Talk:Project Chanology/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article Semi-Protection take 2

So, apparently the article has been switched back to semi-protected. Whats the deal? is this a mistake? There has been very little IP vandalism since it was unprotected. Over the course of 12 days, I see the following edits by IP's:

• [1] - vandalism
• [2] - significant sourced contribution by an IP.
• [3] - good faith edit reverted for OR.
• [4] - "over 9000" minor vandalism.
• [5] - "over 9000" minor vandalism again.
• [6] - accurate good-faith contribution by IP, though without a source. Sources easily found a few edits later.
• [7] - good faith edit reverted for OR. (and another edit fixing his typo [8])
• [9] - good faith edit reverted as unnecessary (pirate picture). Z00r (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• [10] - fix quotation bracket style.

On net, there has been very little true vandalism, and several positive contributions from IP's. Z00r (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention trolling from 2 sockpuppets of an indefinitely banned user. It very very quickly becomes extremely difficult to work on improving this article when it is not semi-protected, unfortunately. Cirt (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What instances are you referring to? I believe I was pretty thorough looking through the edit history. Z00r (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to CatUrineCuredMe (talk · contribs) and McCainSoulBro (talk · contribs). That sort of trolling/disruption severely slows down the positive contribution that could be made to this article, and that coupled with the above info you gave shows that the article should not be unprotected from current semi-protection. Cirt (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Those editors were not IP's though... how would semi-protection prevent them from vandalizing? Z00r (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they were new accounts. Cirt (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, very well then. Perhaps in the future this article may be unprotected again without new account vandalism. One last note: while getting this article to featured status is a good and noble goal, it is not worth sacrificing core wikipedia philosophies. Meaning, if the problems are good faith but misguided edits by IP's (not vandalism, as is the case here), then that is not grounds for page protection. Z00r (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but unfortunately that is not the case here. Cirt (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

BRD: Religious persecution

I reverted someone's bold insertion of Category Religious Persecution. I don't think that it should be applied, per NPOV. Comments?DigitalC (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do think we have such an established category, then? Per the article, it's an anonymous groups that directs its persecution for the purposes not limited to "expel[ling] the church from the internet". That includes "distributed denial-of-service attacks, black faxes, prank calls, and other measures intended to disrupt the Church of Scientology's operations". Then there's the masked protests with vilifying chants and signs, still ongoing. Would it be any less convincing of a case if the stated aims were "expelling Jews from Germany" by means of "harassment of shops, etc"? Would you prefer it if the church members were hospitalised or killed rather than being persecuted off the internet and intimidated in real life. So, be real.CatUrineCuredMe (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. For what its worth, Anonymous has stated on multiple occasions that they are against the corporate nature of the church, and not against its beliefs - in fact many people with the same beliefs OUTSIDE of the corporate church (FreeZoners) support Anonymous. Either way, I don't think that it is NPOV to add that category to this article. However, consensus should be obtained.DigitalC (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree w/ DigitalC (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh great, so you're not suggesting that phone harassment, fax harassment, computer crimes, copyright violation, and real-life stalking and harassment directed solely at a religious group are not-at-all or any less persecution .. indeed religious persecution, are you now??CatUrineCuredMe (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Were these actions directed at individuals with those belief, or towards the Church of Scientology itself (and its staff)? I also haven't heard about any stalking/harassment allegations. Source?DigitalC (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) Considering that there are religion-related categories attached to the Church of Scientology page and Anonymous has attacked the Church purely on the basis of its beliefs, I can understand the addition of the religious persecution category on the page. Religious persecution is actually mentioned in the article under the Reaction heading, where Andreas Heldal-Lund says that "attacking Scientology...will just make them play the religious persecution card."

However, I agree that more debate is needed here. There's a huge difference between claimed religious persecution and actual religious persecution. And then there's the question of whether or not Scientology is an actual religion. Furthermore, if the aim of Anonymous really is to attack the corporate structure of CoS rather than the belief system (although the two are intertwined), then religious persecution certainly does not apply. --clpo13_(talk) 04:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: to Clpo13 (talk · contribs) - It is a wholly different matter entirely to add a category implying characterization to an article, without multiple secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that have previously characterized something in that manner, than to include a quote from Andreas Heldal-Lund warning that the Church of Scientology would attempt to use that very characterization itself. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite true, which is why I don't agree with the addition. I simply find it somewhat understandable. --clpo13_(talk) 06:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: CatUrineCuredMe (talk · contribs) has been blocked indef as a sock of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, just amazing. A faceless group engaging in ridicule and slander is following through on its threats to "expel" a church group and that doesn't amount to what Andreas Heldal-Lund himself foreshadows as religious persecution. Would that be because its criminal activities and intimidation efforts aren't persecution? Or that they're covering what they do with another name for PR purposes (which is what every group of religion persecutors does)? Or is it because they don't want to admit the religious character of the group they are indeed committed to persecuting - I'm sorry but [that last issue has been settled a long time ago already (1 October 1993)] with the Church headquarters and its most significant bases recognised as parts a religious organisation and afforded charitable tax exemption accordingly. After that, an attack on what's regarded as a religious group somewhere becomes a religious persecution anywhere regardless divergent views beyond the shores of the United States. Do you think you know better than the IRS in applying its own rules re recognising the religious character of organisations/activities? I certainly don't. I'll respect the professional judgement of the professionals, hence in all the circumstances the categorisation is appropriate.McCainSoulBro (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"its criminal activities and intimidation efforts" Which group are we talking about here? AndroidCat (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: McCainSoulBro (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any RS describing this as persecution, other than COS claiming it is persecution? I did a google news search for 'perseuction and scientology'[11], and couldn't find anything like that.DigitalC (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't think Chanology qualifies as religious persecution, I would support linking to the topic in this article. The ideal place would be a wikilink in the quote by Andreas Hedal-Lund (is it proper to wikilink within a quote?). Adding the whole article to the category would be an OR endorsement. Z00r (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no POLICY (that I know of) on wikilinking without a quote, but a read through Wikipedia_talk:Quotations_should_not_contain_wikilinks shows that it is frowned upon by some at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalC (talk • contribs)

What Project Chanology is, actually, is a grassroots effort to bring exposure to the bully tactics of Scientology on a global scale, and to that end it is very successful. No one, since Tom Cruise, has been as successful at exposing Scientology as a dangerous cult more than Anonymous. This is not "religious persecution" because Scientology is not a religion. It is, in point of fact, a calculated (and successful) protest against the evil works of a (once) powerful and intimidating *corporation*. To the end that Scientology is considered a "religion" in the United States, members think that Wikipedia must also acquiesce to that definition, and they are very wrong. The beauty of Wiki is that "consensus" holds a powerful weight here. Sometimes that is frustrating, especially if you are not in the consensus as anyone is bound not to be, sooner or later. However, it is an invaluable tool to assure that the policies against fringe viewpoints and POV are ruthlessly protected, as most everyone can agree is entirely for the best. The consensus is, Scientology is not a religion and all the hooping and hollering of the Scientology crowd won't change that. If anyone is guilty of "ridicule and slander" it is Scientology and their ongoing policy of "Fair Game" and all the dirty flotsam and jetsam that comes with it. Bottom line, Scientology is *not* "regarded as a religious group" by the consensus here at Wikipedia, and it will never will. One would find a more worthwhile pursuit tilting at windmills than trying to change that... here. Supertheman ^(talk) 08:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they're getting desperate LamontCranston (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation for word order of first sentence

"Project Chanology, also called Operation Chanology,[4] is an ongoing protest against the practices of the Church of Scientology by Anonymous, a leaderless Internet-based group that defines itself as ubiquitous."

The "by Anonymous..." should be moved after "ongoing protest." As it stands, because of the syntax, the sentence could be interpreted as meaning the Church of Scientology as it is practiced by Anonymous. If it were after "protest," there would be only one interpretations, the correct one, of what the prepositional phrase refers to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.199.61 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Z00r (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing Decline

The attendance figures as documented in April, and as not yet published here for May, seem to indicate a major decline in this project compared to the initial rush of enthusiasm in February and March.

When will it be appropriate, as a NPOV encyclopedia, to call attention to this decline? Ema Zee (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When it is discussed in a secondary WP:RS/WP:V source. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be that the decline is related to the media interest, not the protestors' enthusiasm per se. Either way, no, calling attention to such an observation (or attempted interpretation) would be original research. We can only reproduce it if reported by a reliable source. Ayla (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's true. Also, there is no mention of the ongoing mini flash mob raids organized since mid-March. I believe these have only been reported in local news outlets, but not much even then. Hypatea (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The project does seem to be shifting towards more decentralized flash raids, organized on local forums, IRC channels, and offline. This is in contrast to the early worldwide planning at sites like partyvan, enturb, SA, ED, 4chan, and so forth. Reliable sources (but not WP:RS "reliable") indicate that small flash raids are going on almost every weekend in major cities. Honestly though, I doubt the mainstream media will pick up on this. Large media is good at covering "the story", or "the big event", but is much less capable of connecting the dots between a lot of small things happening at once. We will have to wait a couple years for sociologists to write papers about this before this encyclopedia article can be written properly. Z00r (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

ROFLCon Panel

Anonymous held a panel at ROFLCon, focused on Project Chanology. The last half of the panel brought up 4chan. A potential source for information. ROFLCon 5/30/2008 - "Anonymous". The same video is hosted in segments on youtube.[12] Perhaps this can be used for a perspective on Chanology from within Anonymous.--Cast (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Heard about this, haven't seen it mentioned yet in a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, of course I don't want to jump the gun. I should specify that I think we ought to keep an eye on it, but wasn't aware if any of the regular editors for this article knew of it. I'll trust that you'll update the article with useful third-party information about this source when it becomes available.--Cast (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is quite an interesting presentation given by the representatives. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation Sea Arrrgh

source http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/06/08/2008-06-08_disturban_the_peace_in_style.html

"anti-Scientology vigilante group "Anonymous," which has been attacking the church and Cruise on YouTube, is stepping up its antics, promising to launch "Operation: Sea Arrrgh," an attack on Scientology's Sea Organization, the elite arm of the church that operates a ship called MV Freewinds.

The protesters, who claim they stay under the radar to protect themselves from church backlash, are peppering media outlets with promises they'll accost the Sea Organization all summer long, all pirate-style, in their latest attempt to expose the underbelly of the celebrity religion. "

Arabik (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Another pre-sea arrrgh source. livenews.au DigitalC (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[irrelevant]

Thanks, added this one already. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fork?

This article is now 6,972 words long and well over 100kb in raw size (300+ when opened I think). Time to fork? Especially as protests are appearing to be monthly now, maybe the individual protests need to go someplace like Project Chanology protest history? rootology (T) 16:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, let's wait perhaps a week to assess the press/media coverage of this protest, and evaluate, that may be a good idea. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

EFG Mask

• The related issue came up several months ago about the origin of the Guy Fawkes masks and their relation to the Epic Fail Guy (EFG). While the presence of Anonymous protesters wearing the masks can be attributed to both its popularity in V for Vendetta as well as the EFG meme, within the article the origin of the EFG meme with the Guy Fawkes mask is incorrect. The article asserts that the EFG is in fact Fawkes himself, who is called the EFG for having failed miserably at destroying Parliament. In fact, EFG existed as a normal (unmasked) man prior to his acquisition of the mask, which he discovered in a trash can. The original screenshot of the thread still exists and confirms that EFG is in fact NOT Guy Fawkes himself. The article that is cited as being the source of this statement is incorrect in its analysis. I'm not changing it now though because there exist no verifiable media sources that describe the correct etymology of the EFG, aside from Encyclopedia Dramatica. General consensus however holds that EFG and Guy Fawkes are separate persons. the_one092001 (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well please update us if/when this EFG meme is discussed/analyzed in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that the correct etymology of EFG is not presented in the article. However, Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about |verifiability. Perhaps attribution to the source would help in this spot though. (Ie - "according to so and so, EFG represents Guy Fawkes", or "The Bloody Newspaper reported that..."). It isn't true that EFG is Guy Fawkes, but it IS true that that source said that. DigitalC (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the city paper feature article discusses EFG properly. [13] Z00r (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That does, Cirt, if you want to add it. Quoting: "Anonymous became the latest in-joke to escape the site and run through the internet, taking with it 4chan in-jokes like longcat (who is long), Guy Fawkes masks (from the movie V for Vendetta but also representing a 4chan character called "Epic Fail Guy" because, well, he fails)," from that source. rootology (T) 06:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that is a pretty comprehensive piece and a good source, I will work it in, thanks. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-moralism

There has been some talk for a time about how not all Anons are behind Project Chanology, but because there has been no third party source on this we can't include such information. I believe I've found a new quote which may be of some use. Bostonist recently produced this article on the most recent Boston Protest (June 14).[14] The gallery below includes short blurbs of information and quotes.

The 8th image is captioned with this quote: ""A lot of these people are here just to have fun," said Captain Jack Snow, an Anonymous member. "Not all the people who come from the same internet culture have the same ideas about the cause. Some Anonymous are opposed to having any sort of moral cause." (C. Fernsebner)"[15]. (emphasis added)

The 9th image has a follow-up caption: "Nonetheless, many Anonymous members consider themselves strongly committed to undoing the Church of Scientology. "You find somebody who is really obnoxious and you just want to get rid of them," said Snow."[16]

This does not give any hint to the numbers of Anonymous who are not participating in Project Chanology, or who reject it, but perhaps it can at least be used to explain that Anonymous is not unanimous.--Cast (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where best to put all that, perhaps it would be better at the article Anonymous (group). Cirt (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend adding elements of whenever Anonymous is listed as being the instigators of the Project, such as in the opening sentence "...is an ongoing protest by 'elements of' Anonymous..." If it were to be directly inserted into the article, I would recommend the "Formation" and "Reaction" sections, because the rest of the article specifically deals with the elements of Anonymous that did protest.the_one092001 (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, this does not seem to be the standard way this is addressed and discussed in articles on Project Chanology in secondary sources in the media - unless you can cite an example from a WP:RS/WP:V source that using such phrasing? Cirt (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a large part of the problem, and why I didn't change it myself. Because of the nature of Anonymous as a rather distant and fringe group, it is often misunderstood. Large media corporations attempt to do their best to write about it without a complete picture, and end up depicting Anonymous as a fully unified group that has come together to take on Scientology, when in fact, only a small percentage of Anonymous, the so-called "moralfags" really support Project Chanology. None of the media want to delve that far into their research, and most have probably never even visited 4chan or /b/ to see what the consensus (or lack thereof is), similar to the above misinterpretation of EFG's origins. TL;DR, any Anonymous will tell you that there is by no means any consensus on Project Chanology, but because the media companies say there is, most people think there is. That also means that there are no sources backing this up because there really is no such thing as a single true statement from Anonymous.the_one092001 (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The city paper feature article discusses this, and gets it right. [17] Z00r (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

July 12 - "Spy vs. Sci"

It appears that the next global protest is set for July 12 - called: "Spy vs. Sci", and follows the idea of the protests from the prior 5 months in that is has a theme, and will highlight the Church of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs. So far there is mention of this on several websites - [18], [19], [20], [21].

I have not yet seen this mentioned in news/media, but will keep looking. Has anyone seen this "Spy vs. Sci" theme discussed/cited yet in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Flash raids

We now have a source for the declining numbers at the mass protests, and that they are being supplanted with flash raids.[22] The problem is language: it's in german. Enturbulation is currently hosting a translation,[23], but I couldn't tell you how accurate it is. That said, I can clearly see where the flash raids are mentioned in the original German, so I don't think we have need to doubt the article's content on that subject.--Cast (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Most interesting and useful, many thanks. Cirt (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, what was once a 'project' has died as that, and is now a whimsical, haphazard, and distinctly undirected mere social activity.Rectif (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be losing momentum, but i can't find any sources to say that there are plans to stop protesting--Kip Kip 11:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe it more accurate to say that it was always a whimsical, haphazard, and distinctly undirected social activity. Though "mere" is perhaps not the best term to use. I don't see why it would have been more of a "Project" before, and why it would be less of one now. My understanding is that the activist wing of Anonymous decided to pursue this tactic after noticing that Scientology would simply shut down operations for a day and thus prevent Anons from coming into contact with their members – the ones Anons are trying to contact the most. So now they've switched to a tactic that allows them to reach the public scientologist at any time and day, with a minimum of effort and without necessitating the mass direction of a multitude of individuals. If anything, this may keep the group flexible and strong for many months to come. I doubt it's going to "lose momentum" with this tactic.--Cast (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say a loss of momentum, the difference is that now Anonymous as a whole has stopped supporting the campaign. Much of Anonymous was already against it, deriding the efforts of the "protestfags" and "moralfags." Now the two sides have largely sorted themselves out with the protestors no longer using the name Anonymous as much. They've also switched tactics to keep constant pressure against Scientology at random intervals, instead of occasional large protests that were easy to ignore since they were planned in advance. Planned raids were never really Anonymous' specialty to begin with; the original and current Habbo Hotel raids start without any planning when one Anon requests /b/lackup and others oblige. Very rarely (relatively speaking) does Anonymous plan raids ahead of time because they're easy to handle with advance warning, such as when the Habbo admins urged normal players to dress as Anons in order to sow confustion.the_one092001 (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree almost entirely. The flash raids are a return to the tactics originally envisioned for the project, with the simple absence of minor vandalism. For example, some stencils were originally created for use in spray painting COS buildings with tags. That has gone unreported by the media and largely abandoned by Anonymous. But I disagree when you state that the protesters have stopped self-identifying as Anonymous, and as such, "Anonymous as a whole" has not abandoned them. But the protesters were always only a minority faction of Anonymous. That they are vocally opposed by the original "internet hate machine" core of Anonymous is moot. Anonymous also dislikes the wapanese within its ranks. That never stopped them from being part of Anonymous.--Cast (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

They may use the Anonymous name, but their actions have caused them to become somewhat of a splinter group. Anonymous tolerates (it doesn't have a choice) the presence of wapanese and various other groups because they generally conform to the "accepted norms" of the *chans. They all remain Anonymous and hang out on their boards content to be overlooked by the media and invent new memes about the Internet Haet Machine. These new "protestfags" have broken that credo, and originally Anonymous was happy to have something to do. But once the raids began to turn into organized peaceful protests, a lot of the more vigilante Anons left; the ones that made the bomb threats and black faxes didn't like the new strategy, because it wasn't what they thought the "domestic terrorist" Anonymous should do. The rest just got bored and tired of it all; Scientology turned into an old meme. This leaves only the core group of "moralfags" who aren't large enough to say that they represent Anonymous (the internet concept), but instead represent Anonymous (the small subset that still carries out its anti-Scientology crusade). They use the same name, the same memes, and share the same members, but the "moralfag" Anonymous has through its actions set itself apart into essentially a separate group. the_one092001 (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And now you've contradicted yourself. You stated before that the protesters were no longer referring to themselves as Anonymous as much. Now you acknowledge that they continue to use the same name, but consider this moot, because they essentially behave differently. Well Anonymous does not make distinctions along such lines. It is for that reason that descriptions of Anonymous tend towards the vague and contradicting. All that truly matters is self-identification. If the minority continues to identify with the majority, the majority must accept this. There is no way to purge them. So as you've stated the protesters still identify as Anonymous, contradicting your initial post, we can conclude that these groups are not yet separate, and will not be until the minority disassociates from the title of "Anonymous." Remember the fallacy behind "No true Scotsman".--Cast (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew about the contradiction but there was no other way to reconcile the arguments. Throw both of them out, to avoid the No True Scotsman fallacy and because I have come up with a better way to word my argument. Neither of the past arguments were accurately wored enough to convey my full thoughts on the matter, so I will attempt to do so now although it will take up significnatly more space.
The concept of Anonymous as a single entity is a media-created concept that is used to simplify the description of the group to outsiders. The media portrays Anonymous as a relatively united group that embarks on concentrated campaigns of "domestic terrorist," "internet hate" and of course anti-Scientology protests. In this case, it could be seen as accurate to call the protesters Anonymous because they fit the media-defined version of Anonymous as a mysterious internet group that embarks on random campaigns "for the lulz." To them, Anonymous is a single being with a single mind and clear purpose. But this is quite far from the actual truth. From here, my argument runs into the uncitable due to the very nature of Anonymous and the *chans with no citable sources, only observable interactions which are subjective at best.
The actions of Anonymous can be seen as a manifestation of the Stand Alone Complex mentioned in Ghost in the Shell. The mass of copycat behavior based on an individual that doesn't really exist (as an individual) creates what looks on the outside to be a group organized and concerted effort against Scientology, but in reality is an effort by a large number of individuals that combines to form a concerted movement. Project Chanology came about due to the individual decisions of Anonymous members that Scientology needed to go down; no upper-level bureaucrat made the decision to turn Anonymous against Scientology, it was a simple collection of shared individual interests that created this movement. Because Anonymous has no leadership, and no identity, every seemingly concerted effort it makes is a result of individual interests coinciding and being percieved as a concentrated effort. Rickrolling became popular once a large number of people decided individually that it'd be funny to bait-and-switch people into watching Rick Astley's music video. Each had their reasons; some decided it was funny, others just wanted to go with the flow. But whatever the reason, the result was a seeming concentrated effort to establish Rickrolling as a meme that even the mainstream media has picked up.
What does this have to do with the separation between the Scientology protestors and Anonymous as a whole? The end point is that there is no Anonymous as the media would have you believe. Anonymous is a collection of individuals and their interests, who occasionally align to form loose groups. These are what I would apply the label Anonymous to, and by this reasoning, there are many Anonymous. One Anonymous believes that "F*** YEAH! SEAKING!" is a funny meme. Another Anonymous thinks it's a stupid forced meme. A very large Anonymous likes PCs better than Macs, and a smaller one likes Macs better than PCs. A very large Anonymous thinks the Scientology protest should stop, because they are tarnishing the name of the media-defined Anonymous. A very large Anonymous simply doesn't care either way. And a small Anonymous thinks that the protests should continue. It is by this reasoning that I believe that the "protestfag" Anonymous is a separate entity from the larger Anonymous. It is not, however, the only separate Anonymous, because there are many hundreds of thousands of separate Anonymous all loosely connected by overlapping interests.
What does this all mean? Simply, that Anonymous is whatever you define it to be, and I define the protesting group of Anonymous to be separate from the non-protesting section, due to their clearly opposite interests. Neither would inherently be "right" on such a subjective issue, but the media picks up on the public protests of the smaller Anonymous and passes them off as the effort of the organized overarching group of hacktivists known as Anonymous. FOX News defines Anonymous as an organized group of domestic terrorists, while Scientology sees Anonymous as a chaotic mass of easily-fooled young individuals with too much time on their hands. Because the citable media presents Anonymous as a single group, that is how it is usually treated, although the City Paper article by Chris Landers does hint to disunity within Anonymous (although it does not call them separate).
This whole argument has no bearing on the article though, because none of us can find citable sources that show that Anonymous no longer supports Project Chanology. Until citable sources appear that can be used to create a definite viewpoint, there is no point in changing the article either way. the_one092001 (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you realize that throughout this excessively large post, you contradicted yourself again? We have already established that the media - with the exception of a few articles - has not understood Anonymous properly. However, you agree that Anonymous is a decentralized group of various internal groups and individuals. You also agree that the protesters are of Anonymous (which is also to say they are Anonymous, just not the whole of Anonymous). Therefore it follows that because the protesters have not rejected themselves, Anonymous has not rejected them. Just the majority. So Anonymous has not rejected the protests. Indeed, you are correct on one issue: this article does not need to be changed to suit your pov. Further, the "stand alone complex" refers to a hypothetical sci-fi scenario in which "unrelated, yet very similar actions of individuals create a seemingly concerted effort...based on a nonexisting figure" Anonymous's efforts in Project Chanology are not unrelated, are are very concerted, and many of the individuals taking part in it are also its founders, and so are quite real. A more accurate set of terms to use for this situation are emergence and self organization, and most importantly, spontaneous order. For that reason, these terms are included in the "see also" section of the "Anonymous (group)" article. They may also be used in the "see also" section of this article as well.--Cast (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please see WP:NOT#FORUM - Please do not use this talk page as a message board, but rather to discuss how to better improve this article with WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I put the "until citable sources" part. None of this matters, or really should even be discussed, until anything that can be used to improve the article is brought up. I have no intentions of continuing this further.the_one092001 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My only intention has been to defend the article in its present form and prevent the disruption of it with pov pushing. I agree that the article should not be changed, and as The One has now articulated that no disruptive editing will take place, I agree that this is concluded.--Cast (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientology Hides From Anonymous?

A few days ago, large cargo containers mysteriously appeared in the car lot of the Church of Scientology LA org. Radar online covered the minor incident, Scientology Hides From Anonymous?, speculating the Church intended this as a barricade to shield themselves from the next Anonymous protest. This seems to be a minor and possibly negligible incident, but perhaps it can be used in some way.--Cast (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look at the source. Cirt (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Spy vs. Sci in the news

The "Rush & Molloy" gossip column of Daily News has produced a write-up on the next Anonymous protest theme for July. Anti-Scientology group on attack.--Cast (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Attribution, re Guy Fawkes Masks statements

Anonymous wears Guy Fawkes masks due to EFG. Any statement other than that may be verifiable, but is not fact. Please do not remove the attribution, which allows this statement to be provided as OPINION. Please also see Talk:Project_Chanology/Archive_3#EFG_Mask & Talk:Project_Chanology/Archive_2#Guy_Fawkes_Masks for more context. DigitalC (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, EFG is NOT (contrary to what many publications cite) Guy Fawkes himself. Common consensus is that the mask that EFG wears is the skin of Fawkes himself. Many publications simplify the story and have no idea what Anonymous really is, but the City Paper article that is used for the citation of EFG is essentially the only correct one. the_one092001 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Maxim chanology article

Lots of coverage.

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1666/maxim2gu6.png

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/8031/maxim3hp3.png

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/6206/maxim4ez0.png

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/7672/maxim5vh6.png

Z00r (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Very complete coverage, and it doesn't incorrectly portray Anonymous' memes either (it just avoids most of them). Unfortunately, it's all about the March 10 "Beware the Ides of March" protests, which are already covered by a number of other sources. I don't know what we can add that hasn't been added already or will actually add something new to the article. the_one092001 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is referring to the August 2008 issue of Maxim magazine. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is from August 2008, but all the references within the article are to the March and February protests. the_one092001 (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it provides information on the death of Mudkips the cat; the identification of "Rorschach" and "Ryan"; the PI carrying a weapon at the protest; Mark Ebner as the source of the Tom Cruse video; past actions of Anonymous, such as harrassing Hal Turner; etc. There could be more, but I read it a few days ago and can only afford to skim it now to refresh my memory of what it held. I imagine there is more of value in it. Also, there is now this article on two Anon protesters who were harassed and had their signs stolen and damaged. When Scientology Attacks And now Alan Moore has mentioned the protests, though he doesn't name them, it is clear he is referring to Scientology protests by individuals wearing Guy Fawks masks. Alan Moore Still Knows the Score! page 5 "I was also quite heartened the other day when watching the news to see that there were demonstrations outside the Scientology headquarters over here, and that they suddenly flashed to a clip showing all these demonstrators wearing V for Vendetta [Guy Fawkes] masks. That pleased me. That gave me a warm little glow."--Cast (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of that background doesn't belong here though. That Anonymous attacked Hal Turner doesn't really deserve mention here; it was pretty much unrelated. It might make more sense in Anon's own article, but not here. And a lot of the events are too specific to be listed. The actions taken by a few Scientology members in LA aren't really very significant or notable within the context of a several thousand member global protest. The protest section ATM needs to be trimmed, not expanded. the_one092001 (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with most of this last comment by The one092001 (talk · contribs), and the trimming/copyediting is on my longer term list of stuff to do, however in addition to incorporating additional references including those listed above. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding cybercrime category and the like

I believe we would need a reliable 3rd party source stating it is cybercrime before it should be added to the category. Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the only source claiming that currently is the Church of Scientology itself, which is not a third party. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 05:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Th1rt3en (talk · contribs). This appears to be a characterization of Project Chanology that the Church of Scientology and its representatives has been trying to push out in its public relations campaign for some time now. Without a third-party source satisfying WP:V/WP:RS, or a conviction of some kind, this is a wholly inappropriate category and classification. Cirt (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: Upperclear (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of DavidYork71 (talk • contribs • block log • creation log). This sort of disruption has happened before on this article, with CatUrineCuredMe (talk · contribs) and McCainSoulBro (talk · contribs) (both blocked indefinitely as socks of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs)). Cirt (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan Moore

Have you seen the Trapped in the Closet episode?
[Sings] I'm trapped in the closet! Yeah, that was terrific. I thought the way that South Park handled that bit with the Scientologists was wonderful. I was also quite heartened the other day when watching the news to see that there were demonstrations outside the Scientology headquarters over here, and that they suddenly flashed to a clip showing all these demonstrators wearing V for Vendetta [Guy Fawkes] masks. That pleased me. That gave me a warm little glow.

• Staff (2008-07-16). "Q&A: 'Watchmen' creator Alan Moore - Alan Moore Still Knows the Score!". Entertainment Weekly. Entertainment Weekly and Time Inc. Retrieved 2008-07-24.

Will work this in later. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune

New sources - From the shadows, Anonymous battles Scientology and Who's who in this face-off. Will get on this soon. Cirt (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No mention of South Park?

The episode "Trapped in the closet" jump started the anti-Scientology movement and brought it into the mainstream. I think the episodes influence on project chanology is worth mentioning.KillHammer (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I second this62.178.103.91 (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:V/WP:RS secondary source mentioning this? Cirt (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No real evidence can be cited AFAIK, so it can't be included. The catalyst for Anonymous' actions was the Church itself, it would have moved against them anyway when they pulled the video from YouTube. Without any sources clearly stating that South Park is an influence, it cannot be assumed to be one. the_one092001 (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous? No.

Anonymous are not the same as "moralfags". It should be stated that a subgroup of Anonymous is behind this. Not Anonymous as whole or generalization. 24.61.102.23 (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:V/WP:RS secondary source for this? Cirt (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want reliable sources why not remove all mention of Anonymous (group) completely? Last I checked, a spokesperson from Anonymous didn't declare war on Scientology. 24.61.102.23 (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

All information in the article at present is backed up to multiple secondary sources, and in many cases directly attributed to the sources as such. Cirt (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This was covered before. Every news site and article refers to Anonymous as the instigating party, and for a time, most of Anonymous seemed to agree. But after a while it got old like everything else and the rest of Anonymous decided enough was enough. But as was said earlier, it is incredibly difficult (read: impossible) to say that Anonymous is definitvely in favor of or against anything, because Anonymous is a collective of individual desires that occasionally coincide to form a more concentrated and powerful movement. Unless there is evidence to back up any of these claims, the article will be left as-is to reflect its representation within the mainstream media. the_one092001 (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A source

Here is a source that has a good take on the history and nature of anonymous and the rift between anonymous and the "moralfags":

“People who are protesting and attacking Scientology in order to accomplish any purpose except trolling are in direct conflict with the rest of us. These people are not true anons. They are a cancer that we shall extinguish. Anonymous has raided Scientology, but only for the sake of laughs — which we refer to as lulz,” Jack said. “As I have said, we oppose raids based on morals.”

Run with it. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sister project links in external links section

Re: "removed old news" - it is appropriate for historical relevancy and chronological value to have links to highly related Wikinews articles in the external links section of this article. These links should not be removed, IMO, however I would like to hear what others think of this. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It is not the norm to use Wikipedia articles as indices to the archives for WikiNews. AFAIK, the purpose of the news insert is to alert the reader to NEWS, i.e. recent coverage in Wikinews - not to act as an index of every article ever written on the subject in Wikinews. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh...its not every article ever written on Wikinews. Although it is relevant information not ALL of them need to be displayed, but in justice with NPOV, some need/should be included. Regardless, you cannot not include something because you simply don't like it. DragonFire1024 (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh yerself. I said "every article ever written on the subject". You did not address my point which is that if it is two months old then it is not news and has no place in the article as news. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC on the above

{{RFCmedia| section=section name !! reason=Regarding listing multiple dated Wikinews articles in the "WikiNews has related news" insert. Note that an acceptable compromise may have been found.  !! time= 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC) }} Please see the relevant arguments above for the opposing views. Thank you. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no problem with the latest change showing only a link to the WikiNews category rather than a long list of dated articles. We can leave the RfC up and see if others opine. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - As I made the change to link to a category instead of a list, I have no problem with it either and think it is a good change. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I think linking to the category is sufficient. - DigitalC (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Contextual Misinterpretation of What Cruise Says

I don't think the interpretation that Cruise says "that Scientologists are the only people who can help after a car accident" is correct. I have taken part in several personal development curricula that focus on personal responsibility. His statement that when you are a Scientologist, you stop when you see a car accident, because you're the only person who can help, means: When you see a car accident, you are the only person who can make a difference, in that if you do nothing the world marches forward according to planned. If you have received Scientology training, you know this. This concept can be found in group statistics (viz. each individual is the only person who can at any given moment and in any circumstance observe the rules and stay off the grass), and in spiritual and non-spiritual teachings that focus on personal responsibility and creation of one's own reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegnu2 (talk • contribs)

WP:V/WP:RS secondary source for your assertions? Cirt (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As said above, unless there's a source that specifically states how Tom Cruise's comments have been misinterpreted, nothing can really be done. That isn't the heart of the matter here, the catalyst was that the video was removed. Interpretations or no, that was what got Anonymous angry. That Tom Cruise was making unusual assertations was what attracted attention so people noticed when it was removed. the_one092001 (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good points. As far as what Cruise meant, the important thing is to realize that bit was a motivational piece for an internal presentation. No Scientologist thinks that Scientology is a substitute for first aid or emergency medical services. Scientologists do however feel that spiritual and mental aspects are one and that the spiritual/mental aspects of a car accident need also be addressed both in the "victims" and often in the bystanders and in the realm of the spiritual/mental that Scientologists are the only ones that CAN help - and that every Scientologist has the obligation to apply what he has learned. That is what he meant and that is how a Scientologist would understand it. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, that isn't the important part and it isn't necessary here. This article is not an exposition of the beliefs of Scientology, it's a place to chronicle the events related to Project Chanology. The video relates to Project Chanology in that its removal was the catalyst that drew Anonymous' attention to the CoS and gave it a reason to start it's campaign. What exactly Tom Cruise meant by his comments in the video are largely irrelevant because Anonymous interpreted his statements as outlandish and excessive and used their views to label Scientology a cult. That Tom Cruise meant something else is largely irrelevant because Anonymous didn't care what he really meant, and the CoS didn't issue any official statements clarifying the matter aside from continuing to remove or attempting to remove the video from all internet video sites. the_one092001 (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Operation Chanology

This is cited to a valid WP:RS/WP:V secondary source, the Baltimore City Paper, and should not be removed from the article. Cirt (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is in a source does not mean that we are mandated to include it in the article. That is where our editorial judgement comes in. Nevertheless I agree that the terminology "Operation Chanology" should stay. Z00r (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

7th protest

[24]. Will add that later, w/ other sources. Cirt (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

External link correction

• "Onward - the road to March 15, 2008, "Anonymous", Vimeo, March 26, 2008.

--129.241.151.140 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions within Anonymous

It should be noted that project chanology isn't universally accepted within Anonymous, that many feel that it's attracting too much media attentinon and new members who don't understand what Anonymous is to the group. 1337onidas (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this before, the split between the so-called "moralfags" and the rest of Anonymous. We know of it, but the media doesn't care. As the FOX News special should have proven, the media loves to stereotype Anonymous without even thinking, casting the group as a tightly unified cabal of DOMESTIC TERRORISTS and HACKERS ON STEROIDS. They don't understand the inherent disunity within Anonymous, and even Anonymous doesn't fully understand itself. So the media writes that Anonymous as a whole fights Scientology, and that is unfortunately what we have to say here unless we get good sources saying otherwise. the_one092001 (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

EFG

the bit about EFG is wrong, EFG does not refer specifically to Guy Fawkes, it is an internet meme in which the character wears a GF mask, but the page is protected so I can't edit it. See Epic Fail Guy on Encyclopedia Dramatica.--Marc abian (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondary source satisfying WP:RS/WP:V to back this up? Cirt (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That was brought up before, actually be me. Unfortunately, a lack of citable sources (ED isn't citable) makes this difficult to support, since even though any good Anonymous knows the backstory of EFG, most media companies don't bother researching any background to what they write about. Although I thought the CityPaper article made it clear that EFG and Guy Fawkes were different people and that we were going to use that article to source the separation of EFG and Guy Fawkes? the_one092001 (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The source for the incorrect definition of EFG gives a page not found, so maybe the entire attempt to explain EFG should be removed.--Marc abian (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The information is still verifiable to an archived version of that news article, even if the article itself is not online. You might also try finding that webpage at Internet Archive's wayback machine. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The city paper article is a reliable source that correctly describes EFG. I fail to see why this wasn't corrected months ago. Z00r (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into that source again and make some improvements when I get a chance. Cirt (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

Given that the AP has picked this up, I think the protest at Katie Holmes' broadway appearance should be mentioned. Here's one source: [25]. There are more. 98.121.164.138 (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, will add that in under the protests section soon. Cirt (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Some more sources

1. FI Staff (Fresh Intelligence) (March 4, 2008). "Xenuphobia: Latest Salvo Lobbed In 'Anonymous' War on Scientology". Radar Online. Radar Magazine. Retrieved 2008-03-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Fabricatorian, Shant (March 5, 2008). "Scientology vs Everyone: Is Scientology as big a menace as it's made out to be? Shant Fabricatorian talks to some of the Church's longtime opponents". newmatilda.com. Retrieved 2008-03-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. Staff (March 10, 2008). "Anonymous & Anti-War to Hit Hollywood Saturday". LAist. Gothamist LLC. Retrieved 2008-03-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. Ortega, Tony (March 11, 2008). "What to Get L. Ron Hubbard for His Birthday: How "Anonymous" has changed the game of exposing Scientology's ruthless global scam". The Village Voice. Village Voice LLC. Retrieved 2008-03-11. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. Zajac, Joe (March 12, 2008). "Anonymous vs. Church of Scientology". The Recorder. Central Connecticut State University. Retrieved 2008-03-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
6. Farley, Robert (March 12, 2008). "Scientology fights back in court: The church is seeking a restraining order to stop a new round of protests". St. Petersburg Times. Times Publishing Company. Retrieved 2008-03-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
7. Thompson, Stephen (March 12, 2008). "Church Of Scientology Trying To Block Protesters". The Suncoast News. Tamba Bay Online. Retrieved 2008-03-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
8. Staff (March 12, 2008). "Scientology files petition against Internet group". Tampa Bay's 10 News. WTSP-TV. Retrieved 2008-03-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
9. Shah, Neel (March 12, 2008). ""Anonymous" to Wish L. Ron Hubbard a Very Happy Birthday". Radar Online. Radar Magazine. Retrieved 2008-03-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
10. Thompson, Stephen (March 13, 2008). "Judge Denies Scientologists' Bid To Block Protesters". The Tampa Tribune. Tampa Bay Online. Retrieved 2008-03-13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
11. Farley, Robert (March 13, 2008). "Judge denies petition by Scientologists to limit protest: The church filed a suit for an "injunction for protection" from a group called Anonymous". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-03-13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
12. Farley, Robert (March 13, 2008). "Second Scientology suit rejected". Breaking News tampabay.com. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-03-13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
13. The Associated Press (March 13, 2008). "Judge declines Scientologists' request for restraining order". The Bradenton Herald. The McClatchy Company. Retrieved 2008-03-13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
14. Farley, Robert (March 13, 2008). "Court again rebuffs Scientology's lawsuit". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-03-13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
15. Shah, Neel (March 14, 2008). "Xenuphobia: Scientologists Rip Page From 'Anonymous' Playbook". Radar Online. Radar Magazine. Retrieved 2008-03-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
16. Moncada, Carlos (March 14, 2008). "Scientology Foes Returning To Clearwater Saturday". The Tampa Tribune. Tampa Bay Online. Retrieved 2008-03-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
17. Koppelman, Tess (March 14, 2008). "Masked Protesters Target Church of Scientology: A group called Anonymous is protesting the Church of Scientology". MyFox Kansas City: FOX 4 News. Fox Television Stations, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
18. Moncada, Carlos (March 15, 2008). "Clearwater Hopes Rallies Don't Run Visitors Off". The Tampa Tribune. Retrieved 2008-03-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
19. Johnson, Richard (March 15, 2008). "Tom's Church Counterattacks". New York Post. NYP Holdings, Inc. Retrieved 2008-03-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
20. Nankervis, David (March 15, 2008). "More protests against Scientology: Around 200 masked protestors gathered outside the Adelaide headquarters of the Church of Scientology this afternoon". News.com.au. News Limited. Retrieved 2008-03-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
21. Chisamera, Dee (March 15, 2008). "Scientologists' Ban Against 'Violent' Peaceful Protesters Denied". eFluxMedia. Retrieved 2008-03-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
22. Staff (March 14, 2008). "Scientologists seek restraining order". News.com.au. News Limited. Retrieved 2008-03-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
23. Sarno, David (Los Angeles Times) (March 15, 2008). "Internet unites, emboldens critics of Scientology". Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. Retrieved 2008-03-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I know I've been falling behind in adding some of these newer sources to the article, I've got a lot on my plate at the moment but I'll try to catch up with it all soon. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Will Smith

Will Smith said he talked to "Anonymous" about the New Village Academy: Roger Friedman (2008-09-16). "Will Smith Clears the Air". FoxNews.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.110.131 (talk • contribs)

Okay thanks, will take a look. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Enturbulation.org down

So, is http://www.enturbulation.org/ down? I can't access it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

sites down but not sure how long, maybe for good. but the fourms been transferred here http://forums.whyweprotest.net/ Sirevil (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Coverage of this development in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources yet? Cirt (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Heise Online: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Anonymous-vs-Scientology-Koordinations-Website-geht-offline--/meldung/116612

That applies to the site being down, and being expected up in a couple of weeks, not the new (temporery?) location. --129.241.151.140 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Regime" counterprotest group

Does anyone know if there are sources about this? It might be helpful to the article (if you don't know what I'm talking about, ED has a page about them) 207.80.142.5 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It was barely covered in the beginning and since then has not received any noticeable coverage in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Updating information regarding real world protests

Looking at the Chanology article, I noticed that the real world protest section is not up to date, as it says "The next protest is planned for August 16th." I tried to update this but didn't have correct sources, can someone who can cite correctly help update this? Protests have since been held on September 13th and there is one on October 18th. Thank you. 131.227.217.112 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay I think I can find a source for the October one, what about a secondary WP:RS/WP:V source for the September one? Cirt (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Faraone, Chris (October 15, 2008). "Battling Scientology". The Boston Phoenix. The Phoenix Media/Communications Group. Retrieved 2008-10-16. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Quite a detailed source with lots of info. Cirt (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Still haven't found a source for that September 13 date though. Cirt (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations at ends of sentences

In an article on a controversial topic such as this one, it is appropriate to keep the cites at the end of sentences. Cirt (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Overciting the article is unnecessary. Just about every edit here has prompted a revert or other adjustment so its obviously monitored enough that adding extra citations isnt a problem. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing cites from the ends of sentences will only cause confusion in the future about which sentences were sourced to where, and it degrades the quality of the article on a controversial topic like this one. This article had a tough time making it to Good Article quality status and I would rather not see its quality degraded by adding confusion about which citations went where, by removing them. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As i said, every edit on this page is watched so closely that figuring out what came from where is not an issue. Within ten minutes of my making an edit, two other people were already responding. Clearly any edit that changes where citations should be included will be quickly adjusted if necessary. Theres nothing about this article that warrants its being overcited, unlike featured articles of higher quality where it doesnt seem to be an issue that they might "degrade". Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The goal is to get this article TO featured article status. Please leave the citations as they are. DigitalC (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And it wont end up getting featured status if its overcited like this. Take Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eyes of the Insane as an example where multiple people opposed and the article wasnt promoted until extra citations were removed for sentences that used the same reference. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. The article is nowhere near ready for WP:FAC at this point in time so that is a non-issue. But if you start removing cites from the middle of paragraphs, particularly in this article where there are so many different cites, it will lead to confusion, and encourage and foster WP:EDITCREEP. The article will certainly degrade in quality if that happens. The cites should be added back. Cirt (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"The article is nowhere near ready for WP:FAC at this point in time so that is a non-issue." What exactly do you mean by this? If Im interpreting it right, we should keep extra citations in there until someone makes a, by definition somewhat arbitrary, decision that the articles FAC-quality. At which point we should fix the overcitation problem. Please tell my im misinterpreting you because that sounds like a horrible idea. Edit creep is an issue when a "small core of people" wrote an article and it degrades because its not monitored as new edits are made. Thats not the issue here. Ive stated repeatedly that any edits to the page that might interfere with how its cited are being closely watched by multiple users. You still havent disputed my point that the people watching it are easily able to fix any citation issues that edits cause. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well for one thing I am watching this page, and I disagree with the edits you have made and your removal of citations at the end of sentences, as does DigitalC (talk · contribs). Perhaps other users have not reverted your edits because they see you will just get into an edit war and revert them back. I stand by my position, and request that you please add the cites back. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your statement that I would edit war if someone undid the change is rather unfounded considering ive never reverted more than once. Once again, you havent disputed the fact that this article should be held to the same standards of any other, where overciting is a bad thing. Im also curious as to why you said this article shouldnt be overcited because its not ready for FAC, but you reverted my edit to The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, which is already featured. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I was simply stating that it is not ready for FAC, not that one follows the other. In controversial articles such as this one, preferably even every single sentence should be cited. So it is ideally the same standard at both articles. Cirt (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying directly this time. I agree that its important to make sure that controversial articles like this be rigorously referenced to ensure their accuracy. But making sure that statements are referenced and adding citations are very different things. The fac i mentioned demonstrates this since, just like this article, there were many statements that needed to be referenced but multiple citations like the ones i removed were overwhelmingly considered overciting. That this article is more controversial than Eyes of the Insane means that just about every statement here needs to be referenced, which might not be true in the other. It doesnt mean that the manner in which its referenced should be changed. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, as does DigitalC (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit against Anonymous member

Articles in the boston phoenix [26][27] and boston.com [28]. Does this warrant a paragraph in the "Church of Scientology response" section? Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 10:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief paragraph for those incidents that get major press coverage - but the article is indeed quite long as it is - I am not sure we should be covering every single event that occurs to each individual member of Anonymous out of over 9,000. Cirt (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous vs. Scientology turns ugly

Anonymous Vs. Scientology protest turns ugly Article on Gawker. AnonOrange and XenuBarb attacked by security guards ar Gold Base in Gilman Hot Springs, CA. The article is also on Hollywood Interrupted. What would be the best section to put this in? Lyoko is Cool (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Any other, perhaps better WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources reporting on this yet? Cirt (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientology UK Operation

I want to add the exposure of Scientology's UK Operation, but I can't find reliable sources. -Raziel (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You need WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources before you can add something. Cirt (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Message to Scientology" video

"Message to Scientology", January 21, 2008

Added this video to the article. It is embedded alongside the article text, and can be played at the same time while reading the article. Cirt (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well done 70.70.97.117 (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing campaign?

There seems to be a recent attempt by an individual by means of a number of sock puppet accounts to suggest that "Project Chanology" is no longer ongoing. I suspect QuaylePalin2012 (talk · contribs) is the latest reincarnation of this same individual. Perhaps it would be useful for some consensus on this issue to be developed so that the current position of the article as having the campaign as continuing can be either agreed to be accurate or dismissed as inaccurate. I've reverted the recent edit since it appears to be based upon abusive sock puppetry by a single individual but it would be desirable to clarify this situation one way or another. Adambro (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Best to just go by WP:DFTT, and not to dignify vandalism with discussion. Cirt (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it clear vandalism or is it a content dispute though? I don't want to waste time on this as much as anyone but in the long run it will be easier if we can get some consensus on this. I don't think it will take too much effort. Adambro (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User is creating one-off socks for the purposes of doing this, marking them minor edits, and using misleading edit summaries. That's definitely vandalism. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

True. Well I'm convinced then now. I'll block on sight for any future socks. I just hadn't been following what had been going on lately with this. I just appreciate that anything to do with Scientology seems to attract controversy and wanted to be cautious. Adambro (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with assessment by Consumed Crustacean (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

More info here, here, and here. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Caption

Caption says: "Guy Fawkes-masked protesters gather at the Scientology center in Times Square on February 10, 2008."

.... but they're not really masked. They're wearing the masks on the back of their heads, because a gathering of more than 2 people in New York can not wear masks. --129.241.214.127 (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

>_>

I can tell you all, quite clearly, that all information collected about the 'Group' is 85% reliable, at best. The mere mention of Anonymous having 9,000 members (9,000 as a number is part of a meme) and Anon having some form of group organisation is absolutely ridiculous. Since we are Anonymous, we do not know our names. Through the glory of the internets, we can exercise our right to free speech without the restrictions imposed upon us by evil institutions such as the Church of Scientology. You're all stupid. Learn to realise what is not true and what is. True is what and is the true. 222.153.158.54 (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See, we have this discussion page here to discuss improvements to the article. Wikipedia is collaborative, see how that works? Besides, I can't see in the article where it claims that there is a formal organization here, and calls it leaderless right off the top. It's merely lumping all of the collective Anonymous protests together into one title. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that the article has 9,000 members, rather that a member of Anonymous claimed it had 9,000 members, which IS accurate, and verifiable. We have no clue how many people may consider themselves Anonymous, but remember that 7-8000 people turned up during the February protests. DigitalC (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous is not a group in the sense of being a set of people organized by a central commonality. Project Chanology is a group. Anonymous is the internet signifier for any number of people related to one another only by chance and circumstance. If a "member of Anonymous claimed that it had 9,000 members" it isn't because said member has any sort of knowledge, or is even making an estimation. It's a reference to an internet meme based in a quote from Dragonball Z. There cannot possibly be understanding between anon and IRL until IRL learns to speak anon's languange. Anon is a pretty cool guy. Eh becomes a massive subculture engulfing a major portion of the English speaking world and doesn't afraid of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.182.100 (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much for your arguments from authority. "You're all stupid." Very logical. Mac Davis (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

With the last recorded action OCTOBER 2008, there's no way it's "ongoing". NO WAY.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ThankYouDianetics (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 January 2009

It looks like the Los Angeles Times and the Guardian newspapers disagree. The article may be out of date in some respects but it seems obvious that the Anonymous campaign against Scientology is still very much ongoing. You're assertion that it isn't ongoing seems to lack any merit whatsoever. Adambro (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the user that created this section has been confirmed as a Sockpuppet of DavidYork71 and has been indefinitely banned. Firestorm (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Valkyrie

The film Valkyrie, starring and produced by Tom Cruise, had a premiere in New York on December 17. Entertainment reporter Roger Friedman noted that it was held "in the private screening room at the Time Warner Center. Not the Ziegfield or Loews Lincoln Square, where most premieres are held in public." The venue was chosen in part to minimize the exposure to Scientology protestors gathered at the Time Warner Center. For the same reason, Cruise arrived at the December 18 Los Angeles screening through an underground tunnel. There were also Scientology protests at the European premiere in Berlin, where one protester got his V for Vendetta mask autographed by Tom Cruise. Chanology participants shared the limelight with a person in a bunny suit protesting against the hero worship of Claus von Stauffenberg.

Added this in. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous now thinks Chanology is gay?

The Encyclopedia Dramatica tl;dr article on Chanology has the following at the top "Project Chanology is now considered gay by most chans. Posting about it will get you b&, your IP posted. The project still lives on at 888chan 67chan and 37chan". I skimmed through the article but didn't see any reason as to what happened. We need to update this article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is not an acceptable source. WP:RS/WP:V secondary source? Cirt (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Asking on 4chan might be an excellent way to verify the truth. 71.220.215.168 (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not an WP:RS/WP:V secondary source. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If two anonymous wiki's aren't an "is not an acceptable source", then what is? --Rolontloss (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, please read WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't a wiki for Anonymous. Anonymous simply has used it and they have encouraged it for traffic. Some anonys have even become sysops, but the main people who own and run Encyclopedia Dramatica are a bunch of people from LiveJournal who never have been part of Anonymous. There's various wikis for Anonymous and they're either dead (wikichan), get little traffic (lurkmoar), or are private wikis (shii's and p0ri's wikis). Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

partyvan.info is alive and was setup by LEADERS of anonymous, the place where the raids come from. Anonymous is not just some "LOL WE TALK ANONYMOUSLY" there is a leader and people out there that actually control its users. and Encyclopedia Dramatica is not a bunch of people from LiveJournal. Please "lurk moar". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolontloss (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#FORUM. This talk page is for discussion of improvement to this article, not discussion of the subject matter itself. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Been a while; nice to see this page is still alive. Regardless, there are no verifiable sources that say Anon regards Chanology as "gay." Unfortunately, despite being the source of the project itself, the chans are NOT acceptable sources. Neither are the wikis. For the record, the partyvan.info wiki is not affiliated with any chan, and can't be considered the "leader" of anonymous by any means. the_one092001 (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not directly Guy Fawkes masks

The masks are from the 4chan meme "Epic Fail Guy", not from Guy Fawkes directly. Epic Fail Guy has a mask made out of Guy Fawkes' face. (Not made to look like his face, EFG is literally wearing Guy Fawkes's face.) 71.220.215.168 (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This bit is already in the article with a secondary source. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Article out of date. Where is Brave Agent Pubeit?

reliable source news link: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/15/2009-01-15_greasy_vandal_in_hate_crime_vs_scientolo.html
youtube video of the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrZk0C91mfg
youtube video of it on TV news: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFZiSyzcBaQ
another reliable source news link: http://www.examiner.com/r-5514326~Video__When_Hairy_Met_Scientology.html

I hope others can find more sources. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another source.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/01/28/2009-01-28_man_who_filmed_petroleum_jellycovered_sc.html

To sum up what happened:

Brave Agent Filmit
Agent Filmit was very brave
He walked along with Pubeit And dug himself a grave.

--Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There more stuff if someone wants to search. Oh and here's a nice news artcle http://news.ninemsn.com/technology/751795/anonymous-gears-up-for-anniversary-protest too Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look at that news article. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

When pubeit goes to trial and is made an example out of by scientology's lawyers, they'll be even more news coverage. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a section on Pubeit, please let me know what you think. What a brave soul. Firestorm ^Talk 05:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks pretty good. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Should it also be mentioned that Jacob Speregen is a member Phi Theta Kappa? 1 199.219.129.1 (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not unless it has been mentioned in a secondary source as related to the incident. Cirt (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to this article by User:Are you ready for IPv6? violate WP:NOR

Are you ready for IPv6? (talk · contribs) has continued to violate WP:NOR on this article, and also inserted unsourced material, [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], despite warnings to the contrary [34], [35], [36]. This is inappropriate and risks the article losing its WP:GA-quality status rating, and the disruption should please stop. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to fix things, but you edit the page every 30 seconds and I get an edit conflict 99% of the time, I lose all the work, and am unable to do anything. Then I have to deal with you spamming templates at my talk page instead of talking like a human being. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I placed a template on your talk page once. The subsequent postings have been of my own writing. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Second time Are you ready for IPv6? (talk · contribs) has edit-warred to add in material violating WP:NOR, unsourced material, material sourced to non-WP:RS personal video at YouTube, and material and claims synthesized from secondary source but not directly supported by that source to drawn original research conclusions from it = [37]. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Cirt here. The edits do appear to violate NOR, and from an outside perspective, his revert was justified. With such a controversial topic, it's very important for the sources and the information to be as sound as possible. Therefore, I'd ask you to discuss this on the talk page fully, so you can justify your additions. I cannot see that so far. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You never looked at my last edit. You looked at an old edit before I changed to Cirt's version. After that, I added a ref Cirt had put in earlier. I then went and cleaned up some extra spacing in templates. this is the final diff You never looked at my last version, you just blindly reverted. My last edit after you was not a revert either, [38] as it entailed me fixing a mistake I made in a previous edit but keeping the template shortening. The article is oversized cleaning up extra spaces is really needed. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• [39] = 3rd diff of edit-warring by Are you ready for IPv6? (talk · contribs) to reinsert material violating WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the material in question you object to? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This event is different from where Scientology has claimed for a year Anonymous was using bombs.

= violation of WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I do not appreciate being lied to. The version you reverted back to still contained the principle source of the dispute: The problematic CNN source. You did not self-revert back to Cirt's version minus the whitespace, you kept the source there. If we're going to have a discussion, keep it honest, please. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Prior to his incident, Scientology had reported other incidents, which were bomb threats." Is this better or is it unsalvageable? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The source about the bomb threats. Is it a bad source? Or is it the text by it you don't like? Or both?

Okay, also for the stuff you removed and I didn't put back in when I was able to finish editing without edit conflicts. Youtube videos... now WP:RS and WP:Verifiability not only change many times a day, they do not mention them. They basically claim that a video of the incident, even if self-published, is a reliable source. In fact, a video, despite being self-published, is more accurate than any media source. ?? Then there's one source I don't think I added (and I lost the URL, too) because I lost like most of my edits in an edit conflict, but it was a youtube of a news broadcast about the incident on channel 7, too. Well asking about that, too?? Also you had no problem with these sources I added [40] and [41], even though they were blogs. I was considering removing those additions I made myself, but you for some reason liked them.

Also, I've also seen thousands of articles where, well to put into an anology, would be like if Mark Bunker said something on a mailing list (this is only as an anology) or on alt.religion.scientology (this is only as an anology) and well, I've seen tons of articles where people not only have those in, but they outright say it's quite fine to have that stuff in. So... well I don't even how how to phrase the right question about this??? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sufficiently clued up on this topic to judge the quality of the blog posts, because I'm an outside editor here. However, blogs, though generally frowned upon, can be used as sources so long as the author/site is reputable. Blog responses and such are obviously disregarded as sources, because 99% of the time, the content is inadmissible. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the other stuff I asked about RS and V? When I was editing lots of people came by. When I asked a lot of questions, most of them stayed away. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the above quoted problem sentence as WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal and would have done so myself. Please discuss the additions as they aren't non-controversial. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, please address my questions on reliable sources and verifiability I asked you before in the long comment post here above. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what has already been said by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs). Which source in particular would you like to add back in? Cirt (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

youtube stuff? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That would pretty much specifically violate WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What about if it's a video of the evening news? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Then linking to it violates WP:COPYLINKS - but if you have enough information on the source itself so as to satisfy WP:V, you can cite the news source without linking to YouTube. Which source are we talking about? Cirt (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It was the one I lost in an edit conflict that I never added as I lost the URL. It was some youtube of a channel 7 news report on pubeit. Now why do say the actual video of the pubeit incident is not allowed. It can't be original research since the cameraman and pubeit are both in jail so it would be a secondary source. Plus what I mentined earlier that most people on Wikipedia consider what someone said on a mailing list to be a valid source. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, none of what you just mentioned would satisfy WP:RS. And please stop referring to this individual as "pubeit". Cirt (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the individual himself, as well as the Chanology community, refer to him as Agent Pubeit. The 9News article refers to him as such also, which meets WP:RS. Firestorm ^Talk 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will take a look at that source. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Guy fawkes/EFG?

This article incorrectly states that EFG is 4Chan's name for guy fawkes, this is not true. He did not wear the mask from the beginning, he got it in 2006. In one "episode" of EFG, Guy Fawkes threatens him with a lawsuit, further proving he's not intended to be Guy Fawkes.--86.87.28.191 (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Secondary source satisfying WP:RS and WP:V for this assertion? Cirt (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply remove the offending piece. We don't need to explain the etymology of every *chan meme. Just say that they are Guy Fawkes masks based on the *chan character of EFG, and don't assert either way that EFG is or is not Guy Fawkes. As was already presented, the mask that EFG wears is in fact made from the real face of Guy Fawkes, but it'd be hard to find a source for that. So to balance both factual correctness with sources, simply cut the incorrect part, and don't replace it until we have a verifiable source. the_one092001 (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There already are reliable sources satisfying WP:V backing up the current info in the article. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The link for that source is dead. Ukvilly (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the info, source, and dead link. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Violations of WP:NOR policy

[42] and then again [43] = violations of WP:NOR policy. This should be removed from the article. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

no it should not. I tried to go to the site, but it was down. Please assume good faith. FMAFan1990 (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source to back up this claim? Cirt (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The relevant link has been added. FMAFan1990 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not a secondary source, and again, that is a violation of WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done, removed as not backed up to a WP:RS source, and a violation of WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest sock disruption

Community-banned user DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) using socks to disrupt this article:

• YesOn8 (talk · contribs)
• Comparable2Allah (talk · contribs)
• Helpur (talk · contribs)
• CatUrineCuredMe (talk · contribs)
• McCainSoulBro (talk · contribs)
• QuaylePalin2012 (talk · contribs)
• SoothingDharma (talk · contribs)
• Upperclear (talk · contribs)
• ThankYouDianetics (talk · contribs)
• PornAndPrawnExtravaganza (talk · contribs)
• OngoingHow (talk · contribs)
• 1Bridge2FreeAll (talk · contribs)
• HubbardTechGuardian (talk · contribs)
• Bfair2mychurch (talk · contribs)
• Sjbraden (talk · contribs)
• HerrAdolf (talk · contribs)
• 67.222.12.152 (talk · contribs)
• 68.184.150.94 (talk · contribs)
• 81.241.176.23 (talk · contribs)
• 220.233.172.193 (talk · contribs)
• 123.2.123.220 (talk · contribs)
• 194.54.88.40 (talk · contribs)
• 114.72.237.235 (talk · contribs)
• 114.72.208.244 (talk · contribs)

Some of the more recent socks used to revert to the same material in this article. More info here, here, here, and here. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an ongoing issue. If anybody else makes that same edit to this article, it is safe to assume that they are also either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, and should be blocked. So if anyone is reading this and considering changing the article in that same way, then don't. You will be held accountable. Firestorm ^Talk 05:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Firestorm (talk · contribs). I am adding some more socks that have disrupted this article to the above list. Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YesOn8/Archive, users investigating YesOn8 (talk · contribs) also thought that YesOn8 was itself a sock of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Added Sjbraden (talk · contribs) to above list - account was blocked by the same Checkuser that connected the YesOn8 (talk · contribs) series of socks to DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

More disruption from sockpuppets

The old is it or isn't it ongoing question perhaps needs to be considered again unfortunately following HerrAdolf (talk · contribs)'s recent edit. I suppose we need to actually agree how we determine going forward whether the protest movement still exists or not. I'm inclined to suggest it does, a quick Google search turned up this news story which clearly refers to an individual mentioned as being a member of "a group called Anonymous that protests Church of Scientology events" but I'd have to consider it in more detail.

However, when this edit is viewed in the context of this user's other edits I become more suspicious of their motives. For example here, it does seem more appropriate to describe L. Ron Hubbard as "controversial" rather than "acclaimed". Here, I think Scientology is more widely considered to be "controversial" than "innovative" and here, "controversial" would probably be a more widely accepted description of Psychiatry: An Industry of Death than "celebrated". Adambro (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User has now been indef-blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of DavidYork71. As far as how current Chanology is, New York and Boston had protests on the 16th. Philadelphia has one scheduled this coming Saturday, the 23rd. Monthly protests still happen in most cities. That current enough? Firestorm ^Talk 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I did wonder if this was another case of the ongoing (excuse the pun), disruption via abusive sockpuppets but I suppose my question stands. What criteria do we use to determine whether it can be described as ongoing? If we were able to come up with something I'd feel more comfortable in dealing with anyone who pops up and declares that it isn't ongoing. I'm well aware that the protests continue, a quick Google search makes this obvious, but do we need reliable sources to confirm it is ongoing or can we just base that on forum posts, Flickr photos etc? References are required for content that is likely to be challenged. Is it acceptable to consider a reference unnecessary in light of the other sources which make it unlikely anyone except someone wishing to cause disruption or push a point of view would challenge it? Adambro (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Information is on whyweprotest.net forums, as well as websites of the local cells. However, forums are, of course, not reliable sources, so we need something better. On the Boston Anonymous wiki, they keep details of their monthly protests. The page for May 16 is here. Not sure if that's good enough, either, so if we find something better we'll use it.

POSSIBLE COI DISCLOSURE: I own the Boston Anonymous forums and am a sysop, crat, checkuser and oversight on their wiki. Take anything I have to say with a grain of salt, and always verify for yourselves. Firestorm ^Talk 16:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Response

The user that made the edit referred to above was blocked indef, it is yet another account used by DavidYork71 who has abusively used over 200 sock accounts to disrupt this project. We should not indulge or encourage such behavior by validating it. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Further: In order to WP:DFTT, the best thing to do is WP:RBI when it comes to socks of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cirt (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

partyvan.info

partyvan.info isn't the wiki! It's a mirror for last measure! Edit it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.151.34 (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is as per secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Partyvan.info is back up bro 68.192.218.75 (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Excessive length

100+ kilobytes long. So, how do we split this monster? Timeline of live Anonymous protests or something similar? --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the protests by themselves would be appropriate for its own article, but just not sure on that yet. Could definitely be worth having some discussion about the best way to go from here. I'd rather not split, but perhaps first have a new article, and then afterwards think about trimming and/or summarizing stuff at this page. Cirt (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest we move everything from after the February 2008 section header until the Campaign against Scientology's tax-exempt status section to a new article, perhaps Project Chanology protests or similar. The detailed descriptions of the protests seem a prime candidate for splitting. Adambro (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the title Project Chanology protests. But again, I would be against simply moving content. It'd be best to instead first make the new article, discuss back here on this talk page, and then gradually summarize that content here, keeping the important WP:RS/WP:V cited sources. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started User:Adambro/Project Chanology protests with the content from the sections I mentioned. Please feel free to edit as necessary to get it into a form appropriate for moving into the main article namespace. Once that is done, and the content removed from this article, I would suggest renaming the "Protests planned" section to broaden it out to become a summary from which "Project Chanology protests" can be linked using the {{main}} template. Adambro (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. It'll take some time to gradually improve that new sub-page so it is ready to go live, while also trimming the main article and making sure its quality status stays the same and/or is improved upon in the process. I will get on that soon. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Will try to get on this soon. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

New source

• Downie, Heather (September 11, 2009). "What Goes on Inside Will Smith, Jada Pinkett-Smith's School? - The New Village Leadership Academy Allegedly Mimics Some Scientology Teaching Methods". ABC News. ABC. Retrieved 2009-09-11.

New source. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wired Magazine

[44] and [45]. Will take some time to read these in detail. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[46]. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

National Post

Mainstream media is apparently still covering these protests, and these protests are apparently still going on. nationalpost.com DigitalC (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. :) Cirt (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Another sock

ClearingTechDissem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And see other info at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Meme

I'm not an editor, so I'm not editing, but I'd like to point out that the quote given to the Los Angeles Times, under "Formation" in the article, "a loose confederation of about 9,000 people" itself is a reference to the internet meme "it's over 9,000!" - a quote from the anime series Dragon Ball Z. I'm uncertain if this is appropriate information for the article, but because the article makes reference to their memes, I thought that it may be. Quickly checking Anonymous, 4chan, or similar sites or groups at all will show a propensity for using the number "9,000" at any time. I understand that what I have provided here constitutes as "original research", and isn't valid for the article itself; again, I'm just attempting to give actual editors a "heads up". I don't know how to cite sources properly, create hyperlinks, or any of that, so I'm just typing this here. Anyhoo, hope the factoid helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.164.227 (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we know, and you make a good point - I just don't think independent reliable secondary sources have also pointed that out yet. It is kinda funny. Cirt (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Poorly sourced info added to article

[47], [48]. Sources do not mention either Anonymous (group) or Project Chanology. Links to various associates websites and message boards of Anonymous fail WP:RS. The info added violates WP:OR. It should be removed. Cirt (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Project Chanology is an anti-scientology movement, and as Anonymous used the fallout of what I referenced re: nick xenophon (As can be seen in the links to Why We Protest, Asyd and Melbanon) in their protests (part of project chanology) then how is there anything wrong with it? Also, the sources ARE reliable, as this wiki page is regarding anonymous and project chanology, and those pages are PART of project chanology and anonymous. And it is not 'original research'. --Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that it would be good to mention something about Xenophon, but the addition written by our Emergency Medical Hologram probably crosses the line into OR. Get a (non-self published) source that wrote something about how the speech influenced tactics and you'll be able to write a better version of it that could easily have a place here. The Wordsmith^Communicate 00:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, but since this is a collaborative encyclopaedia, perhaps people can re-write, re-word, fix-up, etc what i wrote? :P --Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed as poorly sourced info. Per WP:BURDEN, please do not add back unless independent reliable secondary sources specifically mention how this info is somehow linked to Anonymous and Project Chanology. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just seems like you wish to remove any mention of the current request for parliamentary inquest into the Church of Scientology within Australia. I have added the information back, with references to articles by The Age, which both mention Xenophon's speech and protests by Anonymous. If you have a problem, please request an administrative comment on the issue. The Nick Xenophon speech is VERY relevant to the current actions of Anonymous within Project Chanology. --Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Show me where in the secondary sources that it makes a connections between the two? Cirt (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What we would need here is a source indicating that either Chanology influenced the speech, or the speech influenced Chanology. I think that, if the EMH wants to demonstrate the latter, selfpublished sources on the official websites (akin to press releases) might be sufficient do demonstrate this, The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, those sources amounting to simply message-board-postings fail WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Tinker, as you asked for admin comment, I can confirm that Cirt is correct in that message board and/or forums do not satisfy the policy of verifiability for inclusion into an encyclopaedia. NJA (t/c) 15:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There still remains in this article wholly unsourced information that was reinserted by the account Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy (talk · contribs) despite warnings about WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BURDEN. Cirt (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this [49]. Cirt (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaderless changes

[50] - these changes are unsourced and a bit POV. Plus, the current article does not imply a single leader. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Know Your Meme

[51]. Note for later, Cirt (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a comedy website. Not WP:RS source. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

While it is a comedy website, it's a website designed to catalog the various sources. For memes, I'd say it's definitely a reliable source. Of course, this is the problem with this sort of movement. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

guy Fawkews mask

Please provide the reference that this was indeed Guy's mask, as my adition of this photo to Guy Fawkes article was reeverted. Please also say your opinion whether their removal of my addition of valid information from this article is justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.83.191 (talk • contribs)

Got any reliable sources? -- Cirt (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from DLichti, 1 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I suggest to add this link to german wikipedia:

de:Anonymous (Kollektiv)#Projekt Chanology

DLichti (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Fix this

FIX THIS: You're looking for a problem," said said John M. L. Brown, a Fraternal Order of Police attorney —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.92.3.35 (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Operation" acknowledged finalised

By this source, even the target of the protest/persecution campaign recognises it as over and defunct, and gone past its effectiveness. Therefore it is time to convert the article to a historical review written in the past tense, also acknowledging the outcome of the Church having prevailed and its CEO outlasting undisturbed in his position. Nothing of notability has been recognised in the article's content for a period of greater than 12 months.Reckoning11 (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you already had referenced the declaration of victory in the talk page. I LOLed. I added the link to the external links in the article since it's relevant that the top ringleader of the corporation would feel the need to lie so blatantly even as Anonymous are still protesting outside of virtually every business office that is still open. Damotclese (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC).

Scientology Declares Victory Over Anonymous

I added an external link [52] to a Register article covering David Miscavige's reported declaration of victory over Anonymous and Project Chanology though it could conceivably be said that since Anonymous continues to protest against Scientology's human rights abuses and crimes, the declaration itself is obviously false. Still, the need to declare victory when Scientology is still under siege tells a great deal about Project Chanology's success so far.

Also Project Chanology is being used as a template for other social "uprisings" around the globe and social scientists have been examining and writing academic papers about the emergent phenomena of Anonymous. Mr. Miscagige's rather unusual declaration of victory gives voice to the mindset of Chanology's putative foe and gives some good indication of why Chanology has been so successful. Damotclese (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

the 4chan article

The link to the 4chan article, under the external links section, needs to have some form of warning of it not being NSFW (not safe for work), especially if you are surfing on a computer that has no form of ad-block or script-block. Even if the archived thread, by an astronomically small chance, doesn't have any vulgar language or images in it, 4chan is known to prefer advertising pornographic material, with the ad banners never being censored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.200.44 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Chanology is dead.

And for about 2 years now. So change "is" to "was" (seriously, and for a good reason too). <- ED is blacklisted so I couldn't use it in "a good reason".--194.145.185.229 (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC) --194.145.185.229 (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional Information

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but source number 100 no longer exists at the cited web address. The original article has been removed from the LA times. Robotman666 (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC) (whoops didn't log in)

In the beginning our command center was irc.nintelligent.net (now defunct.) The rooms name was #CoSplay. The original admins of the first channel were named Banhammer, Hitlery, Moose, Anonicole, Notatripfag, and SAtempus.
I was Banhammer, the room owner. Our initial plans involved most of what is already listed (under "internet activities") however, we also had secondary rooms for our press releases/news room, propaganda, and blackops.
In our black ops room DDoS attacks were planned as a diversion to get in to their systems and wreak havoc... Among other, more malicious, things.
Propaganda was based more around posters and spreading the word.
Our news room was where many of the now well known videos/press releases were drafted and created.
We would often have upwards of 1000 people in the main irc channel at any given time during the day. admins had to mute all users just to get Basic information across, such as new video releases or attack dates/times.
I would have updated the main article, but this is anecdotal and not easily sourced.
someone, somewhere, might find this interesting or be able to source it correctly.
Hope someone enjoyed this before it was pruned. The more you know
--71.210.162.213 (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Chanology is a portmanteau of Chan and Scientology.

It is a mashup of chan, referring to 4chan or to the private irc channels used to protect privacy of the anonymous group; plus -ology, referring to Scientology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

About 9000 members? Haha, OVER9K is ... A MEME.

Not a number. Way to lock a page, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.80.210 (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is the 'ch' pronounced like a 'k' sound or a 'ch' sound as in 'cheat'? I feel that there should be more information on this. --76.202.161.210 (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As in cheat.

Ongoing?

The article states that the project is no longer active, but isn't this supposed to be an ongoing protest with no definite end date considering that protests still continue on a much smaller level, as sources indicate?

Right, the article states "Project Chanology (also called Operation Chanology[1]) was a protest movement" when in fact Project Chanology continues, it has not stopped though the amount of human rights activities being performed against the Scientology crime syndicate under the banner of Project Chanology has declined. It is still an on-going effort to stop Scientology's crimes and abuses. Perhaps the text should be changed to read Project Chanology (also called Operation Chanology[1]) is a protest movement -- swap out the word "was" with the word "is." Damotclese (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Project Chanology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131222507/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/news/ny_crime/2009/01/28/2009-01-28_man_who_filmed_petroleum_jellycovered_sc.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/01/28/2009-01-28_man_who_filmed_petroleum_jellycovered_sc.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080317193651/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com:80/webscout/2008/03/youtube-video-d.html to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/03/youtube-video-d.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080212093949/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com:80/webscout/2008/02/protesters-asse.html to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/02/protesters-asse.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Project Chanology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090604150631/http://suncoastpinellas.tbo.com:80/content/2008/may/07/internet-group-schedules-another-protest-scientolo/?news to http://suncoastpinellas.tbo.com/content/2008/may/07/internet-group-schedules-another-protest-scientolo/?news

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Project Chanology. 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/20120515005226/http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=24945 to http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=24945
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080328184704/http://www.local6.com/news/15205679/detail.html to http://www.local6.com/news/15205679/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091006062843/http://www.news.com.au:80/technology/story/0,25642,23389091-5014239,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23389091-5014239,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080320233601/http://www.news.com.au:80/technology/story/0,25642,23407107-5014239,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23407107-5014239,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080320233601/http://www.news.com.au:80/technology/story/0,25642,23407107-5014239,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23407107-5014239,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091006062843/http://www.news.com.au:80/technology/story/0,25642,23389091-5014239,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23389091-5014239,00.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) 10:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Project Chanology. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0%2C22049%2C23060524-5007132%2C00.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20080128145858/http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=261308 to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=261308
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201091551/http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/01/29/scientology-bomb-cruises-past-google to http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/01/29/scientology-bomb-cruises-past-google
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0%2C25642%2C23189971-5014108%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0%2C25642%2C23389091-5014239%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0%2C25642%2C23407107-5014239%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0%2C25642%2C23407107-5014239%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bild.de/BILD/berlin/aktuell/2008/04/14/masken-demonstration/gegen-psycho-sekte%2Cgeo%3D4260084.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021233819/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5id8oJGeZ6UAxWY_Ql1ZNy5MTr2dQ to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5id8oJGeZ6UAxWY_Ql1ZNy5MTr2dQ
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fconnected%2F2008%2F02%2F04%2Fdlscient104.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0%2C25642%2C23389091-5014239%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080405121842/http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/03/anonymous-scientology-legal-letters-gregg-latham-watkins.php to http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/03/anonymous-scientology-legal-letters-gregg-latham-watkins.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615011939/http://www.vimeo.com/855548 to http://www.vimeo.com/855548

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) 03:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Project Chanology. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.apcmag.com/7905/anonymous_threatens_to_dismantle_church_of_scientology_via_internet
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66mQIJdPo?url=http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080129114819/http://www.scmagazineus.com/DDoS-hack-attack-continues-against-Church-of-Scientology/article/104588/ to http://www.scmagazineus.com/DDoS-hack-attack-continues-against-Church-of-Scientology/article/104588/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214023246/http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage to http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=75363
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214035643/http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/feb/11/me-hacker-group-pickets-scientology/ to http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/feb/11/me-hacker-group-pickets-scientology/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090604104233/http://www2.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/viewpoints/story.html?id=26adf589-6a16-4abf-9953-97b67e7f078e to http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/viewpoints/story.html?id=26adf589-6a16-4abf-9953-97b67e7f078e
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ecollegetimes.com/media/storage/paper991/news/2008/02/14/DailyBuzz/Anonymous.EWar.Against.Scientology.Is.Kind.Of.Cute-3204282.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329181726/http://media.www.unogateway.com/media/storage/paper968/news/2008/03/25/Opinion/Cyberterrorism.Hacktivism.Trying.To.Find.Hope-3280779.shtml to http://media.www.unogateway.com/media/storage/paper968/news/2008/03/25/Opinion/Cyberterrorism.Hacktivism.Trying.To.Find.Hope-3280779.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330015146/http://laist.com/2008/03/25/rick_astley_cal.php to http://laist.com/2008/03/25/rick_astley_cal.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080320142842/http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/anonymous-vs-scientology-group-targets-church-headquarters/18529/ to http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/anonymous-vs-scientology-group-targets-church-headquarters/18529/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080322185912/http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/anonymous-vs-scientology-group-targets-church-headquarters/18529/?page=2 to http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/anonymous-vs-scientology-group-targets-church-headquarters/18529/?page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080320011148/http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/mar/16/me-protesters-picket-scientology-again/ to http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/mar/16/me-protesters-picket-scientology-again/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510090016/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/05/scientology_sen.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/05/scientology_sen.php
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120712020439/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459214 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459214
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513175947/http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=11867 to http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=11867
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513050302/http://www.scopical.com.au/articles/Tech_Media/5496/Hundreds-attend-Australia-wide-Scientology-protests to http://www.scopical.com.au/articles/Tech_Media/5496/Hundreds-attend-Australia-wide-Scientology-protests
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080607062658/http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/06/it-appears-as-if-the.php to http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/06/it-appears-as-if-the.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080607134137/http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/06/06/Anonymous_wages_pirate_war_against_Church_Of_Scientology to http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/06/06/Anonymous_wages_pirate_war_against_Church_Of_Scientology
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080714081721/http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/06/anonymous-set-to-protest-scientology-again.php to http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/06/anonymous-set-to-protest-scientology-again.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219031751/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/01/wise_beard_man.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/01/wise_beard_man.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219033409/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/01/jason_beghe_to_1.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/01/jason_beghe_to_1.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510143613/http://www.wsmv.com/news/19387488/detail.html to http://www.wsmv.com/news/19387488/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090517212120/http://www.wsmv.com/news/19450639/detail.html to http://www.wsmv.com/news/19450639/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511093044/http://www.wsmv.com/news/19398540/detail.html to http://www.wsmv.com/news/19398540/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080130024120/http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/01/scientologists-bring-in-fed-big-boys-to-squash-internet-atta.php to http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/01/scientologists-bring-in-fed-big-boys-to-squash-internet-atta.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131232333/http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/01/the-scientology-counterattack.php to http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/01/the-scientology-counterattack.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090604103834/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009881544 to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009881544
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317233512/http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/03/anonymous-hate-crimes-terrorism-directed-at-scientology-youtube-anonymousfacts.php to http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/03/anonymous-hate-crimes-terrorism-directed-at-scientology-youtube-anonymousfacts.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327180154/http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/03/anonymous-scientology-anonymousfacts-youtube-video.php to http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/03/anonymous-scientology-anonymousfacts-youtube-video.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208055632/http://4chanarchive.org/brchive/dspl_thread.php5?thread_id=51051816 to http://4chanarchive.org/brchive/dspl_thread.php5?thread_id=51051816

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) 22:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2019

A sentence in this wiki, mentioning the "Message to Scientology" is missing the link to the video. I have reuploaded the video on a site that's not YouTube incase it gets taken down. The video is: https://streamable.com/0ze58

Please change "Message to Scientology" to a hyperlink with the video I have in this thread. Aholicknight (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The Message to Scientology video is linked in the External links section already, and we do not hyperlink to other websites in article text. Please see WP:LINKDD. NiciVampireHeart 21:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

In the section "November 2009" add a link to the Wikipedia page for Parliamentary privilege:

On November 13, 2009, Independent Australian Senator [[Nick Xenophon]] used parliamentary privilege to accuse the Church of Scientology of being a criminal organisation. -> On November 13, 2009, Independent Australian Senator [[Nick Xenophon]] used [[parliamentary privilege]] to accuse the Church of Scientology of being a criminal organization.

This is to inform readers who may not know of parliamentary privilege, without having them use the search bar. This also fixes a spelling issue, according to Grammarly. (organisation -> organization) Turrit hugger (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Note that "organisation" is a perfectly valid spelling of the word (typically seen in British English), but we typically try for internal consistency throughout the article and "organization" is used far more often here. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)