Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Beck vs. Eiland-Hall link removed

I removed the Beck vs. Eiland-Hall link because it has zero bearing on Anonymous as a group. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Anonymous" Russia in action (and in the news)

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-own-wikileaks-takes-off/429370.html --94.246.150.68 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.rferl.org/content/putin_mansion_photographs/2283270.html too. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't be afraid to add the information to the article yourself- see WP:BOLD.Дунгане (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I take that back, i forgot the article is protected. You should create an account to edit the article.Дунгане (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Operation Egypt added?

I'm wondering if the "Anonymous Press Release" on "Operation Egypt" relating to the Egyptian government's shut down of the internet and cell phone service should be covered on this page. I am referring to the message as given in the following YouTube video and some other similar ones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZw9EzQIa4E&feature=related

I've seen the video or variants (same audio, different video) of it shown on Al Jazeera English, and it's probably been shown on other networks as well (confirm?). The page is of course locked; I can't make the edit. Errantsignal (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable mentioning anonymous in relation to egypt protests: msnbc [2] Huffington post [3] Washington post [4] IBTimes [5] 88.192.37.191 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And also a mention here, BBC [6]. If this page remains locked, wikipedia editors really needs to step up to the plate and take responsibility for keeping it up to date. 165.112.60.201 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Operation Egypt Should be fully explained! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.208 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to IRC and anonops

I don't see this in the article. Wouldn't it be appropriate to add a link to anonops.ru and the IRC channel irc.anonops.ru?--Drwwht (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

yes

Maybe, it's never been clear to me if anonops.ru has much importance. Aren't the protests organized through whyweprotest.net? Isn't the core history based more around /b/? Anonops might be most relevant to the LOIC, but presumably it's mentioned there already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.122.34 (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Anonymous" is not a mass noun

Mass nouns in English are pretty exclusively determined by the absence of determiners and the use of a single agent verb inflection. The are in "We are Anonymous. We are legion." is a multiple-referent inflection on the verb. The syntactic category is pretty clearly a regular use of a proper name NP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeminemaudlin (talk • contribs) 07:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Founded" field in infobox

What should we say for when this group was founded? The new infobox initially said 1997 but now it says 2008. According to the article, actions attributable to them have occurred at least as early as 2006 (i.e. Habbo). I understand it's difficult to be sure due to the loosely defined nature of the group. Discuss/consensus? 71.231.76.242 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the field need not be filled at all until a source on the subject can be found. In reality, the meme holds its origins in the founding of 4chan, when Moot and other administrators first debated emulating 2chan's culture of anonymity. Some of the earliest memes, including catch phrases such as "Anonymous does not forgive" stem from this period. But until we get some original source on this, we can't cite it. However, citation is only necessary for statements that are potential sources of conflict. If no one disputes the origin of the meme, we can put the date as coinciding with the early years of 4chan. That would be 2003 to start, with a little bleed-over into 2004 for the development of the memetic themes. --Cast (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

HBGARY and stuxnet

See this and this the first is a link where the guardian reports that anonymous might have stuxnet, and the 2nd one says that (in the manifesto in the same link), in response to the declarations by Greg Hoglund, addittional 27000 emails were leaked. Please, if the page is going to remain protected (i understand the reasonning) then atleast have a minimum effort to keep it up to date.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.115.122.167 (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you want to see it edited, you could always create an account and edit it yourself. Be bold about it. --Cast (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous and Anarchy

Per Cast's (talk) suggestion, I'd like to discuss Anonymous as an example of anarchy with respect to self-organization or the political inclinations of its constituent members. I, for one, believe that Anonymous does exemplify anarchy in terms of self organization and that the article deserves a section on this phenomenon. Any takers? KLP (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the easy solution is Google to see if they've been described as an Anarchist group or not. If yes, then we can at least list it as a see-also. If the group disputes it, or there is commentary contradicting the label or its meaning, then we might need a separate section to address the philosophical nature/purpose of the group. Let's start with sources, both inside and outside Anonymous and see what they say. That way we don't have to rely on anyone's personal opinion of either Anonymous or Anarchy. Ocaasi (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Add... Also, it's important to distinguish between Anarchy as a method and Anarchy as a goal. I think it's clear that the lack of top-down coordination which Anonymous uses is a form of Anarchy, but that is quite different from the group wanting a world in which no governments exist. Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Your findings satisfy the see-also requirement, but we'll have to wait until someone publishes a an assessment in order to include a proper anarchy section. KLP (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there has to be a specific section on Anonymous philosophy. I think there is already plenty out there to focus on the sub-culture aspects of Anonymous (the memes, the aesthetics, the themes) and that minor references to politics can be safely made there. A section on origins as a meme already exist. Expand on it there. Specifically, take a listen to this: [7], a radio interview where the dark humor of Anonymous is discussed. There are other references and explanations of memes and mottos in several news reports. Throw politics in there and go with it. --Cast (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Anarchy/Anarchic

• http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/12894: "We are not a terrorist organization as governments, demagogues, and the media would have you believe. Rather, Anonymous is a spontaneous collective of people who share the common goal of protecting the free flow of information on the Internet. Our ranks are filled with people representative of many parts of the world and all political orientations. We can be anyone, anywhere, anytime. If you are in a public place right now, take a look over your shoulder: everyone you see has all the requirements to be an Anon. But do not fret, for you too have all the requirements to stand with those who fight for free information and accountability."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/dec/13/hacking-wikileaks: "Though it sounds like a coordinated organisation, the reality is that it's more like a stampeding herd - and members are fearful of standing up and being counted"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/02/anonymous_hacke_1.php: "The anarchic and amorphous hacker group Anonymous unleashed its online fury Sunday on Aaron Barr,..."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/09/operation_payback_anonymous_wikileaks_infowar_latest/: "Similarly there has been much discussion among the anarchic Anonymous collective on attacking Twitter..."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/02/hbgary-federal-hacked-by-anonymous/: "At the center of the storm is a leaderless and anarchic Internet group called Anonymous, which more recently has been coordinating attacks against Egyptian government Web sites."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20018175-501465.html: "The attacks by Anonymous, which describes itself as non-hierarchical anarchy, began after an Indian security firm called AiPlex Software assaulted the servers of file-sharing sites such as The Pirate Bay with distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) assaults."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcUEyx8YQHs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz5wCEkCwZo : (13:14 - 13:30) "What I have found on Internet Relay Chat, is that Anonymous has attracted Geeks and Hackers from across the political spectrum. Not so much from the Right, but some you would call Liberal, some you might call Libertarian, and some you would call Leftist and Anarchist..."

[Incidentally, also very useful for sources on other aspects of Anonymous as a sub-culture, such as the Guy Fawks meme (4:39 - 5:58), the importance of thematic iconography and memes (6:05 - 6:27, 12:00 - 14:32), and how an action becomes supported by Anonymous (1:32 - 2:42)] --Cast (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not Anarchy/Anarchic

• http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/anonymous_and_cyber_protest: "A group like Anonymous isn't really trying to impose anarchy as much as it's trying to impose the will of its members (or whichever members are active at a certain time). As it fights for freedom on the internet, it constricts the net itself, by taking down websites and halting e-commerce."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocaasi (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead focus

There seems to be some inadvertent disagreement over the lead's focus--anonymous the group or anonymous the meme. I think the title of this article gives primacy to the former, and that the opening paragraph should clearly identify Anonymous in its more recent collaborative and newsworthy form, then giving the meme as a background, and then focusing on specific activities, as well as public reception. We can work on adding the later parts, but I think the current lead gets the order backwards, or suggests a separate article (or a new title). Thoughts? (note: I think it's User:Cast taking the other side here, so I am curious what he/she thinks)... Ocaasi (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is probably a lot to be said on this subject; for now, I'll focus on a few important points to think about going forward. First: as we gather information, the majority of news reports will only cover the activist elements of Anonymous. The difficulty in providing a factual basis for the background meme will be compounded by the need to avoid undue weight to obscure details. No one cares about the latest meme in the Anonymous lexicon, but how else do we explain references the articles themselves make? Second: Anonymous is gaining coverage at an exponential rate - Wikipedia can hardly keep up - but Anonymous, by vast majority consists of people on the sidelines. That wing of the Legion is busy with the latest memetic variation on Waha! and Nevada-tan. We should give all due weight to those most notable elements of Anonymous, while baring in mind that the present order is not indicative of long term trends (or Project Chanology would still be the prime mission of the activists.) After the short term raids have subsided, Anonymous will move on, but will still have the same origin and the same majority of non-activists. The activism will always be more notable and encyclopedic, but not the best way of promoting understanding of the surviving cyberculture. My primary concern is recentism. (And I'm a guy, as there are no girls on the interwebs.)--Cast (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see your concern with recentism. I would counter that although coverage of the group/activist aspects are more recent, it is also disproportionately the aspect that has received coverage from reliable sources, so it would seem to me per WP:Weight that we concentrate our focus on those aspects. I do see your point that acting as if activism was the real goal of the "group" rather than just one of the memes' manifestations is putting a box around a very amoebic thing. Still, I'd start specific, then cover the history, process, etc, and only in the latter half of the article discuss specific activism. Something along these lines, but not verbatim:

• History
• Meme-making
• Message Boards
• Lulz and internet culture
• General goals (freedom of info, taking down bad guys in positions of authority)
• Early projects (Chanology)
• DDos attacks
• Wikileaks activism
• Current projects (Westborough Baptist)
• Public Reception (support/criticism)
• Future orientation of the group (recent raids, planned projects, changing leadership, changing goals, etc)

Ocaasi (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we're largely in agreement. I referenced the importance of the weight of the activities. However, I think this is all moot. The lead should reflect and summarize the article as a whole. The article must take shape before changes to the lead become fixed. I think we've put the horse before the carriage, and I'm prepared to drop my objections to alternative versions of the lead for now, assuming editing the the main article continues at a steady pace to keep up with current events and available sources. If the main article becomes moribund while the edited lead does not reflect it, the neither part of the article is serving its proper role. --Cast (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.164.136.226, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} On 20 February 2011, Anonymous posted a press release claiming that Westboro Church was the true author of the "open letter", and that above all else Anon supports free speech http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=494

173.164.136.226 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a very interesting situation. Can we trust the site's reliability as the 'official' spokesperson for the group? Or could it just be someone else, individually, or contrarily posting to create confusion? If the site is itself relevant, we can probably use it, but may need to attribute the statement specifically to AnonNews rather than 'an Anonymous press release'. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

From the website: AnonNews uses an open-posting concept. Anyone can post to the site, and moderators will approve relevant posts. No censorship takes place! For information, edits, moderator applications, and everything else join the IRC channel or visit info@anonnews.org. Press can contact press@anonnews.org. We are not an official press platform, but we'd gladly answer questions about AnonNews, or, more broadly, get you in touch with other Anons.

From the press release: To the Media: Just because it was posted on AnonNews doesn't mean every single Anon is in agreement, in fact in this case it doesn't even mean a single Anon is in agreement. Next time, if you could give us a few minutes to put all our paperwork in order, we'll be sure to let you know what we're up to. (LOL) To Anonymous: It's a trap. They've got their ports wide open to harvest IPs to sue. Don't DDoS, and boycott Operation Westboro. If you really want to continue messing with them, just send them a few male prostitutes and faxes of goatse. Nothing more. (Note: This letter was written by more than 20 Anons, at the same time, and none of them were inbredfamily members. Unlike that other, shitty "Press Release".)

So my question would be, how can we know the press release is or is not accurate? Ocaasi (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the neutral perspective for Wikipedia to take on would be to cite that competing posts were made, and that accusations of illigetimacy were bandied about. The prose doesn't have to say "Anonymous released a press release," but rather, "a press was released on a website associated with Anonymous. Various media sources reported the event and ascribed the actions to the larger group. However, this was disputed by a second press release on the same website hours later." Just an idea. The best thing to do would be to wait until the dust settles before we made moves on it. --Cast (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag

De facto flag for the Anonymous group

I can not edit the page. --212.183.198.9 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Put the flag!!! --212.183.198.9 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a version without the green-and-black background (a "coat of arms") would be more appropriate. I have not encountered this background on Anonymous-related media ever. Ian (87.205.138.43 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC))

The 'coat of arms' is becoming increasingly popular and useful for the media, as it presents an easily copy/pasted element to use in place of an unavailable photograph. However, while the flag is less frequently used, it is nonetheless a good choice for this article for its use of colors. Green and black are also common themes in Anonymous iconography. We just need to cite it properly. --Cast (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead of an unofficial flag at the top of the page, we should include it at the bottom in a gallery with Anonymous related images and symbols. I prefer an image of people participating in an Anonymous event to any flag graphic. KLP (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with using human activists is that it tilts the perception of Anonymous towards the activist angle. My decision behind including two images, a flag image and activists, in the Infobox was to give equal weight to Anonymous as concept (graphic symbol) and as activist cause (unknown people in a group, on the ground). I'm prepared to replace the flag with a simple coat-of-arms, but I insist that it be set beside masked activists. One should not replace the other. They've become indivisible at this point. Also, don't forget that masked activists have only been associated with one operation— Chanology. The most well known activist causes (Payback; Tunisia; Leakspin) are still not associated with masked protesters yet. We should consider issues of weight. --Cast (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. I would prefer the simple emblem to the flag, as the flag seems to be just one of many variations of the emblem. As for the photo, perhaps we can find one a little more illustrative than guys in masks. I'd suggest this one, less the demotivational part, but I haven't found its source yet. KLP (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few images that may be of use, if we dig around on Wikicommons. How about this protest at Hamburg, which combines the Anonymous flag with activists? Then we can safely replace the flag with the coat of arms, and maintain the link between the emblem and activism. I'll create a small gallery we can use for the purpose below. Feel free to add more for consideration.--Cast (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to find something with more irreverence. The image I linked to included a reference to long cat amid a serious protest against CO$. IMHO, that, or something similar, could successfully typify Anonymous. KLP (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I figured that's where you were going, but there was nothing like that in commons. Well, we could always skim through some photos of the era and ask if anyone has images of a meme-riddled protest they can upload. I hoped the Hamburg image would be useful, as it at least has the Anons being playful ("Free Brainwash" and such). --Cast (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
  No flag, but useful for the emblem.

Libya

No section on the Anonymous page yet, despite them saying they would help. I just tried to go on the official website of Moamar al-Gaddafi, but it appears to have been taken down. I dont know who did this, but I assume it was Anon. Can somebody verify/debunk this and create a section for Libya on their page?

Website I reffered to: http://www.algathafi.org/html-english/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.239.134 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we took it down. Check HiveMind status on LoIC, more to come ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.88.166 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Westboro Add

Add the info: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9211305/Anonymous_hacks_church_Web_site_during_live_interview http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/frvmz/westboro_baptist_church_smited_by_anonymous/ http://browsershots.org/screenshots/d182f4c25d5ef3a56a25d48eee29e932 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.88.166 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, you could just create an account and edit it yourself. If you have time to make a Talk thread, you have time to sign in and edit an article. --Cast (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is semi-protected (there is a small bronze lock in the upper right corner of the article page). He can't edit the article to add anything. He has to post the info here in the talk page so someone with editing rights can add it. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I know what that silver lock indicates. It indicates that people should create accounts and sign in. It only blocks edits from—wait for it—anonymous editors. I don't mean to be rude here, but this is getting frustrating. We're constantly getting edit suggestions from people who are more than capable of signing in on their own to make their desired edits. --Cast (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, you don't. Because it does not mean just anonymous editors, it means you have to be autoconfirmed or confirmed as well. For instance I would have to find somebody and explain to him why it is so important for me to be an exception just to edit one article, instead of simply submitting an edit suggestion. Now, if you would rather have lots of confirmed people who have not edited anything or too little for autoconfirm yet - make it happen if you can. Sh4dow83 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't get snippy about what I know of policy. As a matter of fact, I can confirm edits (I hate that stupid policy) and I'm monitoring this page for requests, but none are coming. My simple request to anonymous editors: help me help you. Sign in. --Cast (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Operationanonymous, 26 February 2011

===Operation Anonymous=== This website was conceived by the Anonymous group in order to inform the general public, and news stations, or anyone else who might be interested, on who and what Anonymous is. Intended ref:[http://www.operationanonymous.org/ operationanonymous.org/] (Please feel free to correct this, i know this article is horrible, i just want this in here to, so that others may be able to become informed on the very latest in happenings.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Operationanonymous (talk • contribs) 2011-02-25T17:45:41

Thanks for the suggested edit, but please don't create a massive page dump like that. It makes navigation difficult, to put it mildly. Also, please sign your talk page comments as a courtesy. Finally, your reference is no good for our purposes. We need a verifiable third-party source with notability. Your blog isn't notable. We're is the coverage of it? And who has covered "Operation Anonymous"? And external links with general signifiance should go in the External links section, and even there, they should be limited to those which are vetted as significant to the article topic. Other Anonymous related websites included in the External links section have each received coverage and have been referenced in major news media outlets. There are as yet no references to Operation Anonymous. Since you're new to this, it's understandable that you'd make some novice errors. But don't worry, this isn't like 4chan. You don't have to lurk moar to get ahead. Continue to jump in. You'll get more knowledge through trial and error on Wikipedia than by sitting on the sidelines.--Cast (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

They got that cat beater and that woman who thre away the cat

Weren't anonymous responsible for getting that kid who posted videos of abusing his cat charged? Also that one lady who threw a cat in the trash can, didn't they severely harass her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.196.186 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Do you have sources for those stories?--Cast (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Open invitation to anonymous and novice editors

I've been observing and growing increasingly frustrated with the semi-protected status of the main Anonymous article. Anonymous is increasingly coming under the media microscope, and new sources of content are becoming unmanageable for the few regular editors of this article. Two recent events, the attack against HB Gary Federal, and the Westboro Baptist Church website attack are now large enough in scope to deserve their own articles, and so would need to be split off from this page, in the same way that Operation Chanology, Payback, and Leakspin have. It's time to create new wiki articles, and to allow anonymous editors to participate with their own energy and enthusiasm. Below I've created two sandboxes where editors can freely create and expand upon the coverage of these events, and since they are taking place in a userspace, we don't have to be too concerned with the content becoming semi-protected. When they are of suitable coverage and scope, we'll perform a simple move function to take them live.

• 2011 Westboro Baptist Church website attack
• 2011 HBGary Federal controversy

I invite everyone interested to contribute to these and learn about editing on Wikipedia in the process. Cheers! --Cast (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Operation Tunisia

So anonymous has been busy helping activist fight censorship laws in Tunisia. When should we add this into the article?--Mutlee (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

also this.

and this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Jimmy666 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

already added to the article.Дунгане (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous's activities have been linked to islamist terrorist organizations, please add this section to the article-

The terrorist group Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb has voiced support for the demonstrators against the Tunisian and Algerian Governments, in a video released on January 13, 2011, which was reported by an American organization. Al Qaeda offered military aid and training to the demonstrators, calling them to overthrow "the corrupt, criminal and tyrannical" regime, calling for "retaliation" against the Tunisian government, and also calling for the overthrow of Algerian president Abdelaziz Bouteflika. AQIM leader Abu Musab Abdul Wadud starred in the video. He called for Islamic sharia law to be established in Tunisia. Al Qaeda has begun recruiting the anti government demonstrators, some of the Algeriain and Tunisian protestors have taken up arms before to battle American forces in Iraq and Israeli forces in Gaza.

Maybe that would be relevant to the Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Abdelaziz Bouteflika articles. It seems a little POV and with an agenda to put it here, i'll tone it down a little before adding it to the section.Дунгане (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

ZINE EL ABIDINE BEN ALI IS PROTECTED YOU MORON, I CAN NOT EDIT NEITHER THIS NOR BEN ALI'S ARTICLE WHY THE HELL DID YOU THINK I POSTED THIS MESSAGE ON THE TALK PAGE!?!?!?!Mr Bey Dey (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

CHILL out- Wikipedia:Civility, i regret not seeing that you are not an autoconfirmed user and cannot add content to protected articles, but thats no reason to go out in all caps. I will add it to the article and see what others say.Дунгане (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, Anonymous did much more for Tunisia than just DDOS the government website. They noticed that the government was injecting Javascript into login pages to steal usernames/passwords of dissidents, and Anonymous made a Greasemonkey script to strip it out and ensure people could communicate without the government spying on them. Anonymous distributed information about Tor and set up proxies so citizens could browse the internet uncensored. Any chance of getting this stuff mentioned? http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201101/6639/Anonymous-offers-support-to-Tunisian-protestors-Update-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.140.185 (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Attack Clarifications from Weak Sources

Hey I was reading the talk page before I did any more editing, and am glad I did or a would have not seen the comment on about unsourced or poor sourced additions. Recently, I heard rumors that the Georgia Institute of Technology's servers where hacked by an "Anon" Group, which is odd for several complicated reasons. To make a long story short, hacking Georgia Tech Servers goes directly against Anonymous primary tenet of the Freedom of Information; moreover, its an indirect hack of the Google and Creative Commons. (Some department, like this is actually a direct relationship because Google uses research from Georgia Tech to create and improve. In most other its more of a indirect relationship. However, to go into more detail would make thing complicated). Because I found this odd and from a very weak source(**), I wanted has anyone else heard something along these lines? Or could this be work of a false group and how, in general, can you tell?

• **Footnote: I checked with Georgia Tech school newspaper about these rumors, and the January edition of the Technique actually does mention an Anonymous-like Group. Physics16 (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally I added this section for other people who have seen "Anon-claimed" events, but are not 100% sure it is wiki-pedia worthy due to the inherit weakness of the reference source. Physics16 (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.195.164.114, 1 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Shell ^babelfish 07:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC) The habbo raids were perpetrated by /b/ not anonymous

90.195.164.114 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You know that isn't true. Anonymous did it, originating from /b/, and we've got the source for it. --Cast (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous timeline

The anon concept predates 2003, it's from 1999 on the japanese imageboards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.32.33 (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Get a source. Certainly the notion of being anonymous on an imageboard originated in Japan, but current sources state that Anonymous, as the meme we know, originated on 4chan. Find information that Anonymous, as a meme, originated elsewhere, and we'll cite it. --Cast (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm... you know this issue aside it would be nice if their was a specific time-line of the thing Anonymous has done, you know for historical reasons. I would do it but I don't know how to make one. Physics16 (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. You can use a graphical template. There are no real clear cut examples of the right template layout for this article, but we can experiment and develop a unique one for this subject. Since a casual reader learning about Anonymous might want to know about the activist activity separate from the lulz and internet hate machine cyber-bullying, it might be a good idea to create dual templates. Consider these examples: Template:ElderScrollsTimeline (a timeline with links to other articles for notable events); Template:Timeline of Julius Caesar's life (multple fields for separating events by subject, events are concise while topics are flexible); and finally, look to the two versions of the timeline for the Radeo, the graphic template, and the actual Timeline of radio article. If enough actions become attributed to Anonymous, a separate article just devoted to acting as a timeline for all of these events may become necessary to act as a concise, list formatted reference for researchers. --Cast (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous' "parent organisation"

This article claims that Anonymous' parent organisation is "4chan".

It claims that Anonymous has a parent organisation, yet it also claims that Anonymous is a "decentralized affinity group". Which one is it?

Furthermore, the source (http://www2.citypaper.com/columns/story.asp?id=15543) does not claim that 4chan is the parent organisation of Anonymous. It says: "Anonymous was born on an online image board". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronom (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep reading: "Anonymous was born on an online image board, devoted mainly to pictures and discussions having to do with anime--Japanese animation. The site, 4chan.org, created in 2003 by an administrator who goes by the name "moot," was based on a Japanese forum whose founder believed that by making users anonymous their arguments would be judged on their own merits." Aside, being decentralized does not stop a group from springing forth from another source. Anonymous was founded as a meme on 4chan; is also an internet subculture; and as an activist group, is a decentralized affinity group. Better luck next time. --Cast (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. The point is, the website says that the website was born on 4chan. This does not mean that 4chan owns Anonymous. This is what 'parent organisation' implies. I would also suggest to add a 'parent organisation' to articles such as Lolcat in this case, then. Although there is no definition for 'parent organisation', there is a definition for 'parent company', which is a company which has control over another company. The wording here needs to be less reckless.

Ah, now I see your point. That went right over my head the first time. Well, I concede to your perspective entirely. We wouldn't want to throw readers into confusion. Since this infobox is intended for organizations (the best infobox I can think of, as there is no infobox for internet phenomenon and memes) I can see where the original intention behind the field would lend itself towards the definition you put forward. I'll agree to striking that off of the infobox. --Cast (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiLeaks

Reportedly, Anonymous supports WikiLeaks: [8] [9]

I've been told that these don't count as reliable sources. However, with a group like Anonymous, no formal announcement is possible (since it has no formal leader etc.). So how much coverage do we need, exactly, to count this claim as reliable? Sonicsuns (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just found it in the New York Times: [10] Sonicsuns (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous does not support Wikileaks. Wikileaks is an organization bent on one purpose self gain. This is against the anonymous creed. False prophets claim to be anonymous. Do not be deceived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.200.73 (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course Anonymous supports Wikileaks ^that guy is not representative of anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.208 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous does not support Wikileaks because Anonymous cannot support or be against anything. It is not an organized institution with clear ideas and goals, it's just a loose group of people doing what they feel like doing at the moment. --Imadofus (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

New source

I'll just leave this here. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/949211--cyber-fighters-the-force-with-no-name 24.57.77.99 (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a very interesting source. Thanks for bringing it to us. Now it's just a matter of picking through this treasure trove. --Cast (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarify with Scott Walker (politician) ... currently ...the Kochs are one of (Republican) Governor Walker's largest corporate supporters..

Clarify with Scott Walker (politician) ... currently ...the Kochs are one of (Republican) Governor Walker's largest corporate supporters.. ... also clean-up Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family#Anti-union_activity ... currently closest is Political_activities_of_the_Koch_family#Unions. 99.190.86.229 (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from ImInzide, 16 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hello wikipedia, i just wanted to say, that Anonymous is not a group, and several people are getting _PISSED_ off that you are calling it one. ~inzide ImInzide (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

lmlnzide, hopefully you won't DO ANYTHING CRAZY, since our sole mission is to give the world access to encyclopedic information. The purpose for the WP:DISAMBIGUATION in the title is so that readers know we are not talking about Anonymous (the concept of being unknown). Do you have a different suggestion, such as Anonymous (hacktivists), Anonymous (trolls and hackers), Anonymous (mask-wearers and rabblerousers)? Seriously, what should we call it instead? Ocaasi (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Add http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_12/b4220066790741.htm from Bloomberg BusinessWeek

Add The hacking and public humiliation of cyber-security firm HBGary isn't just entertaining geek theater. It's a cautionary tale for businesses everywhere from March 10, 2011, 5:00PM EST Bloomberg BusinessWeek (page 66 in print in USA). 99.19.45.184 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not the title of the article. It may still be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hacker v. Hacker adds not clarity. 99.181.154.96 (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If used as a reference or in a {{cite}} template, it could be in a quote= field. As a link, Hacker v. Hacker is about the best we can do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Arron Barr intend to be Aaron Barr in "In 2011, an elusive hacker known by the alias "Commander X" was at the center of an investigation into Anonymous by Arron Barr."

Is Arron Barr intend to be Aaron Barr in "In 2011, an elusive hacker known by the alias "Commander X" was at the center of an investigation into Anonymous by Arron Barr." 99.56.121.149 (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A simple typo. Nothing to see here, people. --Cast (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Splitting Activities into separate article

The article is overly long and might be hard to navigate for people with slow connections and each activity has much more coverage than 1 mere paragraph. So leaving notable activities in the article whilst creating a separate article for all the events will allow for wider coverage. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:47pm • 02:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Using User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js the page size comes up to 32 kb, which is actually not large at all. It's common for Featured Articles to be twice as long. It may just look long because the activities section is growing quickly, and is disproportionately large compared to other important sections. There is increasing commentary on reactions to Anonymous, but that section remains the smallest. Further, as activity sub-sections grow in coverage here, it is more reasonable for them to be individually split. Several already have been. As each split takes place, the activities can be summarized here into a single paragraph sub-section. When that list itself grows to be too large, then we can reasonably discuss splitting it as well. Until we get to that point, I think splitting is premature. --Cast (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

YouTube porn day

"I'm 12 years old and what is this?" was a meme well before BBC picked it up. There was a certain irony in BBC reporting this comment even though it, too, was a prank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.76.31 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Stop DLD" operation in Norway

We should add something about Anonymous attacking arbeiderpartiet.no and hoyre.no because the norwegian pairlament voting yes for the Data Retention Directive's implimintation in norway. it created a lot of fuzz in the media, and the sites previously mentioned was down for hours.

Ingemazen (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything from the internal media covering this. Can you point to specific articles? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sources. You may argue about there reliability, but please search for other sources. Additionally, Anonymous is also protesting against Sony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2FC-NYBfY

http://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/1937229/DRD+in+Norway/

Levardi (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

actually Arbeiderpartiet shut their websites down and changed to use Facebook. source: http://www.facebook.com/Arbeiderpartiet?v=info

[quote]Arbeiderpartiet.no angripes av hackere, men vi håper å være tilbake snart. Offisiell side for Arbeiderpartiet. Denne siden er for alle våre sympatisører, medlemmer og tillitsvalgte. [/quote] basically means "Arbeiderpartiet.no is being attacked by Hackers, but we hope to be back soon. blablabla" (i also know its explained more in-depth somewhere on ITAvisen.no) also here is a source http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/norsk-politikk/artikkel.php?artid=10091735 and here is some general info about the attacks: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/norsk-politikk/artikkel.php?artid=10091741

Divinity76 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

operation sony?

Hello I was reading about operation sony and found this article. Can you please disambiguate it, first of all, what is being referred to as "operation sony" is not found in the text, and here it is described as part of operation payback. I found these articles today, and would like to know if it is the same or different. http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201114/7017/Anonymous-Operation-Sony-is-a-double-edged-sword http://anonnews.org/?a=item&i=787&p=press http://ps3.dashhacks.com/2011/04/16/operation-sony-foiled-partially mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I was even trying to mention this before, in OpSony section above. Unfortunately I can not edit the article, and no one seems to be listening.

http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=787

http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=809

http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=797 Levardi (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OpSony

Seems Sony has been added as a target to Operation Payback, as many sites are reporting now. 99.99.70.93 (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's probably just some random kid with a blog looking to raise a personal army. The whole "knowledge is free, expect us" part of the slogan on the press release is suspicious and looks as if it was written by an outsider. There hasn't really been any talk about going after Sony on /b/, /v/, or any other of the related boards. SAx (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there does seem to be an interest in anger at Sony.

http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=787

http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=809

http://anonnews.org/?p=press&a=item&i=797

Levardi (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC) ARE YOU KIDDING ME? STOP THEESE BASTARDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.94.67 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor correction: "consequently" -> "subsequently"

It is described how the winner of the scientology contest stood on the street dressed as a Nazi and then consequently called them on the phone. The word "consequently" describes an action resulting from another; its use in this way suggests that the reason he phoned them was that he had previously stood in front of the headquarters dressed as a Nazi. The correct word here is "subsequently". 24.79.93.201 (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This page is FULL of copyright issues and non-sourced information.

The image with the masks is full of copyrighted material. The masks are copyrighted and not public domain. The character that the masks are made after are copyrighted and NOT public domain.

The majority of this page is NOT sourced and should be deleted.

After seeing SO many pages on Wikipedia be deleted and censored for FAR less rule violations.

This page needs a MAJOR overhaul! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.140.162 (talk • contribs) 7 April 2011

TL;DR The "Guy Fawkes mask" is probably too generic to have an enforceable copyright. Anyways, this image is not hosted at wikipedia, it's hosted in Commons. You should go to commons:File:Anonymous_at_Scientology_in_Los_Angeles.jpg and request deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

First, the historical Guy Fawkes is not a copyrighted character. Second, when V for Vendetta was drawn, the mask already existed, so the character design would be derivative from the mask design. Third, I have never seen any indication that the mask design is copyrighted, I googled a bit and I understand that the mask is based off some old engraving that was already in the public domain. And fourth, if the mask design is copyrighted, then please point us a reliable source saying who is the copyright holder. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Looks like the artist designed a new Guy Fawkes mask from memory "At the it was agreed on, there were no Guy Fawkes masks around - it not being November (..) - so I imagined one, which had the spooky smile that always seems part of even the meanest Guy Fawkes mask I've ever seen." (interview with David Lloyd, the artist of V for Vendetta) True Brit: a celebration of the great comic book artists of the UK, p 143. so, fourth the copyright owners would be the creators of V for Vendetta, who probably ceded the explotation of rights to Warner Brothers. The image is hosted at Commons, in commons:File:Anonymous_at_Scientology_in_Los_Angeles.jpg. I'm not sure on whether Commons allows images that contain copyrighted elements, and I'm not sure if Warner Brothers have a strong copyright claim, since the mask is a derivative work of all already-existing Guy Fawkes masks, which I think that are based originally from some old engraving. A "Guy Fawkes mask" could be too generic, I'm not sure if the mask ought to be identical to the mask in the comic and the film. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC) For comparison, old masks with beard, and with goatee. hand-made version (older than V for Vendetta?). Also [http://fashiononschools.blogspot.com/2010/11/remember-remember-5th-of-november-and.html original portrait that the old masks are copied from? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The rules CLEARLY state that you cannot post copyrighted images, information or works based on copyrighted material. It doesn't matter where it is hosted, it cannot be displayed, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.142.177 (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's so clear the image is copyrighted. I have nominated the image for deletion in Commons. You can make your arguments for deletion there. Other editors will evaluate the problems, and an admin will decide if it should be deleted or not.

Now, about the topic of unsourced text in this article. Your complaint is too broad, could you please point us to specific information in the article that is unsourced? Specific paragraphs and sentences that don't have sources, or that they say stuff that the sources don't say. This way we can try to source it or we can remove it. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The masks may be copyright but photographs of 3D objects do not break copyright. Otherwise there would be no photographs of people wearing clothes, in cars, wearing watches etc. QuentinUK (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Epilepsy Foundation Raid

I'm reading this article and chuckling to myself. Kids, you know very well that anonymous carried out the attacks on the Epilepsy Foundation. There were threads organizing the attack on 711chan and 7chan.

I thought you were all about transparency and disclosure? With this information, a cynic might opine that you were pursuing other goals -- say, publicity? the continuance of adulation from the liberal media?

Hmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.36.188 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Before some members chose to take Anonymous public with a cause-oriented slant, Anonymous tried to avoided the public eye. They habitually blamed their non cause-oriented raids on websites such as eBaum's World and had consensual rules not to talk about their group outside their discussion boards. --Y5Phl2x (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Most 4chan users hate the "anyonymous" movement and activist actions

it's worthy to add. if you doubt it start a thread in 4chan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.137.252.79 (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the news flash. Get a citation and you can put it in. --Cast (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

FAQ Bias

I found some bias in the FAQ, most notably the second to last answer. The question is valid, but I find the link to the No true scotsman ironic since there are several examples of this fallacy being applied to the other side in this very article - calling trolling and other non-activism behavior cited here not the doing of Anonymous. I suggest rephrasing it in a way that doesn't use the fallacy, like "Some consider it a splinter group because it doesn't have the motivations Anonymous originally followed".

As for the first question, I suggest calling it a meme instead of a group. It's a broad enough term to cover all the various definitions internet users have of it.--Y5Phl2x (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your suggested sentence for Q4 is problematic. Who says that the "activist" oriented wing of Anonymous doesn't share the original goals of Anonymous? They cite "lulz" as being important, and the news media has been consistent in reporting that. The activists seem to merely orient their entertainment towards social ends. Besides, that specifies only the problem some groups cite for disliking the activists among them. Another reason may be a disagreement with the political orientation being espoused. Some activists in Anonymous may prefer other agendas, and are dissatisfied with current projects. That example isn't addressed by your suggested answer. I tried to keep it bare, while making it a little sarcastic. I'll tone that edge down, but the questions need to remain basic and broad, covering the similar nature of the questions—not the specific reason behind them. As for the No Tue Scotsman reference, I don't see how this is being made in the article. Those statements which redirect blame for actions allegedly made by Anonymous are cited to express the confusion held by various parties as to who was responsible for the actions. It isn't intended to cast Anonymous as innocent, or to disparage any wing of Anonymous that did take part. To take the most prominent example of this on this page, I recall the Epilepsy Foundation raid intimately when it took place. There was a great deal of confusion on all sides, and while I personally believe that the raid was carried out by Anonymous, I have no proof of this. The only sources on the subject I can cite are those which also point out the lack of proof on it. So, that becomes this article's narrative. On the other hand, I wrote up much of the section on the SOHH! defacement raid and contributed the screen shot image. No attempt was made to muddle who was involved in that trolling event, because the sources were clear. Trollish behavior is not being excluded from the characterization of Anonymous. The elements on trolling simply haven't been expanded. Common editors don't seem to be oriented towards that, preferring to edit the latest cause oriented events. That may represent a systemic bias, but not a dismissive agenda. [Incidentally, I recall that the SOHH! sub-section on this page also hurt the Chanology protests at the time, because the Church of Scientology held a counter protest at the next Los Angeles event, and I even saw that they downloaded my screen shot and turned it into a poster board for Angelinos to see. A caption read, "We do it for the lulz!" Was this damaging to one wing of Anonymous? Yes. Does it matter? No. Anonymous lives on—both troll and protest—another day.] Regardless of agendas held by third parties, this page must stay focused on representing the meme, subculture, history, and current activities of Anonymous as accurately as possible. If it can do that, external biases and agendas don't matter. Common internet viewers can visit this page and learn as much as they need to know about Anonymous and formulate their own opinions on this inter-Anonymous schism. As editors, we just have to bring it up to a certain standard of quality that provides for understanding from multiple angles. Now I'll be editing the FAQ a bit. Hope you'll prefer the changes I make. Hope you understand the changes I don't. --Cast (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of Anonymous's goals. Just by reading the front pages of the various activist Anonymous websites, I see a definite lack of lulz-based or lulz-involved activity. All of the operation posters carry the "vigilante internet rebel" vibe, and make no mention of doing anything because it's funny. Could you cite the news articles and operations (specifically on or about the activist websites) where lulz is involved? (By the way, I understand the confusion with the lack of sources, since there are no official archives of most image boards)

On the Scotsman reference - one post I was referring to was "That wasn't Anonymous that defaced the RIP pages it was 4chan trolls, get your facts straight newfriend". See my reply for an argument why it was Anonymous involved regardless of sources (or lack thereof). Regardless of counter-examples to the fallacy, the mere fact that there can be a counter-example is proof that the link has bias. Revising my original replacement, I suggest (paraphrasing) "Some members of Anonymous believe the activism or trolling actions of other members do not exemplify the group as a whole." I suppose you could fit in the fallacy link too as it applies to both sides in this case. --Y5Phl2x (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No criticism section??

I find extremely remarkable that there is not a criticism section in this article. In fact, Anonymous has been criticized widely for their double standards regarding their fight for freedom of speech but at the same time censoring those who do not agree with them in such or similar concepts. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it extremely remarkable that you didn't just add it yourself. (Read more at: Be bold). Oh, no, actually I don't. That's why I wrote an answer for you in the FAQ. Read Q3. Now if you'll take another look at this article you'll see a "Reception and impact" section. That is the perfect spot for a sub-section on "Free speech and censorship", which can speak to both criticisms and compliments Anonymous has received. You should also be made aware that "criticism" sections are generally discouraged because they lend themselves to slanted perspectives and pov criticisms. (Read more at: Wikipedia:Criticism) All articles must remain as neutral as possible, only reflecting the general reaction among the public. As far as I can tell, the general reaction to Anonymous's anti-censorship campaigns has not been to assume double standards. I have seen that criticism myself, but I see it as being a minority perspective. I think criticism should get a mention, but not become a major theme. --Cast (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck trying to add anything on Wikipedia given the biased nature of the WikiAdmin cabal.

I didn't add it because I am sure there are editors heavily involved with this article. That doesn't keep me from pointing out one of the group's more well known criticisms, so is not really a minority. I believe most people think that Anonymous strategy of censoring those who want censorship is an irony and double standard, part of being an advocate of free speech and freedom is having to put up with those who don't put up with it. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then please allow me to inform you that you can edit this article and any others without concern for active editors. There is no such thing as article ownership. Don't let active editors stand as an excuse not to jump in yourself. You might also want to add in the references made by an Anonymous "press release" referencing Beatrice Hall. ("When Anonymous says we support free speech, we mean it. We count Beatrice Hall among our Anonymous forebears: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'" Is the Anonymous-Westboro Baptist Church feud a hoax?) Incidentally, I dislike that statement, but we've got citation for it, so it would be derelict of you or I to ignore it. So feel free to add it yourself if you care so much about the topic. --Cast (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is an important example of the hypocrisy of anonymous. They hacked a PBS server simply because they didn't like the article criticizing Wikileaks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the "hypocrisy of anonymous", but not of "Anonymous". The article you link to does not state that Anonymous was involved in this. It states that a anonymous hacker group named "Lulzsec" committed the act, and Anonymous is briefly mentioned in reference to its hack of HBGeary. Further Lulzsec has tweeted in response to that accusation, "We aren’t Anonymous you unresolved cow-shart". This source isn't useful for this article, but it would be useful for the article on responses to the controversies about Wikileaks. --Cast (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No mention of their postive efforts?

I remember quite a few incidents where they tracked down individuals who were caught doing cruel things to animals on video, why does this have no mention? O perhaps it was just 4chan, not anon, I don't remember exactly. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not the first to mention this. The feel free to use the search bar in the archives template on this page. Now please see Q3 of the FAQ, also on this page. Please provide reliable citations for the event, if you can find any. --Cast (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammar error in the Operation Sony section

The section says: "[...]they were the cause behind the a major outage[...]" 212.33.81.230 (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

-- Upcoming Internet Filter & Anonymous Protests == What about the upcoming internet filter in Turkey and about actions prepared for that? 121.242.207.242 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Operation Empire State Rebellion

http://www.youtube.com/user/AmpedStatus http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/103623/flag-day-protest-anonymous-operation-empire-state-rebellion-begins/ http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ctrlaltbernanke-operation-empire-state-rebellion-resumes-attack-fed-chairman http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/06/13/revolution-america-protests-scheduled-june-14th-operation-empire-state-rebellion-engaged-26771/ http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=215659122039078971677.0004a3a944bafe3a247b7&ll=41.508577,-98.261719&spn=49.644969,70.136719&z=3&source=embed

And this email I got from them on the 14th: File:Http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/7378/65714753.png

Just thought it would make a interesting addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legendman3 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Westboro Church attacks

It should be noted that the hacker who attacked the Westboro Church isn't Anonymous, it was another hacktivist named Jester.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/24/jester_westboro_baptists_anon_silliness/

https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/12400-Assault-on-Westboro-Baptist-Church-Website-Continues.html

I'm sure it is well known by now in the hacker community.

Levardi (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? This article is about what Anonymous have done, not what they haven't done. FYI, Anonymous did "attack" Westboro Baptist Church. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9211305/Anonymous_hacks_church_Web_site_during_live_interview Chronom (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you actually watch the interview, Anonymous hacked a portion of a Westboro Baptist Church site, but they (and Jester) claimed that the websites brought down by DDOS attacks were done by Jester.

Sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM

Levardi (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The writing in this section has a bias. It says that Anonymous supports free speech NONETHELESS the group still attacked the Westboro Baptist church's website. It argues that Anonymous is hypocritical, while making no mention of the difference between a right to free speech and laws against propagating hate. F.noone (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)F.Noone (talk) june 26,, 2011.

The Plan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_9T1SPJXRI --74.102.158.16 (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin

Information about how the Kochs donated money to other charities is completely irrelevant to the article, as such donations were not a motivating factor for the actions taken, while it does serve to "Balance" the article, that is information that should be saved exclusively for the page on the Kochs. 76.247.131.65 (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you are looking for this: Political activities of the Koch family ? 99.181.136.35 (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

"Operation: Restoration," the restoration of Encyclopedia Dramatica

You may want to add Anonymous's recent project dubbed as Operation: Restoration, in which Anonymous is attempting to restore Encyclopedia Dramatica after it was taken down several months ago. They have recreated the website at encyclopediadramatica.ch, with most articles brought to their original state (including the fabled "Offended" page). They are seeking out the help of former ED users to restore several articles of which could not be replaced originally. I am just an anoymous Wiki user passing along new info. Forgive me for any errors in this post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.130.225 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hackslasher, 12 July 2011

in the membership section, i have a note, membership can be terminated if the group wishes one too, for example, if someone new ( anonymous calls them newfags)is getting anoying, anonymous will gang up and join forces to terminate them from the group, also, if you are discovered lying or bragging about something, they will gang up and try and throw you out by threatening, and or destroying your computer. Hackslasher (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Media interest

5.1.3 Anonymous was featured on Australian Radio National on 30 July 2011 in a story called "Anonymous: Just for the lulz?" by Gabriella Lahti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.72.73 (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

civil disobedience

based on what the civil disobedience article says, anonymous doesn't engage in civil disobedience because they don't reveal their identities 173.51.187.83 (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Add "The Plan"

dear wikipedia, i as a former anonymous member noticed that no one has mentioned "the plan" look it up on www.whatis-theplan.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackslasher (talk • contribs) 20:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy that the False Flag Operation: The Plan. Was not added to the main page of Anonymous (Group) The reasons being: Why Anonymous does NOT support Whatis-theplan:

- The site WITP asks for registration before content is viewable.

- The site WITP does not allow TOR, our anonymous project.

- The site WITP accepts direct paypal payments to their business account theplan@yahoo.com but Anonymous is at war with paypal, paypal deposited 1000+ IP's to the FBI.

- The site claims to have leaders and representatives. This is not anonymous.

- The site has censored many of our friends and members. This is unacceptable.

I am nothing but a simple advocate. Hackslasher, you may delete this if you want, but know that I know and many know, 'The Plan' is a CIA False Flag OP. --Color Metal Dye Ampoul (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong 8/15/2011

The "Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is a group initiating active civil disobedience and spread through the Internet while staying hidden" is incorrect first and foremost it is not civil disobedience they are trying to achieve. They are trying to make a better world for people making the government more transparent, make the government work for us not apposed to us. unify people of all races ethnicity, political views or financial positions. This website is the reason people dont know the truth about Anonymous they are fed lies by the disgrace of a web page such as this.

for the truth go to whatis-theplan.org and watch the video on the front page and you will get the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Map2142 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I did and my conclusion is anonymous is communism with a new name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.187.83 (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. Now get some sourcing and you can add all of that into the article. Wikipedia is what you make of it. --Cast (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Operation GEMA

• Note: Anonymous also attacked the German GEMA twice in 2011: 1st time in June, 2nd time at the 22nd August. Reasons are the GEMA's argument with Youtube. I can't add this information by myself because of the semi-protection. --Slay555pt (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous and Company

I understand that due to the nature of Anonymous, it is nearly impossible to separate it into splinter groups, but I think one would be able to categorize (Generally) some of the more widely accepted viewpoints of Anonymous members. This article comes off more like a timeline of their actions, with a very brief summary of what this group is. I'm willing to start working on the Iconography and Aesthetics sections (Which should probably be renamed to something a bit simpler), but I'd like to know how much is too much. Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "too much" as long as you can justify included material with proper citations. If the article gets too large, we can discuss splitting it at that point. You are correct in how this article needs to be redirected to focus on what Anonymous is about, but what title would you prefer? As the section is for the descriptions of how Anonymous frequently uses certain icons and a signature style, what would be more appropriate? --Cast (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we might be better off splitting up the Iconography section, that way we can have a section devoted to the culture of Anon, and another that I can't think of right now :P. Thanks for responding, I'll start working on the Culture section once I finalize all my sources. Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Anonymous

This definition of Anonymous is heavily waited to a fear mongering point of view. There are numerous uses of anonymity beyond the internet or civil disobedience. Henry Ford provides one reason beyond civil disobedience, "The fear of loosing what you have blocks all avenues of innovation and advancement." Similarly, Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." BenDoGood (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC) "Scott Nesler" - The Do Good Gauge

I may be not be the first to notice, but to me it seems like this article is saying, that anyone, calling themselves Anonymous, is part of one big group. Now i seriously doubt, that this is the intention of the article and all the writers, and im fairly sure that the writers know that this isn't one big group, but for the less informed that use this site as their main source of information, the article could very well lead to misunderstandings. And with all the negative reputation that the word "Anonymous" has gotten over the past months (playstation network being a good example) i think it would be good to clarify, that Anonymous is not one big group - and only rarely sytematic long-lasting groups at all - but that it rather seems to be spontanious assemblys created for a once time purpose and with very short livespans. So to sum it up, my request is that it be clarified that Anonymous is not one big group, but that it is instead lots of smaller assemblys, and that the actions of those calling themselves Anonymous is only rarely connected with each other, and that is is rarely the same persons participating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumal0 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous is not a groupGlajaklsgjkd (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ruma. Anonymous is not a group in any way shape or form. It has no structure. It has no organisation. It is simply a group of people. I am anonymous right now (save for my IP). Anyone can be anonymous. This article credits Anonymous with many hacking/DDoSing activities, which is wrong. It should credit Anonymous PEOPLE, not the 'group' anonymous, because of course we all (should) know that anonymous is not a defined group. ANONYMOUS IS NOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE, IT IS A CONCEPT THAT IS USED BY PEOPLE. 109.158.131.50 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

To credit the individuals seems like a rather pedantic endeavour. Firstly, one of the concepts of the Anonymous collective is that you are not an individual, but a part of the hive. Secondly, the acts were carried out under the guise of the Anonymous collective, so attributing it to the group is more than reasonable. Anonymous technically has no individuals or members, as it is merely a set of loosely defined ideals that people can stand with for certain issues AnonNietzsche (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This really does need to be clarified. This article is very misleading about what anonymous is. It's not a group. There is no membership. Nstring (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this going to be done soon? Especially because of the current goings-on with people like Lulzsec. Guyag (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

These should be mentioned

Operation Andes Free

• An attack On Peru and Chile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.51.101 (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Anonymous demanding child porn from an 11-year old girl and sending death threats to her family when she asks them to stop.
• Anonymous defaces Facebook pages for dead children.

Most of the present coverage on this page covers their "activist" actions, while in reality the bulk of their actions are the harassment and bullying of children.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The latter doesn't mention Anonymous. Adambro (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cracked.Com is a comedy web site (after the well known pulp comic book.) I don't think a reference to a comedy web site web page is a very good reference, Gawker would be a better reference for that series of incidents, in my opinion. Damotclese (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The dead children thing isn't Anonymous is it? It was reported in New Zealand as being the work of a US neo-nazi group. NZ forever (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with these actions being attributed to anonymous is that anyone can claim to be part of the group. So these may be separate circles. --Mutlee (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is very biased towards Anonymous. Efforts need to be put forth to present the article from a netural point of view, instead of just trying to make Anonymous look like a bunch of heroes. --Little Jimmy (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And if it helps, heres a better link to the case about the 11 year old girl. --Little Jimmy (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The better link mentions random 4chan users, not Anonymous. SuperPurple (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You use a cracked aricle as a source? Wow. This just makes me assume you read the article, rushed to Wikipedia, and started your bias propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.247.135 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't Anonymous that defaced the RIP pages it was 4chan trolls, get your facts straight newfriend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.208 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It WAS Anonymous who defaced the pages. It was not the "hacktivist" group from WhyWeProtest/AnonOps, but those sites do not represent the views and opinions of Anonymous. If the posts originated from 4chan, they are inherently and automatically part of Anonymous (provided they didn't use tripcodes). I recommend a section about these articles (and others like it) to illustrate the fact that modern Anonymous is NOT about nonviolent protest, these are only the views of a large portion of Anonymous. If it appears otherwise, I believe this is only because the hacktivism activities are the ones that make national news. Anyone can be part of Anonymous and have any kind of opinion they want as long as they are anonymous. --Y5Phl2x (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't share your opinion because Anonymous make reference not only to 4chan (is just the place of birth) but also to a Idea. Idea is anachism (social anarchism), like in the comic V for Vendetta. (sorry for my bad english). 83.113.232.4 (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 3ntity, 19 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Would like to include this two part article that includes an interview with professed members of Anonymous under the section on media coverage. Thanks.

http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/09/in-search-of-anonymous-down-and-out-in-the-digital-age/

http://www.deliberatelyconsidered.com/2011/09/in-search-of-anonymous-down-and-out-in-the-digital-age-part-ii/

3ntity (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not consider 'Deliberatelyconsidered.com' to be a reliable source, so I will not action this request. If you disagree, please raise it on WP:RSN; if consensus there agrees that it is acceptable, please re-request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

22 Sept 2011 arrests

I see some articles today on arrests, of both Lulzsec and Anon. E.g. Fox News: "In another indictment, Christopher Doyon, 47, of Mountain View, Calif., and Joshua Covelli, 26, of Fairborn, Ohio, were charged with conspiracy to cause intentional damage to a protected computer, causing intentional damage to a protected computer and aiding and abetting .." If anyone can confirm that other sources also name those two persons as (allegedly) part of Anon, then the material may be suitable for this article. --Noleander (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Threat against the NYPD

Anonymous threatened to attack the NYPD in response to the police aggression against the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Its tough to find sources on this issue due to the media blackout however i have this article and video. Surely this deserves a mention. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/anonymous-threatens-nypd-_n_983941.html --132.198.228.121 (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

aku ingin belajar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.138.69.209 (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

_________________ In austria there are regular protestaction made by anonymous, and i am pretty sure taht other countries hav etheir anonymous actios, shouldnt that be mentioned somehow anonaustria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.229.59 (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request 10/10/11

From the initial section:

Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is a group initiating active civil disobedience and spread through the Internet while staying hidden, originating in 2003 on the imageboard 4chan, representing the concept of many online community users simultaneously existing as an anarchic, digitized global brain.

This is neigh unreadable. I propose it is simplified and split.

Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is a group initiating active civil disobedience and spread through the Internet, while attempting to maintain anonymity. Originating in 2003 on the imageboard 4chan, the term refers to the the concept of many online community users simultaneously existing as an anarchic, chaotic global brain.

175.35.216.12 (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 10 October 2011

how do i join???? 66.87.0.68 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You can join by clicking this link. – Richard BB 21:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Origin of Anonymous

The article currently has Anonymous "originating in 2003 on the imageboard 4chan," which is inaccurate. 4chan itself started in 2003; Anonymous (as the name is used in this article) started later with the Scientology raids. 4chan was hardly the origin of internet anonymity, and long before the term referred to an activist group, "anonymous" on 4chan just differentiated anonymous posts (presented as an amorphous body) from those using a tripcode for unique identification. And despite what Y5Phl2x below seems to think, posting on 4chan sans tripcode does not mean automatic inclusion in Anonymous_(group). 4chan was not the first site to allow anon posts.

tl;dr Anonymous as a group started years after 2003 74.73.105.201 (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

well yes, While 4chan did always allow for "anonymous" posts it didn't automatically create the group mentality of "anonymous," but the group itself started before the scientology raids as the habbo raids were active with the collective mentality. do you have a WP:RS Coffeepusher (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 October 2011

Tumtumtumtums (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What edit are you requesting? If you can provide more information, please restore your edit request by setting answered=no in the template call. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ROFLCon Image

The image of the man in green at ROFL Con is hardly relevant anymore, as little to no members use the 'greenface' costume. I am going to change it, if anyone wants to keep it, bring it up here.

#OCCUPYWALLSTREET

IS THIS NOT WORTHY OF MENTION?
September 17th, Anonymous is planning to flood into Wall Street.

There's an article about it, Occupy Wall Street. SalfEnergy 10:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It was not Anonymous who started the Wall Street Flood. Anon joined in after noticing it being posted on 4Chan and other sites. It was just a bunch of protesters who started it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.102.90 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Operation Darknet

new information about Anonymous:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/operation-darknet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.46.252 (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ArsTechnica - Anonymous takes down darknet child porn site on Tor network — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.134.173.50 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You can read more sites on here: [1] PasteHTML – #OpDarknet

[2] CyberGuerrilla – Anonymous – Press Release 4/26/2011 – OPERATION DARKNET #OpDarknet

[3] Tor – Home

[4] Gawker – http://gawker.com/5851459/vigilante-hackers-wage-war-on-underground-kiddie-porn

[5] PasteBin – #OpDarknet Major Release & Timeline

[6] Ars Technica – Anonymous takes down darknet child porn site on Tor network

[7] PasteBin – #OpDarknet – To Catch A Predator

[8] YouTube – Become Anonymous

[9] PasteBin – #OpDarknet – Lolita City user dump

[10] Examiner – Anonymous exposes pedophile ring – hacks Lolita City

[11] Huffington Post – Anonymous Hacks Lolita City Alleged Porn Ring

[12] PC World – Hacker Collective Anonymous Strikes at Child Porn Sites

[13] Geekosystem – Anonymous Takes Down Massive Child Pornography Server, Leaks Usernames

[14] The Wall Street Journal – Anonymous Hacktivists Target Child Pornography Sites

[15] Information Week – Anonymous Attacks Child Pornography Websites

[16]BBC – Hackers take down child pornography sites

[17] Techie Buzz – An Interview with an OpDarknet Anon

[18] Reddit – Anonymous exposes pedophile ring

[19] Anonymous Hamburg – AnonyNEWS – KW4

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/operation-darknet#.TqY7WnETNq4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.78.18 (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)