Talk:Aubrey Cottle

Shirt
I acknowledge I am risking being nominated for Lamest edit wars here, but I want to expand on my reasoning for removing the portion of alt text (Aubrey Cottle, photographed from the shoulders up, standing in front of a brick wall while wearing an nWo shirt.) that Special:Contribs/2603:8081:3e01:d7c2::/64 has added twice. In the second addition, they included the edit summary "This is a very popular shirt from the pro wrestling faction named "nWo". Cottle is a pro wrestling fanatic. This shirt is still sold today." I looked up the shirt in question: It uses a lowercase   that pretty clearly differs from the top portion of the first character visible in Cottle's shirt. It seems more likely to me that it may be this shirt, but it's hard to say for sure, which is why I believe the detail ought to be omitted. I would rather give less detail than risk possibly giving incorrect information, and in the scheme of things I don't think it is particularly useful information to include anyway. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * it's actually a /wooo/ world order shirt, named for the pro wrestling imageboard on his website (now defunct as far as I know) 420chan. 80.73.246.171 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Wording: "a founder of the hacktivist group Anonymous"
As far as I can tell, the earliest source for this claim is an article which seemingly used his own words as its source. The article, as well as another which is used as source for a matching claim, don't go into any detail as to what "founding" the group entailed, and come off as not having themselves been reliably sourced as it pertains to this detail. Based only on what is verifiably true, I think it would be more accurate if the claim was instead that he was "an early member" of the group. The claims of "founder," and "founding member" are highly specific, and imply a level of involvement that I do not think has been substantiated.

I'll not take to changing these claims myself as I am new to editing, and I see that such claims have previously been reinstated after removal, but I would appreciate if others would look into these claims.

The preview informs me that the references I've mentioned seemingly can't be cited in this manner from the talk page, as the references list is presumably undefined here, so I will include them below:

1. The Atlantic

2. Washington Post

Repszeus (talk)

Nature of Anonymous
It's doubtful that "founder" is a title that can be claimed by anyone considering the nature of the "group." "Anonymous" could really be approximated as "any activity originating from or based on sentiment prominent in 4chan or adjacent imageboards." Popular media outlets are notoriously bad at grasping this. "Early member" could be appropriate, though "early participant" might be more precise.Few Ingredients (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is highly inappropriate to label Cottle as a "founder" of Anonymous. The organization clearly has a long history of being decentralized, disorganized, and like it's namesake "anonymous". According to Cottle's age during Anonymous' founding, he was between 13 and 16 years old, which is ridiculous for him to be forming an organization, let alone with no 3rd party citations/references or evidence to back up such a claim.

Cottle has early connections with Anonymous through his involvement with 420chan, but there is no evidence beyond Cottle's own (self paid/promoting) media claims that "it's me". My concern is that Cottle, or friends/associates of his may be using this Wikipedia article to promote his own interests/agenda, with no substantive claim other than Cottle being interviewed by media outlets.

As for his later years in 2020/2021 where Cottle used Twitter regularly, claiming to be "Anonymous" during the Blue Leaks, I think this may be more appropriate, but Anonymous never died, so at most Cottle would not be a 'founder' but rather a 'reformer' or 'reviver'.

Therefore, I feel that simply "Member of Anonymous" is the most appropriate "Known for" title for him. Since this encapsulates both his early years, and his later years. Veskers (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2022
Please make correction as follows:

from: "In August 2020, Cottle identified himself as a founder of Anonymous an article"

to: "In August 2020, Cottle identified himself as a founder of Anonymous in an article"

Also, please adjust or remove External link to, which creates a display error. Repszeus (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Prominent, early participant
There is an incongruence between the first sentence "Aubrey Cottle is a ... founder of the hacktivist group Anonymous" and the last sentence ("Cottle identified himself as a founding member of Anonymous in August 2020.") The former being an assertion of his status as founder, the latter being a little more indefinite. Furthermore, the cited article in The Atlantic also does not explicitly say that he was a "founder" or that he identified himself as such. The article does say that "Cottle became the de facto leader of Anonymous," though the Wikipedia article on Anonymous states "Because Anonymous has no leadership, no action can be attributed to the membership as a whole." My opinion is that though he may have had a prominent role in early "Anonymous"-branded activity, the "group" is so diffuse that to call him a founder is as silly as calling someone the founder of New England Patriots fans or the founder of an angry mob. The Atlantic article also states: In one sense, Anonymous is a decentralized community of tech activists who collaborate in small groups on projects they call “operations.” But then there is the second definition of Anonymous. Anonymous members will tell you that Anonymous has no members, that it is not a group, but rather a banner. I would suggest something along the lines of "prominent, early participant." Few Ingredients (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there are a number of inconsistencies in the article about what Cottle's role is, in Anonymous, if any. One of the greatest flaws of the article presently is a lack of 3rd party referencing/testimony, almost all information about Cottle is heavily subjective (Cottle's own interviews, which he is being paid/promoted for by media agencies). It is clear that Cottle was tangentially involved in Anonymous (but as a decentralized, anonymous, and oft disorganized group, this is saying little) until very recently (2020/2021) when he become active on Twitter.

I feel it is inappropriate for him to be a "founding member" of Anonymous, despite his history in the late 2000's and being a founder of 420chan for several reasons, primarily that Cottle's interractions with Anonymous are mostly centered around it's revival in 2020/2021 (under Cottle's control, on Twitter), and there is little/no evidence of his involvement (when he was ~13 years old) during it's original founding in ~2004-2006. I feel that cottle's title for the page should not be "founder", but rather "member" of Anonymous, and that this is accurate both to his early history as well as his later years, where as 'founder' seems to imply he was somehow in control of a (decentralized) group of people, when he must have been a child, which there is no evidence or even speculation of. Veskers (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Just as counterpoints, being a founder would not necessarily require control at any point in time, and the age of thirteen would not be surprising for involvement in or even shaping of these kinds of spaces. His creation of 420chan seems to be undisputed. Few Ingredients (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hacker: Whitehat, Greyhay, Blackhat
One issue the Cottle article struggles with is Cottle's definition as a hacker: be it well-intentioned and law abiding ("white hat") or violating the law/self promoting ("black hat"), or a mixture of the two ("Grey Hat").

I feel strongly that it is disingenuous to include a subsection titled "White Hat", without more clearly labeling his early years as Black Hat/Illegal (and even many of Cottle's recent activities in 2020/2021), since his Parler exploits clearly lacked the expressed permission/interests of that company, and were likely illegal breaches. Cottle also does not have a clear break between White/Black, such as e.g. going to prison and reforming himself afterwards like some other hackers, and his activities even in the present are a mixed bag at best, legally speaking. Therefore I feel that "Grey Hat Hacker" is a perfect definition for Cottle, and should be included in favor of white/black, since it more accurately describes his mottled activities. Furthermore, Cottle was at most involved in "Sakura Samurai" for at most a year, and considering nearly all of his hacking-related activities were illegal before and after that, I find it highly inappropriate to even mention him as "White Hat". Even the numberous interviews he has done as clearly self-promotion (black hat), which are what nearly all of our references/citations are composed of.

All in all though, I feel that the article is in relatively good shape currently, as opposed to what it was a few days ago, and I feel as if it is moving in the right direction. Veskers (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022
Hello, please make the following edits.

ARTICLE BODY EDIT

Original Text:

Aubrey Cottle (born 1986 or 1987),[1] also known as Kirtaner, is a Canadian hacker, computer security researcher, software engineer and a founder of the hacktivist group Anonymous.[2]

Changed Text:

Aubrey Cottle (born 1986 or 1987),[1] also known as Kirtaner, is a Canadian hacker, computer security researcher, software engineer and a member of the hacktivist group Anonymous.[2]

INFOBOX EDIT

Original Text:

Known for	Founding member of Anonymous

Changed Text:

Known for	Member of Anonymous Veskers (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Current prose is sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Though it sounds a little more awkward, I still prefer participant – my understanding of the group is that "membership" is almost as dubious as "founder" status, though the extent to which the group is identified by a Twitter handle makes more of a case for these terms – but for whatever it's worth I support this edit. Few Ingredients (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there is no formalized "membership" with Anonymous, so perhaps "participant" would be a better fit. "Founder" clearly is wrong, since Cottle was too young to have originally founded it, and the organization already existed when he returned to activity with it in 202X. Veskers (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Approximately 1 month after this message was first made, the concensus on this Talk page is clear: "founder" in an insufficiently substantiated title for Aubrey Cottle for the organization of "Anonymous", given the information currently available about him and his history and lack of verifiable 3rd party sources.

This includes respect for Cottle's involvement in Anonymous, particularly as an influential member in during the 2020/2021 resurgence period. However despite this currently there is no evidence for his involvement as a founding of the group (2003-2005) other than his own unsubstantiated claims (with the article currently reflecting his earliest "Years Active" as "2008", further contradicting this). Additionally Cottle's age at the time of Anonymous' founding would have been 13-15. Furthermore Anonymous has an extensive history as a loosely defined "organization" with little or no leadership, hence its tagline "We are legion", more a self-applied moniker than a cohesive organization with clearly definable membership rosters; this includes widely diverse and often conflicting views from it's members and a lack of cohesion as a singular organized entity. This is not to say that Cottle was not active online or involved during Anonymous during this time, but that there is no external sources to cite for this, let alone verifiable sources, and that the associated risk of only an individual's own testimony being used to write their own articles does not conform to Wikipedia's standards for fact-checking. Presently the only sources for Cottle being a "founder" are his own testimony cited during interviews with news agencies, which is a dangerous source to extract such crucial information from, given the associated risk of bias as Cottle is directly benefiting from these interviews personally.

Additionally I would like to bring bring attention to and thank several other Wikipedia users and their related discussions on this Talk page for Aubrey Cottle, which are of similar nature and relevant to, but outside of this immediate conversation chain. Notably:

"Wording: "a founder of the hacktivist group Anonymous"" by Repszeus

"Nature of Anonymous" by Few Ingredients at 03:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

"Prominent, early participant" by Few Ingredients at 04:28, 19 February 2022 (UCT)

Because of this it is resonable to identify Cottle's history as a "member" of Anonymous, given he has both a history with the organization's early years (2008) and later years (2020). Even if Cottle's involvement as a 'founder' were possible, "member" would still respectfully encompass this, so this definition reasonably future-proofed in the event that third-party evidence of Cottle's earlier involvement with Anonymous and actions founding it were to present themselves.

Oxford Dictionary /ˈmɛmbər/ 1.) member (of something) a person, an animal, or a plant that belongs to a particular group 2.) a person, a country, or an organization that has joined a particular group, club, or team Veskers (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)