Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Beatrice Hall

The quote referring to Beatrice Hall, to my knowledge it was the French 18th century philosopher François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire who first came up with this. Pls, check and correct.

BR/ Shogman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shogman (talk • contribs) 06:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

AnonOps IRC Network

{{Editprotected}} Adding the URL for www.AnonOps.com / www.AnonOps.li / www.AnonOps.info for the network that was and is still used by followers of Anonymous. AnonOps has been made to give a user the access to discuss and conversate details regarding anything related. AnonOps does not allow Child Porn sharing or discussing, I don't think I have to explain why not. AnonOps tries to keep the users privileges and privacy on a high agenda. We also have been DDoS't a lot by people that dislike Anonymous, or AnonOps in itself, but we have withstand most attack we got towards our network. At this time of reading, AnonOps runs on reserves (WebIRC and IPv6 only) cause of DDoS's. Most operations regardin VISA/Mastercard, Sony and some AntiSec activity has been discussed and communicated through via AnonOps, which was being used by every individual and random person to gain information as in what has happened and what is happening at the moment. AnonOps does not allow any botnets or LOIC networks being hosted or controlled via our network.

Maybe create a small part regarding AnonOps's involvement with Anonymous and in which they aren't involved, as AnonOps has been a lot of discussion in the past and still. AnonOps is not Anonymous, we support Anonymous in their work of free-speech, which AnonOps tries to uplift as well.

[Edit] I notice AnonOps Communication blog link in this website. This has no links with AnonOps IRC network, which the site is located at www.anonops.com We do not support this page officially, since we have no idea what it is spreading under the "AnonOps" name handler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P2a2008 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No reliable source given, so we can't edit the article.  Chzz  ►  00:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

Anonymous targeting Lt. John Pike of the UC Davis Police Department

While reviewing news reports for the Occupy UC Davis article, I stumbled upon various reports that Anonymous is now targeting Lt. John Pike of the UC Davis Police Department, and that it had released a YouTube video to that effect. By the time I got to YouTube, the video had been removed as being a violation of YouTube's policy against "hatespeech." - http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-protesters-spray-pike-089/ - // Internet Esquire (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Add Occupy movement wikilink to this article

Add Occupy movement wikilink to this article. See Occupy movement#Background and Occupy Wall Street#Origin for example. 99.181.134.134 (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also see Occupy movement#Weeks 1 - 4 .28September 17 .E2.80.93 October 14.29 (Weeks 1 - 4 (September 17 – October 14, 2011)) which is similar to Occupy Wall Street#Chronology. 99.35.12.139 (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

new source material on Anonymous

"From lulz to collective activism, a history of Anonymous"; and "In lulz we trust: e pluribus Anonymous: an analysis of Anonymous as a social collective and their transformation to media-savvy activists." by Gabriella Coleman, December 1, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tB4onhtAmQ Lucky dog (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is an international hacking group,

That is currently the 1st sentence. I assume/hope the stupidity of it needs no explanation. I can't fix, semi-protected. 92.16.112.90 (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Apparently, Anonymous exists only for the purpose of hacking (of hacking what?). I removed that.

I tried to reword the "international" bit. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous (group)#Reaction from law enforcement agencies

Does this really need to be in its own section? I think each of its subsections should be merged into sections inside Timeline of events involving Anonymous about the individual incidents. As it stands right now it seems confrontational, almost like a WP:CRITICISM section or a WP:POVFORK. 212.87.13.66 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Futaba Channel, the Japanese internet and Anonymous

In the first section there's a paragraph saying "[...] many websites are strongly associated with Anonymous. This includes notable imageboards such as 4chan, Futaba [...]".

I would like to clarify that Futaba Channel, being a site for uploading images usually used by Japanese otaku, has nothing to do with Anonymous as described in this article. Anonymous is pretty much a western exclusive phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.137.24 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Says who? Says you? What authority do you have to claim anything over anything? Anonymous is not limited by boundaries.

Shows what you know. We are not just a Western Movement. "We destroy corruption and bring liberty We are Anonymous We are legion We do not forgive We do not forget Expect us" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.82.70 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I know Futaba Channel (ふたば☆ちゃんねる) very well since I have been there more than a few times. I also understand that Anonymous is an international phenomenon but if there is one country where "Anonymous" does not have a presence, it is Japan. If you search on Google at all for the phrase アノニマス you will find that the only results that you get are the same news articles as you would read in English, albeit translated into Japanese. Not only that, but you will find that when it comes to Japanese articles talking about the attack on Sony, there is not a single positive comment about Anonymous. Pretty much everyone says things like きも or 死ね or something like that - not a single Japanese person said anything positive about Anonymous. There is one good reason for this: Japan, probably more than any other nation, does not understand the concept of how breaking the law at any time could be a positive thing, even if it is a "bad law." By this, I do not necessarily mean the law as written and codified, but more so the informal social laws of "courtesy" (儀礼). The basic mindset is that more important than the individual is the whole of Japanese society, that all Japanese people must be respected (i. e. one must submit oneself to the respect of all others as long as they are Japanese), and this concept extends into the business world as well. Whereas in the West, it makes sense to criticize companies and say they are greedy and do not care about the people, such a concept would not make sense in Japan because the basic thinking goes along the lines that people must promote Japan and the Japanese people, and therefore the idea that corporations would care more about money than the people would not make sense. It would therefore feel natural for every Japanese people to think of all Japanese people and businesses as "extensions of themselves." Therefore, the fact that Sony is Japanese is very important - since Sony is Japanese, any attack on Sony would be thought of as an attack on all the Japanese people. This is different from the U.S., where although Microsoft is a U.S. company, an attack on Microsoft would not necessarily be thought of as an attack on all the U.S. people. Therefore, the very basic notion of Anonymous, the idea of any attack against businesses or even small internet forums, whether it is for a cause, or if it is just "for the LULZ," makes no sense at all to Japanese people. The basic thought in Japan right now about Anonymous is that Anonymous is a foreign crime organization. Whether or not you like the way Japanese people think, this is the way things are. Until I see a good reason why Futaba Channel is relevant to this at all, I shall remove "Futaba Channel" from the list.--A (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the original intent of this mention was that Futuba Channel (2chan) was one of the inspirations of 4chan and other anonymous(adjective) imageboards where Anonymous(group) took root. I'm not sure of a proper way to include this in the article, so I didn't edit. However, I do feel that Futuba played an important role in the development of Anonymous(group), and may deserve a mention here. I don't think that discussions about Japanese culture are relevant here as Futuba channel welcomes international users. Christopher Poole (moot, the American creator of 4chan) was an active user of Futuba channel. "During the creation of 4chan, he obtained the source code for the Futaba Channel website, and translated the Japanese text into English using Altavista's Babelfish online translator." (From the wikipedia 4chan article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan

The anonymous(adj) nature of Japanese imageboards is what lead to the development of Anonymous(group.) Peboki (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not quite true. Only Japanese IPs are allowed on Futaba channel. It was not the Japanese imageboards that led to the develop the group, but rather its importation and adaptation to western culture.A (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link

Is there a reason there is no disambiguation link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.66.82 (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

potential USA Today resource

Iowa GOP worried by hacker threat to caucus vote "With two weeks left before Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, the Iowa Republican Party is taking steps to secure its electronic vote collection system after receiving a mysterious threat to its computers. (Dec. 19 2011)

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

por favor me rackaran e qero minha conta de volta

esse é o e-mail dele (ｖｉｃｔｏｒ＿ｎｅｃａｓ＠ｈｏｔｍａｉｌ．ｃｏｍ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.13.68 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

È a sua palavra contra a desse tal de Victor, vc pode muito bem ser um griefer apenas tentando fazer outras pessoas atacarem seu alvo por vc. (In english: "It's your word against this Victor fellow, for all i know you're a griefer trying to get other people to attack your target for you")

ps: i retyped the email address in the original coment using the fullwidth chars to make it harder for spambots to identify and collect the email without making it completly illegible in case 201.19.13.68 posted this in good faith.

--TiagoTiago (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, 27 Dec 2011

(Add to External links/News coverage:)

• Anonymous 101 Introduction and commentary at Wired

Desertnaut (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Edit request is reasonable and includes good information to help understand Anonymous. DONE! Haseo9999 (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Very strange that the article doesn't mention the attack on Stratfor[1]; influence of Anonymous' PR department? --Túrelio (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Be honest about your history, anonymous

Back when I was 'in Anonymous', from 2006-2009, and since about 2005, it was an extremely cruel and nihilistic prankster group that made a sport of antagonizing people we didn't like. We picked irritating but generally blameless people from the internet, tracked them to their homes, ordered them Ramadamic feasts from local fast-food shops, called them in the middle of the night and blared pop music and anime theme tunes down the phone, harassed their family, stuck their picture all over the internet etc etc. As I remember, in 2008 during the Scientology raids a lot of the members, who had previously been happily doing everything I mentioned, decided that they preferred being shady web vigilantes and split off to form a masturbatory hacktivist sect. Soon after, the last of the popular imageboards (420chan) stopped facilitating the raids and Old Anonymous effectively ended. I wondered if most of the people who are currently in 'Anonymous' joined after the nastiness and are consequently unaware of it. But when I joined your irc server I discovered that most of you were around back then and know full well what we used to do. So, why doesn't this page reflect it?

You even try to portray the Fox News report as silly and unsubstantiated, when everyone knows that the anonymous witness was Alex Wuori, a young lad who we picked on for snitching to raid targets.

Here is some evidence. I'm sure there's plenty more about. http://dnathe4th.porfusion.com/partyvan/07-31-08/index.php/GoddessMine.html http://dnathe4th.porfusion.com/partyvan/07-31-08/index.php/Alex_Wuori.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.76.114 (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I think characterizing Anonymous as an "extremely cruel and nihilistic prankster group" would serve as an extremely large hit against the neutrality of this article. In fact, in my opinion it's quite difficult to characterize the entire group at all; Anonymous is comprised of many different members and organizations. What you're speaking of strikes me as more of a historical account, not an overall group analysis, as this page appears to be. To specifically target activity exhibited by that portion of anonymous is unwise, and, while it is part of this group's history, this page's main purpose is - as I said - to describe the group as a whole as opposed to its separate stages of evolution. I could see a paragraph or so being composed to describe these acts, but the entire tone of the article being changed to shed some light on those acts should not be passed through.

While Anon did make a point of antagonizing enemies to the organization back when you had highlighted, by 2010 it eventually shifted to an activist group as it is described in this article. As for your argument, I agree that it is worth mentioning, as it does make up a large portion of the group's history. Perhaps we could add a few examples of what was mentioned above to the sequence of events on the main page?

--Ryonne (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Your assumptions are off. 'Anon' didn't shift. A small group split off from the tiny section that congregated on 711chan.org. Back in 2007 we estimated that if we canvassed all of our bases -- 7chan, 4chan, a few forums and wikis -- we could organize maybe ten or twenty thousand people for a raid. The new group calling itself Anonymous clearly can't get more than a few hundred people together at once (note it's use of non-members with the LOIC botnet, something we never would have had to resort to back in the day), and what it does do is pretty inconsequential: knocking down low-priority government websites might get a lot of attention from the tech-ignorant mainstream media who think it's on the same level as hacking, but it rarely troubles the operations of the target. When we attacked the Scientology offices in 2007, we didn't just knock off a few frivolous websites for an afternoon, we brought a large chunk of the organization to a stop. Phones were bombed around the clock, fax machines were squeezed of all their ink by endless black-faxing. When we attacked Gamestop in similar ways we pretty much bankrupted a few of their outlets. The point i'm trying to make is the current iteration is a very small section remnant of an organization which is mostly extinct. It's only notable feature is the extremely hyperbolic and exaggerated coverage it gets in the media. I don't think there should be an article at all, as there is no reliable documentary record. But if there is, the current operations should be a subsection of it.

I'm calling samefag. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's my understanding (as an outside observer) that what happened can be summed like this: there were a bunch of trolls, at one point they trolled someone/some group for more reasons than just for the lulz and a significant portion of those trolls found it quite enjoyable to use their favorite hobby, either alone or in a social context (even if techinicly anonymous, they could still be interacting with like minded individuals), to help a cause they feel is worth their time. (I'm not using the word "troll" here in a derogatory sense, i just mean people that take pleasure in poking others and watching them squirm) --TiagoTiago (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a significant portion. Like I said, it's much smaller than the original group. I don't think that they have an ethical base. The Scientology raid was mostly about self-aggrandizement; we were obsessed with getting attention from the media. 'This isn't win until it's in a major newspaper' was our slogan for a time. If the media stopped reporting on it, the group would wither away. 94.2.237.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC).

2011 Oslo explosion

Hi, I have read in some websites that Anonymous has claimed responsibility. Is this so? can anyone confirm? Thank you very much. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.80.228 (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Camilo, WTF ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.148.184 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2012

Could you investigate who created the youtube account NHLiberty4Paul and expose them? thanks anonymous.

76.182.20.62 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not anonymous, this isn't the right place for your request--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous nominated for Shorty Award in category Activism

Suggest adding that Anonymous has been nominated for a Shorty Award in Activism for 2012 award cycle. Shorty Activism Award NominationArishiaNishi (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

wow

I visited this page a few months ago, and it was much better and detailed than it is today. That is very disappointing. I wonder who was responsible for its demise?? 74.241.95.91 (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - their goal is not to promote digital piracy

It doesn't state in either apparently quoted article that they have a goal of "promoting digital piracy" as is stated to be in: [4][5]

5 doesn't even mention them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.206.226 (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The BBC calls them "Piracy activists" and The Telegraph says "Pro-piracy sympathisers".

"Piracy activists have carried out coordinated attacks on websites owned by the music and film industry. ... The attacks were declared on notorious message-board 4chan and were reportedly in retaliation for anti-piracy efforts against file-sharing websites."^[2]

"Pro-piracy sympathisers have launched distributed denial of service attacks against a number of high-profile music and movie industry websites".^[3]

There are lots more sources via Google — ThePowerofX 17:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it was WP:OR. Someone else deleted that info completely but it was at least partly ok, so I rewrote it to say what the sources say. Night Ranger (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous isn't one "group" of a select number of individuals, if you've actually read this very article. It makes no sense to say that Anonymous are "Pro-piracy sympathisers", and those at BBC and The Telegraph are doing a horrible job at reporting. See also Talk:Megaupload#Retaliatory attacks by Anonymous. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What makes sense is multiple reliable sources that observe a tendency on behalf of Anonymous to defend pirates or people accused of copyright infringement. — ThePowerofX 11:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Define "Anonymous". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not my job. At Wikipedia, we determine the essential quality of something through the use of reliable sources. — ThePowerofX 11:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WSJ resource

• Retaliation Fears Spur Anonymity in Internet Case January 28, 2012 by Devlin Barrett; excerpt ...

  Federal law-enforcement officials say they are concerned about cyber-retaliation against agents and prosecutors, in light of suspicions that people linked to the hacker collective Anonymous targeted the private life of a government official investigating WikiLeaks.

99.181.159.67 (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done too much work, next time please summarize the article in your own words as well. The quotation is fantastic though, a big help. So please use your wikimarkup skills to do something I can just cut'n'paste, cool ? Penyulap _talk 13:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Case Syria

"The emails were hacked by the cyber group Anonymous and leaked to the Israeli news organisation Haaretz".[4] Kartasto (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 February 2012

quote 37 is incorrect in that the Wired post used for the quote does not call Anonymous a bored group of 15 year-olds, it is calling the participants in the chat channel bored 15 year-olds

75.74.167.200 (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. I don't read that the same way you seem to be reading it, but what is it you would like the line to say? Celestra (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Read the report, gave what I hope is a fair summary, feel free to edit or suggest further edits. Penyulap _talk 13:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

An Internet meme

According to article: "Anonymous is an Internet meme that originated in 2003..."

The source[5] do not say anything like that, is it an internet meme or not? How about the year 2003?

Kartasto (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

They are definitely not an internet meme... there will be many sources available that say they are a loose-knit activist group. 03jkeeley (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous started on 4chan.org. It is considered a meme because of how "Anonymous" is referenced on there. When a person leaves a comment or thread, it leaves it as "Anonymous". People began to joke about it and thus "Anonymous" is born. I will link to a source in a later update.Tuxmascot (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove the "LOIC" Section

Can we remove the LOIC section of the page? We are talking about Anonymous as a vigilant group of people. We are NOT talking about the tools they use to perform the act. We need to talk about what Anonymous has done, not what they use to get the deed done. Tuxmascot (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

To add, I don't see how the LOIC section adds to the background part of the page. LOIC has nothing to do with Anonymous. They even stopped using it and switched to SlowLORIS and HOIC. This should be removed. Tuxmascot (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Could I see an RS on the claim that they don't use it? Also, that section is notable because it was used prominently in Operation Payback

A Dirty Watermelon (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be in the article, per A Dirty Watermelon, maybe Tuxmascot can suggest a better presentation of the information ? Penyulap _talk 13:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What should be done is how the use of LOIC led to the arrest of several Anons that used this tool. That is why they stopped using it. If you visit in any Anonymous Op, you will see that they say to NOT use LOIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxmascot (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Update Required - 07/04/2012 Attack on UK Home Office Website in Retaliation for Plans to Spy on Private Email Data

Source: BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17648852). The hacking group Anonymous is alleged to have blocked access to the Home Office website, apparently in response to government plans for e-mail surveillance. The website has been blocked; earlier a message was posted blaming what it described as a high volume of traffic. A message on Twitter claiming to be from Anonymous said it was responsible. The tweet said: "For your draconian surveillance proposals!" Earlier in the week the Home Office said it planned to "legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows" to bring in email surveillance measures.Ministers say change is needed to help fight crime and terrorism, but critics warn it is an attack on privacy. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said on Tuesday the government would not "ram legislation through Parliament" to increase monitoring of emails and web usage, Nick Clegg has said. A Home Office spokesman said: "We are aware of some reports that the Home Office website may be the subject of an online protest. "We have put all potential measures in place and will be monitoring the situation very closely. If a successful denial of service attempt does occur tonight, we will liaise with the technical team and update as necessary," he added. 80.42.233.107 (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)twl80.42.233.107 (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Group

I would think that Wikipedia could be allowed to not be nuetral on the subject of anonymous.-Anonymous Since when has Anonymous been a group? And how is it a group? It by no means fills the definition of social group.Glajaklsgjkd (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

THIS (call it an anti-group, movement, mindset or whatever) Zoef1234 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Call it a movement. I think that's the best description of an 'organization' like this (but it's not really organized enough to be an organization) -A friend (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous hate the Scientology religion. They protest out of the Scientology church. Anonymous always wear masks. Some people think that most of them are Mexican. They do not like the U.S. Congress. [ Enter SOPA OR PIPA] to find out more about the U.S. Congress and what they are changing on the internet. Many people are joining the people in the Anonymous group. They protest in a lot of parts in the world. They also, hate the U.S Goverment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.249.246 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Infact, referring to it as Anonymous only would be much better as it is quite random bunch of people. Glajaklsgjkd (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So, it is not a group, it is a bunch? DigitalC (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a group, nor a bunch, it's a name and a label. Anyone who wants can simply "claim" to be part of anonymous or not at any given time, for any reason. Because of this trying to attribute anything that anyone does in the name of "Anonymous" to "Anonymous" as though it were one entity is meaningless. It's like trying to say that "Author Unknown" is one single person, which ironically is one of the tongue-in-cheek jokes on which the "Anonymous" name and concept took off. In fact, with no membership structure it becomes impossible to have a criticism section on any of Anonymous's actions because trying to hold "Anonymous" as responsible for anything its self-proclaimed members do would be an exercise in stupidity. If President Obama were to sign a bill into law and claim that he did it as a member of "Anonymous", could "Anonymous" be held responsible for the bill being signed into law? No, because Anonymous is nothing more than a label. All we have here are a bunch of individuals who went out, did things, and all gave themselves the same name, or lack thereof as the case may be. As such, the article should reflect this, and rather than treating "Anonymous" as any kind of entity, simply identify it as a concept and label to which many people have attached themselves. As it is, the article appears to have unsourced implications that the people which committed one act in the name of "Anonymous" had something to do with the people who committed other acts. All we know is that they both used the same name, or lack thereof.Ziiv (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous isn't a group. Anonymous is a brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.215.107 (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What authority do you have to put any label on anything? Anonymous is beyond a "group" or a "brand" - it is an idea. An idea of freedom. An idea of true justice. How is that a "brand?" Please elaborate. Also, elaborate on what gives you the authority to label anything. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.148.184 (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous may or may not be an organization, it may or may not be consistent from day to day, but it is a group. "In the social sciences a social group can be defined as two or more humans who interact with one another, share similar characteristics and collectively have a sense of unity." Two or more, yup. Interaction, yup. Similar characteristics? How about using the same name and the LOIC? Sense of unity? Can't get much more hive minded than a bot net. Peboki (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Group used in the above context is not practical or meaningful in common conversation (as used by the media such as the Fox 11 report) where "group" is used as interchangeable with "organization" which is the exact polar opposite of Anonymous. The shared traits of Anonymous are exactly one trait "no identity" and nothing else. And by lacking identity it defies conventional concepts that we use to identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.249.69 (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the best information on Anonymous I have read so far. our weirdness is free by Gabriella Coleman (on Triple Canopy) Perhaps someone who is a real writer will find it useful in improving this entry. If providing resource material here is inappropriate, PM me and I'll stop ArishiaNishi (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I support changing this from group to movement. Off the top of Google here is an article from this month describing it that way. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-02-14/anonymous-hacks-tear-gas/53087858/1 , There are several groups claiming to be anonymous. A few of these could be considered the founding members of the movement. I do believe at its current scale, it is a movement. Gsonnenf (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also in the support of changing it from group to movement. This makes much more sense. A group proliferates a hierarchy, while there is no hierarchy in the Anonymous movement.Tuxmascot (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Movement is definitely better. 213.163.65.50 (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: move sections under "Activities" to Timeline of events involving Anonymous

The Timeline of events involving Anonymous was created so that we could list their activities there, so why do we have the "activities" section in this article? Tschis (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Every article needs to be self contained, the subject is covered in this article as part of the topic of this article, the sub article covers only that topic by itself. Usually, but not always, the sub article has more detail than the main article. Penyulap ☏ 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

meme, really?

please change from internet meme to self described hacktivist group. more accurate from what Ive read — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.86.95 (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Things can have many different names, appearances, methods and purposes. A rock can be a paperweight, a weapon, a seat or a flour grinder. A stick is kindling and a dog toy, and also a lever. Anonymous is any number of combinations of any number of people doing any imaginable thing that people can do. No label is any more or less accurate than the rest. As long as it's sourced, it belongs in the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Penyulap ☏

Anonymous isn't a group. It's a "mass noun" like the article says. Anyone can be Anonymous. For example the group that launched the attack on the British Government's website just recently have absolutely no connection to the group that attacked Sony's websites and Playstation Store. The only thing that connects them is the name Anonymous. The group who attacked the British Government's website will simply have heard of attacks by Anonymous in the past and thought "Hey that sounds cool, let's do that!".

What Anonymous is, at it's most basic level, is a way for computer criminals to taunt their victims after the fact. They're saying "Haha, you can't get me!" And they can afford to do that because they're protected by their anonymity, hence the name Anonymous.

Of course, they aren't really protected by their anonymity. Not completely. They just like to think they are. They can be found, some more easily than others, as is evidenced by all of the raids and arrests. But the problem law enforcement agencies have when it comes to Anonymous is that most of them are morons. They simply cannot grasp any of what I've just said. They think that because the name Anonymous is used by a multitude of people, that they all must be connected. It MUST be an organization of some sort. So they end up trying to track a group that simply doesn't exist, when really they should just be tracking down individuals like it's any other case of computer crime. Because it is just any other case of computer crime. The name Anonymous is just tagged on as a sort of anarchistic "Fuck you".--77.103.237.230 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous China?

I'm curious whether the editors who frequent this page have any intention to describe the group's China 'chapter,' so to speak. Since its launch a couple weeks ago it has been quite active (and extraordinarily ambitious).[6] Homunculus (duihua) 03:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 April 2012

One idea. To equality. Schematics not available in hard copy.

124.180.119.9 (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Celestra (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Rtnews template

I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). Penyulap ☏ 03:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This article has multiple issues

In the DOS days software was created & distributed for free via the dialup zmodem fidonet networked BBS systems, even electronic music was created & distributed for free, this was known as filesharing, later came licensing or registration fees & this is why warez groups & warez legions were formed to crack the software, its not software piracy, its simply keeping the system accountable as a opensource community as it was originally created, if the program is not opensource then most likely it is useless. The Warez community migrated over to the internet but they broke the creed for they utilised a network which wanted specific information about people, like real name, email, drivers license & so forth, their is no need to interrogate people. With BBS systems all you did was provide a username so you could communicate with other people on the BBS, you did not have to provide a passcode, drivers license, email, real name, just your cybername & the system worked well before it was corrupted. Their is no way humanity will evolve unless opensource technologies are employed.

The people who created the codebase to the IMC Independent Media Centres used anonymous names & this codebase was used as the engine of wikipedia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEe7qhlFNs4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.212.227 (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

File:NoActaColor.jpg

Remove this image. There is no indication (or source for it) that it has been actually used by Anonymous. Wikipedia is not a place to post OC. 212.87.13.66 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Done ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Footnote 2 link no longer active

Footnote 2 link should be changed to this URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20090207141954/http://www.cityonahillpress.com/article.php?id=1050

Nevermind. It's working now. Must have been the connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.98.63 (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Operation Phobos-Gone?

There is a new Anonymous operation being set up. It is called Operation Phobos-Gone. It's on blogspot and twitter ever since. I cannot add it because there's no reliable source for it. 115.135.144.255 (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies require a reliable source, twitter and blogspot are generally not reliable. All I can find are what look like user created entries on pastebin and blogspot, with zero references from any reliable source. In fact, I now strongly suspect they are wholly made up by one person. -84user (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Starkiller88 (talk · contribs) admitted to making the whole thing up when I took a few redirects he'd created to RfD, but he still won't drop it. From this edit it is blatantly obvious that the IP who started this discussion section is a sockpuppet. I've sent Starkiller a level 4 warning for long-term vandalism (between this and his insistence that there will never be another mission to Phobos at any time in the future - both of which appear to be WP:POINT responses to BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs) and myself removing OR which he inserted into Fobos-Grunt - he's been little but disruptive since January). If he does it again, just go straight to AIV or ANI. --W. D. Graham 22:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous Operation

Prompted by Talk:Anonymous Operation, I have redirected that wholly unsourced article to this one, Anonymous (group). Although I found reliable sources for the network AnonOps and connections with the Anonymous "brand", I found nothing for the specific name "Anonymous Operation". Sources for anonops connection: [7] , [8]. -84user (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2012

Typo change under Membership.

Please change "Anonymous is spread over m any " to "Anonymous is spread over many "

. The problem is just the space in "many"

 Fixed Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

vreau sa intru in organizatie

82.77.143.212 (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done da fuk? Egg Centric 21:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A kid in Arlington is a Anonymous and FBI are looking for him.

A kid in Arlington is a Anonymous and FBI are looking for him. His name start with sac but they only know that. I BEG YOU GUYS TO help the kid Anonymous.please help the kid guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.4.142 (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

other lang

kindly add hi:एनोनिमस . thanks --101.214.61.138 (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

I'm not sure if it's just for me, but the quote from trent peacock in the "Origins as a concept and a meme" part of the "background section of the arcticle is decentralized. It's pretty noticeable since the text is "invading" the image. PS. RULE 1 AND 2 DO NOT TALK ABOUT ANONYMOUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.30.9 (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2012

There are some incorrect details under the 'Sony' heading. Anonymous were not responsible for the attacks as a collective, one AWOL member went off and conducted the attacks alone and was exiled from the group immediately afterwards. Anonymous submitted statements saying that they were not responsible, however the lone attacker submitted conflicting statements saying that they were. People shared the ones saying that they were responsible as it was an easy answer and most people who do not know what anonymous truly stand for would assume that they were responsible anyway.

Because of the nature of the anonymous, being that they post all information 'anonymously' there is no way to determine who creates a rumour for fun, who posts an incorrect statement believing themselves to be correct without the backing of other members, and official statements which are discussed in the official anonops internet relay chats and then posted by a respected member.

86.161.230.154 (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I can only find one reference to Sony in the entire article, and that is in the quote box by Marc Garneau. I can't find the Sony heading you're talking about. Could you please be more specific about what needs to be changed? ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggested rewrites

"Overview" The Anonymous members mainly consist of users from multiple imageboards and Internet. they are organised in autonomous cells. This command structure has the advantage that, as most activities undertaken by Anonymous (aka "operations) are illegal some members of Anonymous may be apprehanded over time. The cells typically do not know each other and/or have very little information over other cells, ensuring their continued operation even if a cell is arrested. To eliminate the problem of communication, several wikis and Internet Relay Chat networks are maintained. Some of these IRC communcations use IP-less communication, so as to increase safety. The wikis and IRC networks overcome the limitations of traditional imageboards. These modes of communication are the means by which Anonymous protesters participating in Project Chanology communicate and organize upcoming protests.[16][17]

A "loose coalition of Internet denizens,"[18] the group is banded together by the Internet, through sites such as 4chan,[16][18] 711chan,[16] Encyclopædia Dramatica,[19] IRC channels,[16] and YouTube.[3] Social networking services, such as Facebook, are used for the creation of groups which reach out to people to mobilize in real-world protests.[20]

Anonymous has no leader or controlling party and relies on the collective power of its individual participants acting in such a way that the net effect benefits the group.[18] "Anyone who wants to can be Anonymous and work toward a set of goals..." a member of Anonymous explained to the Baltimore City Paper. "We have this agenda that we all agree on and we all coordinate and act, but all act independently toward it, without any want for recognition. We just want to get something that we feel is important done..."[2] A statement attributed to a member of Anonymous has described Anonymous as containing every belief and lifestyle, and that the views of "the loudest" of Anonymous aren't necessarily the views of the rest of Anonymous.[21] Some analysts have praised Anonymous as the freedom fighters of the internet,[22] although others have condemned them as "anarchic cyber-guerrillas".[23]

"Reaction from law enforcement agencies" Perhaps an intro could be useful here? Ie something like:

There is a fear within law enforcement agencies that due to the wide variety of people within Anonymous, and the command structure itself (in which each cell has it's own motivation, and way on how to attain the group's agenda), the entity may not always work to the benefit of the state.

Pas actions of Anonymous (ie towards the Zetas, ...) have however proven that they could potentially be a valuable asset to states, if they could be controlled in some way. Similar to privateers in the past, Anonymous could be contacted (informally) and be hinted to engage on certain individuals conducting illegal activities, ie in situations where government agencies are certain of their guilt, but are legally incapable of acting upon it. Besides being to the advantage of the goverment agencies, they could be a valuable asset to environmental organisations aswell and can be used the same way. In this respect, they would work similar to the military wing of political parties, enforcing the vision of this organisation. Unlike the military wings of polical parties in the past though, this enforcing would happen without violence.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.321.4.152 (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

hacktivist

hacktivist to be a wikiword please, for us squares Sweavo (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Praise and criticism

Last time there is a notice calling for expansion on praise and criticism. It was removed. However, today, I've added a section again with relevant/coherent info and two established and cited reliable, verifiable sources. Editors wish to add claims concerning the group's praise and criticisms, you are free to do so, but provide with the same sources. Thank you. Starkiller88 (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

al-Qaeda claim

This recent edit removed a supposedly sourced claim that Anonymous members had hacked jihadist websites. The edit summary did not mention this (therefore I first assumed it was an inadvertent mistake), but on checking, I found the book cite did not explicitly support the claim. Page 100 of Ethics in Information Technology by George Reynolds (ISBN 1111534128) has two paragraphs under "Hacktivists and Cyberterrorists": the first paragraph mentions both the Anonymous group as "a group of hacktivists" and a single hactivist named "Jester", but does not explicitly link the two. Footnote 39 is attached to the sentences on Anonymous while footnote 40 is attached to the Jester claim, however Google Preview exludes the footnote text from me. Googling for Jester, hactivist, and 2010 finds several news sources that strongly imply "Jester" was not a member of Anonymous but instead working against them. In summary, therefore, it appears the article edit removed an incorrectly supported claim. If any editor has any related sourced information please add it, but please also remember to include an edit summary. -84user (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Typo

LPLive.net Staff Member (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a typo in article. Search for "Anoy"

Open source brand

In reference to above, "Group". "Group" may be valid when in context of a specific hacking group. However, in the larger context, 'Anonymous' is a brand not a group. It would be accurate to rephrase the opening of this page to:

Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is an open source brand largely associated with hacktivism.

The media has referred to Anonymous as a brand numerous times (CNN, etc). As well, many self-claimed members of Anonymous who hold influence over followers have referred to Anonymous as a brand (WhyWeProtest, AnonNews, etc).

There is an important reason to identify Anonymous as a brand. Because the Anonymous brand can be adopted by anyone under any motive, the brand itself can be distorted towards any meaning. Because there is no legal backing to protect against distortions to the brand, this cannot really be prevented. While some may want to debate about the true mission and meaning of Anonymous, it's much more accurate and simple to identify the obvious open-source nature of the brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewheuse (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Art Movement"

"Art Movement" is less inaccurate than "Group", may i change it? -ARKBG1 (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"Art Movement"? I don't think so. I am not aware that anyone refers to them as an "art movement", and their relation to art seems to be rather tangential. Though just "movement" may be worth considering. Keφr (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Anything is better than "Group". Anonymous Anthropologist Dr Gabriella Coleman & Wired Journalist Quinn Norton have hit the nail more on the head than anyone with "Culture" http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/anonymous-101/all/ How soon can (group) be changed? --ARKBG1 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Add reference book

From Timeline of events associated with Anonymous, We are Anonymous by Parmy Olson ISBN 978-0-316-21354-7 Hachett Book Group (2012) 99.181.158.60 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's a real book from a real publisher (which is not clear), it might fit here, but not there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. It's not exactly Hachett, it's "Little, Brown". That makes it's reliable if it's a non-gossip nonfiction imprint of "Little, Brown", which is not clear. Hachett (publishing group) doesn't have a reputation of its own. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hachette Book Group USA 99.181.128.217 (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody cares who the publisher is; the relevant usage is the imprint. In this case, "Little, Brown, and company" is a usually reliable imprint, while the Hachette Book Group does not have a reputation for fact-checking. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous (Culture)

Wikipedias' "Group" labeling is offensive to the Anonymous Culture and undermines the Integrity of the Wikipedia Culture. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/anonymous-101/all/ --ARKBG1 (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What does that even mean? There is a group called Anonymous. You may believe there is now also a "culture" or a movement. Fine. This is Wikipedia. Write a new article called "Anonymous, the Movement" or something. If you have reliable sources it may be a valuable addition. This article is not an offense against anyone, nor does it undermine Wikipedia's integrity. Be bold, make changes or write a new article, just don't sit and make vast complaints. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury." Wiki-misinformation like this actually cause OpSec problems. When Jimbo Wales emailed me requesting info during Anonymous Joint-Operation Blackout, I decided to be the bigger netizen and compromise but keep on trolling bro. You're welcome for the SOPA protection btw and make sure your master follows our lead again on November 5ths #OpBlackout-IdeaVote Ratification. --ARKBG1 (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So ar you removing info from this article or are you starting a new one? I really couldn't tell from your response. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And who do you suggest is my "master"? Capitalismojo (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation

Under the subheader "Wanted Criminals" the last sentence has a tag for citation needed. I have taken the following citation from the article for The Hidden Wiki. Would someone please add this citation to this article? Thank you. {{cite web|url=http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/10/anonymous-takes-down-darknet-child-porn-site-on-tor-network.ars|title=Anonymous takes down darknet child porn site on Tor network|last=Gallagher|first=Sean |date=23 October 2011|publisher=[[Ars Technica]]|accessdate=10 February 2012}} 76.105.171.161 (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 September 2012

There is no mention of the reaction of Anon. to the Ukrainian Government taking down demonoid.me Aug. the 6th. Anonymous posted at least one response to this action on youtube and a few text post sites that are easily located. These reactions would be located under the Protest Actions section. 50.47.242.37 (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on October 16, 2012

Could someone please add some mention of Anonymous' exposal of Kody Maxson, the man who cyberstalked Amanda Todd?

On October 15, 2012 Anonymous identified 30-year-old Kody Maxson as the man responsible for collecting and distributing pornographic images of 15-year old Amanda Todd. Todd posted a YouTube video detailing how an unnamed man had threatened and cyber stalked her for over two years after obtaining a topless image of her at the age of 13. Todd committed suicide on October 10, 2012 after being bullied by classmates who were forwarded the photo. Anonymous also released a YouTube video that included Maxson’s address, full name and date of birth that was quickly removed by YouTube for violating its terms of use. Vice posted screenshots that they allege connect Maxson to Todd, as well as Google Map screenshots of Maxon's home. Vice also allege Maxson was a frequent contributor to the Reddit "Creepshots" forum, as well as to the now-defunct "Jailbait" forum. Maxson appeared in court on October 15, 2012 on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference of a person under age 16 stemming from a separate incident in Surrey on Aug. 1.

Link to Todd's youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRxfTyNa24A

Link to Anonymous pastebin page: http://pastebin.com/pc6mHA8W

Link to Vice page: https://vice-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/A5RlS7uCIAAZ_5H%20copy-1.jpg

Link to CTV article on the situation: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/hackers-claim-to-have-tracked-down-amanda-todd-s-tormentor-1.997628 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jban11 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: I was unable to find any reputable sources which named Maxson by name. The Daily Mail says they are withholding his name for legal reasons, and the above linked CTVnews article says, "Even Todd's family members say they aren't sure the information is accurate, claiming police investigators have tracked down a different individual, in the U.S., whom they believed was involved." I think it's too early to throw this up on the main Anonymous page. If anything, this could merit a mention (without using Maxson's name!) on the Anonymous timeline, but let's not jump the gun on this. MsFionnuala _T^L_C 23:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, as Question 2 in the FAQ on this page explains, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. MsFionnuala _T^L_C 23:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 November 2012

Website : www.anonymoushackers.net 95.148.109.214 (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

N Not done and not likely to be done. See WP:External links. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 November 2012

95.148.109.214 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: No request has been made. Stickee (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous hacking Israel's government websites in response to Operation Pillar of Cloud

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/anonymous-targets-israeli-websites-response-gaza-conflict-1C7106339

I think this deserves a mention, but I'm not sure how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.53.78 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Add hacker under "Arrests" section

It may be worth adding the details of the Anonymous hacker James Jeffery who was arrested on March the 9th 2012 for the Anti Abortion campagain. I remember seeing this on the news. According to sources he was sentanced on April the 13th to 32 months. Lots of credible sources can be found on Google by searching the keyword 'james jeffery hacker' or 'james jeffery anonymous'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joojar (talk • contribs) 11:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to delete the VIDEO

Could someone a favor with us and delete a video from youtube which is against Muslim and Islam? ©Copy Right Jamat ud dawah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.18.177 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The video is about Scientology. Not Islam. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest an "Anonymous in popular culture" section

I was surprised that there are no such section in the article, whereas I'm aware of at least two references of Anonymous (or people wearing the related mask) in popular culture. But I bet there are more occurences (probably either in The Simpsons, South Park or Family Guy, as these shows reflect on popular culture and current events).

The two occurences that I know about:

• In the hungarian TV series Hacktion (which is probably notable enough in it's own right), in the first episode, police officers talk about Anonymous, LulzSec and their actions and motives, and there is a picture shown about protesters wearing Guy Fawkes masks.

• In the official music video for Nicky Romero's song Toulouse, there is a bunch of people walking on the street wearing Guy Fawkes masks, and they proceed to make other people wear masks too and join them.

I know these have to be supported by citations, so maybe I'll look for some later. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 December 2012

Ein McNealy has now been linked and associated to the on going Anonymous struggle through a infiltration of Free Masonry. Qianq (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about how you think the article should be changed? What words, exactly, should be added? Also, could you please provide a news source supporting the McNealy link? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 December 2012

More accurate information:

Westboro Baptist Church

After receiving personal information documents on various Westboro Baptist members in early 2012 from Online Activist, Andrew Stephens, Anonymous declared they were going to destroy Westboro Baptist Church in reaction to the church claiming they would picket the funerals of the victims of the Connecticut school shootings. They hacked into the church's website, releasing the personal information of all church members, and took down the church's website and the Twitter account of Shirley Phelps-Roper.

Original:

Westboro Baptist Church

Anonymous declared they were going to destroy Westboro Baptist Church in reaction to the church claiming they would picket the funerals of the victims of the Connecticut school shootings. They hacked into the church's website, releasing the personal information of all church members, and took down the church's website and the Twitter account of Shirley Phelps-Roper.

VerumTruth (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done; online activist Andrew Stephens is not mentioned in the quoted source. -- Dianna (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

connection between 4chan and anonymous and anonymous culture

I'm not sure the extended section on 4chan users is really necessary in this article. Here's my formal sounding original reasoning that I thought started sounding too formal:

As it stands, the lines drawn between those three things are rather thin. While Anonymous does profit from Anonymity, and 4chan users can profit from anonymity, I think there needs to be a more direct connection shown in this article before there needs to be an extended section upon 4chan within the article. Consider it like this:

My father doesn't like potatoes. Turnip eaters often don't like potatoes. My father must eat turnips. Anonymous profits from anonymity. 4chan users profit from anonymity. Anonomous members must be 4chan members.

I don't doubt that there are many participants in Anonymous that use 4chan, I'm just not sure it is relevant to the point of extended discussion of Anonymous unless' there is proof that 4chan was the main location where Anonymous was organized. There have been several sites akin to 4chan both preceding and following, and in addition IRC also served as a gathering place for anonymous individuals to share information collectively - including early hackers. A discussion of 4chan as a subset of anonymous culture should be listed on cyberculture and 4chan and if necessary on a new page dedicated to anonymous(culture). This article purports to be about Anonymous as a loosely associated hacktivist group - the focus, thus, should be on Anonymous(group) L.cash.m (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

removing the section in question as the next section goes over the same information in a much more condensed manner and directly relates it to Anonymous. Posting the section here in case anyone has objections or wants to review the decision.

---

===Iconography and aesthetics===

As a cyberculture, Anonymous aesthetics are based in various forms of shock humor, including genres of cringe, surreal, and black comedy. Many people affiliated with Anonymous associate with the Guy Fawkes mask (popularized by the V for Vendetta comic book series and movie), either at protests, or within images spread online.

Anonymous culture originated on image boards such as 4chan.net, which are discussion boards (presaged by a Japanese Anime website called 2chan begun by Hiroyuki Nishimura, a college student in 1999). When the Japanese 2chan website became embarrassed by the discussions of violence in English on their site, they began to ban English posts. Christopher Poole (aged 14) responded by setting up 4chan.net (now 4chan.org) in 2003.

One form of humor on the 4chan image boards are memes. Internet memes are thought to have originated with a picture of Sean Connery accompanied by a quote from the movie Finding Forrester: "You're the man now, dog!" emblazoned in large font across the picture. Memes are often referred to as YTMNDs (an abbreviation for the Connery quote). Pictures are as varied as famous people or cuddly kittens, with ironic or sarcastic captions.

Another form of humor on the 4chan discussion boards was making fun of people who didn't understand how the internet worked, often by referring to the "Internets". Irony and sarcasm were the rule. Hard core porn, child porn, cat torture and bodily dismemberment were used as humor on these boards. Parmy theorized that these images, creating fake persona online, lying online to fellow hackers as well as lying to authorities, created a depersonalization and desensitization to self and others. Parmy also theorized that many of those drawn to image boards such as 4chan were social outcasts in the real world, who could become someone important on these boards, and who often wanted to make others online feel the same sense of isolation and pain they experienced on a daily basis at school or work. Occasionally a suicidal poster on the image boards was encouraged by a group of posters to go ahead and kill himself. On 4chan the posters usually called each other "fag" (previously American derogatory slang for gay). Moralfags were those that had a political agenda, an idea abhorrent to many posters, who wanted a judgement free environment online. Leaderfags were those who organized and got things going. Newfags were posters new to the board. Parmy cited one research project that found that as many as thirty per cent of posters on 4chan fell into the LGBT category, posters often pretending to be the opposite sex. While some contented themselves with prank online phone calls (with a group of posters listening in), or making bets, the loser having to post a picture of himself with a shoe on his head , others on 4chan would befriend some random popular young person on Facebook with a relationship status of "in a relationship" and gather enough information to figure out his/her Facebook password (using fake Facebook pages they had created), then take over the popular person's Facebook account (followed closely by a group of 4chan posters in a chat room). 4chan users took especial pleasure when they could threaten someone and extort a nude photo of the person in exchange for a promise not to humiliate them on their Facebook account that had just been co-opted, then they would break their promise, posting the photo on the Facebook page they had taken over, preferably in the person's mother's newsfeed. If they could break the person up with their boyfriend or girlfriend that was an especially hilarious bonus. These activities were termed "Lulz", a variant of the LOL abbreviation (for Laughing Out Loud).L.cash.m (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

References

---

Well, the Orson Parry source says that the concept of "Anonymous" originated from 4chan. This statement is still in the lead, but it has disappeared from the article when removing this section. This narrow fact should be in Anonymous_(group)#Overview. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific on this source for me? Is he claiming that Anonymous culture originated there, or that the group Anonymous did? Does he provide valid sources for this information within the context of his book, and what is the specific claim that he made -- "Informal organization of Anonymous etc etc" or "in a post in early 2003, one of 4chan's users suggested forming a group named ..... " I'd love to add it back but I'm not sure what exact connection is drawn in the Parry book. Thanks! L.cash.m (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

He says that administrator Shii implemented "Forced_Anon" in early 2004. Every post was signed as "Anonymous", to the annoyance of many people. That's when people started joking that "Anonymous" was a single person or a hivemind. After a few years "Anonymous took on a life of its own." He says "Many people who involve themselves in Anonymous claim to have first found it through 4chan." He says that people came to accept the idea of forced anonimity on 4chan and that "We are legion" was already circulating in 2005. He says more things later, but that's all I have read. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Edited to add in the info regarding Shii and "Forced_Anon" in Anonymous_(group)#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. A tag of Anonymous is assigned to visitors who leave comments without identifying the originator of the posted content. Users of imageboards sometimes jokingly acted as if Anonymous were a real person. The concept of the Anonymous entity advanced in 2004 when an administrator on the 4chan image board activated a "Forced_Anon" protocol that signed all posts as Anonymous. As the popularity of imageboards increased, the idea of Anonymous as a collective of unnamed individuals became an internet meme."

Hopefully that'll serve to enforce the notion that 4chan was a primary source of Anonymous without overshadowing the relevance of other imageboards and irc channels to the formation of the group. If you've got any other suggestions, or that's not enough, I'd be happy to hear them or to see your implementation of them. After all, I'm just trying to make sure that things follow logically; I'm not particularly well versed on Anonymous itself. Thanks! L.cash.m (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Motto in infobox

I'd like to propose that the "motto" in the infobox be removed or retitled. The first source given was self-published, and didn't even call this a motto, anyway, so I've removed it. The second isn't accessible for searches in Google Books, or Amazon, but I'm skeptical of the conclusion; The idea of an official "motto" seems very un-Anonymous-like. Is this really a guiding principle for the group, or was it just one statement in one video, as the article suggests? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, removed for now.[9] Feel free to revert me if this seems wrong to you and we can talk further. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Going for Good Article status

This article was previously nominated for Good Article status, and [quickfailed], but it seems that many of those issues have been addressed since then. I'm interested on working over the next few weeks to try to revise this the rest of the way up to Good Article quality. Anybody interested in helping out to make this push?

Since this is a high-traffic and potentially controversial topic, I'll try to take it a bit at a time, checking in here when I make any serious changes. Thanks to everybody working on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Origin" section still seem s a bit weak to me -- I still don't feel like it's properly assembled/smooth. Could we rename it to something more along the lines of 'conception'. It seems as though the idea of Anonymous came there but we don't really make it into Anonymous itself. Precursor? Or the entire section could be reworked to make it more readable/logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.cash.m (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What you say makes sense to me, but to be honest I haven't dug into the sources enough yet to have an opinion. Let me dig around some more and get back to you soon on that. Obviously I've no objections if you want to try to revise it in the meantime, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed this quotation

Sourced only to blogspot, unlikely to be a reliable source:

A statement attributed to a member of Anonymous described Anonymous as containing every belief and lifestyle, and that the views of "the loudest" of Anonymous are not necessarily the views of the rest of Anonymous. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And this one

A sheriff speaking on local TV, which seems a bit trivial in the scale of this article:

The group has been rebuked by Sheriff Fred Abdalla who state he would prosecute the hackers who posted the names and information of students alledgedly involved in a gang rape in the county, stating ""Why put their names out there? Why put their addresses out there? With all the crackpots we have running around this country?" he also claimed he knew the name and address of the lead hacker." -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Megaupload

The Megaupload reprisal attacks were for some reason broken over two sections, so I collapsed them into one. I also removed some unsourced, weakly sourced, or redundant information, and added some specific quotations from the given commentary sources about the event. Right now the claim that some commentators also supported the attacks is unsourced--I'll try to dig up a supportive quotation at some point later in my research unless anybody beats me to it. [10] -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Kony 2012

The group's criticism of Kony 2012 seemed a bit trivial in the scale of this article, so I moved it to the "Timeline" daughter article.[11] -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Good article

I would like to upgrade this into a good article. I would like to recruit as many reviwers please. Pass a Method talk 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, i did not come accross the above post. Pass a Method talk 20:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're interested in working on this one, too. I still want to help get this to GA, but have a few other projects that have come up for now. (Specifically, I have a lot of library books out that I want to write articles from before I have to return them.) I'm hoping to start again in early February. In the meantime, please work on it all you like! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please delete categories Internet culture, Hacker groups and Information society. Anonymous (group) is a subcat of all of those. Thanks. 76.103.213.6 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The "loudest" of Anonymous

My edit, that goes, more or less, like "A statement attributed to Anonymous has described Anonymous as containing every belief and lifestyle, and that the views of "the loudest" of Anonymous aren't necessarily the views of the rest of Anonymous", comes from a quote from Anonymous that's floating out there in several places, specifically the part, "But for every grotesque abomination that posts anonymously, there are probably 100 more who are decent human beings that are just too lazy to post, or are indifferent to the topic at hand"; are there more and other reliable sources for this quote? Shrewmania (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 March 2013

Parts edited by Mahomet Il. anonymous members Mahometanon (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  — daranz [ t ] 19:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Academic Resources

I feel that there needs to be a push to incorporate a greater degree of academic resources (peer reviewed) into both the timeline and main page. As it stands, most of the citations are newspaper articles which often provide contrasting and/or misinformed opinions. I have added Halupka & Star's (2011) article to the opening description of the Timeline page, and think that the article's definition of Anonymous should be incorporated into the main page.

As more peer reviewed piece are produced within the academic community, we should strive to incorporate them by replacing aging sources.

MrOnionMaster (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for pointing this source out. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2013

Israel

In response to Operation Pillar of Cloud in November 2012, Anonymous launched a series of attacks on Israeli government websites and created the webpage http://www.opisrael.com. Anonymous protested what they called the "barbaric, brutal and despicable treatment of the Palestinian people." Ettedgui (talk)

Not done: It appears the text is already in the article - It may be a false positive, as I am no expert. Feel free to reopen if I am wrong. Mdann52 (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

CISPA

Under "Activities" it should have this current protest against CISPA! SweetShawn999 (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide some sources? I'll look for some later, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Archiving citations using WebCite

Since this article relies heavily on web sources, I've archived most of its links using WebCite. You can access the archived copies below if any of the originals later go down. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Long list of archived links

Your recent WebCite request has completed. Following are the results from this request: SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.citypaper.com/columns/story.asp?id=15543 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisA3 to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.cityonahillpress.com/2008/02/21/internet-group-takes-action-against-scientology/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisAJ to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18371297 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisAT to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2126594/anonymous-threatens-government-alleged-internet-censorship Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisAc to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15359735 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisAl to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11371315 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisAt to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/8013548/Music-and-film-industry-websites-targeted-in-cyber-attacks.html Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisB2 to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459214 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisBB to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/15/f-online-protest.html Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisBK to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.laweekly.com/2009-02-05/columns/my-date-with-anonymous-a-rare-interview-with-the-illusive-internet-troublemakers/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisBT to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article4173635.ece Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisBc to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2008/03/community-organization-with-di.html Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisBl to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/anonymous-attac.html Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisC3 to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisCC to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.cyberguerrilla.info/?p=1591 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisCK to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.peoplesliberationfront.tk/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisCT to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20110912-10391695.html Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisCc to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20111057-245/alleged-commander-x-anonymous-hacker-pleads-not-guilty/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisCl to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/D_Magazine/2011/April/How_Barrett_Brown_Helped_Overthrow_the_Government_of_Tunisia.aspx?p=1 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisCu to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/20/ddos_hacktivism_pirate_bay/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisD3 to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91404/operation-payback-targets-ifpi-for-pirate-bay-verdict/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisDB to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://news.softpedia.com/news/Anonymous-Attacks-IFPI-After-The-Pirate-Bay-Loses-Appeal-169380.shtml Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisDK to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/technology/megaupload-indictment-internet-piracy.html Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisDT to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16646023 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisDc to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-barrettbrown-sopa-megaupload-241/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisDl to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-57362437-256/anonymous-goes-nuclear-everybody-loses/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisDu to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/sopa-feds-go-after-megaupload-congress-reviews-anti-piracy-bills Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisE2 to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/08/anonymous-taking-down-government-websites Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisEB to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/27/occupy-wall-street-anonymous Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisEK to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/01/occupy-movement-london-stock-exchange Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisET to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2007/12/07/4712680-sun.html Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisEc to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.canada.com/globaltv/ontario/personalities/story.html?id=ff2d5236-9ff0-4ea7-b8ab-1123d851219b Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisEk to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45147364/ns/technology_and_science-security/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisEu to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://arstechnica.com/business/2011/10/anonymous-takes-down-darknet-child-porn-site-on-tor-network/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisF3 to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://now.msn.com/anonymous-hacks-westboro-baptist-church?ocid=ansnow11 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisFB to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://now.msn.com/westboro-baptist-church-hate-group-petition-sent-to-white-house Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisFK to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/08/15/anonymous-hack-into-ugandan-government-websites-in-protest-at-their-anti-lgbt-policies/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisFT to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.businessinsider.com/anonymous-facebook-2011-8 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisFc to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/video/2011/oct/31/anonymous-hackers-mexican-drug-cartel Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisFk to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/28/gm-crop-trial-website-cyber-attack Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisFt to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/10/godaddy-outage-takes-down-millions-of-sites/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisG2 to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.zdnet.com/anonymous-hacks-us-sentencing-commission-distributes-files-7000010369/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisGB to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/17/anonymous-is-hacking-israeli-web-sites/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisGJ to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.timesofisrael.com/as-cyber-war-begins-israeli-hackers-hit-back/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisGS to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/us-syria-crisis-internet-idUSBRE8AT0PN20121130 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisGb to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/investigative-r.html Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisGk to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/teambio/37257/bryan-seymour Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisGs to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/490551/lifestyle/anonymous-takes-scientology-war-streets Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisH1 to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/24/anonymous_fight_child_abuse_network/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisHA to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/02/23/wikileaks.anonymous/index.html?hpt=C1 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisHR to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://openparliament.ca/hansards/2455/114/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisHa to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/213120/dutch_arrest_16yearold_related_to_wikileaks_attacks.html Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisHi to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/fbi-anonymous/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisHr to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/warrants_012711 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisI0 to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/01/27/idINIndia-54454720110127 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisI9 to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/meet-the-hacktivist-who-tried-to-take-down-the-government-20110314-1btkt.html Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisIH to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Policia/Nacional/da/desarticulada/cupula/Anonymous/Espana/elpepuesp/20110610elpepunac_3/Tes Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisIQ to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/europa/detienen-en-turquia-a-32-presuntos-miembros-de-anonymous_9607324-4 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisIZ to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14212110 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisIi to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/07/19/anonymous-arrests-continue-lulzsec-leader-claims-hes-not-affected/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisIr to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/anonymous-hackers-arrested-in-us-sweep/story-e6frf7jx-1226097971794 Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisJ0 to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/19/exclusive-fbi-search-warrants-nationwide-hunt-anonymous/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisJ9 to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/anonymous-members-arrested-after-interpol-investigation/2012/02/29/gIQANeq5hR_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisJI to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/barret-brown-raid Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisJS to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/14/uk_anon_investigation/ Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6G7TqisJa to access the cached copy of this page SUCCESSFULLY CACHED http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203363504577185364230417098.html