Comments:711chan.org administrator calls for an end to attacks on Scientology

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

False information, probably by a scientologist, if not it's ridiculously sensationalist. 711chan didn't have and still doesnt have hardly anything to do with the attacks, they are just saying on the front page that they do not endorse the attacks because they can't take the ddos attacks from a bunch of hackers called "regime" who are hacking 711chan to piss people off and make a name for themselves. There are 10 times more people working on the attacks then when it started, no momentum has been lost, get that straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.198.93 (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

never would have left the user boards, if someone didn't leak it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you speaking like 711chan was some super secret forum that had to have information about Anonymous leaked? That's ridiculous. The way you are presenting things make me think that you didn't spend enough time investigating before you decided to make an assumption and report based on that. --Observer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.66.114 (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

4chan is NOT an affiliate of 711 chan. This needs to be changed.

Wikipedia says otherwise. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No he's right Jason, the "chans" in general are not releated, yes they are mostly affiliated to 4chan, since some users will browse more than one "chan", (at least I (OH NOES RULES 1 AND 2 BROKEN!!) and couple of friends do) but for the most part, all "chans" are usually spinoffs, splits or factions, all descended from one another until it works it way up the chain to 4chan which was inspired by the Japanese orginal, 2chan. The "chans" are affiliated I would say in the loosest definition possible, which could summed up as being held together by a thread the size of human hair that is over 9000 miles long and made of epic fail cake. --TUFKAAP 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you fail. First of all, 711chan might have been involved with Anonymous but it was always informal. Anyone who does any sort of research would find that out. Second of all, 711 backed out but Anonymous is still going ahead. It doesn't mean that the war is over. Thirdly, 711 aren't responsible for finding out the info for the Regime, it was another group loosely affiliated with Anonymous that did it. Finally, there's a difference between the wiki Partyvan and the IRC Partyvan. IF YOU WERE LITERATE, you would notice that the wiki is partyvan.INFO while the IRC was partyvan.ORG The administrators are different and the fact that Anonymous is still going even after the shakeup because the admin of loosely affiliated boards and IRC channels backed off emphasizes just how leaderless Anonymous is. The two other articles were much better because everything was well sourced and more even. This article requires a great deal of work as it is very knee-jerk reaction and very shallow.

Well, then edit it why don't you! I mean here you have the chance to pass yourselves off as factual this time in instead of the usual "HOLY SHIT, HACKERS ON STEROIDS INTERNET HATE MACHINE, HOLY FUCK BUY DOG CURTAINS THAT CANNOT BE HURT BY YELLOW EXPLODING VANS!" Cruise control, CAPS, etc etc. --TUFKAAP 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's only just begun

Feb 10th 2008

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DhIRbGAtGBc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.137.9 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

711chan NOT the HQ

If you wish to be involved in the raid on scientology, DO NOT go to 711chan. 711chan may have been where the ideas originated, but it is NOT the base of operations. Instead, Anonymous urges you to do your own research about the truth behind scientology, not the LIES that the "church" feeds to the public. If you have found that you also wish to help in the war against the suppression of free speech, then please write to your local congressperson and ask that scientology's tax exempt status be revoked. If you want to join the Legion on the front lines, then join Project Chanology: http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology. Remember, "Oppression can only survive through silence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.102.242 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Partyvan also denounced the attacks and calls Anonymous "a threat to their network." DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case why is it featured on their Main Page as "Current Major Raid" ? Cirt 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know...not updated? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean the page currently off line? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not offline, it's just not clicking through from Wikinews.org for some reason. Try the http://www.partyvan.info into your address bar directly. I can access it and it says, "Current Major Raid: Project Chanology" ... Cirt 17:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know...probably not updated. Based on what I have, the raid is done on partyvan. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that is only one person's opinion - there is major stuff planned for February 10, 2008. Also, the site is still undergoing active edits and updating to all the subpages related to Project Chanology. Cirt 17:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the case, but that does not mean partyvan endorses the raid(s). DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, so according to your source, they are not endorsing the raids. But it's still listed as "Current Major Raid: Project Chanology" on the Main Page, there is a major peaceful protest planned for February 10, 2008, and the subpages are still pretty active. Weird, but oh well. Cirt 17:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You said the keyword: Peacefull protest. The Web raid, which they were doing, and subsequent raids, are no longer endorsed or planned and anyone doing it is acting without partyvan's approval or endorsement. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Source? Cirt 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The interview. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And screen shot. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, there were 2 interviews, one 2/ a 711chan person, and one w/ a partyvan person? Cirt 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No. the admin/owner said so...and so does the 711chan screen shot. I would assume based on the situation they have contact. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Cirt 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when are "assumptions" encouraged in reporting? Did you ask the 711chan.org admin if he spoke for Anonymous? All it seems like to me (after actually parsing through your words to get through your obvious disdain of the attacks, which is not NPOV) is that only one person said anything. It is debatable whether or not what he has to say is noteworthy or even good material for one article. I do not see how their having "contact" and then 711chan.org formally declaring that they are not involved is newsworthy. The reason Project Chanology and Anonymous was newsworthy was that they were a loose coalition of Internet groups, of which 711chan was ONE of them and loosely/informally associated. I don't see how this article is newsworthy unless you expand it considerably beyond your original "interview."

For the love of god the raid is not over

This article makes it sound as if the raids are over, which is 100% false! Please stop this misinformation! Sneakernets 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I think this page needs to be deleted. This article is misleading in that the 711chan.org admin speaks for Anonymous and has the power to cancel the attacks on Scientology and in addition, the scope of the article is too narrow. It is at least 50% quotes without much writing in between. The writing that does appear in between is poorly researched and not cited properly. There is also lack of proofreading and I don't think it holds to the NPOV at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.66.114 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

not true

if you knew anything about our collective you'd knew that anon decided to show himself willingly. Besides, there is a clear diffrence betweem /b/, and /i/. The posted story is Scientology's propaganda. 711 is still cooperating with anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.47.203 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete this article

This gives the impression that the war is over, which couldn't be more wrong. Even though we are not officially supported by the administrators of 711chan, and (maybe?) have been kicked of the partyvan IRC, we still have alternative forums and IRC channels.

Again, this is NOT OVER. It has barely begun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.161.162 (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there are serious factual flaws in this article. It's only starting. 85.156.249.192 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

fake news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.131.180 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not once does it say its over in the article. Not once. All it says is that 711chan calls for an end to the attacks. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

lame

It's all getting lame and less interesting, they should have just stuck with the video, that was cool. Nyarlathotep 15:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Rules

Only apply during raids. This is a fucking war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.91.4 (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

711 chan != 4chan

They do not represent 4chan, the attacks on CoS will conintue as planned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.100.220.2 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Transferred commentary posted at 711Chan Admins Stop Hosting "Project Chanology"

False information, probably by a scientologist, if not it's ridiculously sensationalist. 711chan didn't have and still doesnt have hardly anything to do with the attacks, they are just saying on the front page that they do not endorse the attacks because they can't take the ddos attacks from a bunch of hackers called "regime" who are hacking 711chan to piss people off and make a name for themselves. There are 10 times more people working on the attacks then when it started, no momentum has been lost, get that straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.198.93 (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

never would have left the user boards, if someone didn't leak it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you speaking like 711chan was some super secret forum that had to have information about Anonymous leaked? That's ridiculous. The way you are presenting things make me think that you didn't spend enough time investigating before you decided to make an assumption and report based on that. --Observer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.66.114 (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

4chan is NOT an affiliate of 711 chan. This needs to be changed.

Wikipedia says otherwise. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No he's right Jason, the "chans" in general are not releated, yes they are mostly affiliated to 4chan, since some users will browse more than one "chan", (at least I (OH NOES RULES 1 AND 2 BROKEN!!) and couple of friends do) but for the most part, all "chans" are usually spinoffs, splits or factions, all descended from one another until it works it way up the chain to 4chan which was inspired by the Japanese orginal, 2chan. The "chans" are affiliated I would say in the loosest definition possible, which could summed up as being held together by a thread the size of human hair that is over 9000 miles long and made of epic fail cake. --TUFKAAP 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you fail. First of all, 711chan might have been involved with Anonymous but it was always informal. Anyone who does any sort of research would find that out. Second of all, 711 backed out but Anonymous is still going ahead. It doesn't mean that the war is over. Thirdly, 711 aren't responsible for finding out the info for the Regime, it was another group loosely affiliated with Anonymous that did it. Finally, there's a difference between the wiki Partyvan and the IRC Partyvan. IF YOU WERE LITERATE, you would notice that the wiki is partyvan.INFO while the IRC was partyvan.ORG The administrators are different and the fact that Anonymous is still going even after the shakeup because the admin of loosely affiliated boards and IRC channels backed off emphasizes just how leaderless Anonymous is. The two other articles were much better because everything was well sourced and more even. This article requires a great deal of work as it is very knee-jerk reaction and very shallow.

Well, then edit it why don't you! I mean here you have the chance to pass yourselves off as factual this time in instead of the usual "HOLY SHIT, HACKERS ON STEROIDS INTERNET HATE MACHINE, HOLY FUCK BUY DOG CURTAINS THAT CANNOT BE HURT BY YELLOW EXPLODING VANS!" Cruise control, CAPS, etc etc. --TUFKAAP 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's only just begun

Feb 10th 2008

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DhIRbGAtGBc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.137.9 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

711chan NOT the HQ

If you wish to be involved in the raid on scientology, DO NOT go to 711chan. 711chan may have been where the ideas originated, but it is NOT the base of operations. Instead, Anonymous urges you to do your own research about the truth behind scientology, not the LIES that the "church" feeds to the public. If you have found that you also wish to help in the war against the suppression of free speech, then please write to your local congressperson and ask that scientology's tax exempt status be revoked. If you want to join the Legion on the front lines, then join Project Chanology: http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology. Remember, "Oppression can only survive through silence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.102.242 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Partyvan also denounced the attacks and calls Anonymous "a threat to their network." DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case why is it featured on their Main Page as "Current Major Raid" ? Cirt 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know...not updated? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean the page currently off line? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not offline, it's just not clicking through from Wikinews.org for some reason. Try the http://www.partyvan.info into your address bar directly. I can access it and it says, "Current Major Raid: Project Chanology" ... Cirt 17:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know...probably not updated. Based on what I have, the raid is done on partyvan. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that is only one person's opinion - there is major stuff planned for February 10, 2008. Also, the site is still undergoing active edits and updating to all the subpages related to Project Chanology. Cirt 17:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the case, but that does not mean partyvan endorses the raid(s). DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, so according to your source, they are not endorsing the raids. But it's still listed as "Current Major Raid: Project Chanology" on the Main Page, there is a major peaceful protest planned for February 10, 2008, and the subpages are still pretty active. Weird, but oh well. Cirt 17:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You said the keyword: Peacefull protest. The Web raid, which they were doing, and subsequent raids, are no longer endorsed or planned and anyone doing it is acting without partyvan's approval or endorsement. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Source? Cirt 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The interview. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And screen shot. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, there were 2 interviews, one 2/ a 711chan person, and one w/ a partyvan person? Cirt 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No. the admin/owner said so...and so does the 711chan screen shot. I would assume based on the situation they have contact. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Cirt 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when are "assumptions" encouraged in reporting? Did you ask the 711chan.org admin if he spoke for Anonymous? All it seems like to me (after actually parsing through your words to get through your obvious disdain of the attacks, which is not NPOV) is that only one person said anything. It is debatable whether or not what he has to say is noteworthy or even good material for one article. I do not see how their having "contact" and then 711chan.org formally declaring that they are not involved is newsworthy. The reason Project Chanology and Anonymous was newsworthy was that they were a loose coalition of Internet groups, of which 711chan was ONE of them and loosely/informally associated. I don't see how this article is newsworthy unless you expand it considerably beyond your original "interview."

For the love of god the raid is not over

This article makes it sound as if the raids are over, which is 100% false! Please stop this misinformation! Sneakernets 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I think this page needs to be deleted. This article is misleading in that the 711chan.org admin speaks for Anonymous and has the power to cancel the attacks on Scientology and in addition, the scope of the article is too narrow. It is at least 50% quotes without much writing in between. The writing that does appear in between is poorly researched and not cited properly. There is also lack of proofreading and I don't think it holds to the NPOV at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.66.114 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

not true

if you knew anything about our collective you'd knew that anon decided to show himself willingly. Besides, there is a clear diffrence betweem /b/, and /i/. The posted story is Scientology's propaganda. 711 is still cooperating with anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.47.203 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete this article

This gives the impression that the war is over, which couldn't be more wrong. Even though we are not officially supported by the administrators of 711chan, and (maybe?) have been kicked of the partyvan IRC, we still have alternative forums and IRC channels.

Again, this is NOT OVER. It has barely begun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.161.162 (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there are serious factual flaws in this article. It's only starting. 85.156.249.192 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

fake news —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.131.180 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not once does it say its over in the article. Not once. All it says is that 711chan calls for an end to the attacks. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

lame

It's all getting lame and less interesting, they should have just stuck with the video, that was cool. Nyarlathotep 15:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The Rules

Only apply during raids. This is a fucking war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.91.4 (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

711 chan != 4chan

They do not represent 4chan, the attacks on CoS will conintue as planned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.100.220.2 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC) this is something that is stupid.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.83.111.254 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

this is complete bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.68.3 (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop right there

Don't post rules one and two for god's sake.

This is no raid

This is no raid. This is no battle. This is no pool block ffs. This is a war against a fascist regime that terrorizes insecure people and robs them of their livlihood. They have awoken the beast that is Anonymous and now they must face the consquences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.108.32 (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

it whould have gone better if you didint let so many damn loud mouth disrespectful arogant ignorent trash into the raid if whould have gone better. these days you cant trust no one for the sure fact everyone is out for themselfs and not for a couse and 2. they dont care about nothing besides themselfs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.165.16 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

well if they whould Recurit and not just ask for all hackers to unite you might get somewere

when building a army you must know and have all the members know there shit and not let everyone know what the hell u are doing just why you are doing it. you guys need to make your own privte cyber army and not let any damn noob with a pc and some knowage of hacking into your group you need to know if they are loyal to what you are fighting for also if they even know what they are doing or geting them selfs into.

cant let any arogants,loudmouths,selfcenter thinking members into the unit ofther wise they will turn on you when the chance arises.

:)

ahahahhaa! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.121.81 (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Well done."

Well done. —74.140.132.223 (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)