Talk:LulzSec

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... This group has conducted several high profile attacks. Including, hacking into PBS to steal data and post a fake news story. They also stole 1000000 accounts from Sony. I don't think this group is temporary they will probably keep conducting attacks or go to jail for a long time after a high profile trial. There is a lot of media attention on this group so there are tons of reliable sources. I'm trying to get this right, but this is my first article, and I apologize for any mistakes. Polyquest (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not convinced that the group is really notable, a credible assertion of notability is made, so I've declined the speedy deletion. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on the article, and I've put a notices in two related Wikiprojects to try to get editors to help on this. We'll just have to see if, after a little while, an article can be created that looks notable.Polyquest (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A few comments: to be precise, they claimed credit for the attacks, so I would say that. We should not confuse what people say on the Internet with reality. It is a bit newsy, so perhaps more relevant to wikinews in style. Indeed, if there is a follow-up investigation, we can add more info (with dates and context) to see if the article survives. W Nowicki (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture

There is a picture of their logo here. The upload image process is a bit complex. Do you think there would be any copyright issues if I uploaded this image for the article? Polyquest (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I think ArsTechnica made that image based on this tweet. --Pmsyyz (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Always assume anything published is copyrighted, unless there is evidence it is not. So no, cannot use it. W Nowicki (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Would the image from the Twitter feed located here fall under fair use? Lulz Security doesn't strike me as a group that would assert ownership of a copyright. I know that other articles like McDonald's use the companies logo. Polyquest (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say it is fair use as a logo that an organization is using to represent themselves. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be all right under the policy, but there is a bit of ambiguity. I've posted it, and hopefully it won't be a problem.Polyquest (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second - if ArsTechnica created the image (which I think they did), do we have any indication that LulzSec has claimed the image as their own? ArsTechnica creates all sorts of amusing images to accompany their articles, and the fact that this one was deemed to be particularly fitting by the general public does not constitute proof that Lulzsec is using the image to represent themselves. Technosopher (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The image used is an internet meme and has absolutely no known author. They shouldn't be any legal consequences for its usage. User99671 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

They have claimed the image as their own; they use it on their Twitter feed. Also, to User99671, it does not matter if the author is not known. Even if they are not known, it is still copyrighted under US copyright law pursuant to the Berne Convention. We have to have a fair use rationale to use it; even internet memes are protected legally if the author ever chooses to do so. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Usage does not mean Claiming, Scapler. You are right legally, but on the standpoint, I am yet to see a single source claiming that image is theirs. I've read most of their tweets and am yet to see that. If I may go ahead and even say it in C++. str usage != str claiming; KTHXBAI. User99671 (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, they do not necessarily claim it as their logo. The image has merely been used to represent them in the media and their Twitter, etc. Given the nature of the group, that does not mean that things they use are their logo. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• By the way, is the black hat deliberate? I have been reverted for mentioning the black hat in the caption. Speciate (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Consider these images that LulzSec used to identify themselves on their website and for all their dumps: lulzsecs-lulz-boat.jpg and LulzBoat_2 ArishiaNishi (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Made some edits

This group is beyond deletion and definitely notable now. I can't keep up with all the stuff that has been going on. I have made a bunch of edits to try to keep this article up to date, but I know some things are outdated or inaccurate like the section on the Lulzsec "arrest", their sixth attack on Sony, and the Unveilled section. I am a bit tired, be here is a great balanced article on them: http://www.dailytech.com/UpdatedLulzSecs+Strikes+Latest+Victims++Hacker+Mag+2600+FBI+Affiliate/article21818.htm

Feel free to use the information from this article, the events are accurate. 24.18.243.189 (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Per WP:COMMONNAME, I believe this article should be moved to Lulzsec. Though technically the organization's full name is Lulz Security, they themselves hardly refer to the group by this name and the media has incredibly rarely called them anything other than Lulzsec. With this overwhelmingly being the common name to refer to them with, the page should be moved to Lulzsec and the current title redirected there. The organization's Twitter uses the name Lulzsec, as does the front page of their website. A Google News search reveals about 2,410 results for "Lulzsec" and about half as many results for "Lulz Security", and most of those that do include the name "Lulz Security" also refer to them as "Lulzsec" whereas news articles on "Lulzsec" do not as often refer to them by their full name. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the Google News results are compelling. I agree that a move is probably a good idea. Polyquest (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll see if I can get someone to move it over the redirect. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Error! Mixing up LulzSec with LulzRaft

They are two completely difference groups. LulzSec did sony, PBS and so forth, LulzRaft is responsible for the conservative attacks. Proof is their two seperate twitters and direct claims from the group, LulzRaft considers themselves to be fans. Oh nevermind, camel already got it for me! Thanks! (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.30.2 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Black hat, not grey hat

I've changed the characterization of LulzSec in the first sentence from grey hat to black hat. As I expect that this will be controversial, I've elected to explain my reasoning here.

The BBC article cited by the original characterization is incorrect. The author seems to believe that black hat hackers are always motivated by profit. This is not true; as explained elsewhere on Wikipedia (see the above link for grey hat), a black hat is any hacker who aims to exploit security vulnerabilities, as opposed to merely trying to find them. LulzSec clearly falls into this category, as they break into servers and publish their data "for the lulz".

Anyone who disagrees is invited to discuss this here. Hopefully this doesn't become an edit war. PhageRules1 (talk) 02:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the claim that they are "black hat" as original research for now. We must stick to descriptions of the group published by reliable sources, can you find reliable sources describing them as "black hat"? There are a few describing them as "grey hat" [1][2][3] Qrsdogg (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't count as a reliable source. The definition mentioned above at grey hat is (falsely) sourced to a Linux manual. This is a rarely-mentioned term in mainstream media, and if this is what RS think it means, what choice do we have? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I re-added the "Grey hat" bit, I'm open to the idea that CNN and the BBC aren't infallible, but we'll need some sources to change the description in the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

While I do agree that these hackers are black hat and that the media has been using the term grey hat incorrectly, unfortunately, I found no reliable sources that call them black hat. I think we have to keep it the way it is for now. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If the terms black hat and grey hat are likely to confuse perhaps it would be best to remove hat based characterizations all together. Does the designation provide additional insight? Polyquest (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we really don't have to specify which hat they are. In cases where there's a consensus that the reliable sources are wrong on an issue (i.e. Joseph Evers) I think it's ok to omit what they're saying (although one can't say, "Sources say X, but they're wrong" on the page itself) as long as we're not posting our own view of the issue on the page itself. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, a consensus of reliable sources can't be wrong, unless another reliable source says so. If reliable sources that say anything, and they all say the same thing, then that is the truth as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Deliberately excluding relevant information because you don't agree with it, but can't find any sources to back that claim up, that's just not good editing. This may be a flaw in the core of Wikipedia, but it is still the core of Wikipedia. Besides, it's a neologism, and its definition is subject to change without prior notice. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A Twitter update claims that they do not have a label. I know we love labeling things, but I'm just bringing this point up for discussion. http://twitter.com/LulzSec/status/82185906878029824 Strelok 21:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'd argue that on some levels they are grey hat hackers. Of course, Titanic Take-down Tuesday was admittedly as black hat as one can get, but they did e-mail the NHS saying they'd found a vulnerability in their system, did not intend to exploit it and wanted to help them improve their system by telling them. It would be wrong to say that they only exploit, as black hat implies. Lowri (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that. They even claimed themself to be a hacker group that just wants to make chaos and destroy their victims even personal. There is nothing to discuss anymore they ARE BlackHats!

They are neither Black, Grey or White. They are doing it for entertainment. They just hack to enjoy the computer era while it lasts. UnbiasedNeutral (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A mix of black and grey? SwimFellow (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Lulz Sec is generally considered black hat." http://www.ndtv.com/article/technology/inside-a-hackers-mind-113067 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.204.100 (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"he considers groups like LulzSec to be "black hat," http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20071100-245/who-is-behind-the-hacks-faq/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.204.100 (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

These point to two individuals who label them black hat. The rest of the sources I have ever seen label them grey though. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor attacks section

If LulzSec continues hacking websites at the present rate, we are going to rack up quite a list. Maybe we should combine all the minor attacks together in a new section. I am thinking specifically about the Nintendo hack and the hack of the porn websites. It is not much of a problem right now, but maybe we should start thinking about a reorganization. Polyquest (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest instead re-naming the section simply "attacks". Labeling them "major" or "minor" seems a bit like original research. News outlets are not mentioning any of these attacks as lesser of greater than others and as such we probably shouldn't either. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A good point, if we were to institute that classification there are already a couple that could go either way. Right now it isn't a problem, but my fear is that if Lulzsec continues at it's present rate the article might turn into a bit of a cluttered list before too long. With the list giving equal weight to major hacks, like the attack against Sony, and minor ones, like the attack against Nintendo. I have no problem with waiting to see if it becomes a problem before addressing it though. Polyquest (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

True, though the Anonymous page has gone awhile with its majority content being a large list of attacks and activities. So long as we do not just start listing them and continue to include a good amount of information on them, I don't see the problem with a large list. Tis not our fault that these guys are crazy active. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just re-organized it without seeing this. Feel free to revert me if you think there's a better way to handle the content. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the way you did it. I say leave it the way Qrsdogg arranged it unless future attacks force us to organize it differently. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think one way to work with an increasing number of attacks is to create a subarticle or separate article. If they continue at their present pace and have 60 victims/hacks in a few months from now, you could have a completely separate article like "Hacks from LulzSec". This would be similar to how a country article will briefly recap the history of a country while "History of countryxyz" is its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.137.217 (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I pretty much agree. If they can keep this pace up, I could see starting List of LulzSec hacks. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The reorganization looks great. One way or another, we will almost certainly be adding a lot more information to this article. Polyquest (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added their release of 62k email/passwords. I placed it in the later corporate attacks section, but don't know if it belongs there. The release is a portion from a "collection". --Dayyan (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Or just pranksters on line?82.18.207.161 (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Escapist Magazine

They claim to have hacked it:

"Okay Escapist Magazine, let's play a little game..."

"Tango down: (link removed) *munches popcorn* wonder where the gamers are gonna run now."

"Primary Lulz Cannon is making toast of Escapist Magazine. The real disruption ammunition is secretly causing hell for their sysadmins. umad?"

"We're firing at Escapist Magazine with around 0.4% of our total ammunition. Let's see what their admins are made of - game is on, folks." The game (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

== EVE

"We just wiped out the login server for Eve Online, and it accidentally took their website out at the same time: (link removed)

The game (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea just heard about the EVE Online servers being down, can't confirm as they haven't said anything directed towards it being a hacking attack. Yet. To note though this whole article needs to make sure to differentiate between Hacking and DDOSing, there is a MAJOR difference and people tend to get the two confused. -75.150.195.86 (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The EVE Online servers were taken down by the admins, not by Lulzsec DDoS: http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4616&tid=1 ManicDee (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is incorrect, do check the Eve Online news stating that there WAS a DDoS attack, also I reference Eve Online's own twitter in whic they stated there was an active DDoS attack, the result of such was taking down all of their services until they could resolve and prevent any further damage to the systems because of the LulzSec DDoS attack. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 13:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Referencing sources

Need to reference sources more - "Lulz Security (or simply LulzSec) is a computer hacker group that claims to be responsible for several high profile attacks, including the compromise of over 1,000,000 user accounts from Sony in 2011 of which only 37,500 were actually affected according to Sony. It has gained attention due to its high profile targets and the lighthearted messages it has posted in the aftermath of its attacks.". Where is the source of this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.144.53 (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the very first section of an article does not need to be referenced as it merely serves as a summary of the rest of the article. All of these facts are sourced in the main body of the article though. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Should this be included?

Lulzsec is claiming to have infected the computers of users of the 4chan /b/ board. However, there has been no independent confirmation of this and only this story. Worth putting in? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If so, it is probably an insignificant portion of their botnet. It could also be a false statement meant to incite. Since it can't be proven and there have been no releases related to it, I think it should be left out.--Dayyan (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from TrueEon, 17 June 2011

A section describing how they have gone from grey hack to black hats need to be inserted. Explaing how they have gotten a hold of over 160,000 usernames and password and have then distributed this online twice. People have been taking these usernames and passwords to cause havoc and causing problems for users.

TrueEon (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, until the mainstream media begins to describe them as black hat, we cannot. We run on verifiability, not truth. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: As stated above, until we can get verifiable and reliable sources, e.g. the mainsteam media, we wont be able to edit it into the article. + Crashdoom ^{Talk // NekoBot OP} 12:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The media doesn't even know how to coin the term properly let alone right anything decent. The have said they have exposed email addresses of 65K users. If we can't call them black hats then thats fine. Insert a section about how they have leaked user information and that Lulzsec followers have used that information to cause distress. TrueEon (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I had already done this. From the "later corporate attacks" section: "On June 16, LulzSec posted a random assortment of 62,000 emails and passwords to MediaFire. LulzSec states they released this in return for supporters flooding the 4chan /b/ board.[32] The group did not say what websites the combinations were for and encouraged followers to plug them into various sites until they gained access to an account. Some have reported gaining access to Facebook accounts and changing images to sexual content and others to using the Amazon.com accounts of others to purchase several books.[33]". We can discuss putting it under a different section, but the information is there. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture?

NMA.tv has made a 3d rendering of the LulzSec story. Where should this be included? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udcnlLXUh8E --Dayyan (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Twitter and LulzSec

It would be a nice addition to mention the permissiveness and collaboration of Twitter regarding their own rules and LulzSec: http://support.twitter.com/groups/33-report-a-violation/topics/121-guidelines-best-practices/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.249.245 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

LOLs

I have never heard the term "LOLs." "Laugh out louds"? It sounds terribly strange; wouldn't it be more logical to say that "lulz" derived from "lol"? What meaning could be ascribed to "LOLs"? Cholo71796 (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Its a tribuite to the incorrect grammer of many younger internet users from the early-mid 2000's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amckern (talk • contribs) 04:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Berrics Official Website Hacked

http://www.theberrics.com is currently hacked by lulzsec, which is the biggest skateboarding website in the world. There is suppose to be a BATB4 game of skate going on today but it's not going to happen due to the hack. In the website, there's a picture which shows the lulzsec boat which indicates they hacked the site. http://www.slapmagazine.com/component/option,com_jfusion/Itemid,4/index.php?topic=54135.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.25.110 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Berrics Hacked By Lulzsec Screenshot

The famous skateboarding website was hacked this morning and still is, which won't let users enter the site. Here's the screenshot from the site which proves it ws hacked by lulzsec, someone please add this to the article. http://theberrics.com/img/splash/relaunch/hacked.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.25.110 (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Is wikipedia safe from LulzSec hackers?

Currently they are taking requests at twitter and some of them have been from disgruntled wikipedia users. I know that wikipedia has the latest protection software but as an internet giant its hard to say that every possible avenue is closed to these professional vandals. Maybe we should change the policy of calling undesirable edits "vandalism' as being called a vandal seems to create some animosity among our detractors. This is one of the internet heavyweights with more pages online than any other website I know of. I'm genuinely fearful of the impact such an attack could have on the internet globally. The collapse of one major bank caused a world recession. Hackers running the worlds largest information resource could lead to anarchy. Omegamaul (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community thanks you for your concern but I personally dont feel its warranted. We unlike other internet heavyweights are run by a Non-Profit organization called the Wikimedia Foundation. If they like Freeware and Open-source software then I think hitting us would be counter productive in their own eyes. If they do hit us with DDoS attack then realistically what could We do but wait for it to be over? If they do they do... if they dont they dont... Wikipedia will still be here when the dust settles. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

They claim that their attacks are strictly "for kicks" and don't appear too fussy about targets. The CIA is a non-profit organisation too and they seem to have effortlessly invaded that website. Arguably one of the most attacked websites in the world with state of the art systems operated by government hackers. Kind of ironic since the CIA routinely hacks personal computers. Omegamaul (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The kind of attack they have been performing upon request and have used against the CIA is what's called a DDos attack. It doesn't actually invade the site, it just makes it harder for people to access it for a while. It's like trying to access the internet while you are downloading a large file, and there are lots of ways to deal with this problem. So I wouldn't worry about the kind of attack they launched against the CIA, in all likelihood the worst it would do is slow the site down for a couple hours. While I don't want to taunt them, and they could prove me wrong, when it comes to Wikipedia I doubt they possess the technical sophistication necessary to implement the kind of attack that actually takes over systems or steals data, like the one they used against Sony. My impression is that Wikipedia's security is better than that of the targets they have taken over so far through methods like SQL injection. It's clear LulzSec is a cut above script kiddies but they aren't in the same league as those who undertook the Stuxnet attack. In short I wouldn't worry about it too much. Polyquest (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Adrian Lamo link?

According to one report http://www.techunlimitedusa.com/2011/06/06/anonymous-pastebin-guest-exposes-lulzsec-hackers/ (and a google search will see multiple people saying the same thing) Adrian Lamo is the leader of lulzsec. I find the info slightly dubious though, because there is a lot of hate for Adrian Lamo given his despicable actions in the Bradley Manning case, so it could well be that people are linking him with lulzsec in order to encourage an attack against him. Any thoughts? Wikiditm (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this information is almost certainly inaccurate. I don't think the accusation should be added unless there is a really iron clad source. Polyquest (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

X-Factor Other Missing Parts

hy is the fact that they released the information of all contestants on the X-Factor not included on this? It was their first notable attack and got them mainstream media attention. Here's a reference if you need more help Reasons to Fear Lulzsec: Sites, Skills, and Slant.

Also, the group released what media accounts have described as a "manifesto" in honor of their 1000th tweet. It seems like this would be very relevant to the article. Sources, along with multiple interpretations: LulzSec Manifesto: More Sec Than Lulz and manifesto: "We screw each other over for a jolt of satisfaction". I suggest anyone editing this article read the complete statement on their website: - 1000th tweet statement.

Also, this article from the Guardian has some extremely notable and relevant information in regards to the Government's response to their Senate hack attack: Senate orders security review after LulzSec hacking. Some parts that should absolutely be added:The attack caught the attention of the Sergeant at Arms and, according to John Bumgarner of the thinktank US Cyber Consequences Unit, may have political ramifications: "They're all valid directories," he said after looking at data that Lulz posted online. "This is an especially embarrassing incident for the US Senate, because they are often asking others to explain why their cyber security programmes have failed."

You are absolutely correct; this should all be added. Unfortunately, I do not have the time right now, but I will see what I can do later tonight. How do people feel about the manifesto being placed under some kind of "ideology" or "motivations" section? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

An ideology section would be awesome. I think there are finally enough sources to write it. Polyquest (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The ideology section you've added looks great Scapler. I think this article is good enough now to be promoted to a C class article. Polyquest (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that I fleshed it out enough to be a good section. I also added the X Factor thing to the hack section as well as its prior mention in the overview section and a reference to an ATM user list they announced before the media picked them up. The article is really coming around. I will look at expanding the Senate section later, but for now it is three in the morning where I am, so I'm calling it a night. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Pro-LulzSec bias

The Ideology section currently starts out with: "Lulzsec does not hack for financial profit."

How do we know that is true? We have an anonymous, secretive organization who ridicule people and companies, publish passwords, and take responsibility for hacks that are illegal and have caused many people pain and annoyance. Oh, and they take contributions and claim the funds will be used to hack. Anything here suggest LulzSec statements should be taken as honest and accurate?

By the way, the cited article for that statement says "LulzSec doesn't appear to be hacking for illicit profit" — so the statement is not justified by the citation. Two qualifiers ("appear" and "illicit") were removed when the statement was moved to Wikipedia.

There are other similar statements in the Ideology section that need to be qualified. 64.196.219.122 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, and I will take responsibility for not qualifying the statement correctly. I have added the word "appear" to the first sentence. I assure you that as the writer of that section I have no pro-Lulzsec bias; in fact, I am very much against what they do and wish them to be stopped. If anything, statements that seem in their favor are either efforts to remain neutral and counter my own anti-Lulzsec bias or simple mistakes. Please mention the other statements that you believe should be qualified or any other problems you see and we can fix them. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I will go ahead and say that the "no-profit" thing might be a farce. The CEO of "Unveillance", a network security company, has put this stuff up: [[4]]. It outlines a clear attempt at extortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preda (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. If reliable sources say they do not appear to hack for profit, then we report what they say. No inserting or implying anything that reliable sources have not said is the only way to not have bias in the article. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Undoubtedly your link is an important primary source to include and describe. Here's more press coverage about it.[5] [6] [7] There are a lot more news stories about this - this one interaction might well be notable enough for its own article, if someone wanted to write one. Online communications being as they are, we can't know which side is telling the truth, or even that the person claiming to be LulzSec is LulzSec. (Though I think the Unveillance story sounds more credible than the response, who really knows?) We can only describe all the references we can, and hope that in time the truth of the matter emerges from the data. Wnt (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone think there is still bias in the article? If not, I am going to remove the neutrality disputed template. Polyquest (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's safe to remove it. It seems to have been proven that LulzSec was almost completely anarchistic in their style, rather than hacking for profit. To put it in their words, they did it for the lulz. McAfreak (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Perhaps this article is not yet neutral. For example, it has a section labeled Law Enforcement Response. The article on the Mafia doesn't have a section like that, and surely their activities carry more illegal implications than a few self defined pranksters and moralists with no blood on their hands. Just having a section header like that implies that their activities are overwhelmingly criminal with no basis in political dissent. If Wikipedia was consistent across all articles in this regard, I would have no qualms, but it isn't. Perhaps the same information could be included throughout the article, and the section eliminated. ArishiaNishi (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Low-importance?

Frankly, I don't think that LulzSec is "low-importance." They basically just declared war on governments around the world. SwimFellow (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps mid importance would be more appropriate for this article? 174.125.245.122 (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

GA?

Is that article stable enough to be nominated right now? The content changes daily as the group's activities increase. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is likely to be unstable, but as long as the quality is there I don't think instability should preclude good article status. Those who conduct the evaluation can always keep an eye on the article, and downgrade it if there is a decline in quality. If nothing else the nomination will probably give us a better idea of what we can improve. Polyquest (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If the article were open for all to edit, I'd think so. But maybe not right now.. SwimFellow (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

The final paragraph claims that the mastermind "was charged with computer misuse and fraud". If fact, he has only been arrested. "Charged with" has an entirely differently meaning from "arrested on charges" in English law, and it's not yet supported by any reference. Please replace those two words with those three words. Thanks. 89.242.149.34 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The wording has been changed to "arrested on charges". Thanks for the heads up. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Good Faith

Is this an article where we need to abide by those rules? Sure twitter isn't a stable source, but it's the only source where LulzSec actually says things. Also: The Chinese gov't website, we already knew was hacked, Anonymous said so as well.. If it comes from the source of the hacks, then isn't twitter ok? At least say "LulzSec stated that they hacked blahblahblah."? SwimFellow (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

POV?

I'm wondering what other users think should be the best POV in this article. The proper answer of course, would be neutral, but the poblem is I don't think any POV on Lulzsec could really be neutral. If you use harsh language against them, well, there's bias. Yet, at the same time, you can't simply say that the group is 'lighthearted‘, since the group is, after all, undermining the security of some high profile websites. That is a very serious crime and invasion, no matter if its only a 'joke'. A good analogy for Lulzsec that gamers should understand might be those enemies in video games who attack the players while giggling 'lightheartedly'.

So, how could we develop a fair NPOV on Lulzsec while taking into account both their intentions and actions?theBOBbobato (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is already quite neutral. Dunno how it could be more neutral..SwimFellow (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You simply mention what they have done, what they claim their motivation is, and what reactions have been in the media. No interpretation is necessary, and mentioning their motivations is certainly neutral; I might not find it funny, but they claim to be motivated partially by humor. Simply saying this does not imply that they ARE humorous of just of etc. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Chinese name

I found that a Chinese report gave the organization the name 樂子 lèzi - So a Chinese article should use that name. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Origins?

I came to this page trying to figure out where the heck this group sprang from. Up until very recently, all of the antics of this kind seemed to be coming out of Anonymous. As far as I understand the course of events, Anonymous then suffered some kind of internal meltdown, and LulzSec somehow emerged from the ashes of that implosion - but I'm extremely fuzzy on the details. Does anybody have any idea what happened? More to the point, does somebody have enough of an idea to put together a rough "Origins" section for this new splinter group (assuming that's what they are)? I think this page could use such a section. Technosopher (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

They appear to have gotten so much bang because they probably orchestrated the Sony hack.. SwimFellow (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous

Anonymous have NOTHING to do with the "anti-security operation" Actually, the anonymous hates the lulzsec with passion, due to their origins. Both hail from 4chan, but lulzsec don't hack "for the lulz" or for hacktivism like anonymous do, they hack in search of accounts to steal and distribute. They can't possible be allied. Anyone got any reliable source proving that they are indeed allied?

--Agentel (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the reliable source is 1. pretty much every single news story from the past few days, 2. Look at @LulzSec's tweets. :P SwimFellow (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=lulzsec+anonymous&nomo=1&hl=en&tbs=nws:1&client=safari SwimFellow (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

AnonOps themselves confirmed that they are a part of it: see this twitter message. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

pron.com email addresses

Regarding the pron.com leak, the article states: "Among the information stolen are records of six users who subscribed from .gov and .mil e-mail addresses..."

I think this should be tweaked. One of the email addresses (flag@whitehouse.gov) is a public address set up by the white house for people to send in misinformation about healthcare reform.[8] Given that the password assigned to this email address was "karlmarx", it clearly was a joke, not a real white house user. Two of the others addresses come from Malaysian government domain names (.gov.my not .gov).[9] I understand this is based on original research but it would be more accurate to state that the leak included two users who subscribed from Malaysian government e-mail addresses and three users who subscribed from American military addresses.GabrielF (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What you changed it to seems good and backed up by sourcing. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Link incorrect

Currently the infobox under "Operation Anti-Security" links to the wrong article for JHQ. The website hacked was that of Jianhua, and has nothing to do with the military base which the article JHQ is aboout. --131.111.184.8 (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Done JV Smithy (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Logo" or "A black-hatted meme which the group uses as an image on their Twitter account"

There is some argument as to whether the image currently at the top of the page is LulSec's logo. I believe it is, they use it for more than just their Twitter account. It shows up on their Formspring, and in the graffiti they posted on PBS's website, among other places. In the media, such as last nights Daily Show, the image is used to represent the group. I believe calling it an "A black-hatted meme which the group uses as an image on their Twitter account" is both awkward and somewhat inaccurate. Polyquest (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "an internet meme which LulzSec uses as an identifying mark" or something like that? Can anyone point me to a place this image was used pre-LulzSec? I trust when people say it existed beforehand, but would like to see its context. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to shorten the caption, and getting reverted. Since the reverters aren't using good edit summaries, I am not even sure that they are reverting the part about the "black hat", or something to do with the rest of the caption. My suggestion is "The black-hatted meme which the group has adopted" or "The black-hatted meme associated with the group" which covers all possibilities. Speciate (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked the user who made the reverts for information on past usage and am waiting for him to get back to me. I think Lulzsec's and the media's usage of this graphic as a logo is fairly uncontroversial, we don't identify the golden arches as a meme associated with McDonalds. I believe simply identifying the graphic as their logo would be the best and most accurate way of describing it. If there is past usage, and we can find sources describing that usage, we can include a section discussing it. Polyquest (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object to captioning the image "Lulz Security logo"? Whatever we decide on, it should be less awkward than, "A black-hatted meme which the group uses as an image on their Twitter account." Polyquest (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Two possible new sections

I have been thinking about two sections that could possibly be added to the article. First, some of the content from a number of sections could be split into a "Denied attacks" section of the article where we could place attacks that were attributed or speculated to be from them but that the group has denied. Secondly, I was thinking of a section containing attempts to combat LulzSec by other hackers, like Jester's and the Web Ninja's attempt to dox them or the DDoS of the LulzSec website today. I don't really know what such a section would be titled however. What are others' thoughts on the matter? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You could expand th3j35t3r article if you wish. I haven't been able to update that article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made a section title "Hacker actions against LulzSec". If anyone can think of a better title, be my guest. Still waiting to see what people think of the "Denied attacks" thing. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Since no one joined the conversation, I have added the Denied attacks section as well. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Timezone - Edit Request

I can't make this change myself as I'm a relatively new user and the edit request template completely baffled me so I'm just asking here.

Can the time of LulzSec's "50 days of lulz" statement in the introduction be changed to "just after midnight (BST)." Seems it's been posted by someone who thinks that we're on GMT all year round here in the UK. If you want to be more precise, the tweet from LulzSec for the statement was posted at "00:03 BST, 26 June 2011" or "23:03 UTC, 25 June 2011."

Hope this helps,

Andy.

p.s. URL of the tweet is here https://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/statuses/84758628325801984 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apbarratt (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the correction. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request - Rival hacker organizations and hacktivists

Rival hacker organizations and hacktivists - Warv0x AKA Kaihoe was also around them, he was proving their lack of skills since pretty much the beginning. Also gave proof that the 62000 accounts leak was off writerspace.com by hacking them again, afterwards hacked PBS (America's Public Broadcasting Service) to prove that it was a simple SQL injection not an actual 0day MT4 exploit.

Source: http://news.softpedia.com/news/PBS-Hacked-Again-This-Time-by-LulzSec-s-Enemies-208079.shtml -Softpedia

"Sound like the plot of a yet unwritten William Gibson novel? No, it's the latest news that encompasses Th3J35ter, Lulz Security and a hacker named Warv0x."

Source #2: http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/24/hacker-showdown-cable-modems-at-high-noon/ - Sophos

Source #3: http://www.thehackernews.com/2011/06/pbs-public-broadcasting-service.html - THN

Source #4 http://pastebin.com/FZVbkQZQ - Pastebin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon73313 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"The End"

Please don't use the above term or anything like it to describe the "final" data dump and the "disbandment" of LulzSec. We don't actually know whether it's the end, since they could just be trolling the media. Also, continue the AntiSec section, as it's not close to over. SwimFellow (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

All that the article says are things like "what they described as their last dump", which is perfectly accurate, as that is exactly how they described it. We are not doing any original research by stating that it is true or not; we never go beyond what they themselves and the media have said. To state otherwise because we don't think they will stop as a group is speculation, and we can't have that. If they show up with new hacks or targets, then we continue documenting it, simple as that. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing that may be tricky is that members of this group may continue to hack under a different name. There are a number of somewhat speculative reports that the members of Lulzsec intends to continue their attacks without as much publicity. If that ends up happening we will likely be faced with incidents that have conflicting attributions in the media. Polyquest (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically, if they hack under a different name then they are not LulzSec anymore. I am sure the individuals will continue to hack, they basically said so themselves, and many of them were former Anonymous members. Regardless, this article is about the hacking organization and not what the individual members do afterward. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nims

A crew reaveld in 'cromeplated broziers'. The www.guardian.co.uk said they were-

Real name/Net 'name'	Role in LulzSec	General source(s)
Neuron	N/A
Avunit	N/A
Daniel Ackerman Sandberg/Topiary	Twitter webpage and group P.R. agent
value	N/A
Recursion	N/A
Sven Slootweg/joepie92	N/A
storm	N/A
lol	N/A
kl0ps	N/A
pwnsauce	N/A
anonny	N/A
NickServ	N/A
kay	N/A
Nakomis	Coder
trollpoll	N/A
tflow	N/A
redacted	N/A
Ryan Cleary/Ryan	N/A		Atai	N/A	The vulnerability finder of LulzSec
Stollstoll	N/A
Hector Xavier Monsegur/Sabu	Leader
Kayla	Techy and group enforcer
Staxis umpire	N/A
Richard Fontaine/Uncommon	N/A
Wesley Bailey/Laurelai	N/A
Eekdacat	N/A
EE	N/A

15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The operation anti-security box

So I guess this is the same thing you use for wiki pages about wars listing combatants and commanders, troop strengths etc. Do you really think this is relevant here? It isn't a war. Further, the inclusion of the casualties box listing one arrest as a casualty is frankly ridiculous. Birds are weird (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

'Legal Status'?

I'm a registered user, so it's possible I could edit this article myself, but to be honest it's probably better if I just raise a couple of points here and see what more dedicated editors think.

Firstly, I'm puzzled over the existence in the summary box of a 'Legal status' for this group - currently showing 'Disolved'. Aside from 'dissolved' being spelt wrong, does an anonymous hacking group carrying out illegal disruptive activity qualify for a 'legal status'? I'm also not sure that its members can rightly be categorised as 'staff'. Perhaps 'members'? (I'd be happy with 'conspirators', it being essentially a criminal organisation, but I'm thinking NPOV here.)

In addition, the group appears to have a date for its 'extinction'. Is that really the word we want to use? Are we going for drama? Or would it be better to list the dates-active as simply 'from' and 'to'? - Silvensis (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Extinction is a standard field in {{Infobox organization}}. I changed "staff" to "volunteers" and removed the status field though. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 15:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Defacement

I think they have been exposed by another so-called hacker. I saw it in informationweek. I wonder if it is legit. Does anybody know? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Cracker" not "Hacker"

Please replace the word "Hacker" with "Cracker" as these imprudent script-kiddies have nothing to do with the hacker culture.

These people are anything but script-kiddies. If you want script kiddies, look at the common members of the AnonOps community. McAfreak (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"LulzSec disbanded. End of the cyber attacks."

On the Operation Anti-Security section, it implies that the operation is over because LulzSec disbanded, which is not entirely correct, AntiSec continues without LulzSec now.

As LulzSec are no longer involved with AntiSec, should AntiSec have its own page? SalfEnergy 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talk • contribs)

AntiSec's First 2 Releases

The article appears to make no mention of the first two releases of AntiSec. You will find their releases at ThePirateBay under the AntiSecurity user profile. 184.1.106.57 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically, that group is not LulzSec. Perhaps we should start another page for their successor. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The releases have made no real distinction on if this is a new group formed from Anonymous and LulzSec members, or merely considers it self Anonymous releasing under the profile name of the operation. We shall see what occurs in the next few days. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

These are now mentioned in a new article for the operation: Operation Anti-Security. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Separate AntiSec article

I have started an article on Operation Anti-Security. I feel like the operation is now big enough and has enough references to be separate; plus, Anonymous and other groups have continued it after LulzSec's disbanding. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Members

Looking at the page it states many of their members as a fact while LulzSec itself has denied that those members were members of a core group and only a side group (see their twitter) and confirmed that there were only 6 members in their closing statement.

I have also not been able to find any quote on "Avunit" leaving LulzSec after "FuckFBIFriday" and "Pwnsauce" not being a "founding member".

Think this should be worked on even though they are just a bunch of trolls. Wikipedia should state facts.

LulzSec Twitter Page

Notice that the section says members and associates, not just members; these are people that reliable sources have identified as members or associates of the group. Secondly, if you would actually read the section, all those members that LulzSec said were not core members? It SAYS that in the section already. Lastly, for a quote/reference about Avunit leaving the group and Pwnsauce not being a founding member, try the reference that comes at the end of the section on them. I find it a bit insulting that you are insinuating that Wikipedia is somehow lying when you can't be bothered to read the sourcing at the end of sentences. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to. The reference links to something not spelling the name "Avunit" right. Associates would be way more too if we'd care to read those logs that were once posted. So yes those are not based on reliable facts as far as I can see and should therefor be avoided and discussed/verified better because it's very easy to get biased stuff in there. Lastly lets not get this on personal levels as "insulting". As I could state that I find it insulting that when someone puts in criticism it's then considered an insult already. I'd prefer to stick to the encyclopedia we make together and still keep it proper. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.82.2.175 (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I went over the top. Still, it is not our place to say if reliable sources are stating "reliable facts". We have to run on verifiability and not truth. The source said what it said and I am merely reporting based on the source. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the specific page that the Avunit part comes from is here on page 5 of the article, if that helps to clarify my position any. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Do these guys post on Encyclopedia Dramatica as Zaiger, Spacey, etc? They have been bothering me a great deal since 2008. Just wanted to be sure it's them doing it!86.184.86.42 (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. In any case, the talk page isn't a forum, sorry.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What about the username Nakomis? He played a huge role in lulzsec but now hes a mystery man... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.198.100.101 (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the talk page is not a forum.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes to member/associates list

Seeing as the article is semi-protected, I cannot currently edit it myself, so I'll just leave my proposed changes here.

Levitr0n appears in the members/associates list, however this is a completely unknown nickname that isn't sourced anywhere that I am aware of - this looks like self-promotion.

I also noticed that I am in the members/associates list myself, claiming I worked on Bitcoin fundraising. First of all I'm not a member of Lulzsec (as I have explained to several media outlets before, all these articles are written on the assumption that the leaked logs were indeed from a Lulzsec channel, which was not the case), and second I never did any fundraising for Lulzsec. All that happened was that someone who didn't want to donate publicly, contacted me because he knew I knew some of those involved in Lulzsec (that contact was not initiated by me, but by the person who wanted to donate).

It would be a good idea if the section regarding me would either be removed or amended to show 'the other side of the story', because as it is it is full of allegations based on an assumption from the side of media outlets.

The statement at http://pastebin.com/yut4P6qN clearly states the following: "Note that people such as joepie91/Neuron/Storm/trollpoll/voodoo are not involved with LulzSec, they just hang out with us in that channel." It also states "Those logs are primarily from a channel called #pure-elite, which is /not/ the LulzSec core chatting channel." What happened here is simply that the claim of the leaker that these were logs 'from the Lulzsec channel' was assumed to be true by media outlets, without doing any background research or actually contacting anyone referenced in the logs to verify.

To be more specific regarding the edit request: I propose the section on Levitr0n gets removed, and the section on me (joepie91) gets either deleted or changed to the following (I'm not sure how to properly add references, so I placed them in parentheses):

"joepie91 – Though he is one of the most frequent participants in the leaked IRC logs, the group stated that he is not a core member. He has claimed himself not to be a member of Lulzsec (http://freze.it/t9) and has also claimed towards media that the source channel of the logs was not a Lulzsec channel, but simply a channel that had overlap with the members of Lulzsec (http://tweakers.nl/nieuws/75159)".

I also propose that the following is added to the section regarding the leaked IRC channel logs:

"The origin of the logs is disputed by Lulzsec, and is claimed to be from a channel that is only related to Lulzsec, and is not the 'core Lulzsec chatting channel' (http://pastebin.com/yut4P6qN)."

Joepie91 (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: I removed Levitr0nand also removed the unsourced statement about joepie91 fund-raising. As I look at it there does not really seem to be a source given for any of the "Associates and former members", at least the one linked to next to all of them only has the 6 members listed not the others so maybe everyone under that section should get removed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am quite surprised that no one seems willing to go past page one of that source. If you read the whole article and not just scan the first page, you will find a source for all the names there. In specific: Joepie and Neuron are mentioned here (though I see no problems with the changes you made regarding Joepie, BLP concerns are important) and m_nerva is here, all in that source. The sourcing for Ryan Cleary is separate. But thank you for removing whoever Levitr0n is; that person is not mentioned in any source and I suspect it was inserted as self-promotion. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Section Hacker actions

While reading through, I did some tweaking, adding punctuation or copyediting for clarity. I removed this whole section as it is a) unreferenced and b) garbled - I don't see the particular relevance, it is badly written and nearly incomprehensible to your average Joe or Jane. Here's the text if anyone wants to do something with it:

• "On 25 June 2011, TheHackerNews published an article about Warv0x hacking PBS (America's Public Broadcasting Service) and Writerspace, 2 previous victims of LulzSec. They claimed to have exploited the website with a 0day exploit for MT4, yet the attack Warv0x committed proved that the vulnerability was a simple union based SQL injection (he also disclosed the vulnerable application and gave out the link publicly on TheHackerNews)."

CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, I have now removed the second part of this, which appears to be an attempt by a rival to discredit Lulz, see this diff, [10], and look at the contribs of this user Anon73313 (talk · contribs), who, apart from adding the Warv0x disses Lulzsec info, has only ever edited the Warv0x article. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What you did looks good and improved the article factually and readability-wise. I made two small tweaks to your edits: I removed the word "sub-par" to describe The Sun reporting on Ryan Cleary; the source given says nothing about the quality of their reporting and thus deriding it like that is OR and POV, secondly I removed the "(see above)" from that same section, as this is unnecessary and clunky. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, didn't really have time to scour the sources, agree about the sub-par bit, when I do this the first time, I just try to rewrite coherent, flowing English, without overtly changing the content unless it's obvious drivel, as for (see above) why not? Clunkiness must die. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Constant self-promotion

I have cleaned up the members/associates list, removing 3 people that had added themselves (probably with the goal of self-promotion). With the amount of self-promotion - and thus vandalism - going on, it might be a good idea to protect this article? It's not the first time this happens. 81.71.53.254 (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Biased

And tagged as such. The intro reads:

'Lulz Security, commonly abbreviated as LulzSec, was a computer hacker group that claimed responsibility for several high profile attacks, including the compromise of user accounts from Sony Pictures in 2011. The original leader of LulzSec was a computer security specialist that used the online moniker Sabu. His name is Hector Xavier Monsegur. The group also claimed responsibility for taking the CIA website offline.[1] Some security professionals have applauded LulzSec for drawing attention to insecure systems and the dangers of password reuse.'

So there's a pro-Lulz quote right there in the first paragraph. 'Applauded'? For real?

Is this a NPOV description of their activities? I think not.Suara Gondang (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• That paragraph doesn't say which sec professionals praised the move. Either identify the professionals, or say who said "professionals praise" WhisperToMe (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd add that the source for this also doesn't say this. It says 'To a lot of security professionals, the value of some of these groups is to graphically illustrate what we’ve been saying for years: organizations need to beef up their security against a wide variety of threats.' First, the article does not specifically naming Lulzsec as part of 'some of these groups (Lulzsec is mentioned in the article, but not mentioned in that quote). Second, even if it did, that's not what it says. Applauding a group for doing something and saying a group graphically illustrates that orgs need to beef up security is very, very different. School shootings graphically illustrate security issues on a campus; pointing this out does not mean you are applauding school shooters. 65.0.133.60 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Did any of you bother to Google Lulzsec+applauded? Hits 3, 4, and 7, Andy Kempshall of SecurEnvoy, "It’s thanks to these guys, who’re exposing the blasé attitudes of government and businesses without any personal financial gain, that will make a difference in the long term to the security being put in place to protect our own personal data!" 71.189.63.114 (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what some guy said, the point is that to quote one man's viewpoint without quoting any of the opposing views, and without considering which viewpoint is mainstream, is biased. Suara Gondang (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Applauded is almost certainly the wrong word. There are many editorials that I have read from security professionals saying that LulzSec may have the unintended consequences of making more people aware of online security issues and fixing some of them, but none of them that I have read were approving of their actions. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I have fixed the issue to make it clear that they are not applauded by security personnel and have made the wording more neutral to that effect. As such, I have removed the POV tag. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mobile

http://mobile.formspring.me/profile/view/LulzSec WhisperToMe (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Topiary Wrong Fact

The last paragraph is wrong Topiary does not come from London he comes from the shetlands, Tflow comes from London. --Reload101 (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed this. The whole sentence was incorrect regarding him; Davis had been arrested last summer, not this month. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

They are back.

This group has stated that, after discovering their leader was the one responsible for the arrests, that this group is now back. Can someone mention that in this article? Aattss (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Without reliable sources this information cannot be added to the article. (And I highly doubt this is true, anyway.) Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:LulzSec/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ciaran Sinclair (talk · contribs) 15:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this, but first there's a few problems.

• Members and associates seems to have some false information, Sabu's name has been changed.
  • That appears to have just been vandalism; it has been changed back. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• The lead claims that LulzSec is a computer hacker group, but later in the article it claims that they have disbanded. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Great article. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

its untrue, LulzSec is gone for good, no recreation no rebirth nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Arciszewski

Removed the reference to Arciszewski as he was not a LulzSec member or associate. 50.115.127.45 (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

New Members and associates section

This section needs to be cleaned up. I have my doubts about its accuracy as well...--75.129.118.174 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In need of an update

This article appears to have become a bit out-of-date since its Good Article review last year. A lot of sentences that use allege, like "British authorities had previously announced the arrests of two teenagers they allege are LulzSec members T-flow and Topiary.", are now widely agreed-on fact thanks to confessions and sentencing. Parmy Olson also includes extensive interviews with LulzSec members in her book We Are Anonymous, filling in some other information that was still "supposed" or "alleged" at the time this article was written.

As for minor points, the sentence "Other members still may be active as to this time, they will not be identified." needs a citation and a better explanation--why will they not be identified? Is this a prediction or some LulzSec bravado? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Another minor GA criteria issue is that the article makes very heavy use of "claimed", which is discouraged per WP:WTW, a GA criterion. Thanks everybody for their work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:LulzSec/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

While this article probably met the GA criteria at the time of its initial writing, it seems rather out of date now, following the arrest and guilty pleas of most LulzSec participants. Would anyone be willing to update this so it can keep its GA status?

Here are the initial concerns I see:

• The lead should address the guilty pleas of the LulzSec hackers. It also seems strangely ordered, moving backward from the 2012 arrests to the 2011 "retirement".
• The body makes heavy use of the word "claimed", which should generally be rewritten per WP:WTW.
• "Other members still may be active as to this time, they will not be identified." -- what is the source for this sentence? I'm not clear what it even means.
• "The group's latest attacks have had a more political tone. " -- "have had" implies that these are ongoing to the present; "latest attacks" also seems like it could be a dated statement. Is it possible to give a more precise date per WP:REALTIME?
• Many of the statements about "alleged" and "supposed" can be updated now that these individuals have pled guilty and given extensive confessions in interviews with Parmy Olson and others.
• A citation needed tag dating to January 2013.

I'll now contact the original nominator and reviewer; if either is still active and willing to work on these issues, I'll be glad to continue reviewing. Thanks to everybody for their work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Having gotten no response from the original participants or from this talk page, I'm delisting the article; it seems to me that significant cleanup and updating is needed to get back to GA status. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Error

You are wrong on your info, LulzSec did not end it fell do to one of their members being caught and giving out all the info of LulzSec, many of the members were arrested and are still in lockup if not employed by NSA or PRISM, in addition your picture is wrong, that was the symbol afiliated with AntiSec not LulzSec...and if you need proof ill give you proof, ill have my friend come on here himself and set the record straight since he was Lulz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No, there would be no need for that. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources --Geniac (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

i cant get you a reliable source because half my info is info that only LulzSec members knew about and then me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Then it can't be in the article. Information in Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources. --Geniac (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

fine have it your way but your info is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Foxtrot (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014

Johan Birkhoff a former leader of LulzSec, also known as Gregory McDownskid. He was arrested and pleased guilty to distribution of malware and sent to 15 years in prison. 84.217.67.46 (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Reorganization

While much of the content in this article is accurate and useful, I feel the overall impression of the group one is left with after reading it is not accurate. Specifically, the information that they operated under the direction of an FBI informant post June 2011 is not sufficiently prominent throughout the page. It is present, but rather than being emphasized, it is merely remarked upon near the bottom. A number of the comments on this talk page raise valid concerns about how to classify them with few available primary sources,. Others have contested their notability, given they have ceased to exist in any conceivable fashion. I submit that both of these problems can be solved by re-examining them in a historical context as a group that was co-opted midway through, and experienced a radical ideological shift as a result. To do this, the law enforcement reaction in the 50 days Lulzsec was active could be placed in the same portion that depicts the group's history. The introductory paragraph should also be updated to reflect this reality, I think. Much of the article was clearly written in 2011 and thus, it retains a 2011 contextual feel which does not serve it well in the present.