User talk:Ghost Security BOC

Ghost Security BOC, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ghost Security BOC! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ghost Security has been reverted.
Your edit here to Ghost Security was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://twitter.com/blackops_cyber) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at GhostSec, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Senator2029 “Talk” 19:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user name

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Ghost Security BOC", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Jack Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a change of username, by completing this form, that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Bgwhite (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Ghost Security BOC. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Ghost Security, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ghost Security BOC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

actions already corrected Ghost Security BOC (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to request a new username by following the instructions in the block message. (I have not reviewed the lengthy message below - I'll leave that for whoever reviews your next request after you have suggested a new username.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reason for editing errors in guidelines: In an attempt to correct misinformation, I unknowingly violated the guidelines for editing nearly a month ago. Since being alerted to that, I have corrected that, disclosed my relationship and requested edits from two different editors on their talk pages. If I am required to bring in a third party to make this correction, that does not allow an organization the opportunity to correct misinformation. See the requested edits below, as the errors in the page are quite egregious. Furthermore, the page was created by a member of another organization, not a third party, who knowingly and willfully created ambiiguities between our organization and theirs. I have provided multiple references of fact for these edits.

People want and need to know about our organization, because we have thwarted several attacks and have been in the media consistently over the past four weeks.

Reasons for Name: the naming guidelines state that if the name is representative, not ambiguous, the name is appropriate - this user name represents what it is and what it is. I placed a question regarding this name and reiterated the request for the edits

Misrepresented Group and Title And Deleted edits to Correct Misrepresentation == Change the title of the page > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Security AS noted in the news article cited as a reference on this page: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hackers-replace-dark-web-isis-propaganda-site-advert-prozac-1530385 "Ghost Sec, a faction of the hacktivist collective Anonymous (unaffiliated with the counter-terrorism organisation Ghost Security Group), targeted the Isdarat website after it appeared on the Tor anonymity network last week." Ghost Security Group uses this as a reference on the page, though the article clearly states that the two groups are not affiliated, they delete any edits that we attempt to make to the page with the assistance of Wikipedia Editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Senator2029 Their own reference shows the error in the information on this page. In addition, they have done the same with the user page/redirect at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GhostSec Additional sources were posted on these pages to prove the validity of the disambiguation between GhostSec (established 2015) and Ghost Security Group (established November 2016). Ghost Security Group additionally post dated their official press release regarding their establishment to attempt to make their sources seem valid. source references from November of 2016 refer to Ghost Security and not Ghost Security Group. In addition, the page uses a trademark (TM) symbol for Ghost Security Group, which was denied. Additional Sources: https://mic.com/articles/129679/anonymous-vs-isis-how-ghostsec-and-ghost-security-group-are-targeting-terrorists#.3wXtznVRR After DigitaShadow and Mikro created Ghost Security Group, two anons who go by the names Wauchula and TorReaper split off. They saw the Group as all about fame and "money," even if there is no proven arrangement for Smith or any members of the federal government to pay members of the Group. TorReaper got the original site back up and running, they took on the old name of GhostSec and rebuilt it as an Anonymous-affiliated group. Ghost Security has now merged with BLACKOPS, a reputable cyber intelligence and security firm based in San Francisco, CA. While this ambiguation may have been a minor issue in the past, it has become a corporate reputation management issue, and should not be taken lightly. We respectfully request that you resolve this disambiguation, change the title of the existing page to Ghost Security Group (which is accurate) and remove references pertaining to Ghost Security. Those References are: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/anonymous-activists-isis-twitter/409312/ http://www.ibtimes.com/ghost-security-hackers-offshoot-anonymous-claim-they-disrupted-isis-attack-2077993 Additional evidence of facts: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-anonymous-and-other-hacktivists-fight-isis-online Our organization desires to have our own Wiki Page, which is not possible without removing the conflict of references and titles. Thank you.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ghost Security BOC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

GAMtech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

required to unblock

Decline reason:

If to you "made the decision to merge with one of the most reputable human intel agencies in the world" is "correcting misrepresentations" and "not spam", your conflict of interest is far too strong to edit Wikipedia in relation to this topic. Huon (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ghost Security BOC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

actions already corrected - not spam but correcting misinformation Ghost Security BOC (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Only one unblock request at a time, please. See above. Huon (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Clarification of Representation

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Huon Please accept my apologies and I do appreciate your patience.

I wanted to clear up a misconception resulting from my inexperience with Wikipedia/Wikimedia.

I do not represent the organization Ghost Security per se, however I do represent the organization created through their merger with BLACKOPS Cyber. Ghost Security is no longer an active organization, however we feel the history should be preserved accurately and fairly and we are unable to do so with this existing ambiguity.

You are correct that Ghost Security was the Anonymous affiliated group mentioned in the IBT reference you noted.

It was not my intention to promote the organization, as it no longer exists. It was merely my intention to correct the errors and ambiguities - particularly with regards to the references and title included on the Ghost Security page created by members of Ghost Security Group.

It is also my intention to make clear that Ghost Security was disbanded in September 2016. This is an important matter as it may affect the safety of former members as well as the safety of others who may unknowingly attempt to impersonate the group in the future. (meaning: they don't realize that impersonating this group could be a risk). Reference: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3111206#ixzz4NjNc0T7g

I appreciate your time and assistance in this matter.

In addition -regarding the source International Business Times, the Wikipedia page is information as to their media status and reliability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Business_Times Ghost Security BOC (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provide for the merger is a press release. Press releases are not considered reliable sources since they are not subject to editorial oversight. In this specific instance I would like to see someone other than BOC confirming that this is indeed the Anonymous-affiliated group which joined, not the Ghost Security Group. As an aside, you obviously were promoting BOC by referring to it as "one of the most reputable human intel agencies in the world", which I rather doubt is factually true. If you still cannot see that your conduct was inappropriate, you should not be editing anywhere near that topic. Huon (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I see your point. The original edits were clearly in error, and I understand that such subjective views are inappropriate coming from the organization itself. What type of independent source would you need to confirm the merger? Is the Vice News coverage not considered a credible source, as this is an investigative news report? Ghost Security BOC (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed another rewrite has occured. To streamline this for you, I will attempt to outline what is in error, and why. As a note, I do not represent GhostSec/Ghost Security and have removed any references to my organization in good faith. The issue here is not the credibility of BlackOps Cyber, but accuracy as well as the safety and security of current and former members of GhostSec.

In the wake of the coorpeation with law enforcement, GhostSec decided to "become legit" to more efficiently combat ISIS. The group renamed itself "Ghost Security Group" and by November 2015 ended its association with Anonymous. (As noted in several of the sources on the page, Ghost Security Group was a new organization that splintered off from Ghost Security).

for example, this article used for reference on the Ghost Security page highlights the continuity of the group Ghost Security separate from Ghost Security Group. "Ghost Sec, a faction of the hacktivist collective Anonymous (unaffiliated with the counter-terrorism organisation Ghost Security Group), targeted the Isdarat website after it appeared on the Tor anonymity network last week." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hackers-replace-dark-web-isis-propaganda-site-advert-prozac-1530385

Those of the members who opposed this development re-formed under the old name of "GhostSec" and maintained Anonymous ties. Both groups continue to operate against ISIS.[15] (Ghost Security does not operate any longer. They are no longer an active group, but have retired and/or moved to the new group as of September 2016).

If by "Vice News" you mean this source, it doesn't say anything about BOC, and very very little about the split between Ghost Security Group and what I'd call the "Later GhostSec". It does say, however, that both GhostSec and Ghost Security Group still exist and are active. It was published November 1, 2016, after the press release (and much later than September 2016). The International Business Tribune does not cover the history of the group called GhostSec they write about and does not mention continuity; it merely mentions that (as of late November 2015, which agrees with what I wrote in the article) GhostSec is not affiliated with Ghost Security Group. The one source that does cover the events surrounding the split between GhostSec and Ghost Security Group in detail disagrees with your account, writing that "After DigitaShadow and Mikro created Ghost Security Group, two anons who go by the names Wauchula and TorReaper split off. [...] TorReaper got the original site back up and running, they took on the old name of GhostSec and rebuilt it as an Anonymous-affiliated group." This shows discontinuity: The current GhostSec "split off" from Ghost Security Group, there was a time when the original site was not "up and running", and the group that split off "took on the old name". Huon (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies again, I could have been more clear. I meant to say, please disregard any previous requests or mention of BOC. After much discussion, we have decided that we would prefer at this point to not be mentioned on this page at all, which is exactly what your have presented. I mean this most respectfully. I believe our providing references would be a waste of your time, though it has been covered by media, we would still prefer to withdraw this request.

There was much confusion in reporting throughout the past year with regards to the two groups. I do not want to create a burden for you with regards to this page, as we wish it had never been created at all for safety reasons. Our view is that the references will tell the story, and your users can form their own opinions. The Vice News story was included in the references, thank you, and that is the most clear and accurate presentation of the split between the groups to date.

However, if you could please note that Ghost Security, in whatever way you have referenced it (as the original group or a reconstituted group is no longer important to us) is not an active group, it would be greatly appreciated. As noted this is a matter of safety. I wish I could explain this further. If you need a reference for this, there is media in the works, and I can provide it when that is published. We would just like to ensure the safety of the former members. Thank you so much for the time you have spent with me to resolve this matter. Ghost Security BOC (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vice on November 1 reported that GhostSec was active. If a newer reference gets published (a reliable source) that says it no longer is active I'll gladly make use of it to update the article. Until that time, I will not change the article in ways that are not backed up by reliable published sources. However, I have notified the Wikimedia Foundation via emergency

wikimedia.org regarding the threatened security of ex-members as advised at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. If you have information you can share privately that's somewhat more relevant than "some guy on the internet said so", I would advise you to email it to that email address. The Foundation's employees (as opposed to volunteer editors like me) may decide to do something of their own. Huon (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]