Talk:Operation AntiSec

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

Add links from Talk:Antisec Movement ?[edit]

Add links from Talk:Antisec Movement regarding Twitter and hack-on-hack violence [:-P) ? 99.181.134.19 (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center need a wp article, or is it an unnecessary Red.?[edit]

Does Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center need a wp article, or is it an unnecessary Red.? 99.181.151.89 (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it could conceivably be an article myself. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! \\(^o^// 99.181.136.35 (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equating this operation with the movement[edit]

Yes, it seems likely that LulzSec and Anonymous took inspiration from the old Antisec movement in naming this operation, but to draw a definite link between the two is original research. Is there a reliable source that can draw this link or are we just making guesses? If this paragraph remains uncited, I don't see how we can justify keeping it around on the off chance that it is true. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The antisec movement was a protest _AGAINST_ full disclosure. Look at the f**king picture linked to on the Antisec movement page! The very first line is, "We're a movement devoted to the eradication of full-disclosure." And you DARE to introduce edits like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Anti-Security&curid=32319731&diff=439695724&oldid=439670581 and claim that _I_ am the one violating WP:V. You are absolutely intolerable. This is not your article. You do not own it. Stop being a busybody and let people who know more than you do their jobs. Miserlou (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and telling someone that one says so is not enough to insert a fact on a page. It is not just me, you have reverted myself and an IP separate from myself now. That is TWO people that have disagreed with you that you have insulted and yelled at without discussing it. I brought things here on the talk page, but you have attacked and disregarded two people now; if anything, you are claiming to own the page. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would warn you that you are approaching edit warring here, as you simply revert every edit made to your own additions to the article without discussion. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you and a mysterious random IP both thing I'm wrong do not make it so, because I know for a fact that I am ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CORRECT ON THIS ISSUE. You still haven't even LOOKED at the other article and the PRIMARY SOURCE CONTENT IT CONTAINS. What more could you possibly ask for? There is a complete, exact copy of the manifesto, the FIRST LINE OF OF WHICH says "We're a movement devoted to the eradication of full-disclosure." Not only are you wrong, you are ABSOLUTELY wrong. You are the opposite of correct. You have the right answer and somebody who wants to include it, and yet you are consistently ignoring facts and pushing 100% incorrect misinformation. I don't know if that's because you're just being protectionist of 'your' article, or if you're just a troll, but you need to give it up. You're incorrect. If you're right, find a goddamn citation for YOUR claim then! Because you won't find one. Because you're wrong. Miserlou (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you are correct about what the original Antisec Movement stood for; I agree with you on that (also, I have read the article on the movement more than once). However, this does not give you the right to remove citation needed templates without providing a reference; citations are needed for everything that is not common sense or common knowledge. I still disagree with you that there is evidence that this new operation is related to the original movement, that is what I believe you need to provide a citation on. I have seen no statement from LulzSec or Anonymous that says that they grew out of that movement or that their current undertakings are an outgrowth of their motives. If anything, I think that the original movement was against full disclosure because of hackers like these two movements. I urge you to assume good faith of me and to not make this a shouting match or a fight. I swear to you that I am not being protective; I just want to improve the article and not add in assertions that are not cited. I have nothing personally against you, and all I have asked for this whole time is a citation from a reliable source that links these two movements in anything but common name. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of International Business Times[edit]

Awaiting discussion of user who finds them unreliable: the International Business Times has been cited by the New York Times here and here. It has also been cited by CNN Money, CNN, and NPR. It claims an international presence of reporters and a very large fact-checking and editorial staff. This seems to point toward reliability. WP:RS says that use by multiple reliable sources that take what the original source says as fact points toward reliability. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security Numbers Released[edit]

Antisec released the name, adress, social security number and phone number of 7000 police officers http://wikisend.com/download/615862/mosheriffs-accounts.txt 204.197.186.194 (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated to reflect this information with this edit. Thank you very much for pointing it out. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have two separate lists of Anonymous activities[edit]

That's childish, unless if you can find specific citations that everything in List 1 was attributed to "Anonymous" and nothing in List 2 was.

Every single event in the LulzSec or Anonymous sections is followed by a citation that states it was perpetrated by members of the group that it is placed under the heading of. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012: BPD hack?[edit]

Looks like a possible one to add to the list (an ASCII image of "#antisec" was used): "Hackers take over Boston Police website" Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

needed info[edit]

do not be mistaken it is me who needs the info, im a current member of Antisec but i need to know who the original people who ran it were~Jacob Foxtrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antisec had no "members." SoftwareThing (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

loctang addition smells like bullshit[edit]

The section on loctang just added smells like self-promotion bullshit, there are no legitimate references or citations anywhere found with a Google search, looks like bullshit. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Issues in Technology and Security[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 6 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pmarino428 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Pmarino428 (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_AntiSec&oldid=1204440014"