Jump to content

Talk:Anonymous (hacker group)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lakefall~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 7 December 2009 (→Who isn't Anonymous?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 12, 2008Articles for deletionKept
March 19, 2008Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
March 11, 2009Articles for deletionKept

Recently removed text

The following text was recently removed from the article for being unsourced:

The news report became the source of many internet memes and was mocked by Anonymous. Among the mocked features of the report were the stock footage used of an exploding van, the hyperbole and alarmist phrases used to describe the idea of anonymity, naming Anonymous as a domestic terrorist organization, and the suggestion that buying a dog and curtains could protect victims from Anonymous.

If anyone has a reference for this material, or feels like looking for such a reference, it could be added back in. DigitalC (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was mocked on 4chan/7chan so the posts originally containing the mocking have long long since cycled off into the distant sunset never again to be seen by the eyes of mortals. Trust me, it was mocked throughly.--74.131.91.57 (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downside and malicious, criminal activities of Anonymous

I think it would be worth mentioning that many people who claim to be part of Anonymous also raid and harass single persons or hack their online accounts for fun. Be it because these victims have an uncommon sexual fetish, are part of a specific music scene, have some kind of disability or just plain because they have an account on a social networking website. Many *chan message boards have an openly accessible "invasion" forum where website addresses and personal information of the victims are published.

Gathering together in the name of Anonymous is not always for a good cause. It's also a sociopathic behaviour to hurt and slander a random harmless person just for the lulz. 188.60.224.65 (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if this was true, but we can only include information that we have a reliable source for. --Six words (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say, this article might need an NPOV tag. It's a send-up of Anonymous, far from being neutral. 99.234.182.107 (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty Neutral to me. No lol-speak even. imagine if it was written in the verse of ceiling cat. "and unto the church of scientology anonymous said "you can't haz mah cheezburger." A real chore for any article or description of Anonymous is finding out whether or not Anonymous really was responsible, or a group/individual claiming to be Anonymous. --74.131.91.57 (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: Greatest An Hero

I think that a section should be made for Operation: Greatest An Hero, a fairly recent act by Anonymous in which mass ballot-stuffing was employed to shake up Gamespot's hero polls. For those unfamiliar with what happened, /b/ and /v/ collaborated to push Bub and Bob from the Bubble Bobble series up in votes, partially for that exact purpose but also in order to make sure big-name characters like Master Chief and Sonic were knocked out. The aformentioned characters were successfully defeated, but the operation ultimately ended in failure when /v/ and /b/ had a falling out in which /v/ in general voted for Samus as a ridicule-based response to /b/'s dedication to the effort. In the end, Gordon Freeman from the Half-Life series was the victor. In short, I believe that Operation: Greatest An Hero is a big enough event to note on the Anonymous (group) page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre LeSauceplz (talk • contribs) 20:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what you believe or what we approve. It's about whether this has third party sources. (Pro tip: It doesn't.) Until this story gets picked up by the mainstream press as a notable event (which it probably wont, because it isn't) it won't be added here. --Cast (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been picked up by mainsteam. "Pour The Sauce Please" is the source. ;) --Recoilism (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cyber assault

Verona man admits role in attack on Church of Scientology's websites. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/verona_man_admits_hacking_chur.html. --Recoilism (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Brian Thomas Mettenbrink not just Guzner. "The 20-year-old is accused of participating in the attack from his Iowa State University dorm room, according to the indictment." --Recoilism (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guzner sentenced: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZx5MaXVm7cYrXW5R7q1i1UZNuIgD9C25LHO0. --Recoilism (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia being hacked by anonymous

Has anonymous ever attacked wikipedia? Hmstrrnnr (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no source, it hasn't. ;) Eugeniu Bmsg 03:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, just because there's no source doesn't mean it hasn't happened. You're using original research which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. The correct thing for an editor to say here is: If there no source, it cannot be written into the aricle. --Recoilism (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, Recilism. I was making a joke, warning against original research. Eugeniu Bmsg 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I bet a mainstream source could be generated if Wikipedia wanted to make any cyberattack known publicly. (Original Research) ;) --Recoilism (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To give a proper answer, roaming bands of /b/tards occasionally take it upon themselves to vandalize. No large-scale raid or /i/nvasion has ever taken place. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Wordsmith. Eugeniu Bmsg 05:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the occasional B-tard coming through can't even really be said to be an attack/effort of Anonymous because they're just a b-tard or 4 unless in large numbers. --74.131.91.57 (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who isn't Anonymous?

If Anonymous is a completely open group of random, anonymous individuals, isn't any anonymous individual or group legitimately Anonymous? Yet the article treats claims that some anonymous groups are in fact not really Anonymous as worthy of consideration. The article should either explain the conditions under which one can legitimately claim to be Anonymous or consistently reflect the fact that there are no limitations to such claims. – Lakefall (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify exactly what parts of the article imply there are conditions? Adambro (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the article talks about "members of Anonymous" almost as if Anonymous had an official membership, but other times it merely talks about "individuals identifying as" or "claiming to speak for Anonymous" as if these people might not really be Anonymous. Additionally in the Epilepsy Foundation forum invasion section people who are from Anonymous appear to be stating some other people are not really from Anonymous, but the article gives no indication that these views cannot be valid due to the nature of Anonymous. – Lakefall (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anonymous_(hacker_group)&oldid=330254606"