Talk:Operation Payback

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

Archive for dead page[edit]

http://web.archive.org/web/20111102204510/www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201049/6530/Anonymous-keeps-the-cannons-firing-while-pressure-mounts?page=1 for source [125] --172.58.120.22 (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some refs[edit]

I will post here some refs to add content to the article

--Neo139 (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that RS?Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slyck.com is RS I would think. Chewwy225 (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources:

--Neo139 (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Avenge Assange[edit]

--Neo139 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are these actually related to Payback or is it just by the same group? Should this be its own article and even if not, should it be here?Cptnono (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Avenge Assange is just the title someone put on a gif that got spammed all around the internet. The attacks are coordinated from the some irc channel as Operation Payback, the twitter is the same, the server is the same. So Operation Avenge Assange is just the same as Operation Payback, the only thing that changed are the targets. --Neo139 (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen that in any of the sources but have not looked too hard. It needs to be made clear in the article since it appears to be a different operation by the same people as opposed to a continuing operation from the original.Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources cite anonops.net as the website of the operation, which is the same website of operation payback. Some sources cite Operation Avenge assange and operation payback as the same thing. Like this one http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1331793 --Neo139 (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe the article needs to say something along those lines instead of "In response, Operation Payback directed their activities against these companies for dropping Wikileaks."? Maybe " In response, those behind Operation Payback directed their activities against these companies for dropping Wikileaks."? I amde the change in the body. The lead was worded well enough.Cptnono (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice^^. Also I have changed some stuff, added info about very recent events. Take a look and tell me what you think. Maybe we could add some more content--Neo139 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Palin's website is listed as an attack with an ABC source cited, but nowhere in the article or on anonops.net does it actually confirm they attacked the site like it can be confirmed they attacked Visa, Mastercard, attempted Paypal, etc. It is all assumption by Palin and her tech aide (or however they cite him). There are websites on that cached page cited by the ABC article that were not attacked. Should this be listed as "not confirmed?"Super Dragonite (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary RS matches up.[1] It should be fine unless we have a primary denying it.Cptnono (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about the truth. Its about sources. Thats why re-added that information, even if its obviously not truth. Like Cptnono said, we may add a note in a future if I find other website denying it.--Neo139 (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found some sources, so I added a section with a bit of info about it. Feel free to expand it--Neo139 (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Corporations such as Amazon, PayPal, PostFinance, MasterCard and Visa either stopped working with or froze donations to WikiLeaks, some due to political pressures. In response, those behind Operation Payback directed their activities against these companies for dropping support to WikiLeaks.
That could be read to mean those companies had been making donations to WL, but "froze [their] donations" and "dropp[ed their financial] support", leading to the attacks. Were any of them actual contributors or were they just used to channel the donations to WL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.29.35 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[ETA] (Oops, forgot to sign.) What I was getting at is that there's a difference between monkeywrenching and extortion. -- 75.111.29.35 (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section could use an NPOV clean up.[edit]

The criticism section almost appears to be pushing an anti-piracy point of view. Will someone help? --66.87.0.172 (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." (from: WP:NPOV)

Taking out Criticism section wouldn't be neutral. The information of that section are from the same sources as all the information of the article. Without that section the article would only have 'certain' information from the sources. Also, the criticism are opinions of people from the organizations that were attacked (United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office and MPAA). So it's considered a reply to the attacks, and that is notable by itself. If the criticism were from some random dude, then it would be appropriate to delete it.--Neo139 (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A direct quotation instead of the way it's written couldn't hurt. From the way it's written, It actually seems as if the passage was written by an MPAA or RIAA representative. The way I see it, phrases like "x pointed out that y's argument/statement/action was hypocritical" or "x was basically doing [insert deplorable action here]" appear to push a point of view, where a good substitue would be something to the effect of "X claimed that y's action was hypocritical" or "a representative of x has argued that y's argument/statement/action was hypocritical". If someone could get a direct quote of a rep for the British IPO saying the "democratic right" bit, for example, then that doesn't sound so assertive, but writing the passage like the way it's written does. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the quote you just made from WP:NPOV, Neo, appears to also assert that the consensus of argument around the internet appears to be against Anonymous and in support of the MPAA and RIAA in this particular situation, an assertion that I for one find difficult to believe.--KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this or is this not going to be rewritten? The informal language and [from what I see] failure to establish an NPOV is hurting the article. --KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The POV was taken care of in my opinion. Feel free to come up with alternative wording, though.Cptnono (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After your message, the criticism section was edited and some text was removed. Now it only contains direct quotes of the targets and the pirate party, (except in the first paragraph that is not a quote). So I don't see why it would not be neutral. We cannot change the quotes. If we change them we should remove the quotation marks "". I have written some of the article and since I'm not native English speaker I don't know what parts (or words) of the article are exactly informal. If you can help me pointing out informal stuff so we can change it to formal I'll appreciate--Neo139 (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Site[edit]

They also hacked http://www.aklagare.se ..

Images[edit]

Although I am happy we got the FURs worked out, the manual of style and common practice are being ignored. The images need to be reworked or some need to be removed. MOS:IMAGES might help.Cptnono (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most images are clearly not justified. Maybe if some of the participates of Operation Payback came here, we can ask them to place a text on their website saying that the images are public domain, and then, no more trouble about fair-use.--Neo139 (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The images are from an anonymous imageboard. You aren't going to get permission, and you don't need it.69.31.71.138 (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know Operation Payback members release the flyers to distribute them all around the Internet, but in Wikipedia there is a lot of bureaucracy, so we just need something like a txt on anonops.net/copyright.txt that says "we release the flyers under public domain" or something like that. And thats it, then you can upload all the flyers.--Neo139 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't licensing but the layout. Cptnono (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me, I would delete all the images in the target section, and the logo, but I was hoping a changing of license, so if I deleted here, they don't get deleted on wikipedia (fair use images not used to any article get deleted)--Neo139 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Commons would be a better host for them once (and if) they obtain free licenses. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we are moving all to Commons. Flyers are now public domain (see) --Neo139 (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem isn't solve. As Operation Paypack twitter's has been suspended, the source for this licence is now gone. Maybe we should ask Anon Ops a .txt after all. talking Cherry 12:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I know it doesn't put us in the clear, I can guarantee that if you were able to find the original authors of these images (you wont be able to) that they would have placed them into the public domain. I mean, look at the nature of the protests. Zell Faze (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

Needs work. "Coordinated group of attacks"? Decentralized tantrums is more accurate. --160.133.1.228 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a ref that says that? --Neo139 (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the first sentence is subjective. Not a good way to start an encyclopedic entry (in my subjective opinion). The cited article doesn't suggest or imply that the DDoS attacks are coordinated... however another article from the same publisher describes them as a "loosely organised hacktivist collective." <www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/10/loic_for_iphone>. --160.133.1.228 (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. "Coordinated" isn't synonymous with "centralized." The attacks were planned and coordinated. There were targets, dates, times, and instructions. Operation Payback had IRC channels, websites, and Twitter accounts with which to coordinate the attacks. It's only decentralized in the sense that there isn't any real membership. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dubious, unfounded text.[edit]

"Also, Encyclopedia Dramatica was forced to delete their article on Operation Payback after the website received federal court orders to cease any further online documentation of the attacks.[73][74]"

Those references do not indicate federal court orders forced Encyclopedia Dramatica to remove content. This is not only ridiculous but a blatant violation of the First Amendment. In other words, this is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.255.225 (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gawker reference states (emphasis added) "Some sites have received federal court orders to cease any further online documentation of the attacks, which targeted Visa, Mastercard and other financial companies who froze Wikileaks accounts, a source close to the situation tells us. Among the sites where content is coming down is Encyclopedia Dramatica, which we're told received one of the orders." Looks pretty clear cut to me. Why do you suspect gawker is wrong? SmartSE (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the article is just standard practice when something's being incited by ebaumsworld. E.D. doesn't want to help them inflame things anymore. Nevard (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You think the fact that it's a blatant 1st Amendment violation means it can't be true? Seriously? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may or not may be true. But Wikipedia is not about the truth. Reference may or may not be reliable and thats topic of discussion. (see Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth) --Neo139 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)We don't really care about truth but about whether we can verify article content. The source says it, therefore we can. I've no idea if it is a violation of the 1st amendment or not, but that isn't relevant. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this implies a federal court order had the article taken down. Is this true or not? If it hasn't been verified should it really be listed here? I ask because this is a particularly horrible thing if it is true so I think it warrants specific accuracy. That's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.255.225 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once sourced said that they were told about the federal court order, the other source said they tried to contact Encyclopedia Dramatica admins but failed. I will leave it there, maybe new sources appear in the future.--Neo139 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is a self-described gossip column (Gawker) a reliable source? --160.133.1.228 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

On December 8, 2010 Operation Payback's Facebook page was removed and their official Twitter account was suspended.[69][70][71][72] Also, according to Valleywag, Encyclopedia Dramatica was forced to delete their article on Operation Payback after the website received federal court orders to cease any further online documentation of the attacks

What about us? Why are we allowed to document this then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.101.13 (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they were "dropping docs" on the page, not just recording the events. I doubt Wikipedia is about to be hit with a takedown request from the Feds for this page. Fences&Windows 23:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Legal threats would have to go through the Wikimedia Foundation, and they'd have to decide what to do about it. If there really was illegal material, it'd get deleted or oversighted. And people should know by now that if WMF puts the Office Actions hat on, they're not going to be particularly hush-hush about it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Dramatica article could have been taken down because it had personal details (address, cellphone,etc) about some CEO of the companies they were attacking. Google cache is still available. If that information ever appear on Wikipedia, it will get oversight. In fact, in Aiplex Software article, I asked for oversight to an old revision. (And they delete it of course). So the inclusion of this in the article isn't going to get WP in trouble at all. Some claim the source isn't reliable, but I don't have much information about it more than "I think its a rumor", "its fake", blabla. Small trivia: the FBI tried to challenge Wikipedia over its content and was an absolutely FAIL (see) --Neo139 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EasyDNS and EveryDNS mistake[edit]

I will paste here what was deleted. So everyone can edit it, and we can reconsider adding it to the article. --Neo139 (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent victim and extortion by hacktivists

Hacktivists confusing the names of companies "EveryDNS", which they were targetting for dropping Wikileaks, and "EasyDNS" which had nothing to do with the whole issue, nonetheless caused a DOS for the latter. When the mistake was realized, they then insisted that EasyDNS serve Wikileaks or they will continue the attacks. EasyDNS gave into the extortion by the hacktivists conditionally. [1]

All of the above is wrong. easyDNS was never attacked by anybody around the wikileaks incident, easyDNS has had no contact with Anonymous, and Anonymous has never directed a message at easyDNS.

At one point somebody completely unrelated to anything put out a tweet that said, in effect "would easyDNS take on wikileaks DNS if asked? Because if they don't, it's the same as taking them down". Logic which we disputed then (and that's what I said in the CBC radio interview). In the end we ended up doing DNS for wikileaks.ch, wikileaks.nl and a few other wikileaks names since. All came on under the normal course of business, no threats, no extortions. [ Posted by the Mark Jeftovic - easydns ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.199.34 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the source provided does it say, "They then insisted that EasyDNS serve Wikileaks or they will continue the attacks"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neo139, does the attacks on EveryDNS and EasyDNS have anything to do with Operation Avenge Assange? Are they connected? I wasn't really keeping track of Operation Payback recently. I've rewritten the paragraph and added it to the WikiLeaks article instead. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didGood in put it there^^ The article does not say it was Operation Payback so if no other refs appear, we can't add it here.--Neo139 (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks, I'm the one who introduced the section of innocent victims and hacktivist extortion. First off, please forgive my not responding more quickly as my access to the internet is limited, and thanks for your anticipation that it would be worthy of discussion after it was edited out.

As for the topic: truthfully, I didn't read the very article I linked--again time constraints; however, it was referred to in a CBC radio 1 (99.1 FM Toronto) interview with Mark Jeftovic that I was listening to yesterday (Thursday, 9 Dec 2010, between 12 PM to 4 PM EST). It was where I was informed of the Globe and Mail article. In the radio interview, acoording to Mark Jeftovic, even after the hactivists realized their mistake, they told him that if he didn't serve a Wikileaks website, they nonetheless would treat it as ‘’if’’ he had a Wikileaks site, but dropped it because of pressure. This smacks of extortion to me. I wish they had a podcast so you could hear it yourself. Maybe in a few days they might. I'll check Google News in a few days—there might be more to this—and perhaps others.

Meanwhile, one 99.1 FM (Toronto) journalist referred to the whole MC/Visa/Paypal thing with something like. "When you do business with Wikileaks, you can never leave them."

According to this CBC video Cyberwar tactics, some of Anonymous makes use of zombie-bots (or some similar term)--implicitly, there are innocent victims of Anonymous here.

As for the edit details when you removed my edit, I don't think "Courtesy blanking" should apply. According to it, "From time to time, a discussion will have its content hidden from view based on the judgment of the community, an administrator or another functionary. This is generally not done except under rare circumstances, where discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation."

Correct me if I am wrong, but Anonymous isn't really an organisation; and if required, I certainly have no objection to referring to what may be harm on innocent victims and extortion being done by "some-but-not-all of Anonymous" or words to that effect. Thank you. Civic Cat (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were WP:POV concerns. Please keep the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" in mind; it's not up to Wikipedia and its users to decide who's an "innocent victim" or a who's a "extortionist." Such bold allegations need to be backed up by references. You also need to use neutral language. In addition, individuals have the same rights as corporations and organizations. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references to the attacks are there. Nor am I referring to anyone in particular. If I said, " 'A' " got cold-cocked in the dark," implies a victim and a victimizer, but I name, and largely identify, no one as the assailant. I think my language is neutral enough, though I will state that I'm not only not anti-Wikileaks or anti-Anonymous, I support the former a fair amount, and I'm sympathetic to a lot of the actions of the other. Still, I like to know why they are doing some of the things that they are doing, and if they are doing wrong, it should be noted.Civic Cat (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't here to note who's right or wrong. Also, you listed John Doe as the assailant by alleging that a crime (extortion) occurred. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did? I specified no one. As for extortion, I heard it on the radio, and I suppose my main aim would be to wait a few days before there are some decent sources.Civic Cat (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any indication that Operation Payback was involved in the attacks on EveryDNS and EasyDNS. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [Canadian firm caught up in Wiki wars http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/canadian-firm-caught-up-in-wiki-wars/article1830732/]

Why are they targeting Hustler?[edit]

Back when Assange was in elementary school, Larry Flynt took a few bullets because some bigot didn't like what he published. So should Anonymous be grouped with the bigots, government censorship, and “heterosex-is-rape”-feminists who also oppose Flynt? I’m curious to know their views on this. Civic Cat (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They target Hustler in the past because they sued someone for download porn. Now that you ask this, I maybe a good idea to expand the table adding a column under the label of "Reason" and put there the reason for the attack. Maybe we can find some sources on that. --Neo139 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. As for Husler, I got nothing in this Google search.Civic Cat (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"New Flow of BitTorrent Lawsuits from Hustler" – slyck.com. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thank you.    :-)  Civic Cat (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just used your reference in the RationalWiki article about him.   :-)  Civic Cat (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology section[edit]

Anyone else thinks we should include an ideology section, talking a bit of what anonops said in todays press release, freedom of speech, declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, etc ?--Neo139 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the selectivity of the attacks, a few words might be appropriate, perhaps for this and/or the Anonymous article. One might also check out the article on black blocs for some ideas.Civic Cat (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree! Ideology section would contribute much. However, it would be tricky to write it without appearing supportive of one side or the other. --160.133.1.228 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be difficult to write it a NPOV. Also to include would be Hacker ethic.Smallman12q (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might be able to find some good sources on the ebaumsworld forums.. the attacks are currently being coordinated from there. Nevard (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous is a secret government group help...[edit]

How do I add something like this: There are also some who see Anonymous as a secret government group used to promote a government political agenda, as in this case the new proposed "digital Patriot Act" legislation being introduced and championed by Palin & Lieberman. As can be seen by comments made in here: http://antivirus.about.com/b/2010/12/10/operation-payback-misguided-missiles.htm (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FRINGE, and I don't really see any reliable sources. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking sources that says what you want to add, and list them here. Maybe you can found a reliable source that suggest that theory, and then we can add it under Conspiracy theory subtitle. Remember that you can't add something to Wikipedia just because you find a website that says that. You might want to check out List of conspiracy theories and see how are they sourced. What you want to add its not easy, I suggest you to create and account and learn about editing.^^ --Neo139 (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon block[edit]

A user added this. This not enough sources to put it in the censorship article. But maybe in the future. I will place it here. If you find more sources add them--Neo139 (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On or around December 9th, Verizon FiOS and DSL customer and now being blocked from the majority of Operation Payback's IRC and Web Servers. So far the list below are confirmed blocked IP's to most Verizon customers:

  • 83.169.21.109
  • 91.121.72.103
  • 91.121.92.84
  • 88.198.224.117
  • 178.63.172.193
  • 67.23.234.51

Verizon has denied doing this, however the evidence speaks for itself. <ref>http://verizonblocking.blogspot.com/2010/12/verizon-purposely-blocking-operation.html</ref>

What happened to the list of targets?!?[edit]

Up until VERY recently, two full, or seemingly full lists of targets was on the article: one for every attack before Operation Avenge Assange, and one for every act during Operation Avenge Assange. They must have been removed within the last 30 hours! Why did they get taken down?!?!?Gold1618 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Gold1618 Oof 50.34.152.106 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are still on the article, but commented <!-- --> because the reference is now a dead link. So when we find reference of each target we take out the comments tags.--Neo139 (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, if you have a reliable source you can give it some protection against being deadlinked by trying to get it archived at webcitation dot org, I'm guessing that there's nothing at the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine (too new.) --j⚛e deckertalk 06:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Webcitation tip!^^ It really useful for this type of articles. --Neo139 (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list is at http://anonops.ru/o:p/index.php?title=Targets if anyone wants to add them back.. JV Smithy (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have added the website to webcitation.FAQ, Targets, About. Also, we will need a citation from some media to proof that anonops.ru is the new website from Operation Payback, so we will have to wait until the guys start ddosing again.--Neo139 (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We really should have used a service like Webcite to make a copy of those pages. Things made by Anon are pretty prone to going offline. Zell Faze (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B-class assessment review / GA nomination prep[edit]

I'm responding to an assessment request posted at WP:COMP.

Here's some observations from my review:

  • POV: The article could benefit from including more critical viewpoints, and by presenting those viewpoints already present using clearer prose. (e.g. ACAPOR, Andrew Crossley, FBI).
  • POV: As much as possible, content from Criticism and Reaction should chronologically be incorporated into the Actions section. This will allow for a more neutral point-of-view throughout.
  • Missing content: Operation Payback#Tools_and_communication should be expanded.
Done
  • Prose/verifiability: Many sentences lack an explicit subject. (Is this to imply "members of Operation Payback?") This should be fixed before GA. I think it's a problem with prose, rather than with verifiability.
  • Verifiability: The article is amply sourced. I didn't see any obviously dubious claims or original research. However, I did not even cursorily verify the material in sources.
  • Structure: Transition from Origins to Actions is confusing. If the actions in Origins were part of Operation Payback, they should be incorporated into the chronology. If not, that needs clarification.
  • Structure: Actions should be kept chronological. The reader would benefit from guidance by sections that provide a thematic progression: e.g. "Recording industry", "Sarah Palin", "Avenge Assange" at the === level, converting the existing sections about the recording industry to ====.
  • Lead: second paragraph is OK. First paragraph contains too much background on 4chan, which should be moved to Operation Payback#Tools and communications. Lead is missing a summary of anti-Operation Payback perspectives.
Done

Nice work! --Pnm (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assessment. Activity on the article has slowed and winter break has arrive, so I'm going to make some of the suggested improvements. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on the first section? Not sure if a History section is needed with a Origins subsection and nothing else. Maybe spin out a background section or keep the content as is but rename it "Background and initial attacks" Cptnono (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should start with this. Since the addition of the review, Tools and Comunications and Lead has changed a lot. So thats ready. About the Origin/Action division. I'm not sure. Maybe we should eliminate the "Action" title and let all be History. --Neo139 (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took try putting in sections that offer a thematic flow. I think the extra structure is helpful. It makes it less like a long, indistinct list.
Any reason the second, third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs in Operation Payback#Background_and_initial_attacks shouldn't be merged into the chronology? --Pnm (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would work fine. I also like Neo's idea of simply merging the action subsections into history. Not sure which would flow and look bestCptnono (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested section locating Operation Payback in tradition and theory.[edit]

User:Cptnono has suggested I raise here the question as to whether there should be some kind of attempt to locate Operation Payback within the historical tradition. For instance, theorist Mikhail Bakhtin has highlighted in Rabelais and his World how in resisting hypocrisy, 'laughing truth...degraded power'. I have heard it said that many of the puerile pranksters involved may have been doing it in part 'for the lulz' but at the same to stand up for their beliefs in freedom etc, so this may have been what they were thinking of, I don't know. I also understand that their mustering point on 4Chan (sic?) is somewhat Rabelaisian in quality. Obviously only one side of things, but maybe a start. Any takers? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OR and WP:RS. Although there may be a connection, we need an essay or something of a similar professional caliber in order to include it into the article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Call It Piracy and other images[edit]

I restored the You Call It Piracy image. I think it's a great image, and am glad there are so many great visual for this article.

I do think the presentation of images overwhelms the text. There is already a link to the Commons category, but I think a small gallery at the bottom of the article would be helpful, too.

The body can be illustrated with the most relevant two or three. --Pnm (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is great but the article has already a lot of images. Specially in that section, all near each other. Maybe we could take down the Logo image and put the "You Call it Piracy" in the lead. The logo is not very used in Operation Payback flyers. It is still on the article probably because it was the first image added. Also there is a space without images in Gene Simmons section. We could add Gene Simmons fyler there.--Neo139 (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image should identify the topic so make sure it is a pretty big or broad image in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it. The image is big. What do you think?--Neo139 (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well 280 is a little big but not unheard of. ;) Big as in prevalent (what I meant) is fine if that is the case. It is a really cool image so I like it.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made it a little smaller and placed it alongside the TOC instead of the lead. Can't we get a better copy of that image, in PNG or something? --Pnm (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find PNG image in Google Images.--Neo139 (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA[edit]

What do you think about nominating this article to Good Article? Do you think its ready for GA? --Neo139 (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia:Peer_review would be more appropriate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's close. Here are some thoughts:
  1. The prose is difficult to follow in some cases. For example, the RIAA attack section starts off with context/background instead of with a summary of the incident. Same with ACAPOR and ACS Law. If you read the article straight through, it gives a very choppy feeling. Most of the article is in passive voice. Many sentences lack an explicit subject which feels kind of like WP:SYN/WP:WEASEL. (GA criterion 1a)
  2. The long Gene Simmons response quote should be summarized. (GA criterion 1b)
  3. I suspect there's referencing problems which the GA review will expose. It behooves us to fix them first. Maybe we can verify a section at a time until we've covered the whole thing. (GA criterion 2b)
  4. There are also some web sources which don't meet WP:Reliable sources. (GA criterion 2b)
  5. The article could use more critical viewpoints (and clearer prose for the existing criticism) (GA criterion 4)
  6. The Criticism section should be incorporated into the main body to improve neutrality. (GA criterion 4)
I think GA usually comes before peer review. --Pnm (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Raids[edit]

2014[edit]

The current contents of the page suggests there has been no activity under the 'Operation Payback' banner since 2011. Therefore, would it be appropriate that the article be reworded so that it is in the past tense? I will do so if there are no immediate objections. Athomeinkobe (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

I'm working on cleaning up this article and noticed the dates are in both MMDDYY format and DDMMYY. There were things happening around the world but it would be good to be consistent - what is the consensus? Thanks. Wikimandia (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wert Danilaeryvfh (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That wasnt a minor edit[edit]

my mistake sorry Softlemonades (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Payback&oldid=1209529910"