Talk:Scientology website hacked

Review of revision 906800 [Passed]

Revision 906800 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: checked scientology site to verify hacking The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 906800 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: checked scientology site to verify hacking The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

I know WN:SG has a lot of rules and policies and things. But come on, this isn't even remotely 3 paragraphs. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 16:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Should have failed.

1. External link in the opening sentence instead of in external links section.
2. Additional 2 external links in absurdly brief text.
3. Published with no sources
4. Claim of Original Reporting accepted with zero detail on the talk page

• No, quite simply, this isn't up to the minimal standards - breaking or not. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  This is not Slashdot. That is precisely the style of summary this so-called article is put together as. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• RANT CONTINUED: This title? What about the last time a CoS site was hacked, or the next time? Context? A European site? informative, and for an international audience. I hope people learn from this before reviewing stuff like this again. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dragon seems to have fixed most of the issues you listed. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OR

I'm assuming the original poster noticed by regularly checking the scientology site--RockerballAustralia (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed via Google cache that http://www.scientology-europe.org/ had official CoS material as recently as 27 October 2009. the wub "?!" 12:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What are the sources for Anonymous's claims of involvement? the wub "?!" 12:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a HTML comment at the bottom of the page:

<!--  We are Anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.
-->

--66.118.190.50 (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed. Kind of weird they would put that in a comment though. Ussually people are more blunt when taking credit for things. Bawolff ☺☻ 12:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As I understand the purpose of this is to draw attention to Scientology and it's activities rather than to boost Anonymous' own e-rep. --66.118.190.50 (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's call a spade a spade

Wikinews has been successfully trolled. And used to promote illegal activities. There is no protection. Wultzcheck (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, in what way does this article promote illegal activity? It seems fairly neutral. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Gee. That's clueless. Reporting on an illegal act is not promoting such. I could say you are the troll here. If you've constructive criticism, give it. If not, leave it to people who have project experience to knock the newly promoted Editor into shape. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Clueless? Interesting. How do you know this "hack" did actually happen? Crystal balls in your virtual newsroom? Wultzcheck (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If reporting on illegal acts is promoting them, then you better get on the asses of CNN and Fox, because all they do is report about illegal acts. Gopher65_talk 17:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the section above for evidence that the hack happened. Unless CoS is putting HTML comments on their own website congratulating Anonymous for their fine work, I'd say there is a good chance that the site was hacked;). Gopher65_talk 17:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Screen shot? Evidence? This is accusing Anonymous of illegal acts. Wikinews better has some evidence for it (or the IP author of the article). Or is this another Co$ PR attack like this: http://www.pitchengine.com/scientology-news-federal-crime-charges-against-anonymous/31666/. Ramenlove (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gopher65, I saw claims that someone without a name has seen something somewhere. Anonymous is known for trolling, photoshopped ("shooped") photos, screenshots, documents etc. So how do you know what actually happened? Or if anything happened? Maybe it did, but I would not know reading this report. 66.118.190.50, you have anything to say? Wultzcheck (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that I verified this morning that their european site was a copy of the people scientology has killed site, and that the html comment in question was there. (and if you don't want to believe me, thats your own bussiness, however i would assume that rockerball also verified this before reviewing, so that makes three people) Bawolff ☺☻ 18:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also comments above by the wub seems to imply that he also verified this. Basically when it comes down to it, anything can be faked (screenshots prove nothing - I can make a lot of interesting screenshots if i was so inclined). At some point you have to trust this is not a mass conspirarcy to troll wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The main point is that reading Wikinews should not be a matter of faith or assumptions. Aside from sticking to the simple editing rules. As Brian "leave it to people who have project experience to knock the newly promoted Editor into shape" McNeil pointed out. His criticism is correct. Did it result in anything? Not so far. Wultzcheck (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect, the exisitance of the universe as we precieve it, is a matter of faith - maybe we all live in the matrix. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, stories involving original reporting will always require some degree of faith that the author reported on everything truthfully (as OR sometimes can't be verified by a third party). Tempodivalse [talk] 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, did a report to the proper authorities get filed? Wultzcheck (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is up to the Church to contact the authorities. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess. So? Wultzcheck (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tempodivalse, exactly my point. I find it hard to trust anonymous IP authors with no track record of reliable information. But trusted editors seem to have no problem with that. That's why I bring it up. There is no protection. Wultzcheck (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the anon first reported it, Others (who are not anons, like for example me) checked it. I personally saw the website in question, and i believe i am a so-called "trusted editor". Bawolff ☺☻ 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Ditto Bawolff. It might have been suspicious if only the IP had presented this information, but both RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs), a Wikinews accredited reporter, and Bawolff (talk · contribs), an administrator and veteran contributor, have both corroborated this story. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, Bawolf and Rockerball both verified. Yhey're hardly IP editors with no track record. Also, the site is specifically set up to allow such users to contribute and they are a valued part of the community. What's going on here; this is the second time in mere days I've had to warn someone not to take an anti-IP stance. I appreciate that you don't seem to be being malicious/prejudiced, unlike the last guy, but I'm wondering if it's coincidence or an influx from a project that looks down it's nose more? Oh, to go back to the top - if this article promotes illegal activity (and therefore constitutes an offence of incitement if the creator is, like me, from a country that makes inciting a crime a crime) then I'm in serious trouble. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't question the validity of this story, but I wonder how newsworthy it really is in its present form.

There are also some things missing for this to be an exemplary article:

• A Church of Scientology spokesperson should have been called/emailed for an on-the-record comment.
• Perhaps a law enforcement statement.
• A clearer distinction between defacement and denial of service attacks.
• Some more discussion about what "Anonymous" is, and also asking if this could have been done by an anonymous Scientology staff member, since about half of all security incidents are caused by insiders.

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been posted, but it could have been better. --ReneJohnsen (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting note

te euro scientology website currently gives a server header of Apache. Previously (When the website was defaced) it gave a very long header listing all the modules installed for apache (OpenSSL, WebDav, Front page extensions, among others). Kind of interesting that it changed, I assumed that anon somehow geussed a password somewhere and replaced an html file. Its curious that the server configuration changed. (but then again i don't really know what they did or did not do - so all of this is ramblings from someone who doesn't know what he is talking about). Bawolff ☺☻ 18:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

re:Scientology website hacked

Interesting timing, Scientology is under a lot of heat right now, it could use
a nice distraction right now. 

If someone who did this is actually against Scientology then it's rotten
timing and it's not cool, Scientology wants you to do things like this.