cat" section on the 4chan article).
However, if it is the latter criterion, then it would make sense to keep the events done by people that identify as "Anonymous", as has been done in most of the cases on the page. In the case of "Dusty the cat", the people that tracked him down did not identify under the name of "Anonymous" as far as I can tell. Any more thoughts? Scootey (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
It's referring to Anonymous by everything except by name, the journalists are mixing stuff together: they mention "Rule 1 and 2 of the internet" (lolwut?), say that the same anonimity was used in the Sarah Palin incident, and their writing will make unaware readers think the protests against Scientology were organized by 4chan. Danny O'Brien should have known better when writing this.
In the 1st ref "Outraged Net users (...) online vigilantes (...) the clumsy anonymity that briefly hid “Timmy” is used every day on 4chan to protects its users from their more extreme actions – including when hacking into Sarah Palins email account during last years election (...) [the rough and ready code of 4chan website] is enough to organize a worldwide protest against Scientology, brainstorm a new idea – or organize a lynchmob. And its simplicity provides its anonymity."[23] In the 3rd ref "Rule 1 and 2 of the internet prohibits me from mentioning their name (...) members of /b/ took it upon themselves to bring the sickos to justice" [24]
P.D.: about them not identifiying themselves as "Anonymous", see http://neverforgetdusty.com/ --Enric Naval (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why uncharictaristically? Why are you negatively assigning a negative connotation to anonymous as a whole? Kilshin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

Agree. There is evidence that cats are the single thing that Anonymous will hold sacred, most likely due to Caturday. Dogs are considered Anonymous's worst enemy, but are also seen as immune from IRL harm.Ektogamut (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, whenever anybody posts Zippocat there's normally a flamewar and chances are OP gets b&. What can you do? Anonymous likes cats. 94.169.32.14 (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Origins

"The name Anonymous itself is inspired by the perceived anonymity under which users post images and comments on the Internet. Usage of the term Anonymous in the sense of a shared identity began on imageboards."

That's just wrong. "Hacker" groups back in the 90's used Anonymous as a name well before imageboards started up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megapeen (talk • contribs) 03:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This entry is about the current Anonymous meme popularized by users of imageboards, not hackers from the 90's who signed their names "anonymous." Ukvilly (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Unless you can find sources that verify this, your claim is irrelevant. - Raziel  14:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onewhohascomebefore (talk • contribs)

Anonymous

aren't anonymous a really good example of a stand alone complex? Dunno weather it's article worthy, though. HopRar (talk)

It are not. Talk:Philosophy_of_Ghost_in_the_Shell#Stand_Alone_Complex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.87.216.120 (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fox report

Needs re-writing, clearly written by Anonymous. Particularly this paragraph:

"The news report became the source of many internet memes. Among the mocked features of the report were the stock footage used of an exploding van, the hyperbole and alarmist phrases used to describe the idea of anonymity, naming Anonymous as a domestic terrorist organization, and the suggestion that buying a dog and curtains could protect victims from Anonymous."

Above, I've highlighted the stuff I have a problem with:


Internet memes - No, it only two internet memes, "Internet hate machine" and "Anon only fear two things: dogs and closed curtains" the hyperbole and alarmist phrases used to describe the idea of anonymity, naming Anonymous as a domestic terrorist organization - Too many weasle words the suggestion that buying a dog and curtains could protect victims from Anonymous - On the video, she bought a phone tracer, alarm system and guard dog. She never said anything about closed curtains... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.198.75 (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget 'Hackers on Steroids'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.82.22 (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to discuss memes at all other than possibly a brief mention of how it creates memes (if we have a RS). Otherwise, no source, no inclusion.Firestorm Talk 06:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the source, I'm just saying that the section is badly worded and un-neutral... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.222.148 (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oprah and her 9,000 Penises

I'm still surprised to find nothing about this on Wiki, either on Oprah's page or here. Anon DID take credit for that, no? 74.12.7.33 (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Joe.

Yes, of course. Everyone knows where she got the information from, too. Unfortunately, we can't put it in the article because no reliable source has seen fit to comment on it. I think its hilarious, but until we get a source saying the post came from a *chan, it can't be included. Firestorm Talk 17:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Futaba link, links to the disambiguation, it should link to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futaba_Channel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aufbakanleitung (talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Adambro (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow

What the HELL is wrong with all of you? Way to ruin the internet even more than usual, Wikipedia.

InternetsUser (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have a complaint about the article, you should be a bit more explicit... Myself, I have no idea of what you are talking about. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
He doesn't have a specific complaint, and as such should be disregarded. Firestorm Talk 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a slightly more specific complaint. Several sites that are not even actually related to Anonymous are credited as the origin of Anonymous in this article. This is obviously inaccurate information. The *chans were the origin, especially 4chan seeing as it was the first major *chan and most other anonymous imageboards followed it's lead.  Anonymous  Talk  —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC).
Can you be more specific? I mean, other sites are listed in the article, and there's a footnote. Is not a problem at all to remove any information that isn't actually in the source. Alternatively, it's perfectly appropriate to inquire as to the reliability of the source cited. Relying on the knowledge of whoever happens to have an account here doesn't really pass the verifiability standard, you know? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You

Shouldn't there be a link (and maybe more than a link) to You (Time Person of the Year)? —JAO • T • C 19:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh, the Time article does not make reference to Anonymous in any way. it's talking about content contributors of wikipedia, youtube, myspace, Facebook, Second Life, Amazon, blogs, anything web 2.0, and also about user-created Linux. It says nothing about imageboards, internet memes, griefing, identification with a collective identity, vigilantes, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hah. I thought I had thoroughly read through at least the lead of this article, but it's quite clear on a second reading that I hadn't. Thanks for setting me straight. —JAO • T • C 08:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I think part of the cause of my confusion might be that I got here from the template which sits on the feet of articles like eBaum's World and YouTube, articles that also don't mention Anonymous, what it is, or how it relates to these websites. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates ("As with categories, all the articles in a template should substantially deal with the subject of the box. Ask yourself, is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in it?"), it seems that should be dealt with by either removing the template from those articles or adding some context on Anonymous in them? —JAO • T • C 08:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Very good point. The relevant discussion is here, I linked your comment in an argument I made there. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling/grammar

//==Japanese Origins== The concept of anonymous originate in 90s Japan. Internet and social network was still in infancy and many people, due to lax data protection law, were still reluctant to even create avatar account. Consequently, use of forum was limited and even the use of annonymous message board was limited to techies. However, due to annoymous nature of the posting, any popular message board was prone to shut down when sudden and significant increase in traffic occurs, which was akin to denial of service attack.//

Can someone please fix the spelling and grammar of this section? It won't let me Hamsterinablender (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mary Alice Altorfer

Mrs. Altorfer is a resident of New Braunfels, TX, not Austin as written. [25] --12.70.130.170 (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed and clarified, I added that source. It's just a local newspaper, but it's the local newspaper of her place of residence, so I suppose that it's relevant (and it must have done decent coverage since the protagonist is a local, so it can be considered as reliable). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous' Beliefs as a Whole

There seems to be a lack of information here about the ideology of Anonymous, just a few sentences which don't state it clearly and a list of shenanigans attributed to them. I mean, I could sum them up in a sentence ("We do because we can") but that doesn't fully explain it either. I feel this article could do a better job, but I'm not sure how to explain Anonymous' beliefs and still maintain Wikipedia Standards (as there are no reputable sources, only insider's knowledge). Can I have some advice here from more experienced Wiki users?--An Enormous Laser Beam (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

One glance at the overall structure of Anonymous would make it pretty clear that there is no "definite" belief or goal (except for perhaps achieving the lulz). Occasionally, they'll come together to push their beliefs in a direction (such as the protests against the Church of Scientology), where other times it maybe the singular actions of just one hacker of their group. Thus, unless it's a large enough mass of people who choose to identify themselves as Anonymous, it's difficult to declare when it's the group as a whole, or just the random actions of a single/handful of members doing their own thing. Unless someone wants to come forward and claim responsibility for the group, there is no definition of who or what Anonymous stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.97.67.91 (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Fundamentally, there isn't one. Anonymous is incredibly anarchic, but that's a function not of its members' beliefs, but of its structure. There is no centralized authority in Anonymous, and no one has ever done demography on them (and I doubt it is even plausible to do so). Saying they have an ideology is pretty much impossible, as there is no single unified, or even widely agreed on, ideology in Anonymous, save perhaps, as the above IP points out, the "lulz". Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Anonymous isn't a group. It never was. It has no leaders, no defined membership, and no ideology. It has no beliefs. It is just a mindset. Specifically, the mindset of someone who thinks that their actions have no accountability. Anyone who represents themselves as a member of "Anonymous" and presents beliefs is just trying to claim collective consensus for their own personal beliefs. There are times when Anonymous organizes things, but that is just like posting a party invitation in a bus station. It is not a group that has any means of contact beyond public postings that anyone can read. There is no "group as a whole".
All of this is pretty much my point, but the article doesn't clarify that.--An Enormous Laser Beam (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Japanese origin

I really apologise for adding so much content, but there is much merit in providing how the infrastructure, finance, IT, etc which enable the Nanashi (Anonymous) World came about in Japan. I will give citation but it will be in Japanese and it will be from Japanese wikipedia. Sorry Vapour (talk)

Please cite this section. And by please I mean PLEASEPLEASEPLEASE. LuxEV (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Origin?

Can we clean up and edit what was posted by Vapour? It's not only a wall of text that has little to no merit on Anonymous, but it has no citations of value and is pretty much his opinion and thought on the issue, not the facts. The original section from before his first edit was perfect and now the whole article looks like baloney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.205.133.36 (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I axed the section, it seemed to be largely composed of OR. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article list anonymous as being associated with Futaba channel

Futaba channel is strictly the basis of where all the western *chan's came from. It has nothing to do with anonymous, raids, etc. It is Japanese language only, IPs outside of Japan cannot even post on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.23.203 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Kenny Glenn

Given that this has received IRL media attention and is fairly notable as a massive raid, this should be added to the article. However, I am tired and cba. kbai Octane [improve me?] 19.02.09 0737 (UTC)

Done. DarthBotto talk•cont 13:39, 04 June 2009 (UTC)

Rearranged article

I rearranged parts of the article, moving the Dusty the Cat section into the Internet Vigilantism section (where it belongs, as it is an example of it) as well as rearranging the main body to lie in chronological order. I think some of this stuff isn't particularly notable and has too much devoted to it, though. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oprah

Did they link the Oprah forum post with the "Over 9000..." post to Anonymous? And even if they did, would it warrant mention on this page? 76.178.221.205 (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not to our knowledge. You could do some research into it, but I haven't found any myself. However, it would certainly warrant mention on this page if it would first warrant mention on another verifiable source. News media services would be preferred. --Cast (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous

This article is fucking retarded, because of several so called "facts" that the media has decided to spread around:

1) anonymous is not a group
2) anonymous is not a person
3) anonymous is not even an entity
4) therefore "anonymous" (as a group) cannot be held accountable for raids/protests/etc
5) project chanology is a protest mostly organized by people from "http://www.whyweprotest.net/en/" and they are NOT anonymous
6) anonymous is NOT a fucking group!

Anonymous is a symbol that an individual can choose to use to represent himself, for many reasons. Therefore ANYBODY can be anonymous, even people who have NOTHING to do with the raids and the protests and 4chan, and all of those things listed in this article.

This attempt at labeling anonymous as a certain person or group of people is only bullshit invented by the media to be able to blame somebody, because once you realize that EVERYBODY can be anonymous, things get real fucking scary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.82.23 (talk • contribs) 17:36, June 13, 2009 (UTC),

Completely agreed. But then we have a theoretical issue here. Wikipedia thrives on citations, and although what you wrote is true, if it's not written and cited from a reputable source (with a linky at the bottom of the article), it will hardly get published on the article. We arrive then at the bottom of the issue in this case: what if the truth is not citable?89.96.141.83 89.96.141.83 (talk • contribs)
feel free to find a Reliable source to back up your observations. Unfortunatly wikipedia is not set up for publishing opinions or personal observations because we do not have a method of fact checking those observations. While in cases like this it can become frustrating, it does keep people from turning this into an ED article which rely upon people's unwarented self importance in relation to their opinions. again find a reliable source (that has already done the fact checking) and then it can be included in the article. otherwise nothing will stop someone from claiming your ideas were completely misguided and changing it to their own version of the truth. (ex. "Anonymous is run by a bunch of stoners who congregate on 420chan and discuss livejournal style posts. Sparto is their queen, and every other chan wishes it could be that cool. while other groups claim to belong to Anonymous, they are only 420's clones...")Coffeepusher (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

that's exactly it, though. it's impossible to source because, in it's own right, anonymous doesn't really exist.

Are you kidding? Of course "it" exists, just not how you'd like it to. You want to live by the Wikilaw and say "THIS IS NOT A TRUE THING BECAUSE I CAN'T REALLY SOURCE IT"... and just close your eyes to what they do? "Anonymous" is a group, but the point of being "anonymous" is to not be recognized as such. They have a purpose, and while many of their goals are malicious and silly, they also have viable arguements and opinions against organizations that they disagree with (Church of Scientology, the Iran Election, etc). Open your mind and accept the fact that there are people out there willing to stand up and at least try to make a difference. Don't just go by what you hear on TV, that's the worst type of education. That's why America is how it is, and that's why no one is doing anything about it... because they believe what they're told without questioning the authority. Anonymous exists, whether you like it or not, and because you dislike the sources of their group does not give reason to deny their existence. (proudly signed by... )Gpia7r (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
it doesn't have a consistant doctrine...it doesn't have consistant threads of doctrine (sects)...no collective goals...no qualifying critieria...no interaction between members irl...no real goal oriented interactions on the web (ok, sure there are raids, but the Scientology raids are the only ones that any significant group actually participated in and those are what this article is about). so outside of the Alcoholics Anonymous "you are a member if you say you are a member" qualification (and AA has a lot more qualifying criteria of a group) it really isn't a orgonization, group, or ideology...I guess you could qualify it with the chans, but thats like belonging to a group of people who the only thing you have in common is you have all been to the capital building in washington DC. so while the Anonymous that is in this article is a group, the one you are talking about isn't.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

awful article

the article makes it seem like this is a real organized group that is fighting for a just cauze while it really is just a group of websites. it trivilizes actual organizations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.120.202 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss out on the discussions above yours? Gpia7r (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(moved to a subsection of "the discussion above" --Enric Naval (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC))

Should Anonymous be linked to Encyclopedia Dramatica? Encyclopedia Dramatica does have things about anonymous like gags and such, but anonymous is not directly linked to ED, Anon is linked more to message boards than to Prank wiki's like ED, Internet memes have nothing to do with Anon group, but only with Anon 4chan and futaba and the such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.0.189 (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


ok, this isn't encyclopedia dramatica. one of the problems with what you are suggesting is that wikipedia requires Reliable sources for information to be included, for reasons as stated in a post above (please read the whole of the discussion page). if you can provide sources that aknowladge what you are proposing, then we can discuss a reogonization of the article...otherwise you are just another of a long line of single perpose accounts who complained without working with the system.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[name removed]

How come on the portion about Dusty the cat, it says that "Timmy" was actually identified as K.G.? Why doesn't it say he was identified as [name removed]? I know he may be a minor, but he deserves to have his name posted for the world to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.53.244 (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if he deserves something or not, but wikipedia is not for lynching people in the name of Internet Justice. We have this higher goal of building a free online compilacion of encyclopedic knowledge for all humanity, and we shouldn't be profiting of its high visibility to further other goals. Specially since this could poison how the project is viewed in the outside, poison the fund-raising activities and cause people to stop contributing content in disgust at how the encyclopedia is being used. (In other words, this is not Encyclopedia Dramatica, lol).
Also, we have a policy about living persons that applies to all namespaces (articles, talk pages, user pages, project pages, etc). You might want to look at WP:BLP#Other_considerations, I think that the sections names sort of speak by themselves: "Presumption in favor of privacy", "People who are relatively unknown", "Articles about people notable only for one event" (the article about the minor was deleted due to that specific section), "Privacy of personal information", "Privacy of names". There is another section called "Information about minors" which links to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy (see under "Final decision").
Finally, notice the important difference between "information" and "(encyclopedic) knowledge". In this case, you can remove the name of the minor (information) without affecting the narration that Anonymous once made Internet Justice on someone who mistreated their cat and that this made it to the news because it was a new type of distributed anonymous vigilante justice that the Internet has brought upon us (knowledge). Also, the enclyclopedia is supposed to be educative, and using the full name of the minor does not make the article more educative. (sorry for very long post, it's so new people arriving here get the idea)) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palins e-mails

I heard somewhere that this group or another group called "Anonymous" was the group behind hacking into Palins e-mails. Is that true?--Dudeman5685 (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Im 12 and what is this?

How STUPID is bbc??!?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.68.195 (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please add this minor edit

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello, I have decided to edit this page because as all the previous posters have said, there is alot wrong with it. It is informative but quite biased. I have tried to tidy it up as much as possible. But I am sure more can be done with it. Thanks Selavy

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. You're basically asking to replace the entire contents, which is kind of outside the scope of a semi-protected edit request. Can you detail the actual changes in a 'please change X to Y' way and resubmit the request? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE ADDED AFTER ARCHIVAL: The IP had posted a whole article here, and it was breaking the page structure. See his original post for his text. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation Digeridie

I tried getting on the PM's website just now (1.44 am) and it appears to be down. I reckon it's a follow up attack to the 09/09 attacks, and there are a few twitter messages saying it might be happening too. Not really planning on editing the main article till it gets linked by a real news page, but who knows if it will. Creat0r (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Interested to see if they make the news again. Ottre 06:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"The blacklisting of Krautchan.net in Germany infuriated many," Krautchan was not blacklisted. The site was temporarily shut down by the admins who put up the stop sign instead. Someone please correct this. --84.157.55.66 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not Neutral

This is always going to be so, with scientologist's defaming their enemies, and the other side as well. But there should as least be a mention of scientology at the first three paragraphs, that must look at.

in my opinion Scientology is only related to the group anonymous through Project Chanology which has its own article (which is larger than this one). I believe that there has been a few discussions about merging the two, but consensus has shown to leave them separate. otherwise I don't believe it should be in the lead since Scientology it actually doesn't play that large of a part otherwise.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Digeridie

Aparantly Anon are planning an attack on the austrailian government because of their new cencorship plan.

I think this deserves a section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trampdistrict (talk • contribs) 15:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This needs a reliable source for inclusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's this. http://insurgen.info/wiki/Operation_Didgeridie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.29.34 (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
And better, http://09-09-2009.org/ http://nocleanfeed.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.29.34 (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
please read WP:RS. You will notice that wiki's don't qualify, neither do self published websites. While I do understand that someone may in fact be planning an attack on the austrailian government, Wikipedia is not a place for all information everywhere, it is an encyclopedia and not your personal dissemination websiteCoffeepusher (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
your understanding of WP:RS fails. self-published sources are reliable about discussing themselves. Also, how is this http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2687680.htm as a source? 24.57.69.180 (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
actually I did read wikipedia's rules on including self published sources perhaps you should check again. some self published sourses are at times allowed, but they have to come from stable sources, the ones you have mentioned are not stable at all nor can we determine who the authors are "but it is anonymous, and we are legion"...well fine, but "legion" has not been stable and is not really reliable even when it is discussing itself (unless you want us to include the sources calling you guy's moralfags and not actually affiliated with the real anonymous). you may also want to check the archived discussion to find out what the consensus has been regarding sources before you claim my understanding faied, I have.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Digeridie was made of fail. They took down some aussie servers for 7 minutes. Not noteworthy enough for inclusion. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous in relation to Prject Chanology versus unrelated Anon

I think that the article is starting to show its age. Project Chanology is now a very minor movement within anon, openly ridiculed by the majority. The article should be edited to show what Anonymous has done since Chanology, as it has been more than a year since Chanology was a central feature of Anonymous. As is often the problem with internet subcultures, Anonymous has evolved quicker than the wikipedia page on it, and no longer resembles the information included here. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that Throwaway. The idiots here still seem to think Anon is a "group". 203.171.199.156 (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Sources? Ah wait, you were blocked right? I'd actually like to see both sides of this, as I'm very interested in it. When (if) you start editing again, I'd like to read more so we can incorporate it into the article. I doubt this editor is going to come back though, he used multiple IPs to get a block as well (common here, I guess). Anyways, as a notice to other editors, I think we should expand on what Throwaway85 has stated. Project Chanology is quite old and it would be interesting to get some more input on more recent activity. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Habbo source

This Wired blog can be a citation for the Habbo activity. [26]

eBaum's World

I suggest that the wording of the sentence in the section -Composition-

"A common tactic of Anonymous is to claim during "raids" that they are the work of eBaum's World, a site highly detested by Anonymous for alleged theft of content from other sites."

The content theft by Ebuams is confirmed to be more the alleged, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBaum%27s_World#Copyright_infringement

There are multiple references and citations to the story there, so therefore the sentence in this article about EBaums is less the factual and needs to be revisied in my opinion. On that note they is no reference or confirmation that Anonymous is in the practice of 'blaming' Ebaums, that too needs reference, which if there is none then the whole sentence needs to be removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBaum%27s_World#Copyright_infringement

Downside and malicious, criminal activities of Anonymous

I think it would be worth mentioning that many people who claim to be part of Anonymous also raid and harass single persons or hack their online accounts for fun. Be it because these victims have an uncommon sexual fetish, are part of a specific music scene, have some kind of disability or just plain because they have an account on a social networking website. Many *chan message boards have an openly accessible "invasion" forum where website addresses and personal information of the victims are published.

Gathering together in the name of Anonymous is not always for a good cause. It's also a sociopathic behaviour to hurt and slander a random harmless person just for the lulz. 188.60.224.65 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if this was true, but we can only include information that we have a reliable source for. --Six words (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say, this article might need an NPOV tag. It's a send-up of Anonymous, far from being neutral. 99.234.182.107 (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty Neutral to me. No lol-speak even. imagine if it was written in the verse of ceiling cat. "and unto the church of scientology anonymous said "you can't haz mah cheezburger." A real chore for any article or description of Anonymous is finding out whether or not Anonymous really was responsible, or a group/individual claiming to be Anonymous. --74.131.91.57 (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Operation: Greatest An Hero

I think that a section should be made for Operation: Greatest An Hero, a fairly recent act by Anonymous in which mass ballot-stuffing was employed to shake up Gamespot's hero polls. For those unfamiliar with what happened, /b/ and /v/ collaborated to push Bub and Bob from the Bubble Bobble series up in votes, partially for that exact purpose but also in order to make sure big-name characters like Master Chief and Sonic were knocked out. The aformentioned characters were successfully defeated, but the operation ultimately ended in failure when /v/ and /b/ had a falling out in which /v/ in general voted for Samus as a ridicule-based response to /b/'s dedication to the effort. In the end, Gordon Freeman from the Half-Life series was the victor. In short, I believe that Operation: Greatest An Hero is a big enough event to note on the Anonymous (group) page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre LeSauceplz (talk • contribs) 20:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not about what you believe or what we approve. It's about whether this has third party sources. (Pro tip: It doesn't.) Until this story gets picked up by the mainstream press as a notable event (which it probably wont, because it isn't) it won't be added here. --Cast (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It hasn't been picked up by mainsteam. "Pour The Sauce Please" is the source. ;) --Recoilism (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Recently removed text

The following text was recently removed from the article for being unsourced:

The news report became the source of many internet memes and was mocked by Anonymous. Among the mocked features of the report were the stock footage used of an exploding van, the hyperbole and alarmist phrases used to describe the idea of anonymity, naming Anonymous as a domestic terrorist organization, and the suggestion that buying a dog and curtains could protect victims from Anonymous.

If anyone has a reference for this material, or feels like looking for such a reference, it could be added back in. DigitalC (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was mocked on 4chan/7chan so the posts originally containing the mocking have long long since cycled off into the distant sunset never again to be seen by the eyes of mortals. Trust me, it was mocked throughly.--74.131.91.57 (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
If one looks carefully, there are lots of gag photos of vans marked /b/, and other mockery of that report.98.210.96.67 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

cyber assault

Verona man admits role in attack on Church of Scientology's websites. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/verona_man_admits_hacking_chur.html. --Recoilism (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding Brian Thomas Mettenbrink not just Guzner. "The 20-year-old is accused of participating in the attack from his Iowa State University dorm room, according to the indictment." --Recoilism (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Guzner sentenced: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZx5MaXVm7cYrXW5R7q1i1UZNuIgD9C25LHO0. --Recoilism (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia being hacked by anonymous

Has anonymous ever attacked wikipedia? Hmstrrnnr (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's no source, it hasn't. ;) Eugeniu Bmsg 03:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Wrong, just because there's no source doesn't mean it hasn't happened. You're using original research which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. The correct thing for an editor to say here is: If there no source, it cannot be written into the aricle. --Recoilism (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Relax, Recilism. I was making a joke, warning against original research. Eugeniu Bmsg 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. I bet a mainstream source could be generated if Wikipedia wanted to make any cyberattack known publicly. (Original Research) ;) --Recoilism (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
To give a proper answer, roaming bands of /b/tards occasionally take it upon themselves to vandalize. No large-scale raid or /i/nvasion has ever taken place. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Well said, Wordsmith. Eugeniu Bmsg 05:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course the occasional B-tard coming through can't even really be said to be an attack/effort of Anonymous because they're just a b-tard or 4 unless in large numbers. --74.131.91.57 (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Who isn't Anonymous?

If Anonymous is a completely open group of random, anonymous individuals, isn't any anonymous individual or group legitimately Anonymous? Yet the article treats claims that some anonymous groups are in fact not really Anonymous as worthy of consideration. The article should either explain the conditions under which one can legitimately claim to be Anonymous or consistently reflect the fact that there are no limitations to such claims. – Lakefall (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify exactly what parts of the article imply there are conditions? Adambro (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes the article talks about "members of Anonymous" almost as if Anonymous had an official membership, but other times it merely talks about "individuals identifying as" or "claiming to speak for Anonymous" as if these people might not really be Anonymous. Additionally in the Epilepsy Foundation forum invasion section people who are from Anonymous appear to be stating some other people are not really from Anonymous, but the article gives no indication that these views cannot be valid due to the nature of Anonymous. – Lakefall (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the people who are part of Anonymous are those who say they are, no more, no less. Eugeniu B +1 19:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if what you said is correct or not, but, for a reader who is not aware of what you said, "individuals who identified themselves as Anonymous" or "individuals claiming to speak for Anonymous" sounds less certain than "members of Anonymous" even if they all mean the exact same thing. Furthermore, in the Epilepsy Foundation forum invasion section, the article seems to suggest the possibility that the anonymous group of attackers, who may not have identified themselves as Anonymous, were trying to destroy the good name of Anonymous by pretending to be them. If there really was such a plan and the only thing keeping these framers from actually being Anonymous is that they never once claimed to be, its quite an epic fail from their part. – Lakefall (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is the origins section states: "Anonymous broadly represents the concept of any and all people as an unnamed collective." This is also the general idea I have of Anonymous. Yet, from the later parts of the article, I'm getting the idea that only the people who participate on discussions on specific web boards and use certain internet memes are likely to be Anonymous and even then they might be just wannabes. How is it even possible to be a wannabe in this case? Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but I still think there is some kind of a contradiction. – Lakefall (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you should go ahead and change it. Remember, being bold is very much encouraged. Eugeniu B +1 05:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Habbo Raid

The "GREAT HABBO RAID OF 2006" happened on JULY 12, 2006, not June as the article lists. I can't edit the main page. --Noxilerm (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find a source for it being in either June or July. Can you provide one?

This Article needs more criticism

Everyone knows anonymous are bunch of overblown losers who think there cool by wearing juvinile masks and trying to insite fear into the hearts of innocent people. This article lacks criticism.--24.126.122.204 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kind of Ironic that an Anonymous IP Editor would make a negative trollish statement on this page.Nefariousski (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
something, wp:policy said there not a forum/opinion column so on so forth about not taking a stance and being encyclopedic by insiting smrtelligence into peopl so, no, this article doesn't need criticism 116.76.10.159 (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOT#FORUM talks about that, but I think it would be more important to point out WP:NPOV here. Eugeniu B +1 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Also WP:VER for the "bunch of overblown losers" thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
'Overblown losers thing'? Eugeniu B +1 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It's in the first comment of this section. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Look up the page for al-qaeda, then tell me that this page needs "moar criticism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.23.25 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

JoshU2ber/joshchristian100

(For a big explanation of what I'm talking about, look here.)
Should we add this to the article when it's all over? Raiespio (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't watch it because the video has been removed from Youtube. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
(after googling the account names) This needs to be cited from reliable sources. It can't be sourced from personal youtube videos. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

YouTube Porn Day

The following line is incorrect: 'BBC News reported that one victim posted a comment saying: "I'm 12 years old and what is this?" which went on to become an internet meme.'

I watched the BBC news report in question and I can say that the saying "I'm 12 years old and what is this?" was around LONG before youtube porn day. The user who left that comment was almost certainly not a 12 year old child who watched one of the videos but was infact a "chan" user. There is a (short) discussion on the origin of the meme in the discussion page of the corresponding encyclopaedia dramatica article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praetorian65 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You and I both know its true, but the sources we have indicate otherwise. We can't use ED as a source, even though it is generally reliable about the history of memes. As much as I would like to indicate the BBC;s falsehood, I can't unless another news source does. Someone should write a book on memes or something. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
That's just silly, the second I saw the last sentence ""I'm 12 years old and what is this?"[56] which went on to become an internet meme" I came right here to the discussion page to say something. I laughed when I heard the reporter say it because I knew it was just a channer yanking their chain, that meme has been around for a while. Certainly someone must have a source, or at least we can put in the right info and ask for a citation GravyFish (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a bit silly, yes, but we must go by the sources (even if we know they're wrong). If you can find a better source (that's not ED) then please do. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It was born on the imageboards AFAIK therefore due to the retention of the boards we are unlikely to find a source that mentions it. I will do my best to find a source though, perhaps a board archive. Wait out. Praetorian65 (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, ED seems to agree that the meme started with Youtube Porn Day, "Simply put, this little pearl of wisdom came out of the BBC's report on the EPIC 4chan raid on YouTube when torrents of p3rn rained down on the unsuspecting masses." (ED:I'm 12 years old and what is this -- I would post the link but Wikipedia is censoring it). Also, 4chaarchive's first reference to "12 years old and what is this" is May 29,2009 (http://www.google.com/search?q=%2212+years+old+and+what+is+this%22+site%3A4chanarchive.org%2F). Korin43 (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tone

Could someone please edit the tone of this article? It reads more like an advertisment than a description.I propose this instead of what's there

The term anonymous, when associated with website graffiti/hacking[3] or server overload using bots[[27]] is normally adaapted by users who frequent messsage/image board which allow users to post anonymously. These boards include 4chan, Futaba and Ebaums world.[4]

I think the rest of text in the introduction is unecessary and can be included in the first heading.

Origin as a Concept and Meme.

I haven't done this change myself because I am unlikely to ever be classed as a fegaular user as I don't edit this site often enough! Thank you

194.66.229.8 (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)R Selavy

Titstorm

Should Operation Titstorm be listed under Hacktivism here or on a page for Project Freeweb? Anon was more involved than Freeweb, but Freeweb organized it. [ dotKuro ] [ talk ] [ contribs ] 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, what do independent reliable secondary sources have to say about it? Cirt (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Imprisoned members

Removed this, as UNDUE WEIGHT about non-notable WP:BLPS. If included in the article at all, it should be within the relevant sections for which the individuals were involved in initiatives by the group, in paragraph/prose format, not list format with its own separate subsection. Cirt (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Only I'd rather say "relevant sections or articles". In the latter case "See also" would work. Mukadderat (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Nod. If notable, perhaps. Cirt (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Notabilty goes without saying everywhere in wikipedia. Mukadderat (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh I thought you were referring to individual possible articles that do not yet exist. -- Cirt (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

YouTube channel for current Zeitgeist op; No Source?

An edit I made around 24 hours ago, pointing to a YouTube channel where a current Anonymous operation is being conducted against the Zeitgeist Movement, has been reverted, with a claim of no source. I do not understand. The YouTube channel itself is the source, and it is directly verifiable due to the link itself. A message has been released addressed to the Zeitgeist Movement, which is almost identical to the Chanology message that was initially directed at Scientology.

Can anyone explain to me what the problem here is? Can someone also please actually answer this, rather than simply reverting it as well?

Petrus4 (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, independent reliable secondary sources are preferred. -- Cirt (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. I could create a channel today, upload a video, and call myself Anonymous. But for inclusion on Wikipedia, we would need to have independent sources such as mainstream news media websites that recognize my channel as closely related to or representing "Anonymous". Sorafune +1 21:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism / Controversy Section

In all fairness, (almost) all highly political articles I've come across appear to have a paragraph on criticism. There is none to be found here. There has been a plethora of accusations and criticism hurled at Anonymous. Almost none are to be found here. Although, many accusations against Anonymous have been proven to be false, I think it's noteworthy to at least mention the controversy surrounding the group - just to be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PLGG1 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Anonymous, together with The Pirate Bay, launched an Iranian Green Party Support site Anonymous Iran."

I find this to be a bit problematic. Technically, "Anonymous" doesn't exist, does it? Makes it sound not-so-factual. "A few anonymous individuals, together with The Pirate Bay..." or something along those lines would be more proper in my opinion, though less relevant. Swiiman (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"members of Anonymous" would be more accurate. People self-identify as members of Anonimous, or as part of Anonymous, even if Anonymous itself doesn't exist in a formal way. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Operation: Payback

This is an on-going raid against various "Intellectual Property" supporting sites, such as MPAA, RIAA, and lawyers who represent them. The raid consists of a mass number of Anonymous, downloading the "Low Orbital Ion Cannon" a tool that allows them to Denial of Service attack various websites, and bring them down. http://tpb.leetbaka.com/ http://tieve.tk/ http://www.rlslog.net/4chan-attacks-mpaas-website-with-ddos/ http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68J09F20100920 http://torrentfreak.com/4chan-ddos-takes-down-mpaa-and-anti-piracy-websites-100918/ (there are also tons of additional sources at tieve.tk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teamcoltra (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

i saw that on the BBC and daily mail. seams notiable Sophie (Talk) 01:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Image

the image used dont exactly show who "anonymous" is a better image perhaps? Sophie (Talk) 01:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The one you selected is better, but I would prefer one of the illustrations that crop up on 4chan, since very few of their activities take place in real life. I'll head over to 4chan and see if someone can appropriately license a new illustration. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Deadlink?

Do we know what happened to the website that is coordinating the most current operation, or should we just remove the dead link and wait for it to be fixed before putting it back up?

–Darkmaster2004talk

23:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Anonymous which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 22:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced additions to page

[28] and [29] = please, do not add unsourced additions to the page, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Caption changed such that it reflects specifically on the source, and is thus cited. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Zetter, Kim (2008-09-17). "Group Posts E-Mail Hacked From Palin Account -- Update". WIRED.COM. Retrieved 2008-09-18.
  2. ^ a b c "Grand jury investigates Palin e-mail hack; no charges yet". Ars Technica. 2008-09-24.
  3. ^ Metz, Cade (2008-09-17). "Anonymous hacks Sarah Palin's Yahoo! account". The Register. Retrieved 2008-09-18.
  4. ^ a b Steve Bosak (2008-09-20). "Suspect Nabbed in Palin E-mail Hack". NewsFactor. Retrieved 2008-09-21.
  5. ^ http://terryfrank.net/?p=3591
  6. ^ UPDATE: FBI serves search warrant against UT student in Palin case
  7. ^ FBI Search The Apartment Of Palin Hack Primary Suspect
  8. ^ Palin Update: Tenn. Student Implicated in Hack
  9. ^ Duncan Mansfield. "Son of Tenn. Democrat indicted in Palin hacking". Wired.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anonymous_(hacker_group)/Archive_2&oldid=1077842393"