Talk:'The Regime' hacks 711chan.org in response to 'Anonymous' attack on Scientology; takes web site off line

E-mail

I e-mailed the so called group based on thee-mail on the blogs screen shot. Don't know what will be made of it. Also these are the only sources (currently listed as of this post) that I can find. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OR

I left a message on the talk page of the user who started the article. This is obviously a personal experience, but without their notes, will this article be published? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. Sorry for the unorthodox reporting, I was following the hack in real time as I wrote the article. This was my first article, and of course it was a personal experience. I can't verify what I've written through anything but screenshots. Will they be required? - purplepong

it always help :-). if you want to email them to me (newsmarkie@gmail.com) then i can verify this. thanks --MarkTalk to me 12:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks these have been received and i can verify them to be true. if admins want please contact me --MarkTalk to me 16:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dev'd

I'd like to see us not report on every little gory detail of this and perhaps sum up with other issues. As a result I've moved this back to develop - it, for starters, needs a new title. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed the title, but the news is what it is. I am in contact with this new group who have replied to me, and I requested an interview. They are willing to provide. But this was already published and has since been posted to the blog. So I really don't know what else can be done to improve the article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also iffy on reporting every little detail, but if/when there are developments that have already been reported in other media sources, I don't see why not. But in this case, it looks like the only sources are a Blog, Digg.com, and original reporting... Wilhelm 19:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OR re site status

www.711chan.org is still down. Wilhelm 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup already noted in article. :-) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Interview

I have been granted some Q and A to ask to The Regime. Thgey will only do an e-mail Q and A...so if anyone has questions for them, I need some ASAP...Will be sending off the e-mail shortly. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I sent it off. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

How did you gain that access?

It was simple actually...the e-mail address to The Regime was posted on the screen shot of the first time they took out 711chan. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

'The Regime' are Scientologists ?

See this video on YouTube, this should be added to this article - Re: Message to Scientology, TheRegime01, added one hour ago. Wilhelm 20:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• If parts of the audio on this video are inaudible, then the text posted by "TheRegime01" next to the video can be quoted instead. Wilhelm 20:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The voice on the video almost sounds like a professional male voice actor, which was then masked. Wilhelm 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Either that or its computer animated...until we can verify that mask I am safe with saying animated. I sent off the e-mail...awaiting reply. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Have another listen to that video, there are some rough edits in it. Anyone know software to capture off Youtube? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you be able to do if you captured it, analyze it? Wilhelm 20:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we confirm/write that The Regime are Scientologists, or can we only say that they are using Scientology jargon? Wilhelm 20:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We cannot confirm either or. We will have to await the e-mail reply. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can confirm that the video uses Scientology jargon. What did you ask in the email? Wilhelm 20:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As soon as they reply I will post it, but i did ask if they were affiliated with the CofS. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we shall see. Sent you an email. Wilhelm 20:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful here. Even if they claim they are Scientologists, we shouldn't say they are Scientologists. All we can really say is they claim to be Scientologists. Anyone can say they're anything, it doesn't mean it's true. For all we know perhaps the Regime are actually the same people as anonymous trying to get attention or cast Scientology in a bad light. Nil Einne 07:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Publish tag

I took publish off this and am not too happy with "The Regime" video, it seems choppy with some of the CoS terms in it as if they've been inserted into a copy of something.

If nothing develops I'd say publish tomorrow (per UTC) with a date bump. I do think this should be cut back on, there's getting to be a bit too much of this in small lumps when it should be larger pieces where a lot of the terminology is explained. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree...but it seems that everytime a new event happens, one happens right after. I would say an indepth coverage is due, when the war quiets or what not. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It was subsequently discovered that 711chan wasn't hacked, as originally believed

What is the source for this? Wilhelm 21:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wondering the same thing...there is not one. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Who originally added this info, we should ask them, or modify. Agree w/ Brianmc that it's a good idea to wait to publish this. Wilhelm 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, looks like Pathoschild (talk · contribs) fixed this part. Wilhelm 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotes/interview

I had an interview with someone from The Regime. I sent their reply to scoop so any accredited reporter who has an e-mail there can post the e-mail, but I am already late and don't have time to post it here. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Lame answer to your question if they are affiliated with Church of Scientology. Pure obfuscation. Wilhelm 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow this part is really weird:

Wikinews also asked if The Regime was in any way affiliated with the Church of Scientology, including working for or against their beliefs or being a 'branch of The Church' The Regime simply replied, "We are not Scientologists, this is all we have to say on the subject."

Does anyone think this sounds like if The Regime members themselves are not Scientologists, that perhaps they have some sort of affiliation, whether it be financial or otherwise, with some sort of Scientology-related connection? If not, why use all the Scientology jargon in their video and in the accompanying text to the right of their video on YouTube??? I wonder if there is any way to work this into the article - perhaps we could get a known Scientology commentator (someone who frequently comments/interviewed by media, etc.) to comment on their take on the results of this interview? Wilhelm 02:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Regime", did NOT make the YouTube video. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Regime" said that to you in the interview? Wilhelm 03:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The phrases are fairly well known. It's easily possible someone not associated with Scientology could have used them purposely to try and bring more attention to their actions by making it seem like this is organised by Scientology. Either way, we have to be careful about not assuming because people say something means it's true Nil Einne 07:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We can only report what they say, and then explain what that means from other sources. The current treatment in the article is appropriate. Wilhelm 07:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Response

I've posted into the article some of the quotes I have seen on the IRC channels I have been looking into since this whole thing started. They (Anonymous) seem pretty dismissive of the whole event as just an attempt by a hacker group to get some publicity off the back of Anonymous' - some even went as far as to say that "The Regime" was just jealous of their hacking not getting any recognition when a bunch of "/b/tards with UDP flooders made it onto Fox."

I thought it was relevent, so I tagged it onto the end in much the same way responses from citics were tagged onto the other "Anonymous" articles. Fallen-Griever 03:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

From what it seems, 711chan ordered an 'abandon ship' that was the final message posted to their site before it went down. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Was that for 711chan or for one of the many forums that Anonymous has had cancelled since starting this "raid"?Fallen-Griever 03:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So that top 711chan thing is the sources for this? Wilhelm 03:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Some where in there, but realize its only a cached front page. To see the message, what remains of it, Google: 711cham. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine, I take you guys on good faith that the sources are accurate - I just wanted to make sure that no one had added an "anonymous" source, as it were, without citing where they got it from below. I think it's perfectly fine to have quotes from "Anonymous", as long as we cite where they came from. Wilhelm 03:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The IRC channels are publicised on the Chanology Wiki page, so I've been lurking in there whilst doing other things.Fallen-Griever 03:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

711chan abandoned

Before I start a frenzy ;-) Here is the Google cache of the "abandon ship" for 711chan users:

Quote

---

/i/ - Invasions

08/01/25(Fri)22:53 No. 15547 hide watch quickreply [Reply]. 711chan is full of fucking fail for siding with Gaia. I'm out of here, faggots. Enjoy your Gaia ...

711chan.org/i/ - 55k

DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientology Hackers Ask Pirates To Join Their War

Looks like someone else got an exclusive too... -- Scientology Hackers Ask Pirates To Join Their War, TorrentFreak. Wilhelm 04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Saw that, but obviously they published before the site went down. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Could be something to use later. Now that you have published this article, I think I'll wati a bit more on another one - if there are more developments, might try to cover various parts of the new aspects in one new piece... Wilhelm 04:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice on the website

Please see this DIFF - can someone verify this, and/or the research/sourcing behind this? Wilhelm 06:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats what it was at the time, and now it changed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 06:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So can you please check out the edit made by the anon-ip? Perhaps it makes sense, but I didn't want to keep it cuz I trusted the previous work on the article more. But if you check it out, I'd feel better w/ that. Wilhelm 06:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoration

Hi. I'm one of the head admins at 711chan, and just to keep you guys informed.. We would've been back online hours ago but we're having issues with some of our backups. No remote access has occurred by anyone but me for the last 18 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.158.146 (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, then you should email someone and confirm your identity with them so that they can then verify it, I'd suggest you email DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs). Wilhelm 06:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: see link, site appears to be back online. Can one other user verify they can access it, and what they see on the site? Wilhelm 08:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Preferably a confirmation from a non-ip, non-new user. Wilhelm 09:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tigor: Confirmed, /temp/ board and the portal song (preceding unsigned comment by 74.70.213.123)

711chan updated their message

http://711chan.org

DO NOT WORRY, CAPTAIN PLANET IS HERE. or some shit. brb, (not) compromised Greetings: g00ns, 711chan, partyvan
theregime is a load of faggotry

Get High Quality Hosting Starting For Only One Cent At Tomorrow Hosting

These ZendURL Ads Are Not Forced. Click Here To Disable Them Permanently!

That is what the above linked website says, as of this timestamp. Cirt 16:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Regime/711chan

The Regime has a website now. Also 711 han has been compromised, according to an admin I am in contact with. They are shut down until further notice. The particular admin does NOT support the attack on CoS. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish we could get more clarification (if not from The Regime or from Scientology, from somewhere else somehow) on these obtuse statements of both groups not exactly saying that they are not affiliated with each other... Cirt 17:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...I meant that a 711chan admin has e-mailed me and told me that 711chan is off line until further notice. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually that link above is their old site...allegedly this is the current one: [1]. Note the names.... DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Very odd. Their videos are getting very low viewage on YouTube - numbering below 1,000, compared to "Message to Scientology" of over 1,000,000. They are very strange and obtuse in their answers. Only one other blog has really reported on this at all. No other reliable news stories have picked this up. I am beginning to doubt that this is that newsworthy for any more followups, just a small mention in a larger article maybe, but this group is amorphous and not really doing anything, I'd much rather see if we could get some more weighty secondary sources relating to this if possible for any additional info. Cirt 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly...but this is a war brewing and is probably just hitting the boiling point, if not almost there. We really cannot speculate on what is what. If this group is real, then I would expect them to remain low key. Their answers are unrealistic, but they are "hackers" allegedly. So would you have expected them to give realistic answers? I imagine if they have anything planned, then they will do it, and then release some kind of statement. That's following previous MAJOR hacker protocal...someone always has to claim responsibility. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to speculate too much, even on this talk page. But it is also likely that one could surmise, from their jargon, and their obtuse obfuscation with their interview and the presentation of the odd video - that they are in fact not hackers, or perhaps an intentionally well-funded group of hackers or perhaps even an IT team - supported through some sort of financial-conflict of interest third party, if you follow. Cirt 20:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The original link is the home page. The second link is the old one which has now been claimed by the group g00ns. They counter-attacked The Regime in defense of 711chan and plastered all of the group's personal info on the url of the page that The Regime had apparently lost previously, thus adding insult to injury. By posting the names and personal info of The Regime, it leaves them open to harassment by people who do not like them and let's The Regime know that there are people who can get to them. As far as The Regime itself goes, they seem rather outmatched by g00ns, and I don't see them doing much else in the future unless they have better backers than they seem to at this point. As far as the video is concerned, the fact that the group blatantly disrespected Scientology in the messages it left during the attacks "Scientology is lame" and the fact that the person who made the video seemed to be more versed in Scientological jargon than that of hackers seriously throws into doubt any actual direct link between the group and its apparent Youtube message. Psychic Cupcake 20:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, all very nice convo for a talk page, but let's next time be careful w/ sourcing as far as bringing up anything from this above discussion, especially on an issue like this one... Cirt 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The truth about "The Regime"

[2] The regime as they want to be called were script kiddies that gained access by using a keylogger. They were easily taken down themselves if you see the site linked above. It WAS there homepage but was taken over by members of Anonymous using an SSH backdoor. All of the people OF "The regime" have their personal info listed on the site they used to control and have yet to gain control back of.

Someone please update the article to include the truth.72.193.218.183 05:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Info:

Paging John Dawson on aisle 1337. How you doing sir? Operation Security speaking seems you are having a bit of trouble with backdooring ssh/sshd. If your problem is with g00ns attack us... oh that's right all you can do is keylog people :(. Yes it is unfortunate about plasma however he has redeemed himself and well you sir are far from that. You see the issue with your group is you consider yourself hackers when in fact you are nothing more then skiddies. You feel mighty comfortable releasing information but you seemed a bit skiddish(pardon the pun) when we were on the phone.

   To give everyone a bit of rundown on this, Immortal is the leader of regimesyndicate formerly regimeorder however they lost the domain and we now have control of it. So what better way to let them all know we love them then by putting their shit up on their old home? =]
   
   Website:
   http://www.regimesyndicate.org

   Simply put, don't attack us or our network affiliates.
   711chan your welcome if you need more help you know who to contact.
   /i/ keep doing what you do
   #xenu please kill scientology
   with love #g00ns  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.218.183 (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 

Now past the 28th

It is now well past January 28, 2008 in UTC time. This article is a reflection of what was known in the sources, interviews, etc. at that time. New developments could be gathered here on the talk page, but I think this article should be left as is, as representative of January 27, 2008. Cirt 07:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)