Wikipedia

Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)/Archive 5

< Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Plan for moving this article to Good Article status, Round 2

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

All right, I proposed before making a push to get this to Good Article status and let myself get distracted with other tasks. But this time I have a potential collaborator (User:Dreambeaver) and I'm clearing off my wiki-desk to try to focus.

My impression of the article on a first pass is that it's off to a good start in many ways, but lacks focus and flow; the sources are predominantly daily news, rather than scholarly sources or in-depth profiles and reporting that would give a sense of history and narrative. I realize that Anonymous' structure creates unique challenges for writing a coherent article in a way that, say, US President Zachary Taylor doesn't. But I think we can still get this a bit more organized, and with higher quality sourcing. Some of the information on arrests, trials, etc. also appear to need updating.

So my strategy for now is that I'm getting Parmy Olson's book and I'll start some EBSCOhost searches, etc., updating this as I go. Does anyone have anything else they'd like to add to this article's "To Do List"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I very much agree with the daily news assessment. It gives the article a strung-together feel rather than a total overview, which would be ideal. I've been doing some work on Christopher Weatherhead so have been reading through several pieces on court cases. I know that I can start to work on some more overarching coverage by using that. Dreambeaver(talk) 17:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
That would be terrific. Olson's book is going to take a few days to wind its way through interlibrary loan to get to me, so feel free to have at this one in the meantime. I may search for relevant articles through EBSCO and other databases later this afternoon. If I do I'll post a list of results here so you and others can see what I'll be working from. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I read through Olson's book and some of the magazine material and have been thinking about how to restructure this article. I think I'd like to do a major restructuring to give this article a better sense of chronology and narrative, and the ways the group/collective/whathaveyou has changed over time. Listing attacks by topic and separating out things like the LOIC into their own section don't give much of a sense of when these things were done/used. I'd also like to get rid of the "controversies" header, since Anonymous has never done anything that wasn't controversial.
My proposed outline would be something like:
1. Philosophy -- brief overview of statements of group goals, while emphasizing that the group has no uniform philosophy and no one speaks for the whole
2. History
a. 4chan and "Chanology" (2006-2009)-- including first Fox News report on group's existence
b. AnonOps (2010) -- including Operation Payback (Aiplex attack, Paypal/Visa/Mastercard attack, etc.), LOIC, WikiLeaks, HBGary
c. 2011-present -- including Arab Spring, Occupy Movement, Sony, Westboro, Operation Darknet, brief mention of actions of LulzSec splinter group
3. Arrests and trials
4. Responses -- summarizing supporters, critics, and other analysis of the movement
What do you think, Dream et al.? Since this would be such a large-scale change, I'd prepare a draft version in user space or as a temporary article subpage and run it by editors here before posting. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
An additional note: I think two important aspects from Olson's book omitted here are the frequent dissent within the network and the heavy reliance on botnets, rather than mass action, for the major DDOS attacks. I'm going to try to include a mention of both in my revision. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that the proposed format looks great. Because it is so fragmented, it is difficult to grasp the group for uninvolved parties, and it looks like this would be the best way to do it. I'm going to try to take another couple days to do some research and really be able to study up -- so I can join in more soon. I support preparing the draft in another section as well. Dreambeaver(talk) 21:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Cool. I've started it at User:Khazar2/Anon for now; feel free to edit that draft at any point, or jump in on its talk page. And like I said, I'll run it by this talk page again before switching. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced line

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

"It also opposes Scientology and government corruption"

This is too bold a statement to be unsourced. While i have no doubt that this is true (and rightly so) i dont think it has any place here without a source, without it all it is, is someones opinion about what anonymous stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.103.47 (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's common practice on Wikipedia to have the lead summarize the body without additional citations; if you want to find the citations, those are in the article's body. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


Good call, never knew that although it makes sense now you point it out. Shouldnt the other citations be removed then? Make it look cleaner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.103.47 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite possibly. We're actually about to do a major overhaul of this article in the coming week, so I'll take a look in detail then. I agree that it should be made more consistent--thanks for pointing it out. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Good things about Anonymous

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Anonymous are not bad hackers. In January 19, 2012, FBI shut down MegaUpload that anger allot of people in the world. Anonymous helped allot of people to uncensored the internet.

72.183.213.13 (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. If you have a specific suggestion for the article, please post it in "change X to Y" form. RudolfRed (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is true we are not bad people, just this year we had Op bully takedown and mostly our Ops are for the good of the people we don't hate we just fight for a cause ~Mortal Angel Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortalAngelFoxtrot (talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Although there is no leader to join you proclaim yourself anonymous and proclaim your anonymity in the sense of being one of them and gaining your place as what you want to help with–The Mortal Angel

Got a citation for that? – Richard BB 19:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
And here is the conflict. Anonymous can either be anonymous or be on Wikipedia. How will we have it both ways?Vaxine19 (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
As to Mortal Angel, you could perhaps provide Richard with a scholarly source that backs up your claim. For if a member of a group claims something about a group, then there ought to be a place in acadamia to which he can point. If Anonymous makes this claim as a group then Anonymous should be able to provide a citation and/or change the article. Sound fair? 173.13.242.65 (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

well at times we cannot but do research about ops or get on facebook or google plus and find us, ask questions to make info credible we are everywhere but I myself cannot explain so ask other anons im only an anylyst and informant so go their and you will find credible answers from actual anons Mortal Angel Foxtrot

Wikipedia has policies against original research, so that's unfortunately not practical; we simply summarize the findings of other researchers. But isn't the information you're looking to include in the article already? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually no because this is mostly a generalization but their is a bigger picture...the part that speaks of former Ops is short and only outlines the more dangerous and hateful Ops and the section on arrest and trial is inconclusive we have had people die because of the government like The Anonymous Messenger(TAM)...its just outlining us as what we are not, as corrupt ourselves and power hungry ~Mortal Angel Foxtrot~RIP TAM we will miss you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortalAngelFoxtrot (talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well here is what ill give you that I know you don't have We are Anonymous We are Legion We do not forgive We do not forget Expect us its our motto of sorts~Mortal Angel Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortalAngelFoxtrot (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's in there, actually. "Members commonly use the tagline "We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us." Thanks again for the input. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

dude if you havent realized yet im part of Anonymous i know of this and i know a lot of the current Ops but then again once they are started they are public~Mortal Angel Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortalAngelFoxtrot (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

corrections

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Maybe you should do some research about us you are missing hundreds of the ops and your article is somewhat wrong on who we are we are good people just fighting for whats right so please change it but mostly a tip off on those ops we have many more ones that are more interesting than what you have-The Mortal Angel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.204.228.170 (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Feel free to add all of that. I think it's what Anonymous would want. I assume you can verify your claims.173.13.242.65 (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well who ever you are at least I found someone who understands Anonymous~Jacob Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortalAngelFoxtrot (talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

in the middle of a Tinychat session.

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I fail to see how this is relevant information. Could this be removed or could it be explained (in the article itself) why it is relevant to the fact that he got arrested? It seems to imply that tinychat is full of people who threaten FBI agents, which isn't necessarily true untill you've got proof for that. Imagine: "The murderer was apprehended while he was listening to the Beatles." ...wut? --145.97.215.226 (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree about the implications, but agree that it's irrelevant, so I removed it for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point you do not have proof to say it was us and not just us getting the blame ~Jacob Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortalAngelFoxtrot (talk • contribs) 16:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

New draft of article

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Dreambeaver and I have created a new draft of the article in my userspace inline with my proposal above. The draft rearranges and incorporates most of the information currently in the article while attempting to add more of a sense of the group's chronology and evolution per sources like Parmy Olson and Quinn Norton. The draft still needs some polishing and double-checking before moving over to the article space, but I think it's solid enough that it's ready for outside input. Would anyone like to take a look? You can comment at User talk:Khazar2/Anon or just edit the draft directly at User:Khazar2/Anon. Thanks everybody. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any objection on this page, I've gone ahead and moved the new draft from my userspace into article space.
Attribution: small amounts of text in this article were taken from the Wikipedia articles LulzSec and Operation AntiSec. Other text was contributed by User:Dreambeaver.
Thoughts, revisions, concerns, enraged objections welcome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
"Broadly speaking, Anonymous opposes internet censorship and control, and the majority of its actions target governments, organizations, and corporations that it accuses of censorship. Other regular targets of Anonymous actions include organization that Anonymous accuses of homophobia, such as the Westboro Baptist Church and the government of Uganda, and the Israeli government.[12]" The citation provided does not seem to match this sentence (no mention of Uganda, Westboro Baptist Church, or homophobia appear in that article at all). Regardless -- the notion that Anonymous "regularly" targets organizations accused of homophobia would seem to be a significant stretch anyway. I mean, since when?? Two specific targets are noted, each that were hit within a short period of time, very recently. and many Anons disagreed with the attack on WBC anyway (many perceived WBC as laudable "irl trolls"). I am going to change this sentence unless someone can find a reliable source indicating that this in any sense is some core part of the "philosophy" of Anonymous. Adlerschloß (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps "repeated" would have been a better word choice than "regular", but Anons have been hitting Westboro since Feb '11 and Uganda since Aug '12. It gets a lot of press coverage and seems worth a passing mention; the source in question actually does mention "defense of gay rights in Africa" among the group's activities, so perhaps you were simply searching for the wrong keyword. Anyway, thanks for your help, and let me know if you find the new wording acceptable. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I pulled the Encyclopedia dramatica sentence from the lead again, since Olson doesn't appear to describe the website as "strongly associated" with Anonymous--can you point me to the page you're looking at, or maybe find another source? I'm not sure it's quite an important enough part of the group to merit a lead mention, while the 4chan mention is redundant with what's already there. (Remember, too, that WP:LEAD recommends not putting information in the lead that's not in more detail in the body; the lead is meant to be only a summary of what follows). Thanks for taking a look at this one, I really appreciate it--I think I'm nominating it in just a minute, but will be glad to keep working on this with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Olson mentions ED numerous times throughout the book, including in relation to prominent individuals associated with the collective. The best description is probably in the glossary (if what I see is correct, page 477). To me it seems to essentially go without saying that ED is important enough in context of Anonymous to warrant mention in the lead (after 4chan, what other site could possibly be seen as "more" associated?). I'll re-add the sentence, and if you think there's a better phrasing that could occur, we could work on that. Adlerschloß (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Also -- I think the attacks against WBC and the Ugandan government definitely deserve mention in the article (unclear about both in the lead), but it still seems a stretch (for a lot of reasons) to list anti-homophobia as part of the group's "philosophy." The anti-Zionist stuff is more understandable as it's really pretty prominently been a major element of the subculture from the beginning. But I mean, on WBC, when they first started talking about Anonymous and putting out their fliers or whatever, prominent Anons said they didn't care about the group at all and that they were deliberately engaging elements of Anonymous in order to get attention (which is what they do). I could try to find old discussions on this (they wouldn't be sources we could use, but just for if anyone is interested in this context). There are leftist elements of Anonymous that actually view imposition of something like "gay rights", as a discursive praxis, in these contexts as a colonial strategy by western imperialism against Africa (ie Euro-American "homonationalism"). The attacks are notable but don't represent the "philosophy" of Anonymous. Is there possibly a better section in the article for this information? Adlerschloß (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Regarding WP:LEAD, ED surely can be mentioned in context of LulzSec, and also potentially in relation to Project Chanology. I'll have at least revisions on this regarding LulzSec soon. It might even be best to include an entire new section in this article for Encyclopedia Dramatica (which may summarize some of the content in the ED article itself). Any thoughts? Adlerschloß (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the Wired article you added is a much better source than Olson for this. Olson mentions ED 5-6 times in passing, but didn't seem to speak directly to the relationship (I admit I failed to check the glossary). You've got me more convinced now, though. If it's okay with you I do want to tinker with the phrasing to avoid the dangling modifier and the repetition of 4chan's role; I might move it to the second sentence of the second paragraph. I'll do this later and you can let me know what you think.
As for the new section itself, thanks again. I think this is a great addition. I'd like to trim out the detail about moving to a Swedish domain name if it's okay with you--it seems a bit more about ED itself and not related to Anonymous specifically--and I might join the single-sentence paragraph about Project Chanology to the previous paragraph.
As for how to do the "philosophy section", perhaps it's best to trim out the cyberattacks from that part generally; these are all detailed later in the article anyway. I'll start in on these tweaks when you're done to make sure I don't edit conflict with you. Thanks again for the good new section. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Cool, looks great. Adlerschloß (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Sources?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are there really any reliable sources on this movement? Is it like trying to nail jelly to the wall? (EnochBethany (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC))

Well, there are reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense--journalism and books on the subject from reputable publishers and authors. But yes, definitely a hard subject to pin down. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous Group in Brazil gaining bad publicity and being tagged as part of a right wing movement.

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wearing the Anonymous Group mask and carrying banners that reads: "We want the military back in power" - Fascists in Brazil are misusing the Anonymous Group symbol to promote and advertise the return of an extreme right wing military regime, during the street protests in the country, June 2013. Image source for fascists anonymous

Shout4freedom (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Steubenville, Ohio 2012 rape case

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Mother Jones has an article on the activities of Anonymous in the Steubenville High School rape case. Is this significant enough in the context of the group and this article for inclusion? It received a good amount of press coverage.Harkinson, Josh (July/August 2013). "Cyberbullies with a cause". Mother Jones. Foundation for National Progress. p. 15. ISSN 0362-8841. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding it to Timeline of events associated with Anonymous. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, it is already there, I will consider expanding it there. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article calls Encyclopedia Dramatica a "not safe for work" site. Is this an accurate desciption? Jarble (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not the author of that text, but if you read to the end of the paragraph, for example, you can see the description as "the site 'where the vast parallel universe of Anonymous in-jokes, catchphrases, and obsessions is lovingly annotated, and you will discover an elaborate trolling culture: Flamingly racist and misogynist content lurks throughout, all of it calculated to offend.'" The source continues "along with links to eye-gougingly horrific images of mutilation, sexual perversity, and, yes, kittens in blenders". I'm going to remove the tag you added for now, but if you have contrary sources about the ED, I'm happy to talk about alternate versions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

edits

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

i have some info on the Antisec part and if you need valid proof well im part of antisec both old and new the Antisec mentioned in the article has fallen and is corrupt, no longer a part of Anonymous its owner has fallen and has gone rogue for some reason but their is a new Antisec that was started this year. info will come if needed ~Jacob Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jacob, unfortunately Wikipedia articles require reliable sources per our policies at Verifiability and reliable sources. The best first step to publish your activities would be to contact media organizations; once they publish reports, we can include them here. All best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


you need proof, well i cant get you any without showing you it, and by it i mean Antisec, you want it, im here willing to show~Jacob Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It sounds to me like your proof would be anecdotal evidence, which does not constitute a reliable source. — Richard BB 15:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

i cant get you any better because its never written in stone, were anonymous after all and we hide im trying to publicize now, your giving us free propaganda~Jacob Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to try to publicize with traditional media outlets (newspapers, TV, etc.); we only report what others are reporting. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


okay well i might be able to get you something for proof but you need to tell me what you need, theirs a rouge Anon i need to expose~Jacob Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot (talk • contribs) 15:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

PSN hack

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

You know, Anonymous hacked Playstation Network.

--Josh M (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


incuding XBox to ~Jacob Foxtrot

The PlayStation hack is already listed in the article. The xBox may be better suited for Timeline of Anonymous since it was lower profile. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


well you have a point their but actually thinking about it the Xbox op was done by amauter hackers with no expeirence whats so ever, reminds me of my black hat days goin against north korea~Jacob Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

mass noun

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think Anonymous here is a proper noun, not a mass noun. It's a mass movement but grammatically it's not a mass noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.122.93 (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

mass noun

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think Anonymous here is a proper noun, not a mass noun. It's a mass movement but grammatically it's not a mass noun.

shotdead99 Shotdead99 (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Los Zetas case

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Here's a good background on the 2011 case between Los Zetas and this group. Not sure if it should be included, but here you go. [1] ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 23:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Definitely seems worth working in. I'll try to add something tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the quick reply. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 03:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"Anonymous" member hacked into Pastor's wife website of City Harvest Church, Singapore

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A certain hacker named "Messiah" who claimed to be a member of Anonymous had hacked into Pastor Kong's wife website on 2nd September 2013. The hacker claimed that he is doing this to expose City Harvest Church's fraud. Is that true? Is Anonymous really involved with this or is this some hacker using the name of Anonymous?

"Messiah" reasons for hacking: http://caritas.meridabadajoz.es/media/sunwhore.html

If this is true, can anyone added this information on the Anonymous' timeline please?

This seems a bit minor for inclusion in the article--has it received a lot of media coverage? -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Right now, it is a huge news in South East Asia and this church is a large and wealthy organisation. Here are some of them: http://www.christianpost.com/news/kong-hees-wife-sun-hos-website-hacked-by-anonymous-allegations-flood-facebook-city-harvest-confessions-page-103784/ http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/singaporeseen/this-urban-jungle/despite-police-report-defiant-hackers-set-up-new-anti-kong-hee-website http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/hacker-threatens-leak-incriminating-evidence-against-kong-hee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duo888 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, "some hacker using the name of Anonymous", pretty much is Anonymous. --87.112.113.97 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

shield

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

anti-spyware, virus, meth heads, hackers, snipers, etc. destroid all Antonio1799 (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Collective and hacktivism

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Is there any reason why Anonymous is not described as a "collective" in the lead? Also, the inclusion of "hacktivist" in the lead is too much of a generalization IMHO since most people associated with the movement are activists, with those who have actual backgrounds in hacking activities being a minority. Most of the sources seem to verify this. It would seem more accurate to state that:

"Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is a loosely organized international collective of hackers and activists."

Thoughts? Laval (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what your main source is here and why you prefer it? It's not wrong, obviously, to call Anonymous a collective, just as it's not wrong to call it a network, a group, a movement, etc.--but none of this is quite right, either, so that sentence is always going to be tricky. Norton discusses the terminology difficulty here in her great introduction to the group. So I'm not necessarily opposed to the change, but I'm not sure it's as straightforward a decision as your comment implies. I do like adding the word "international" and adding that there are activists along with the hacktivists; if it's all right with you, though, I'd like to leave the word hacktivists as a useful link (and one of the most common terms associated with the group). I'll go ahead and make these changes now, though if anyone objects, they can revert. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm basing it on Anonymous' own press releases and various blogs. Granted, these are primary sources, but for the lead, priority should be given to how the group describes itself, followed by any additional notable definitions or descriptions. For example, on the page for a Scientology organization, we would not put that it is a cult or thought of as a cult or some variation thereof. We'd write that it's a religious organization founded by LRH in the 1950s. Then we'd describe the critical view, if noteworthy enough. Now Anonymous is a very different type of group, so we have to be very careful about the terminology.
Essentially the problem I have with the current lead is that it gives the impression that there is a type of hierarchy and that there are actual leaders and that there is a cohesive and managed network. However, the reality is that it is totally leaderless and not only are there no leaders or even any single group or organization at the top (a cabal), but there is no actual network. Based on press releases, news articles, the documentary film on Anonymous, etc most of the "cells" (for lack of a better term) are not coordinating with each other. More importantly, the "hacktivist" element are a completely different part of Anonymous and are not directly involved with the message boards. I have a problem with the term "hacktivist" in general because it's a very recent neologism, but it also disregards the fact that most of the hacker element are not politically motivated or even interested in the demise of Scientology - they're doing it for the "lulz". Furthermore the vast majority of the people involved with the 2008 raids were not hackers or even technically inclined (if they were, the level of disruption against Scientology orgs and systems would've been over the top) and rather than being some kind of "group" or "movement", Anonymous perfectly fits the description of an evolving phenomenon that exists as a leaderless collective and persists as a meme. Point is Anonymous is a hell of a lot more complex and convoluted than the article intro makes it out to be. Most of the sources contained in the article verify most of this, particularly the fact that Anonymous is a collective meme, so the main issue comes down to wording and presentation. Laval (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


hmm, a collective is a new one but we prefer hackers and activists or hacktivists, hell we'll do with anarchists~Jacob Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot (talk • contribs) 15:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Pardon, I'm confused. What do you mean by "anarchists"? Do you mean that Anonymous should be referred to collectively as anarchists? Because while some members may identify as such, such as Jeremy Hammond, the premise of Anonymous doesn't preclude any specific political ideology from it's participants.--Cast (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wellwe are anarchists both on and off line, we are without gov and order making chaos or anarchy, and although most live entirely as Anons some outside of anon are more having jobs like me being a mercenary or a hacker or someone to bring chaos to the world so yes I guess I am implying we are a collective of anarchists~Jacob Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous is a hacktivist group, they have hackers who are politically motivated, and they comprise a decent portion of the group. My issue with this article is that it relies all to heavily on one book by Olson, which, though OR isn't allowed, I know, is very wrong in some parts. Such as claiming that Anonymous has rules at all. --Sgtlion (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Surely the word "Hacktivism" is a bit soft? Shouldn't the article say "Anonymous is a loosely associated network of international Cyber-Terrorists"? MANLYBeardFist (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

if you really want to know about Anon then dont read wiki because its unreliable, get out in the field and talk to them yourself, and we are cyber-terrorists but we dont like to be called it because we try to do good instead of just causing terror~Jacob Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortalAngelFoxtrot (talk • contribs) 22:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to request that an event be added to the Anonymous Wikipedia page under History/2011-present:

"In 2012, Anonymous launched Operation Anti-Bully: Operation Hunt Hunter in retaliation to Hunter Moore's revenge porn site, "Is Anyone Up?" Anonymous crashed Moore's servers and publicized much of his personal information online, including his social security number. The organization also published the personal information of Andrew Myers, the proprietor of "Is Anyone Back," a copycat site of Mr. Moore's Is Anyone Up."

Here are the sources: http://jezebel.com/one-womans-dangerous-war-against-the-most-hated-man-on-1469240835, http://betabeat.com/2012/12/anonymous-launches-ophunthunter-to-destroy-hunter-moore-and-his-revenge-porn-empire/, http://www.dailydot.com/news/opantibully-anonymous-doxes-teen-twitter-tormentor/

Thanks!

Sorceressmon9 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  Done --Mdann52talk to me! 14:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I need to update the citizens of the U.S.A. about the truth behind this group. These talented hacks have chose to try to overthrow their own government instead of using their talented skills to fight terrorism, bank fraud, credit card fraud and online predators. Our government is only protecting us, they are not exploiting our data like hackers do. Our government would hire these talented souls and give them the opportunity to police the internet against real criminals not our government. I track hacks for a living and I want my message to go out to this group to challenge them to do the work that this country so desperately needs. Inciting a civil war will not be tolerated and is considered an act of war so this warning is what it is.

007investigator (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Additionally, please review Wikipedia's policy on writing from a neutral point of view: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not limited in audience to the United States, and should be written from a global perspective. Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, it needs to be said again: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FORUM Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the article's topic. Your "request" looks lot like an effort to skate around this restriction. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@007investigator: - To my eye the most relevant thing about Wikipedia to know in this case is that it does not publish original research. (This is in response to ...I want my message to go out.... Nobody is questioning the value, importance, or validity of your work, but as a tertiary source Wikipedia only includes information that has already been published in reliable secondary sources. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Addition to information

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 In addition to all this article holds, there is a website and an IRC that was made primarily for operations. "The AnonOps IRC network was created in 2010 by a small group interested in establishing a safe, secure platform for free discussions of ideas."[1] It was also for general discussion of topics such as getting help on tech or hacking. There is also a page containing the history of Anonops. I would like this edit to be added and if needed i will provide more info and a website to go toJacob Foxtrot (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Jacob Foxtrot

addition to information

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In addition to all this article holds, there is a website and an IRC that was made primarily for operations. "The AnonOps IRC network was created in 2010 by a small group interested in establishing a safe, secure platform for free discussions of ideas."[2] It was also for general discussion of topics such as getting help on tech or hacking. There is also a page containing the history of Anonops. I would like this edit to be added and if needed i will provide more info and a website to go toJacob Foxtrot (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Jacob Foxtrot

Bradley Manning --> Chelsea Manning

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The page should be updated to reflect Manning's now legal name change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.214.141 (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Website of anonymous

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

[2], [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.52.192.47 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The anyononmis group killed thousands of human lives like 911 when terreiost attacked but they are terreiost — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.185.151 (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The above is completely false and should be removed. Anonymous does NOT have (A) website, we are the internet. Anonymous has NOT killed anyone, the Governments have. Thank you, Anon C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.193.3 (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Former investigator known as the 007 investigator specializes in hunting down destructive hacks. 007 is known for going after actual hackers who hack for monetary gain and he also goes after mostly corrupt local officials who misuse their power. 007 is not concerned about the federal government protecting citizens but the core of the destruction online is created by the theft of our financial system and predators. Sometimes local officials with too much power at their fingertips misuse technology for their own personal agenda and that makes a big difference in the intent of the hack. 007 investigator sets up network traps all over the internet just hoping to bait a hack and he has busted a great number of corrupt officials and ruthless hacks. The future of policing the internet is no different than policing the streets. Stop worrying about the Feds who are actually trying to protect us and worry about getting caught with illegal hacking no matter who you are. Mess with 007 and you have sealed your fate. You will not terrorize our government we will hunt you down one hack at a time. Welcome to the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 007investigator (talk • contribs) 06:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, it needs to be said again: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FORUM Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the article's topic. Talk pages can be redacted of inappropriate content, and repeat violators topic-banned. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

whoever originally wrote this article is a complete moron and better watch his back for other anons arent as forgiving as i amJacob Foxtrot (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Jacob Foxtrot

Dubious source

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The source supporting the claim that Anonymous is racist and antireligious makes lots of assertions, but doesn't support them with evidence. The best it does is cite a Wired article which talks about something unrelated, and it mentions Fox News covering a story in July, 2007, but doesn't even specify the day. For all we know it is just a bunch of hearsay. Is there a better source that can be used in its place? Knoxjeff (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what I was wondering as well. It's not a good source- biased and without citations or even a date on the article. Half of the content appears to be twisted to the writer's point of view, or quite possibly completely made up. I suggest the source be deleted for now, as it could lead readers astray. Seneca 55 (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous claims to have uncovered name of police officer in Ferguson shooting

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was going to edit this article for current events but found that it was (arguably correctly) locked from editing.

I wanted to add information from

How can I go about this? Shawnmjones (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Why Does This Article Pretend That "Anonymous" Is A Single Group?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article seems to assume that any two hacktivists who call themselves "Anonymous" are somehow affiliated, even loosely. This seems like original research to me. As far as I can see, "Anonymous" is just a trendy moniker that hacktivists have taken towards, and in no way implies association with any other hacktivist.

What evidence is there that this should be referred to as a single group, or that anyone who takes on the name is necessarily associating themselves with the so-called group?Ziiv (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Million Mask March

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The link to the Million Mask March has changed to: http://MillionMaskMarch.com/map Million Mask March (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Million Mask March 19 SEP 2014Million Mask March (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

im think going to anonymous team 59.46.39.186 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC) 745968411QQ

plase im tebenge firend pls...

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

180.251.56.114 (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Your request is blank. Stickee (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

New article on Anonymous in the New Yorker

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

[4] Anyone think this article is worth including on the page? It details a good amount of history from the group. Not sure where the guy is getting his info though. Thoughts? Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 23:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is an excellent history of #Anonymous.I-believe-in-HER (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

#OPKKK

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Clearly this is significant, so it needs to go in. Before I write a section, just wanted to see if these are reliable sources. Google News claims these are "highly cited", but since this is important I wanted to make sure they pass muster. Cheers! Luthien22 (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/17/anonymous-1-ku-klux-klan-0-hacker-outfit-takes-over-kkks-twitter-account-in-response-to-ferguson-threats/ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/anonymous-responds-to-kkks-twitter-taunts-by-hacking-taking-over-their-account/ http://www.zdnet.com/anonymous-seizes-klu-klux-klan-twitter-account-over-ferguson-threats-7000035836/

I came on here (the talk page) precisely because this was not yet included, so I just wanted to thank you for bringing this up. I don't want to step on your toes writing anything, but I might as well include two additional sources in case they're of any use to you or anyone else. I'm similarly unsure if they're both legit, but hopefully at least one is valid. It's RT and BBC, so I don't see why not. I don't think this necessarily has to be in a new section, though, as there is already a section on Ferguson where this would fit pretty well.

Anyway, sources: "Anonymous: Campaign against 'terrorist group' KKK will continue," RT__http://rt.com/usa/206651-anonymous-opkkk-klan-statement/__. "#BBC Trending: Anonymous takes on the Ku Klux Kan," BBC (obviously)__http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30105412__. I have no real way to sign; I'm a guest.
Thanks guest! By the way, you can sign, but it'll leave your IP address. If you want to contribute without people seeing your IP address, you can create an account :) Luthien22 (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see many reliable sources in the referenced items above, aside from the BBC. I have to question Glen Beck's baby, The Blaze, as reliable. And when I clicked on the link to RT, the article on Anonymous shared space with a story about the NASA rover, Curiosity, discovering a "coffin" on Mars. Here are a few reliables. (However, I cannot find any more recent items to see if Anon still has control of the KKK website and Twitter account.)
  • "After Ferguson threat, Anonymous removes the KKK’s hoods. Effective? (+video)"
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/1119/After-Ferguson-threat-Anonymous-removes-the-KKK-s-hoods.-Effective-video
  • "Anonymous takes over Ku Klux Klan's Twitter account"
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/17/anonymous-takes-over-ku-klux-klans-twitter-account
  • follow-up: "Hacktivists Anonymous hack Ku Klux Klan Twitter - video"
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2014/nov/18/ku-klux-klan-twitter-hacked-hacktivists-anonymous-video
  • "Anonymous Takes on the KKK in Ferguson"
http://www.newsweek.com/anonymous-and-kkk-square-ferguson-284970
  • "Hacker group Anonymous publishes names of Ferguson KKK members
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/11/16/Hacker-group-Anonymous-publishes-names-of-Ferguson-KKK-members/9011416181999
Have a Merry New Year, Wordreader (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Propose section: covering the 400 plus, wide-world "#MillionMaskMarch" that happened this week on the 5th of November

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

There was very little coverage on many U.S. networks (<strikethough>*cough* #MediaBlackout #MediaCowards *cough*</st>) but there was extensive coverage on Russia Today, a number of other international media/news sources, as well as remarkably broad coverage in UK newspapers (Guardian, Independent etc). Are these UK Newspapers considered reliable sources? - #Anonymous I-believe-in-HER (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No one cares about Guy Fawkes Day in the U.S. Guy Fawkes? What's a Guy Fawkes? Some stupid Euro holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.199.211.226 (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear IP, Guy Fawkes was the leader of one of the last attempts to assasinate a British monarch during the 16th century during the feud between Catholics and Anglicans. Although you don't care about it, it has cultural significance, and more to the point, people do care about it. Also, I suspect Anonymous's use of the Guy Fawkes mask also has to do with V for Vendetta, in which the character V wears a Guy Fawkes mask. Of course, that's original research and won't make it into the article, but the point is that you are quite wrong on this matter.
And @I-believer-in-HER:, UK papers are just as reliable as US papers and are held to the same standards! If you want to know more about our policy on reliability, read WP:RELIABLE for more info. Luthien22 (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! User:Luthien22, I appreciate the information and agree with your analysis. Happy New Year :D I-believe-in-HER (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Since I wrote the first message Anonymous have been all over the news for a wide variety of "Ops" not all of which are included in this article. Would you mind if I updated the article with referenced "Ops" that have appeared in the media? Things like #JusticeForJessica in which Anonymous have played a key role in tracking down her killers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I-believe-in-HER (talk • contribs) 02:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello and Merry New Year!
Actually, Luthien22, that information on the use of the Guy Fawkes mask by Anonymous being inspired by V for Vendetta has been added to the article and is attributed to a book by Parmy Olson: We Are Anonymous: Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous, and the Global Cyber Insurgency.
Just like there are unreliable newspapers in the USA, I posit that England's own Daily Mail is far from reliable. I've read WP discussions where the argument is made that the DM can be used as a reference as long as the information is verified by at least one reliable source. Regarding guy Fawkes Day, please realize that 190.199.211.226 speaks only for herself in a myopic, USA-centered way. There are others of us who know who Guy fawkes is and the role he played in English history.
So, all totaled worldwide, how many masks showed up to march? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

dONATIONS FROM THE NEW PIRATE BAY?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I read yesterday (1/3/2015) that anonymous is taking donations from the new pirate bay? Can anyone help me find the source? Wikia6969 (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Alirezidane (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC) one of them is AEZ He is Iranian and his date is 1988

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Google thinks this page is hacked

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Google is showing their "This site may be hacked." note when showing the enwp article about Anonymous, with a link to <https://support.google.com/websearch?p=ws_hacked>

See https://www.google.com/search?q=Anonymous+group

Found via http://thestack.com/anonymous-this-site-may-be-hacked-wikipedia-120215 . John Vandenberg (chat) 05:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "group" but a loose cyber-collective -> requesting to change the title

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think it would be better if we renamed/moved the page to something else than "group". Calling it a group makes it seem like one single collection of individuals. But Anonymous is something else. There might be a single word for it but the best definition by concept is loose cyber-collective. One could also call it a diversified movement arising out of internet-anonymity.

To resolve misconceptions in advance:

  • Everyone can call themselves "Anonymous" (the only static definitions of what that requires are: some level of anonymity, calling oneself that [and not part of some {other; with the own group being the subset of Anonymous that's involved in some action/operation} group], basing ones operations on the net and some degree of support for internet-freedom
  • There are many subsets of Anonymous that sometimes even oppose each other
  • A definition of a group might be something like this: "a number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together" (google: group definition)

So I think group is a categorically wrong categorization of Anonymous because it is not A group. This is a reduction that stems from and causes a misconception of what Anonymous truly is. Hence I'd like to ask you to pelase change the title of the page.

--Fixuture (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from what you are saying, Anonymous consists of those people who call themselves 'Anonymous' - which is to say a class or group of people. Possibly the term 'group' implies a coherence that isn't necessarily valid, but we have to give the article a title, and titles of necessity have to be brief. And to my mind 'loose cyber-collective' isn't actually any more helpful, in as much as 'collective' implies collection together - as a group - while 'lose' is simply vague. Possibly 'internet movement' might be better, though I'm not sure that a title change is really necessary. We don't normally expect an article title to summarise the entire concept under discussion, and I doubt that our readers expect us to either. What is important is that the article itself does so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well these are good points. I wondered if someone knew a short term for what I described - besides explaining the problematic wording. It's not that the title is expected to summarize the article - but it's meant to file/assign the topic. And this was done poorly - in a way that gives rise to misconceptions (even if the article explains it in a better way). --Fixuture (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Michael Brown age

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't think "an unarmed African American man" is descriptive enough, he wasn't some 40 year old man like Eric Garner, he had just turned 18... Bumblebritches57 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In May of 2015, Mike Smith made an open request; as a video; to the Group Anonymous to reveal the mass murder of 9 people by LEO's (Law Enforcement Organizations) at the Twin Peaks restaurant in Waco, Texas. https://vimeo.com/128555442 The group anonymous is the only source on earth for help in publishing/leaking the videos of the massacre. Mikesmithonepercenter (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless and until this request is reported on by published reliable sources, it is of no significance to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

92.10.246.54 (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Altamel (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Citation 128 provides a slightly incorrect link as follows:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/10/29/anonymous-intends-to-unveil-names-up-to-1000-ku-klux-klan-members.html%7C

The link should be changed to the following (i.e. remove the trailing "%7C"):

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/10/29/anonymous-intends-to-unveil-names-up-to-1000-ku-klux-klan-members.html Hodgejj (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  Fixed, and thank you. -- Chamith (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  1. REDIRECT [[]]

112.203.140.212 (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I suggest you tell them more about why and how they do it. And maybe what they stand for. The Hacktivist420420 (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Anarchism is the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraints of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals. True freedom requires sacrifice and pain. Most human beings only think they want freedom. In truth they yearn for the bondage of social order, rigid laws, materialism. The only freedom man really wants, is the freedom to be comfortable. Anonymous-Pres (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes (Talk) 18:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism Justified?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article rationalizes and justifies vandalism.

Does portraying Anonymous as a "freedom fighter" suit Wikipedia? If so this website is no encyclopedia but a propaganda base for whitewashing criminals.

This article should be written from scratch.--78.170.189.26 (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

portraying Anonymous as anything is difficult - "freedom fighting" is def. part of what certain operations have been about (Tunisia, Egypt ect.) but other operations/groups have had nothing to do with fighting for freedom (well maybe in a very large sense). --ChristopheT (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A simple "hello" would be nice. Anonymous President (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes (Talk) 18:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
"hello" @ Anonymous President ^^ --ChristopheT (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Anonymous (group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Fox News 'Hijack' claim

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Article is protected, but someone capable of doing so should remove the section claiming that Anonymous disrupted a live Fox News broadcast. The only citation is a Youtube video of an interview with a man who died in 2011, making it a hoax that a single minute of investigation proves false. 23:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.181.181 (talk)

I will look into it if I have some time (might take some time though as I am not 100% familiar with the topic and need to do some research & homework first) --ChristopheT (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is obviously scapegoating a very valuable cohort of people who DISLIKE ANYONE it ties to s makes any attempt to stop the wholesale ILLEGAL RallsWE (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, NOT for wrecking my last attempt to complain about your UNFOUNDED attack on anonymous! RallsWE (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Amanda Todd

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Didn't they do some things regarding Amanda Todd's suicide? Should that be mentioned? 147.4.36.65 (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 59 external links on Anonymous (group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Add Mr. Robot to Analysis

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I propose adding the following information to the Analysis section. I don't know if this information entirely fits in the Analysis section, so alternatively, I could create a new section called "In the Media."

"A member of Anonymous called the USA Network show Mr. Robot (TV series) "the most accurate portrayal of security and hacking culture ever to grace the screen."[16] Sam Esmail, the creator of Mr. Robot, said in an interview with Motherboard that he was inspired by Anonymous when creating the hacktivist drama.[17] Wired calls the Omegas, a hacker group in the show, "a clear reference to the Anonymous offshoot known as LulzSec."[18]"

16. "Why USA Network's 'Mr. Robot' Is The Most Realistic Depiction Of Hacking On Television". International Business Times. 2015-07-22. Retrieved 2016-10-28.

17. "The Creator of 'Mr. Robot' Explains Its Hacktivist and Cult Roots". Motherboard. Retrieved 2016-10-28.

18. Zetter, Kim. "Mr. Robot Is the Best Hacking Show Yet—But It's Not Perfect". WIRED. Retrieved 2016-10-28.

Atticusbixby (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Add #OpPedoChat to History: 2011-2012

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I propose adding the following information to "History: 2011-2012" (2.5): "Anonymous launched the #OpPedoChat campaign on Twitter in 2012 in attempt to eliminate child pornography from the internet. The group posted the emails and IP addresses of suspected pedophiles on the online forum PasteBin.[14][15]"

14. Steadman, Ian. "Anonymous launches #OpPedoChat, targets paedophiles". WIRED UK. Retrieved 2016-10-28.

15. "Anonymous Targets Pedophiles Via #OpPedoChat Campaign". PCMAG. Retrieved 2016-10-28.

Atticusbixby (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In 2016, on annual Million Mask March day, the Anonymous group's post in twitter was: "People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people. Happy 5th of November" https://twitter.com/LatestAnonNews/status/794962169607680001

David.manoukian (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I think the article should cover when Anonymous threatened Ted Cruz during the 2016 Republican primaries. They said in a video that if he didn't withdraw, they would release a lot of information on him. 96.232.177.125 (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

[5] 96.232.177.125 (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello? 96.232.177.125 (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from "2004" to {start date and age|2004} to correspond to Anonymous' foundation? 

173.73.227.128 (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane2007 talk 03:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Huh? Sources? He wants the template to be used. 96.232.177.125 (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

piyam is not going birmingham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.209.36 (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Inclusion of alias of anonop hacker who carried out Oregon tea party warning 'topsandtails' 172.111.167.181 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

OpAnonAnon

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You´re missing one, operation Anon on Anon, where Anonymous individuals go after Anonymous individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.74.111 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You're missing professionally published mainstream academic sources to prove that's a thing or that anyone should care. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anonymous (group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Untitled section

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just saying Anonymous has stated that they are not a group but rather an idea...Jumuty (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Whisalvarez (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — RainFall 06:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous Slogan

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I saw this on their YouTube channel, and this is their slogan: Anonymous is an idea that cannot be broken...even by traitors. WE ARE ANONYMOUS. WE ARE LEGION. WE DO NOT FORGIVE. WE DO NOT FORGET. EXPECT US. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

WE ARE ANONYMOUS.WE DO NOT FORGET.EXPECT US. FERNANDORD (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 63 external links on Anonymous (group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anonymous (group). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://anonops.com/about.html
  2. ^ https://anonops.com/about.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anonymous_(hacker_group)/Archive_5&oldid=1136522780"