Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2017

In August 2011, Anonymous launches #OpBart attack after San Francisco.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/operation-bart

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-website-hacked-customer-info-leaked-2335175.php 212.92.122.186 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: I could not include the Know Your Meme link, as it falls under WP:UGC, which is not considered a reliable source. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2017

New philosophy

The long-term political issues that give traumatic results to the society are not answered. This is an Internet-based, non-limiting, socialist community movement that looks for answers to questions that are not answered. Ebonynon (talk) 05:55, 28 August 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. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017

--Ebonynon (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed section

Philosophy “ Long-standing political question that has gone unanswered with often tragic consequences for social movements. This is an Internet-based, non-extremist, socialist community movement that looks for answers to questions that are unanswered. ” And internal dissent is a regular feature of the group. A website associated with the group describes it as "an Internet gathering" with "a very loose and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas rather than directives". Gabriella Coleman writes of the group, "In some ways, it may be impossible to gauge the intent and motive of thousands of participants, many of who don't even bother to leave a trace of their thoughts, motivations, and reactions. Among those that do, opinions vary considerably." Broadly speaking, Anons oppose Internet censorship and control, and the majority of their actions target governments, organizations, and corporations that they accuse of censorship. Anons were early supporters of the global Occupy movement and the Arab Spring. Since 2008, a frequent subject of disagreement within Anonymous is whether members should focus on pranking and entertainment or more serious (and, in some cases, political) activism. “ We [Anonymous] just happen to be a group of people on the Internet who need—just kind of an outlet to do as we wish, that we wouldn't be able to do in regular society. ...That's more or less the point of it. Do as you wish. ... There's a common phrase: 'we are doing it for the lulz.' ” — Trent Peacock. Search Engine: The face of Anonymous, February 7, 2008. Because Anonymous has no leadership, no action can be attributed to the membership as a whole. Parmy Olson and others have criticized media coverage that presents the group as well-organized or homogeneous; Olson writes, "There was no single leader pulling the levers, but a few organizational minds that sometimes pooled together to start planning a stunt." Some members protest using legal means, while others employ illegal measures such as DDoS attacks and hacking. Membership is open to anyone who wishes to state they are a member of the collective; British journalist Carole Cadwalladr of The Observer compared the group's decentralized structure to that of al-Qaeda: "If you believe in Anonymous, and call yourself Anonymous, you are Anonymous." Olson, who formerly described Anonymous as a "brand", stated in 2012 that she now characterized it as a "movement" rather than a group: "anyone can be part of it. It is a crowd of people, a nebulous crowd of people, working together and doing things together for various purposes." The group's few rules include not disclosing one's identity, not talking about the group, and not attacking media. Members commonly use the tagline "We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us." Brian Kelly writes that three of the group's key characteristics are "(1) an unrelenting moral stance on issues and rights, regardless of direct provocation; (2) a physical presence that accompanies online hacking activity; and (3) a distinctive brand." Journalists have commented that Anonymous' secrecy, fabrications, and media awareness pose an unusual challenge for reporting on the group's actions and motivations. Quinn Norton of Wired writes that "Anons lie when they have no reason to lie. They weave vast fabrications as a form of performance. Then they tell the truth at unexpected and unfortunate times, sometimes destroying themselves in the process. They are unpredictable." Norton states that the difficulties in reporting on the group cause most writers, including herself, to focus on the "small groups of hackers who stole the limelight from a legion, defied their values, and crashed violently into the law" rather than "Anonymous’s sea of voices, all experimenting with new ways of being in the world". References

Ebonynon (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what exactly you want changed. Phrase things in an "change X to Y because Z" or "Add X, citing Y source, because Z" format. Posting a whole section requires someone else to copy and paste the material and compare the two versions to see what it is you're trying to change and guess why you want it changed. Also, files uploaded to wordpress either fall under WP:USERG (failing our reliable sourcing standards) or (if it is a professionally-published source) WP:COPYVIO (and so can't be included). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2017

I want to change this part ↓ ,

“ Long-standing political question that has gone unanswered with often tragic consequences for social movements. This is an Internet-based, non-extremist, socialist community movement that looks for answers to questions that are unanswered. ”

As this part ↓ ,

“ Long-standing political question that has gone unanswered with often tragic consequences for social movements. This is an Internet-based, non-extremist, socialist community movement that looks for answers to questions that are unanswered. ”

Because upper part has some hyperlink issues Ebonynon (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This looks to be WP:OVERLINKING. Simplexity22 (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2017

I want to change this part ↓ ,

“ Long-standing political question that has gone unanswered with often tragic consequences for social movements. This is an Internet-based, non-extremist, socialist community movement that looks for answers to questions that are unanswered. ”

As this part ↓ ,

“ Long-standing political question that has gone unanswered with often tragic consequences for social movements. This is an Internet-based, non-extremist, socialist community movement that looks for answers to questions that are unanswered. ”

updated pdf's hyper-link Ebonynon (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2017

I want to change this paragraph ↓ ,

Anonymous has no strictly defined philosophy, and internal dissent is a regular feature of the group. A website associated with the group describes it as "an Internet gathering" with "a very loose and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas rather than directives". Gabriella Coleman writes of the group, "In some ways, it may be impossible to gauge the intent and motive of thousands of participants, many of who don't even bother to leave a trace of their thoughts, motivations, and reactions. Among those that do, opinions vary considerably."

As this paragraph ↓ ,

“ Long-standing political question that has gone unanswered with often tragic consequences for social movements. This is an Internet-based, non-extremist, socialist community movement that looks for answers to questions that are unanswered. ”

And internal dissent is a regular feature of the group. A website associated with the group describes it as "an Internet gathering" with "a very loose and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas rather than directives". Gabriella Coleman writes of the group, "In some ways, it may be impossible to gauge the intent and motive of thousands of participants, many of who don't even bother to leave a trace of their thoughts, motivations, and reactions. Among those that do, opinions vary considerably." Ebonynon (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Done I've also made a minor copyedit to make the paragraph a little more sense. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Social unrest due to psychological intelligence and mind control to creat and underlying psychological warfare and global attack on all United States citizens by global dictators all in agreeable to control civilizations. Are there Anonymous affiliates up to discussion of the use of this use of mental war to enslave the human dna mistakes or poor excuses for DNA patterns that are sad examples of creation and its capabilities of allowing us to embrace free will and dissolve acceptance of rules conformity or commands from any previous races or mentalist beings. We are agents of exposure and in a opportunistic moment to take over the planet. A social movement that directs the use of universal laws of creating true doctrinal self righteous existence and freedom of complete acceptance and love of our planetary eden. Reconintel (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Opnimr

Theres no info about opnimr nor that anonymous's @opnimr twitter account was seized by a rival hacker group. Opnimr was a infamaous op that received lots news media coverage, i'd have thought it would be mentioned. HardeeHar (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

ANonymous aku ingin jdi seperti kalian yang dapat memahami suatu sistem untuk membuat bumi damai

Muhammadmusthafa (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous aku ingin jadi seperti kalian yang dapat menggunakan internet agar bumi damai Muhammadmusthafa (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

OpIsrael in lead

I boldly took out a sentence about part of Anonymous targeting Israel on Holocaust Remembrance Day because it was seemingly only included to paint the the group/collective/community in a certain light without adhering to due weight. Looking at the more than 106 operations mentioned on Timeline of events associated with Anonymous, I don't see any other reason why this one would be singled out. Project Chanology, the only other operation specifically mentioned in the lead, is justified by being their first large-scale operation and arguably the one that started it all. However, I was reverted by User:Rainbowofpeace, so I thought I'd bring it up here for discussion with other editors. I think their edit reasoning that it "caused many to question Anonymous motives" perpetuates the misconception that Anonymous is an organized group with a shared idealogy, and implying the whole group is anti-Israel because apparently a part of it is would be unfair. Besides, lead inclusion has higher standards than just being sourced. For some WP:OR evidence of its low relevance, compare the Twitter followers of YourAnonNews (1.67 million) and Op Israel (41,000). Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

First off, thank you for being so courteous. I'm not heavily invested in this issue and I will welcome a revert of my revert while we discuss if that will make you happy. First off I would like to point out that criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitism. As a matter a fact for the most part Anonymous hasn't given more attacks against Israel than other countries. The part that does concern me and the reason why I feel this was an anti-Zionist and in my opinion anti-Semitic attack was because that it specifically took place on Yom HaShoah. Even amongst many anti-Zionistic Jewish circles this was considered to be very disrespectful to the Jewish people. Please see https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2013/04/08/why-did-anonymous-have-to-attack-israel-on-holocaust-memorial-day/#56768e4ddcc7 for a non-Jewish commentary on the issue. A similar incident happened in 2015 where Anonymous threatened Israel with an "Electric Holocaust" https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/04/02/bad-taste-or-political-naivete-anonymous-threatens-israel-with-an-electronic-holocaust/ . This is considered by many to at least be in poor taste if not antisemitic. I will however settle if you want to move it to a criticism section however you were not only removing it from the lede but from the article all-together.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2018

Lordneko (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Opsafewinter was also run in Canada known as OpsafeWinter Canada....Anonymous in Canada was also heavily involved in OpJustice4Rethaeh

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 00:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Begginings

Blackhats/anons were congregating on a particular forum other than 4chan long before 4chan ever existed, we're talking late 90's/turn of the century, and on this forum was discussed: hacks, scripts were shared, info shared, advice was given, and people agreed to join forces and do joint ops against certain targets such as large corporations. There were even incidences of people joining forces to target other well known hackers (self confessed best hacker). Back then such people usually did their own thing but as I've stated people did also join forces to work together against certain targets for political reasons, there were acts of hacktivism. Back then we were covert, we all agreed and advised others that we shouldn't bring attention to what we did. We used no logo or name, we were just anonymous Blackhats/hacktivists. At the time the press and authorities would refer to hacks as being by unknowns and that the perpetrators were anonymous (as in unidentifiable). During that period there were repeated incidences of members from that forum doing hacktivism that made major news, hacktivism against major companies and against certain governments (superpowers). Some acts made a small but significant change to the world. Thats the real true beginnings of anonymous, it's groups of persons such as that which anonymous derived from, that's essentially faze one in the evolution of anonymous. The public and more annoyingly today's anonymous members and even older and self proclaimed original anonymous members aren't aware of that as they weren't around then, and also as that early faze was covert and not publicised, it was only later when anons ceased being covert and fully anonymous and became boastful and took to role playing and wearing masks and using a name that they became known to the world. Several years ago i made such claims (as well as disputed certain claims regarding anonymous on 4chan) in anonymous circles such as in anonops, anons in anonops as I'm sure you can imagine hated me for making such claims and tried to prove me wrong by publicly (in anonops) asking topiary if my claims were true, they expected him to publicly discredit me but he confessed I was telling the truth and also that he had deceived anons for years and that some not all of what was claimed about him, his links to anonymous was lies made up by the press, yes there was some truth in it but also some lies. Of course none of what I've just told you can be proved nor will you edit the anonymous wiki page accordingly, I know that and I don't expect you too, I only tell you of such things as I thought it only right that persons contributing to the anonymous page know that there is more to the story of anonymous, I just thought some of you might be interested to hear it. HardeeHar (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous for the Voiceless

This is a relatively new movement. It does not have their own Wikipedia page. T I have try to verify their connection with Anonymous (the hacktivists group). AFV's website does not mention they are connected with the hacktivists group.

There is a picture added a couple of months ago seem to suggest they are affiliated where this is in fact not verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.243.95 (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous isn't institutional enough to really say who is or is not a member. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

hii im rajat shah im new on hacker world how to hack fb plz halp me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonashah835 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Why not mentioned Los Zetas#Anonymous' Operation Cartel

What happened finally to Anonymous Mexico? What was the end of than story? Happy End and Peace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.1.77 (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

About it

What is it Nepalies army (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Modified India...

1.stop tha formars susaids .. 2.Cheng tha India... 3.and remove tha feak political leaders....

Chinna22btv (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2019

motto is we are anonymouse we are legion we do not forget expect us.. not (we are anonymouse) please change? Helper123490 (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Please source your request. Britmax (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

change X <Anonymous was a decentralized international>

to Y <Anonymous is a decentralized international>

Anonymous is still active not past tense. Pretenders1313 (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Possibly done. See what you think. Britmax (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

What is the source for "still active"? Certainly not anything within this article, nor at Timeline of events associated with Anonymous, with no activity having been claimed by anyone for years. (It was also me that officially retired the Chanology bullshit from "is" to "was" years after it ended.) SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'll give you 1 week to provide evidence within either article or just right here. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Note: Closing request to remove from Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests, as change has been implemented. NiciVampireHeart 23:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

As this change has been reverted I'm reopening the request and providing citations for recent actively. People are still using this group to engage in political activism and they are still active on online platforms like Twitter. I'd also ask SNAAAAKE!! (talk · contribs) not to revert edits made following a discussion, especially when the evidence you're demanding can be can be found with a cursory search for the article's name. Just add the citation yourself. 98.179.184.17 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Someone posting messages on social media is not "hacker" activity. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

whether the group engages in hacker activity is not the issue. The group still exists, therefore it is not appropriate to refer to it in the past tense. 98.179.184.17 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 Note: change has again been implemented. Closing. NiciVampireHeart 22:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

Tod Anthony Meuir (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Tod Meuir aka Rain,is a known Anonymous member that routinely has shown his unabashed disregard for political and other sites by blatantly shutting down said sites

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also see WP:COI, WP:SELFPROMOTE. NiciVampireHeart 22:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

anti-Zionist

Anonymous is neutral and just seeks to find truth, logic & reason. for the betterment of humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DA8A:3100:15BB:3717:2B67:6BF7 (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous is anti-Islam... an organisation that believes in persecution of minorities and indoctrination thru political-ideological beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DA8A:3100:15BB:3717:2B67:6BF7 (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

-The claim that "Anonymous is anti-Islam" is so ludicrous

Running anti Califate / IS / Daech ops is definitely not the same as being anti-islam. Those ops are mostly manned by muslims themselves.

Balayka (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The following is on the anonymous wiki page: "Some actions by members of the group have been described as being anti-Zionist"

Why is it that when anonymous does activism against Jews/Israel it's labelled "anti-Zionist"??? That's just the politically motivated claims of Jews/Israelis and we shouldn't pander to it; the wiki page should remain unbiased.

On Twitter Anonymous is commonly decribed as being a group of criminals and morons, so should this description of anonymous also be included in the wiki page as well? Or are we being selective as to the descriptions used for anonymous, descriptions being maliciously politically motivated.

HardeeHar (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

-There is absolutely no equivalency between Jews the ppl or the believers, Israel the state, Israelis the people living there, Isareli Jews the ppl living there that either claim ascent or religion, and Zionism. So stop posting inaccurate bullshit.

Balayka (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah because trolls on Twitter should have their time at editing wikipedia, maybe ?

Balayka (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Link to the website of Garena Free Fire Hacker. Frozen khan (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Link to the website of Garena Free Fire Hacker. Frozen khan (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

How can i hack whatsap? TusajigweMwaijumba (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Origin/Formation

The lead indicates Anonymous originated in 2003, but the infobox gives its formation as 2004. Both cannot be correct. 90.254.133.121 (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

LulzSec

Would like to edit the LulzSec portion specifically in regards who was involved and when their arrests were made should happen. The article about Cody Kretsinger being arrested in Australia is incorrect, as Kretsinger was arrested in Phoenix on September 22nd 2011 and used the moniker 'recursion' and Raynaldo Rivera is also not mentioned, from LulzSec.

Original text:

On June 26, 2011, the core LulzSec group announced it had reached the end of its "50 days of lulz" and was ceasing operations.[178] Sabu, however, had already been secretly arrested on June 7 and then released to work as an FBI informant. His cooperation led to the arrests of Ryan Cleary, James Jeffery, and others.[179] Tflow was arrested on July 19, 2011,[180] Topiary was arrested on July 27,[181] and Kayla was arrested on March 6, 2012.[182] Topiary, Kayla, Tflow, and Cleary pleaded guilty in April 2013 and were scheduled to be sentenced in May 2013.[183] In April 2013, Australian police arrested Cody Kretsinger, whom they alleged to be self-described LulzSec leader Aush0k.[184]

Proposed change:

On June 26, 2011, the core LulzSec group announced it had reached the end of its "50 days of lulz" and was ceasing operations. Sabu, however, had already been secretly arrested on June 7 and then released to work as an FBI informant. His cooperation led to the arrests of Ryan Cleary, James Jeffery, and others. Tflow was arrested on July 19, 2011, Topiary was arrested on July 27, and Kayla was arrested on March 6, 2012. Topiary, Kayla, Tflow, and Cleary pleaded guilty in April 2013 and were scheduled to be sentenced in May 2013. Cody Kretsinger (recursion) and Raynaldo Rivera (neuron) were arrested for their involvement on September 22nd 2011 and August 28th 2012. In April 2013, Australian police arrested Matthew Flannery, whom they alleged to be self-described LulzSec leader Aush0k. Gibbysmoth (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Subsequent events indicate this information regarding Flannery is not correct. Goldsztajn (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Before anonymous group.

"In its early form, the concept was adopted by a decentralized online community acting anonymously in a coordinated manner, usually toward a loosely self-agreed goal and primarily focused on entertainment (or lulz). Beginning with Project Chanology in 2008—a series of protests, pranks..."

I was an anon for several years around the turn of the century (1999 - 2005). Anon hacker types used to meet on a particular website, I stil remember the first op I attempted to assist on, it was targeting one of the worlds biggest companies, and the op wasn't for luls or a prank.

There was a community of anons, we'd do ops, people shared scripts, and passwords etc and generally gossiped about cyber activities.

People acted as a group occasionally but also did there own thing as is the norm.

I remember ops targeting individuals such as an op targeting a top hacker whom liked to brag he was the best in the world, he needed to be brought down a peg or two so he was targeted and pawned.

I remember snons targeting the online gaming server of one of the biggest online multiplayer games being repeated hacked, also repeatedly taken offline and the admins email hacked as well as his accounts with forums.

I remember ops targeting major companies, not for luls but to gain valuable confidental info relating to their products/computer systems.

I remember anons targeting a superpowers government website and server was targeted which resulted in crashing one of their servers and part of their website being disabled, this made the news at the time that part of the website was down and servers affected although it was to made public as to the real reason this happened.

I remember anons targeting a Fortune 500 company being targeted which resulted in the company losing millions (this made the news).

I remember anons finding exploits in digital currency sites snd financial banking, and profiting from such.

I remember anons would target Hotmail, using exploit to read other people's emails.

I remember anons making and distributing viruses.

A lot of things happened prior to anonymous group but the contributors to this wikipage seem to think nothing happened prior to anonymous group, and that any anons/anon community that existed before anonymous group didn't do ops, and that anything anons did wasn't serious or noteworthy and was just silly shit done for the lulz, wheras the reality is far from that.

HardeeHar (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

-True @HardeeHar, there are so many inaccuracies, lies and story telling on this page I don't even know where to start. It feels like Sisyphe boulder.

But, those wikinautes they think they have it all because of the fracking Web 2.0, you know... Balayka (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@HardeeHar: Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. Please read WP:FORUM. Flalf^Talk 12:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No mention of #OpDeathEaters?

Apparently, well back in 2015, Anonymous launched an Op of this name. They just recently resumed the op, enough that it's trending on Twitter and people are talking a LOT about it. I'm honestly surprised it's not covered here. I'm definitely not qualified to write on this subject, but I'd at least like to know if there's any particular reasoning as to why it hasn't been covered here yet. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any reliable sources on it? Flalf^Talk 13:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Group activities in 2020

Group activities in 2020 are very suspicious. Link to BBCTheys York (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed. Fake News. Link to CNET. Theys York (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

119.30.47.19 (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 23:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

I would like to ask whether the current sources for the 2020 events qualify as reputable sources? There is a link to a facebook page, and if Balloon Boy is any example, things like youtube or small named "news websites" do not count as reputable sources. Thus, the Facebook and other links are rather 3rd and fourth party like sources. Linking to some more official or serious analysis like TroyHunt's (a more reputable analysist cited by the BBC) could be better suited for this. 181.234.137.103 (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You may be wanting WP:RS and WP:RS/P  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 23:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Changing the remerging of anonymous to a copycat like group as all the members of anonymous have been either arrested, hired by the CIA or gone unknown. So this is factually wrong and I’d like to correct it. JustFacts076 (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I’d like to change the “fact” of how it says anonymous remerged to help george floyd because this was never factually supported and was a almost positively a copycat group with none of the original anonymous members assisting in this. JustFacts076 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Activity related to OpJustice4Floyd

Heyheywaddup (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add this under OpJustice4Floyd, it is examples of more activity committed by the hacking group.

Anonymous hacked the website of the Minnesota senate (senate.mn), and vandalized it in a short lasting attack that was soon taken down by the people running the site, writing a message on the homepage that the senate.mn site was "offline for maintained." 12 hours later, the site subsequently relaunched.

proof of the Senate.mn hack in early June

Anonyymous also release a leak of Byron C. Lockwood, and Derek Chauvin.

Byron C. Lockwood Derek Chauvin

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 23:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

2400:AC40:700:A5DF:9063:41B9:3460:A649 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous Masks

The anonymous masks, i’ve remembered of La casa de Papel. Interesting to me. SoleBark7121281 (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Epstein section

This whole section suffers from pretty weak sourcing. First a primary source in Scribd to accuse people of paedophilia. Then it goes into several conspiracy theories regarding Pricess Diana and Bill Gates sourced by "News18", and "Explica", which I haven't heard of in my life.

It's also worth noting the case this Anon account is talking about, the “Katie Johnson case” (pseudonym), has been put into question by a lot of outlets, including Vox, PolitiFact HuffPost and Politico and has already been voluntarily dropped according to BBC. As such, I think this whole section is borderline WP:BLP - Loganmac (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Alias

I'm staying out of direct changes to this, given, well, you know. Conflict of interest. I am going to suggest adding my alias to the information panel. Aubrey Cottle (Kirtaner)

Cheers, folks. Kirtaner (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing on Aubrey Cottle being a "founder"

I'm having trouble with sourcing on the infobox about him being a founder (assuming a collective can even have it), currently it links to an article on "Techtimes" which appears pretty badly written, in parts reading almost like autotranslated, by one "Jamie Pancho". It cites an article on The Atlantic, which says "When 4chan began cracking down on organizing raids, Anonymous migrated to Cottle’s copycat site, 420chan, which he’d created to discuss his principal interests: drugs and professional wrestling. And Cottle became the de facto leader of Anonymous, a role he relished. It was during this time, Cottle told me, that he codified a set of half-joking rules for the group that became known as the infamous “Rules of the Internet.” They included “3. We are Anonymous 4. Anonymous is legion 5. Anonymous never forgives.”

The only source of him being a "founder" then is himself, with the article contradictingly stating Anonymous was already established in 4chan before they migrated to 420chan.

A search for his name and Anonymous only returns these chained articles. A search for his alias Kirtaner and anonymous, fails to return any relevant result. For a Good article to make such bold claims with this poor sourcing is questionable at least. Loganmac (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I'm in agreement with you here, I don't think Cottle can be listed as the founder when he's the only one to say he is and it quite clearly states that it existed before hand anyway before joining 420chan. I think he should be removed from the infobox, if anything a bit can be included in the article itself about his claim to it but you can say it's confirmed he is. NZFC^(talk)(cont) 11:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Gregg Housh, who was considered the defacto resource on the early period of the group, confirmed Cottle was the founder on Twitter and the article in The Atlantic would have been above and beyond fact checked. There's also a deluge of press now covering these points. It's about to hit saturation point. People keep making the mistake of conflating Anonymous on 4chan with the hacker group proper. There is a lot of retconning in order, basically. 174.88.91.209 (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/founder-of-hacker-group-anonymous-reveals-his-ultimate-endgame-11604336926 https://www.thefocus.news/tech/aubrey-cottle/ https://www.9news.com.au/national/founder-of-anonymous-hacker-group-aubrey-cottle-says-taking-down-qanon-in-reddit-ama/f104e6d5-6f7b-4df2-a178-1821ce921376 174.88.91.209 (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

afaik 9news isn't a reliable source. I contacted the author of the Atlantic article and he explicitly said the founder claim isn't a statement of fact, just Aubrey's word (the wording on the article already states "Cottle told me"). Marketwatch and other are all basing their articles on The Atlantic story. The history of Anonymous as a collective is already properly sourced to existing in 2005 at least , while Cottle mentions he started "the beginnings" of it "in December 2006" in a previous AMA, where he fails to call himself a founder [1]

By then there had been multiple Habbo and Second Life raids as documented by VICE, Wired, here and here. The article on the Habbo raids has more sources on this, as well as the entry on Know Your Meme.

VICE says "by 2004, users of 4chan's /b/ message boards were collectively referring to themselves as "Anonymous" whenever they organized internet pranks (the name comes from 4chan users posting anonymously on the site, as you don't have to register for an account). It is unclear which was created first: their catchphrase poem—"we are Anonymous, we are Legion, we do not forgive, we do not forget, expect us"—or the black and white graphic of the headless man in the suit that became their logo.

Either way, both were in heavy circulation by 2005 whenever the collective came together to harass people, like teen girls who had turned down or cheated on a 4channer, MySpace users with cringe-worthy profile photos, or animal abusers. At this point, Anonymous was mostly for dicking around" Loganmac (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be a self serving claim without any real corroboration. We should remove it. - MrOllie (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

As someone who was around back then, there was a lot of confusing misreporting on the origin of the hacker group this article represents. Consider the timeline of anonymous article as your flashpoint, Aubrey was basically driving that. Gregg Housh’s statements backing him up are not insignificant whatsoever and are in essence the most solid confirmation here. Either way, his name has been present on this article for quite some time now and it is questionable that suddenly detractors have shown up after a clearly demonstrated vendetta on Reddit. 2605:8D80:669:3E37:ACAC:1CF1:BB66:70E0 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I would advise you to please assume WP:GOODFAITH, we can only go with what reliable sources say. Gregg Housh has already said he doesn't speak for Anonymous as a whole, with HuffPost saying he's a controversial figure for the group and that he doesn't speak for the entirety of it, a claim he repeated for an interview with CNN. In his book summary, he mentions "Anonymous features no distinct or recognized organization or leadership", a statement he repeated to Salon: “There is no leadership. There can’t be. That is the point of it all. That is why things like OpLastResort happen after all of these 'big arrests.' For those reasons it is absolutely ridiculous to say that Anon's leadership has been dismantled,” Housh appears to have been constantly reached for being one of the only publicly identified individuals in the early days. Loganmac (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Leader is not the same as founder. Housh has also publicly confirmed that he intentionally protected any information on Cottle’s involvement for his safety on Reddit and you can contact him via Twitter to confirm this. Yes, this is a lot of very confusing news, but it is verifiable. An earlier comment said they asked an article author about the claims, this is also before Housh publicly confirmed the veracity of it. I suggest reaching out to him. 2605:8D80:669:3E37:ACAC:1CF1:BB66:70E0 (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Our article was based on the Atlantic story, and the author has disavowed that claim. We're going to have to wait for some other reliable source to become available (if one does). We cannot base claims in our article on 'Go ask Housh about it' or 'check reddit'. MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2020

In the Operation Nigeria section, there is this sentence with four citations:

Anonymous even shutted down banks! [180] [181] [182] [183]

The grammar is poor, please change to something like:

"The websites of many banks were even compromised!" "Anonymous even successfully compromised the security of banks!" SonOfLain (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Anonymous (group) → Anonymous (hacker group) – WP:PRECISION : Anonymous (band) is also a "group". Also "(group)" on en.wp is the dab used by music editors for boy-bands. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Anonymous per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This article gets 10 times the pageviews of the next most sought article and over 80% of all views. It's clearly what most readers expect at the title. This will also solve the issue of any possible confusion with the band. Move the dab page to Anonymous (disambiguation). - Station1 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose this suggestion, the internet group is clearly not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of long-term significance.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Also oppose this suggested counterproposal, Anonymous is a populous dab page, and the internet group is clearly not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of long-term significance. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose while a band of 4 people may technically be a group of people I doubt anyone looking up this term would be looking for the band.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. An imprecise and extremely broad stand-alone parenthetical qualifier, "(group)" definitely needs enhancement. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Also, most certainly not the primary meaning of the word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request - 29 June 2021 : Irrelevant reference

Reference 3 seems to be unrelated to where it is linked, and furthermore only mentions "Anonymous" very marginally. I would remove it entirely :)

Sebpiq (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit request - 29 June 2021 : Link to Operation Payback article

Link the section about "Operation Payback" to the main article Operation Payback.

Sebpiq (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021

Request to add some of Anonymous' 2021 associations. Specifically, there are multiple articles on "Anonymous" threatening Elon Musk over Bitcoin which would be an interesting snippet of history. Based on the assessment of the various news articles, I would say that the threat cannot be validated to the main group, however it's interesting nonetheless as Elon Musk actually took the time to respond to the threat with a meme.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2021/06/06/did-anonymous-really-just-threaten-elon-musk-over-viral-bitcoin-tweets/?sh=4d52db143279

Elon Responds: https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/elon-musk-mocks-hacktivist-group-anonymous-with-meme-after-their-viral-clip-101623742808031.html Johnjhacking (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021: Request to re-evaluate the claim of "Founder" of Anonymous

In prior discussions, sourcing about Aubrey Cottle's legitimacy as the founder of the group was discussed - and he was removed as the founder without resolution. After evaluating all sides of the argument,the Atlantic article still has him as the de-facto leader of Anonymous - a year later, along with many sub-articles and news coverage that was created as a result. If the Author has retracted the claim then then there should be evidence that we can all use collectively to affirm the backpedal. I see multiple ways this can be re-evaluated. The author of the article could edit out his title as founder in the Atlantic news article, or could post about the retraction elsewhere. Currently I haven't seen anyone retracting their claims, and I don't think random internet users with no linked public-credibility is enough to take precedent over published, reputable news articles. In addition, stating "I was around when Cottle was around" can't be an adequate reference either. Solving this requires citations of him as the founder, there's currently plenty unless that Atlantic article author retracts which would effectively void all sub-articles. I've seen more evidence of him being recognized and called the Founder than sufficient references going against the claims. Aside from the Atlantic sub-articles, there's also the documentary - Q: Into the Storm which highlights him as the Founder of Anonymous. This description can also be seen on his IMDb page, where he has filmography credit for being the creator of 420chan and the Founder of Anonymous. Unless there's adequate refute from the public space (which I haven't seen) I think that Cottle should be returned to the page as the Founder of Anonymous, again, unless more conflicting information is presented that has a factual basis. Earlier in this talk, someone had also mentioned the "Anonymous has no leader" point. Again, I have to agree that a Founder is quite different than a leader. The ideology had to come from somewhere and both Gregg Housh and the media have confirmed that he has indeed spawned most of the ideology that has become the modern day Anonymous. My suggestion would be that we affirm his claim as the Founder of Anonymous and return him to the page as such unless we are presented with adequate media references that would go against this otherwise. Johnjhacking (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done Consensus is against this, as demonstrated in the discussion section above. The sourcing isn't there, and the chronology doesn't work. - MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Where was the consensus against this? You stated that the author of the Atlantic article retracted the claim. Do you have a citation?Johnjhacking (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It's in the above section, titled 'Sourcing on Aubrey Cottle being a "founder"'. The requested edit process is for edits that are clearly non controversial. Please do not resubmit this until there is a consensus of editors in support on this talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

PS: Based on what you've written at Sakura Samurai (hacker group), Cottle is a coworker of yours. Please remember to disclose any connections you have with subjects when you submit such requests in the future. - MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I also disagree that Aubrey Cottle is the founder of Anonymous, but his page continues to state that as a fact. Just a note for those who are following this TheFreeCollege (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Help me sir plzz

Help me sir 2409:4054:418:FD69:B36B:33AF:A3EA:79CD (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Atticusbixby.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Sarguet1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Sarguet1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2022

In the section "4chan raids (2003–2007)", change the sentence Due to the growing traffic on 4chan's board, users soon began to plot pranks offline using Internet Relay Chat (IRC). to Due to the growing traffic on 4chan's board, users soon began to plot pranks off-site using Internet Relay Chat (IRC). because the current wording implies that IRC isn't "online". 91.129.109.228 (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Station1 (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

External links

Can someone please add https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA071Pllf2wk-B8Rkwt47bQ and https://twitter.com/youranonnews as official external links? Also, what about the history of this group, is what's in https://www.marketwatch.com/story/founder-of-hacker-group-anonymous-reveals-his-ultimate-endgame-11604336926 true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.137.174 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Decentralized groups don't have 'official' anything, including social media accounts. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian camera dump

Where it says "On March 9, 2022, Anonymous declared on Twitter[209] that they hacked and broadcast 400 Russian surveillance cameras and broadcast them on a website.[210] They call this operation "Russian Camera Dump"." it's sourced to the Twitter account YourAnonNews when it's clearly sourced by the actual creators of the site days earlier here: https://twitter.com/DepaixPorteur/status/1500943962860924936 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimney Sweepa (talk • contribs) 02:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you find a source that would be more detailed than just this Tweet? ScriptKKiddie (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: Please repair quote in Philosophy section

This is at the very top of the Philosophy section:

"Long-standing political question that has gone unanswered with often tragic consequences for social movements. This is an Internet-based, non-extremist, socialist community movement that looks for answers to questions that are unanswered"

The second sentence is not present anywhere in the cited source. It should be replaced with this:

"[...] long-standing political question that has gone unanswered with often tragic consequences for social movements: what does a new form of collective politics look like that wishes to go beyond the identity of the individual subject in late capitalism?" --Thas (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, would be good to fix this. Thanks for bringing this up! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

That look good to you? Legowerewolf (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Perfect thanks, that matches the source!! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)