Template:Did you know nominations/High Orbit Ion Cannon


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

High Orbit Ion Cannon

 * ... that the hacktivist group Anonymous knocked down websites belonging to the FBI and the US Department of Justice using the High Orbit Ion Cannon?


 * ALT1:... that more than 27,000 volunteers joined Anonymous to attack the FBI and the US Department of Justice websites using the High Orbit Ion Cannon?
 * Comment: due to lack of DYK credits I am unable to review anything, I will grovel at someone's talk page (who does have such credits) so that they review this
 * Comment: due to lack of DYK credits I am unable to review anything, I will grovel at someone's talk page (who does have such credits) so that they review this

Created by FreeatlastChitchat (talk). Self-nominated at 03:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I've started a review of the HOIC article. It's within the required date range, and is certainly long enough, and I don't see any issues with your hooks. However there are other problems.


 * The first are potential Copyvio issues that you should address. There are several instances of non-trivial identical wording between your article the sources it references:
 * High Orbit Ion Cannon (HOIC) Threat Advisory and your article both reuse the phrase "can target up to 256 web addresses simultaneously".
 * Threat: High Orbit Ion Cannon v2.2.003 and your article both use the phrase, "are customizable vbscript plugins that allow for randomization of all http headers was developed during the conclusion of operation payback".
 * High Orbits and Slowlorises: understanding the Anonymous attack tools and your article both use the phrase, "is essentially a simple script for launching http post and get requests at a targeted server wrapped in".


 * Secondly, I started reviewing your citations with regard to the content they supported and found several issues in just the first few paragraphs. In the lead paragraph, "written in BASIC" and "Low Orbit Ion Cannon which was developed by Praetox Technologies" not supported by sources referenced. Additionally, "the security advisory for the HOIC was released by Praetox Technologies in February 2012" is not supported in sources referenced either. Did you mean "Prolexic Technologies" in that sentence?


 * You write "The HOIC was developed during the conclusion of Operation Payback by the hacktivist group Anonymous". However your source says "was popularized in recent years by the “hacktivist” group Anonymous", which is not the same thing at all. The statement "subsequently this part of the group launched Operation Leakspin" is not supported by the references source either, as the Boing Boing article does not identify the operation by name.


 * I didn't go farther in my review, as it was clear that the HOIC article could not pass DYK in its current form. I would suggest carefully checking all your factual statements versus the cited sources, fixing the possible copyvio issues, and additionally taking a look at your citations, as I noticed two were duplicates of each other ("Threat: High Orbit Ion Cannon" and "High Orbits and Slowlorises: understanding the Anonymous attack tools"). However, it is an interesting article, and I'm confident a revised version can pass.


 * (Please note that this is my first attempt at a DYK review. I may have gotten something wrong. Please alert me if I have. I am under no illusions as to my perfection!) Carl Henderson (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ALT2: ... that a High Orbit Ion Cannon took out the FBI and the US Department of Justice websites?
 * Proposed ALT2 and pinging the nominator to resolve the remaining issues. Fuebaey (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Took a short wikibreak, remaining issues will be resolved within the next 72 hours. Ty for the help FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added "that" to ALT2. FreeatlastChitchat, it's been over a week now; when you've resolved the remaining issues, please post here so the review can continue. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg With the revisions, this article looks good to go. Carl Henderson (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The copyvio issues you noted earlier, Carl Henderson, do not appear to have been been addressed by Dravecky's edits, and this should absolutely not be approved until they have been. Indeed, they have been unaddressed in over a month's time, and need to be fixed soon if this nomination is to survive. I posted a reminder to FreeatlastChitchat's page a couple of days ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I ran the new article through the Copyvio detector and didn't see any issues. Carl Henderson (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * But, as you can see looking directly, the issues you raised before have not been addressed, and the phrases you cited as identical are unchanged. Copyvio detector is only a tool, and one that doesn't always find issues—it clearly failed in this case. I'm going to ask Nikkimaria, who is the person I always go to if checking is needed regarding close paraphrasing or copyvio, to determine how severe the issue is for this article and nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Crap, you are right. I checked the cites, but trusted the copyvio check tool for the rest. I've gone and rewritten those sections (and one other), so hopefully they should be okay now. Please take a look. If you are okay with the rewrite, sign off on the article. I just want to get this out of my queue, so I don't have to keep remembering to check to it! Carl Henderson (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've already asked Nikkimaria to look at it, and will wait to see what she has to say. At this point, you can consider yourself free of the nomination: because you've done some rewriting, you shouldn't continue to review it. Unless, of course, you want to continue to fix it if more problems are found in subsequent checks. I don't intend to review it myself, but I will call for a new reviewer if Nikkimaria gives an all clear in the close paraphrasing/copyvio department. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your edits, Carl - I think the paraphrasing is now sufficient, although there are still some areas where the content is not directly supported by the cites (for example, FN9 doesn't seem to mention how many users are needed). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Length, age, copyvio, neutrality are all OK. QPQ doesn't seem to be required. ALT1 hook is wrong; the source states "around 27,000 computers" were taking part. Either the original or the ALT2 hook will do. The only problems with it now is that (probably in an effort not to copy) some of the writing his a bit imprecise (256 URLs/256 domains, these are not the same thing; 27,000 user agents, a computer is not a user agent), and some of the sources look a little weak (blogs). Just tighten it up a bit if you can, but it's good enough for DYK. Belle (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Final check needed by new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)