Talk:Internet vigilantism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Internet (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Useful information[edit]

"Even though there is no evidence linking him to the crime, he has had millions of death threats and had to leave the country and change his name."

I have told you MILLIONS of times, don't exaggerate! - Asdrubael (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment by[edit]

Hey Vthiru! Thanks for starting the article I added some more words in to avoid it being deleted within a couple of days, for being too short. I however did it quite fast, so do some gramma check for me thanks :) -- 15:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Stolen Sidekick[edit]

I think the link for the Stolen Sidekick is a valid one.I may be incorrect thank you. -- Evanx(tag?) 23:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this barely deserves to be listed in the article, let alone have its own heading. If it is kept, there needs to be more information on these incidents! As it is now, it's basically just throwing out some (unlinked and presumably non-notable) names relating to apparent thefts without giving any context for the relationship to the article's subject. Why has this heading remained up for so long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a detailed account of this in Clay Shirky's book "Here Comes Everybody". Anyone have time to flesh this out? Asbruckman (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


why was this removed? it seems like a valid example to me.

Huh? It's missing?[edit]

Did this article get PROD'd or something? I'm sad... if I remember correctly, it was a pretty high quality article. This should've been given a proper AfD. --Czj 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You could bring it up to deletion review..._dk 00:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It has been restored with the kind help of Samuel Blanning. Hooray! It looks like the only reason it was PROD'd originally is because somone disagreed with the title of the article or something... I have to say that sounds like a pretty hasty judgment call. At least it's back now, though. If someone thinks another title would better suit this concept, please make suggestions instead of trying to remove the entire article for the wrong reasons. --Czj 00:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Corporate stuff[edit]

In 2006 in the United States, blogger Vincent Ferrari publicised a recording of a telephone conversation with an AOL customer service representative, in order to convey his dissatisfaction with the service provided. The recording was distributed via blogs and YouTube.

I removed this because I don't think complaining about a service provided by a company is "vigilantism" - if anything, the verizon .002-cents thing would fit better on the dubious basis that it gets personal about the phone reps' math skills. --Random832 12:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we all sure that the bottom isn't meant to be piracy rather than privacy? I know we all love our clever word switches, but with no other sources I'd say it's probably a typo or a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

YouTube cat abuse incident[edit]

Retrieved from [http://[2001:4860:0:1001::84]/search? Google Cache]. Please add citations as necessary. WikiScrubber (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There's some followup news and presumably more on the fate of the perpetrators to come so perhaps this will be an article again one day. WikiScrubber (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I've re-added the citations from the original article. It appears we'll have to watch this closely for people posting personal details of the living people involved. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that we'll need to rewrite this content, actually. The page history is gone, showing who made which edits, and that runs afoul of the GFDL license. We need to be able to attribute each edit. Therefore, I've removed the paragraph that was there, and I'm pasting into this section the sources that were used. Here goes:

YouTube cat abuse incident[edit]








  1. ^ "U.S. cat abuser punished by the internet". Russia Today. 02-16-2009. Retrieved 02-25-2009. 
  2. ^ Watson, Leon (02-16-2009). "Sicko beats cat in YouTube clip". The Sun. Retrieved 02-25-2009. 
  3. ^ O'Brien, Danny (02-20-2009). "Online users stick claws into torturer". The Irish Times. Retrieved 02-25-2009. 
  4. ^ "Comanche County teen films himself abusing cat, airs on YouTube". 02-15-2009. Retrieved 02-25-2009. 
  5. ^ "Update: Lawton teen films himself abusing cat, posts on YouTube". 02-16-2009. Retrieved 02-25-2009. 
  6. ^ Moore, Matthew (02-17-2009). "YouTube 'cat torturer' traced by web detectives". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 02-25-2009. 
  7. ^ "Update: Teens face two charges of animal cruelty after posting cat abuse on YouTube". 02-17-2009. Retrieved 02-25-2009. 

Ok, so we can now rewrite that section without using the text from the cached version of the old page. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the section from scratch. While reviewing the sources, I noticed that the KSWO refs seem to have been removed from their site. The only related story in their search is not very useful as a source. Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fowler: unclear sentence (syntax?)[edit]

I am thrown off by the sentence: "After verbally abusing the woman without provocation, and insulting a wide range of people including soldiers and the overweight, several websites were made in protest against his behavior, such as http// ." After I looked at it three times, I figured it's almost certain that it was Fowler, not the several websites, who abused the woman and insulted people. If I were certain, I would change it, probably to "After Fowler verbally abused the woman without provocation, and insulted a wide range of people ..." But I don't want to twist another editor's meaning, if s/he meant something else. (That's me in bold mode. :-) ) GcT (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to do it, and boldly risk twisting another editor's meaning.GcT (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Legislative framework section?[edit]

The legislative framework section appears to be related to file sharing and has nothing at all to do with vigilantism. I suggest removing it unless anyone disagrees. Dcoetzee 02:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

+ Mary Bale please[edit] etc etc. Big news in UK. Thanks. (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, Mary Bale now redirects here. I don't think it should be a separate article, but a mention here is appropriate. Robofish (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Split proposal[edit]

As this is an unfolding event I'm not really confident enough to carry this out under WP:BOLD, but in tech circles this event is gaining notability. There is also some more content on the 4chan article (and possibly elsewhere) that could help contribute to this as a new article.--Topperfalkon (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this is definitely going to become an ongoing story and the Operation Paypack team are showing no signs of letting up on the operation. I suspect, if well co-ordinated it could become as big as the Operation Chanology --Stephen Judge (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur. There is a comprehensive list of sources here for anyone who wished to make the article. Chewwy225 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll do it. The Goatse Security article I wrote is now a B-class quality article, so I'm ready to move on to the next challenge. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. See Operation Payback. It's incomplete, so I would appreciate any help anyone could offer. I made it in a rush, since I wanted to create it before the attack on in order to take advantage of any hype in upcoming news. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dog Poop Girl[edit]

There is an image here: that should be included. Johnny Squeaky (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Classy! - Alison 07:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

These brave people[edit]

I wonder why they aren't rioting against the goobernment. Gravitoweak (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The phenomenon as a whole[edit]

I've started a section on the Internet Talk page bringing up the overall phenomenon at work here. Maybe you guys or anyone could comment on it and discuss the phenomenon? - M0rphzone (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not every incident should be in the article[edit]

Folks, this article has gotten worse over time. Not every incident of Internet vigilantism needs to be listed here. They are increasing, and this will just expand infinitely. And what's the point of having fragmentary/half-told stories? How about we focus on a few well-told stories or ones that were noteworthy for some reason? This needs major cleanup. What does everyone think about taking half this stuff out, and keeping a few well described examples of each type of vigilantism? Asbruckman (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with that, please go ahead. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta[edit]

There is no reliable sourcing for the claim that Luka Magnotta is the person in this incident, or the one involving a python and a kitten. He has never been charged or convicted over these incidents.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but why remove the whole section? The section is relevant to the article, so I restored it, without Magnotta's name. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
There is clearly a WP:BLPCRIME issue here. The vacuum cleaner incident is notable, but the identification of Magnotta comes from animal rights activists, and from 4chan, who found the pixellated photograph of the person with the two cats, which are claimed to be the ones in the video, and to be Magnotta holding them.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out that without any mention of the person implicated, this section actually does not offer an example of "public shaming." It's just a description of a deplorable event with no mention of any response to it. I would suggest removal in its entirety if there is not sufficient basis to attribute it to any individual. (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Pogan - Officer assaulting cyclist[edit]

All the sources I can find say that the officer wasn't sentenced to any punishment or fines for lying and assault, and wasn't even charged with a felony as a result. Anyone know more about it or have something concrete that can be added? Vigilante justice can fail too, and if the guy wasn't punished, this could be a good example of how it can't always win in this article -- (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)