Talk:February 2010 Australian cyberattacks

Some incorrect information?

I just read this article and it didn't seem to be that accurate or informative. For example, it lists what the proposed censor will block but doesn't refer to statements by government spokespeople where they have said it will "block illegal content" which naturally includes nearly half of the internet if Australian law is to be taken seriously. This has even been tested through requesting websites with merely illegal information, rather then illegal videos or pictures be added to the block list. Given sedition (advocating a change in government) and anonymous political comments are illegal to varying degrees in Australia, huge portions of the internet may end up blocked. Additionally, citing the source that says the Parliament website was only offline for 50 minutes gives an impression of a failed attack, while later in the article, it says there were varying estimates. I personally checked the Parliament website a full day after the attack started and it was still down. I believe they cycled their attacks. I'm not completely sure though. Maybe individual sites were down intermittently over a long period of time?--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to grab it yourself in the future. Added "illegal" back in and "at one time" since that 50 mins got tons of coverage.Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There are other inaccurate depictions in the article. Ziff Davis claims thatthe title Operation Titstorm was changed to Operation FreeWebs due to adverse reaction to the DDoS attacks. That is mistaken. Titstorm was the first phase, FreeWebs was "planned," for wont of a better word, at the same time Titstorm was, with every intention of laying out multiple phases of human rights and civil rights advocacy. Damotclese (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It was not "changed" if you read the article and the sources. What you call a "better word" was actually discussed in sources. So go read the sources or go away. Cptnono (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we haz mention

It would be nice to also mention that "Anonymous" managed to successfully fight neo-Nazis online for additional background in to the collective's history. Fredric Rice (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How does that relate to this article?--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Operation Titstorm was launched by the collective called "Anonymous." Obviously. Fredric Rice (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't stray too far from the main subject (this protest/attack) but the other stuff was in the related overage and seemed worthy of notice. There is an Anonymous article for in-depth info of other stuff.Cptnono (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with that. After all, Anonymous' efforts to smack down neo-Nazis is already well covered elsewhere.Damotclese (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a redirect on Project Freeweb, Operation Titstorm was part of that activity. The Redirection is straying from the purpose of the article. Its not cool to use Wikipedia or any other article to promote groups however much we might agree with them (even though governments and companies do it all the friggin time). However, in this case its directly relevant to Project Freeweb, that is the purpose of the article, The redirect to an arbitarily restrictive subject is censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantaluman (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You say "censorship" I say lack of coverage and you failing to do it yourself. Project Freeweb might meet the criteria for its own article. There has been little news coverage so that will need to be addressed if you wish to split it off.Cptnono (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Reviewer: Ankit Maity 03:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Is it reasonably well written? A. Prose quality: Mostly clear, but with possible improvements as pointed below. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Not too enamored with the mass of links for See also Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. References to sources: B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: C. No original research: Is it broad in its coverage? A. Major aspects: B. Focused: Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias: Is it stable? No edit wars, etc: Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Overall: Pass or Fail:

Review was from a malicious account. A review would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have started at second review at Talk:Operation Titstorm/GA2 Racepacket (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Titstorm/GA. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

No disamb. links or invalid external links.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   "web based companies"->"web-based companies"

   "This was dubbed "Project Freeweb" to differentiate it from the cyber attacks that were criticised by other protest groups.[16]" - avoid passive voice. Who named it?

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Are we complying with WP:TITLE? Perhaps the article should be moved to "February 2010 Australian Cyberattacks" What reliable sources gave it the name, or was it named by the anonymous hackers?

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   The Time magazine article reported "their second attack against the filter, which they called "Operation: Titstorm" — a reference to the sexual content that the filter will be blocking." - which is different that independent third parties giving the entire incident that name.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Is Fairfax Media a reliable source?

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Background should summarize prior Australian laws regarding pornography. Was it the case that pornography was illegal prior to the initiative that would mandate the new filters?

   Please state whether the government continued with its filter program. The article implies that it did continue, but there should be explicit, sourced statements as to what happened.

   This source: Oates, John (November 25, 2010). "Meet the Oz teen behind Operation Titstorm". The Register. Retrieved 2011-03-01. says that Steve Slayo was tried for organizing this attack. The subsequent criminal investigation, prosecution and sentencing is relevant to the article.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Does referring to the incident as an "operation" constitute POV-pushing?

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Fair use rationale for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Operation_titstorm.jpg is a bit weak. This is not a logo, and showing the flyer will not help the reader recognize the cyberattack.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Modifications

• Web-based: Fixed [1]
• Who named it?: Fixed? [2]
• "February 2010 Australian Cyberattacks" vs. "Operation Titstorm": Several sources used refereed to it as "Operation Titstorm" in the body and their titles. However, several did say "attacks" in their titles. I would be happy to err on the side of caution and rename the article as you suggest. Ca I do that now or will that throw off the transclusion of the review and GA bot?

The bot is really confused about this article already. (That is why I moved this review from GA to GA2). We can move it when we pass the review. Racepacket (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Time magazine article: See the comment above
• Fairfax Media a reliable source?: For sure. See Fairfax Media. But it should be The Sydney Morning Herald anyways so made the adjustment.[3]
• Is it broad in its coverage? Good idea. I did not know about Slayo but found a source discussing his bond instead of conviction. I also added a paragraph discussing the current status (or lath there of) of the plan. Is this sufficient? [4] Unfortunately, I cannot find any clarification on what was already illegal except for child porn. Should we mention that child porn is illegal in the Background section or is acceptable to assume?
• "Does referring to the incident as an "operation" constitute POV-pushing?": I intentionally tried to not refer to it as "operation" in the body but one slipped through. Fixed: [5]
• File:Operation titstorm.jpg: I originally was not planning on uploading any image but this specific image was used in multiple sources to identify the subject. See: Wired, Fairfax (the largest media company operating in New Zealand), Brisbane's daily paper The Courier Mail a UK technology news site, Australian tech site, and so on. If it comes down to removing the image or GA then it would not hurt my feelings to drop the image. I would just prefer not to. Cptnono (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The GA criteria are strict about images, and give you two choices. 1) Edit the image page and change the "fair use rationale" to one that focuses on the fact that the article discusses the flyer and its historic significance. (Remove the logo-related language about helping the reader recognize the subject of the article.) Your claim will be stronger if the article actually discusses the existence of use of such flyers. OR 2) delete the image from the article. Racepacket (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel like an idiot. I actually found 3 sources discussing it and one of them is already in the article I think. I will type something up, change it to "critical commentary"n instead of identification, and move it into the appropriate section. Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2 Reading

The article is much better with the recent additions. Please consider these changes:

• "that would require internet service providers to block illegal and what the government deemed as "unwanted" content."->"that would require internet service providers to block Australian users from accessing illegal and what the government deemed as "unwanted" content." - make clear it applies only to Australians.
• "The filter also includes gambling sites"->"The proposed filter also includes gambling sites" - not yet set up.
• "Estimates of perpetrators involved have ranged from hundreds to thousands."->" Estimates of the number of attacking systems involved have ranged from hundreds to thousands." - counting computers, not people.
• "In July 2010, Conroy delayed the plan by ordering a 12-month review into"->"In July 2010, Conroy delayed implementing the plan pending a 12-month review into"
• "The attack also resulted in criticism of the Australia's terrorism provisions"->"The attack also resulted in criticism of the Australia's terrorism laws"

As noted above, either improve the fair use rationale for the flyer or remove it from the article. Other that these items, we are done. I have rechecked the disamb links and the external links, and they still check out. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• • All great calls.[6]Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe the the FUR, placement, and commentary is now sorted. Any touch-up needed?Cptnono (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

FUR is well done. Consider adding The Register source given above and moving the article per prior discussions. Congratulations. This is a very interesting article, and I am sorry that GA1 was not a professional experience. Racepacket (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Enjoy the Wikicup. I really appreciated your input (especially with the FUR).Cptnono (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on February 2010 Australian cyberattacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212164311/http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/australia-cyber-attacks-could-last-months-hackers-20100211-nuzc.html to http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/australia-cyber-attacks-could-last-months-hackers-20100211-nuzc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)