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

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

OR/Interview[edit]

I interviewed Inaki through e-mail. I can forward the correspondents to anyone who asks for them as there are too many to post here. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You interviewed one administrator. Are you sure this is the view held by all 711chan admins, or should we change the title of this article to administrator, singular? -- "711chan.org administrator calls for an end to attacks on Scientology" Cirt 17:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:Someone should add that, while Inaki (and, it seems, 711chan as a whole) no longer wish to be one of the raid headquarters, that the raid still continues. This article is written as if the raid is over, whereas the statistics (look up Scientology.org and its sister sites on Alexa) prove otherwise. This article does NOT have a NPOV, and it is the duty of any legitimate, upstanding Wikian to change that.

This person is in charge of administration...basically the brains and hardware behind 711chan. He/she is the one who controls the machines/servers that the site is hosted on. So as far as I know, this is as high as it can get. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
But still, can we really say this is the opinion of more than one administrator? Cirt 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I can say that if he/she holds that view, then he/she has a say in what the other admins do...or the site doesn't come back I would assume...but if he/she is in control of the site, then they are the top voice... DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should move the article to: "711chan.org administrator calls for an end to attacks on Scientology" - unless you can get some specific feedback that it's more than the one admin? Cirt 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that it was moved, thanks. Cirt 18:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your article is misleading. Anonymous is a leaderless movement. Is the 711chan admin a LEADER of Anonymous? A spokesperson who is officially declaring the end of the war? Or just a chan administrator who is saying that he's not involved with the war? :This is 711chan stating that Anonymous cannot continue discussing the attack on the site any longer. The movement spawned out of a topic on 711chan, which is why it was tied to the attacks in the minds of a large number of people. 711chan, as a result, suffered its own attacks (The Regime). Essentially, this is a request to find someplace else to discuss the ongoing conflict so 711chan doesn't get hit again, rather than a call to actually end the attacks altogether. The staff just doesn't want to deal with the fallout of something it isn't, strictly speaking, involved in. That said, the only thing this really changes is the IRC server for Anon's discussion of the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.177.201 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions a quote from the 711chan.org website. The quote is unsourced, Can there be a reference/quote/confirmation of its legitimacy if the 711chan.org site is offline? 58.178.218.150 19:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The link where it says the screen shot. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
And the interview i had with the owner. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the actual legitimacy of the site admin towards the Scientology war anyway? It doesn't really affect the attacks that much because people who are in Anonymous aren't listening to him. It just sounds like this guy isn't that significant. Also, he's using an alias that makes me want to crack up every time I see it. -- Observer from the sidelines

The Title Is A Lie[edit]

711Chan hasn't called for an end to the action against the Church of Scientology, they have simply said that the "raid" needs to be decentralised and that the "raid" will no longer be hosted by their (or their affiliates) sites. Change the title. Fallen-Griever 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I logged on to write this complaint before I knew this had already been brought up. nowhere in plasma's comments does he call for an end to the attacks. From the message he published when the site went down, it seemed he was still in favour of the attacks continuing without him. is there a record anywhere of that message? 01:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Image[edit]

Can we use that Imageshack screenshot in the article? Cirt 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I decided not to because I don't want to write a fair use rational to do so. Linking it I thought was better...but that's just me. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. Cirt 17:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Transfer of talk from 711Chan Admins Stop Hosting "Project Chanology"[edit]

Below is the content of the talk page from 711Chan Admins Stop Hosting "Project Chanology" which was created via a manual page-move. It now redirects here. --SVTCobra 01:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FGS, just look at the comments by readers and the comments by other people on here - the title was clearly misleading and angering a lot of people due to the fact it was false. The writer of the article totally misquoted the source and the title deserved to be changed due to that. Fallen-Griever 14:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh?[edit]

This is just a copy of the article previously. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The title was a blatant lie. Fallen-Griever 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so...but you did it so that I cannot find a way to revert. Please revert. This was an interview based on evidence at the time...this is also an old article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should read your "interview" again, then. Neither the interview nor the page currently up over at 711 mention "stopping" the Project. It simply states that 711 won't be hosting it anymore. There's even advice for what Anonymous needs to do to keep the raid successful; even if it is in /b/tard speak. Fallen-Griever 01:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No where does it say anything about then not hosting it. Put plain and simple, the person I spoke to owns the machines 711chan is on. So whatever he says goes. His organization is NOT endorsing the attack any longer. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
On the 711Chan site, right now, it says "We are sorry to inform you that any more of this Scientology stuff will no longer be allowed on this network due to the epic amounts of spam, namefagging, and bullshit that goes on. You may feel free to use our Wiki as a base, but 711chan will no longer support the 'raid' either." Nowhere does it call for the raid to end, simply that 711 won't host anything to do with it anymore for the reasons given. It even gives advice to Anon who want to continue the raid. Hence, the title of the previous article was a loaded statement and, moreover, a lie. It's quite plain to see. Fallen-Griever 01:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I interviewed the owner of 711chan. He/she ended 711chan's raid/attack on scientology. He/she is the source. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous is not 711Chan, hence the title was wrong. Thanks for proving me right. Fallen-Griever 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No one ever said they were. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Facepalm.jpg. He/she never said "Anonymous needs to stop the raid" or ANY WORD TO THAT EFFECT. Not on the 711chan page now nor in the interview you took with them. Therefore, the name of the news story was misleading, loaded and wrong and needs to be changed. If you can show me where the admin specifically said any words to that effect I'll be amazed, because there's nothing like that in the article and there's nothing like that on the website right now. Offering ADVICE ON HOW TO CONTINUE is not the same as telling it to stop. Fallen-Griever 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
And I am telling you I interviewed the Admin PERSONALLY. And if you don't like what they ahd to say, that's not my problem. Whether or not you accept their words does not matter. they said this and that's that. I will not change what they said because you don't want to believe them or otherwise. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
"If [I] don't like what they ahd [sic] to say"..? What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with me liking or disliking what they had to say, this is about you MISQUOTING them. They NEVER SAID WHAT THAT TITLE CLAIMS. They said they won't support the raid, not that the raid should stop - these are two completely different concepts. They never explicitly said "Anon should stop the attack" or any words to that effect, and your reluctance to show me any evidence of such is only testament to the fact you cannot provide said evidence. If you don't like what your source has said, don't go around misquoting them.
Here is a quote from the talk page of the original which outlines my point:
"This is 711chan stating that Anonymous cannot continue discussing the attack on the site any longer. The movement spawned out of a topic on 711chan, which is why it was tied to the attacks in the minds of a large number of people. 711chan, as a result, suffered its own attacks (The Regime). Essentially, this is a request to find someplace else to discuss the ongoing conflict so 711chan doesn't get hit again, rather than a call to actually end the attacks altogether. The staff just doesn't want to deal with the fallout of something it isn't, strictly speaking, involved in. That said, the only thing this really changes is the IRC server for Anon's discussion of the conflict."
Now change the god damn title. Fallen-Griever 00:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the confusion is arising due to a difference in understanding of what 711chan is. Technically speaking, it is correct that when the admin says 711chan will no longer be allowed to raid, this is correct. However, 711 is not a group, and was never actually raiding in the first place. Picture it in terms of a real life. Anonymous is an army. 711chan was an HQ. Unfortunately, the person who owns the "building" that is 711chan is tired of the other side messing with his house so he decided to kick everyone out and tell them to go use the shed out back instead (the wiki). The admin did not necessarily like the fighting, but unless I'm missing something else from the interview that is not currently available, this does appear to be a case of the administration telling Anon to go play ball outtside so they don't break the furniture rather than telling them to stop altogether, which actually is what your original title implied. While I'm fairly certain that the edi was handled was incredibly stupid and fairly pointless, it is, nevertheless, correct. If you have some other text from the intervie that contradicts this, you may want to make it available. Otherwise, it seems as if the "call to end attacks" is a conclusion that is contradicted by what is stated elsewhere and was not directly pointed to in the interview itself. Please remember, 711chan is a place. Ceasing to "host" a raid means people can't go there to tak about it. It does not mean that people going there are even dissuaded from actually participating. 67.84.177.201 00:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Nail, head, etc. Fallen-Griever 14:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be a rename without using "rename", the other article was changed to a redirect. --SVTCobra 01:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not just rename this article properly, then? 128.253.240.67 01:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)