Talk:Jeremy Hammond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 17, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia as a staging ground for personal conflict

It appears that this page has attracted some attention. Somebody has taken it upon themselves to use Wikipedia as a platform to 'warn the world about this dangerous individual'. Unfortunately, this appears to be based solely on their own personal experience of him, which is original research. It's also written in a very partisan tone. Perhaps as a result of this, someone else has come along and taken on the role of defendant.

I'm struck by Wikipedia's apparent tolerance of this abuse. This should be an encyclopedia article about an anarchist, a founder of a website, and a convicted computer criminal. Those are the only hard facts, and all this extra "neutrality disputed" and "citation needed" crud is nothing more than shots fired between opposing factions in some external dispute.

Can somebody please put an end to this stupidity and restore some of my faith in Wikipedia? Alternatively, I'm willing to engage in one of those lame, drawn-out revert wars between accountless IPs. I don't give a gently caress about 'Jeremy Hammond', whoever he is. Just something about people grinding their axes in inappropriate places rubs me the wrong way. 82.27.63.151 23:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Supporter

I added some additional materials related to Jeremy's works, because a lot of what was written seem to be by people who did not know jeremy personally. I also fixed up a lot of gaping inaccuracies and mischaracterizations, most of which seem to be made by archaios or others who have personal disagreements with Jeremy. Archaios was also working with Jeremy on the scheme which jeremy was busted for, but archaios betrayed Jeremy and turned over logs and other evidence which was used to convict Jeremy, saving himself. Others seem to be right wing republican/protestwarrior types who keep making prison rape jokes and equally insulting and tasteless comments. So be wary that there are those who are trying to paint Jeremy in a negative light when those who have met and known Jeremy personally understand how dedicated and passionate Jeremy is. He will be missed for the two years in prison and when he gets out he will be well received by supporters. - situationist

Yep, because Jeremy should ONLY be painted in a positive light. Why? Because how else will he fool everybody into believing he's harmless? I DO know Jeremy personally, this is one of the reasons I have a personal problem with him. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let some bleeding heart whitewash this guy and turn him into some kind of wannabe saint/hero. He's not a saint. He's not a hero. He's a stupid script kiddie who got himself caught, tried to weasel out, and went to jail for his crime as he should have.65.182.189.106 10:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honest Article

I have been a WP editor for a year. I have never engaged in edit wars. I have had nothing to do with any unpleasantness in this matter. I created this article last week after going to hackthissite.org to inquire about testing port scanning software. It was there I first learned about Mr. Hammond. I thought his story was interesting and sought more information on WP. I was surprised to find no article as it seemed a inherently notable topic. So I wrote a stubbish one. I made no reference to any earlier versions, as I did not know they existed. It is highly unlikely that this article bears much in common with any deleted article. I have sourced the article appropriately for a stub and feel the article should not be deleted. I don't mean to make it difficult, and I understand that an article about hackers and parody protesters could be draw people who might be difficult. But the fact remains it is notable. The recent plea/sentencing also adds material. I understand that JH is young, and an article about criminal activity that has not been proven/admitted is problematic. With the plea entered this is no longer the case. I do not have a negative opinion of JH. If anything I mildly admire him. I have no animosity toward his victims. I believe in debate and free speech and believe this topic raises interesting points Edivorce 23:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Deletion template from the article for the reasons indicated immediately above. I think this is the correct process per WP:Prod. Please advise me if any further steps are required to prevent deletion or if new measures are taken by others to pursue deletion. Edivorce 05:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for reopening the article, It was a damn shame that the previous one got removed. Knowing jeremy personally I can tell you that he is a very inspiring and intelligent person,( albeit at times a bit too over-enthousiastic )

If it could help I can probably dig up some of his writings and some videos of his speech at defcon. -- scenestar

His video is already there. And he was removed previously because he is, essentially, just a stupid script kiddie determined to wrap himself in glory.

[edit] NPOV dispute

There are several contentious points made within this article, both for and against Hammond. The claim regarding hacktivism for a start; I removed another NPOV, uncited claim that the anonymous informant "pretended to be anarchist and sympathetic to his cause", and that he was "associated with Protest Warrior." Such unsubstantiated claims and my predilection to consider Mr. Hammond's actions as far from notable (see Articles for Deletion entry) must be seriously considered when updating this article; I hope that this can be resolved in a timely manner, irrespective of the contentious nature of the subject. Archaios 06:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's great, but I find that your opinions are far from unbiased, regarding the fact that Hammond's sentencing guide contains this information 'On or about February 3rd, 2005, Alfia received an online message from "Archaios" (pronounced "Arch Chaos"). Archaios stated that Jeremy Hammond and some of his associates compromised the ProtestWarrior server and obtained the entire database of credit cards and member information. Archaios was cooperating with Alfia because he was upset with Hammond for letting an associate take the fall for a hack in which Hammond had shared responsibility.' and the fact that you have let it known that you are working for Alfia would mean that 'the informant' ie you is in fact 'associated with Protest Warrior'. You'll have to forgive me for not taking you seriously. --EJFox 07:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I am perfectly willing to admit my involvement. However, this is not relevant to the defamatory points made. First and foremost, my political ideology was and is based on a superset of autonomist Marxism, anarchosyndicalism. To claim that this was a mere masquerade is absurd. Second, my "association with protest warrior" never existed, and does not to this day. As for the reason I acted informant? Do not engage in idle conjecture. There is no evidentiary foundation even for the position disclosed in the court records. This article is non-NPOV. This must be rectified. Archaios 08:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Is the NPOV Dispute Over? All references to the person Archaios purports to be (no offense meant but this is not self authenticating, although I tend to believe him) have been removed. This would seem to resolve his principal concern. What is the proper procedure for removing the tag? People from different viewpoint are working together to edit the article. I don't think it needs to be stigmatzed by the template. I will invite User:Archaios to reply.Edivorce 05:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is, I'm going to remove it. --EJFox 02:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding Original Research

I'm glad to have people who are knowledgeable and passionate about this topic representing a range of views on the matter. This subject seems rich in terms of issues relating to free expression and effort to suppress the exercise of the same by others. All of this on a variety of levels that makes it fascinating. We have to keep in mind that we need to avoid original research including information we have personal knowledge about (not a problem in my case). I know this might sound silly but can we develop sources, even for information we might feel we know in an intimate manner? This is inline with with the task of editing for an encyclopedia.Edivorce 04:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Toledo Blade Article

Please do not re-add that link.
It does nothing to add or detract from this subject's notability, since he is not named anywhere within the body of the article. So to assume that it is even relavant to this discussion would be incorrect.
Aside from the vague reference to "five Chicago-area activists" he is not alluded to-even obliquely-anywhere within the context of that story, and the story itself is certainly not related in any substantive way to Jeremy Hammond.
Before re-adding an irrelevant article please take your dispute to this discussion page. Ruthfulbarbarity 01:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Easy killer. As noted in the edit by another user, he is both pictured and noted in the caption. The arrests talk about him and others, making it relevant to him. Please research more before you become defensive and seemingly aggressive. Thank you for trying to help. --EJFox 02:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restitution

I added a sentence concerning the lack of an award of restitution as part of the Judges sentence. This seems needed to balance the inclusion of 2.5 M alleged by prosecutor. Ohterwise I don't think we need to include "things the Judge didn't do".Edivorce 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation

Hey guys, I know it's a touchy issue. But I happen to feel that 'Political Activist' is the most appropriate occupation here. Because although he was convicted for computer-related crimes his foremost convictions were in political activism. In the google video linked at the bottom of this page he mentions that "hacking can be a tool to put the people on top". First an activist, second a hacker, third a convicted hacker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ejfox (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

I changed it to web developer from "criminal hacker." One of the sources indicated JH was currently employed coding PHP for shopping cart apps. I thought that would make him a web developer. Did he have any paid positions as an activist? I don't care if you change it back to political activist. I don't think he made a living (or any money at all) as a criminal. Obviously nobody is trying to hide his conviction. Just don't think we need to pile onEdivorce 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. can we get license info/clearance on photo?
Hey, sorry I didn't mean you to think that that comment was pointed at you personally. It wasn't. It was just a general announcement. I guess I muddled my words by lack of using a thesaurus, of course he was 'convicted' in the law sense. But I was trying to say that his foremost priorities were political activism, I guess. As per whether he made a living being a political activist... has anyone who's truly made a political difference been paid properly for it? =P


Perhaps we could have multiple 'occupations'? I'll have to look into it. Thanks, --EJFox 22:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freejeremy.com

I took the liberty of removing the freejeremy.com link. The site was removed, supposedly after abuse of the commenting system by Protect Warriors, and is now the home page of a male porn star who is definitely not Hammond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.14.76.237 (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Good call, thanks. Keep up the good work. --EJFox 06:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as one with intimate knowledge of why the original FreeJeremy "protest" site went away, and why the current one is in place, I can tell you that it had NOTHING to do with ProtestWarrior whatsoever. It was several individuals in the Chicago hacker scene that did this. Following a falling out with them, Jeremy tried circumventing them and breaking into their systems. For a while, they simply contented themselves with uncovering everything they could about Jeremy. Then, for a short time, there was an attempt at detente with him, since they weren't really angry enough yet to start making his life difficult. After Jeremy broke the detente, they were. Logs of Jeremy essentially stepping people through breaking into servers at his place of employment mysteriously found their way into his employer's hands. Byebye job! Then, various domains owned/run by Hammond went away. This is what happens when you register a domain with false contact information (essentially a fool's form of obfuscation) and people report it. No criminal defacement. No breaking into someone else's computers with pre-scripted PHP tools. No DOS attacks. Merely a couple e-mails to the right places. Minimal effort, maximal effect. The original FreeJeremy site was "cunningly" registered to the Chicago branch office of the FBI. The current site is there DELIBERATELY because of Hammond. And this time, the domain is PROPERLY obfuscated, by the registrar's service.
That's all well and good, but what was your point in adding this? It is unsourced, and appears to only be a rant against Jeremy and adds very little to the point that the user made. That the site was removed. The page is definitely home to a porn star, and not Hammond and that is pretty much all that matters. Please refrain from posting seemingly biased, unsourced rants that add little to the conversation at hand. --EJFox 06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
"It's unsourced". That's why I didn't put it in the main page. Seeing as I'm one of the individuals responsible for making the sites go away, it does make me an authority on why they did. The original post said the site was removed after abuse by PW. There was an implication there that either the PW guys got the site removed, or that it was removed by those in control of the FJ.com site itself. My post was merely for clarifiction on why the link now points to something other than a protest site. If it seems biased, well, I'm VERY close to the issue. Again, that's why the clarification didn't get pushed to the main page, and that's why there's a discussion page. If it's any consolation, you don't have to LIKE what I'm saying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.33.30.187 (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
You can't really expect to be credited as an " authority" on anything based on an annon ip and your own say so. Even if what you say is true your not an authority in an encyclopedic sense. Still I appreciate your playing out your need for attenuated glory on the discussion page rather than article. Also please sign your posting with four tildes (~) so that others don't have go behind you to incidate your IP. Thankfully we seem to have bots who do this now. Although I recognize your need for both credit and stealth you might want to get a user account. Although nothing is wrong with anon ip editing, two postings from two different ip addresses does not help you establish any kind of credibility. Edivorce 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, if I wanted to be credited as an authority, I'd have put this up on the main page. As for being an authority in the encyclopedic sense, I'm personally indifferent to it. Again, this is what the DISCUSSION page is for. As for seeking "glory"... Well, if you really think that's what this is. As for the posting of the tildes. I apologize for that. Sloppy of me. And, as for getting a user account, if I were seeking "glory", that'd probably be a good idea. I'm not. Hence the various IP addresses. Basically I'm minimalizing my surface area for any form of further retaliation. As for credibility, I'm indifferent as to the state of your belief in me. If you disbelieve me, that's your prerogative.69.33.30.187 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what the hell?

is this a joke or just a typo?

[..]On March 7, 2008, Hammond's apartment in Chicago was raided by FBI agents[...] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.53.42 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

That "joke" was made by User:X1ngbox on January 11, 2007. I fixed it.Edivorce 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism

Someone posted an inappropriate image containing an image macro made out of a photo included in a magazine article. Please be aware that some evildoers are out to take their personal feuds out to wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:81.68.125.220 (talk • contribs). Edivorce 20:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Security Risk Section

Please provide appropriate citations supporting this section. Also language is POV. Please make more neutral in tone. This is biography of a living person (see WP:BLP) and the sourcing and neutrality needs to be rigorous. I will removing this section if this is not promptly accomplished. I will provide a notice to the anon's talk page. Thanks. Edivorce 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC) This also applies to the "History" section.Edivorce 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've just stumbled on this page after googling the word "archaios", and this entire page appears to have been penned by Jeremy Hammond's disgruntled former allies, for the sole purpose of discrediting him. There are few citations, and much of it violates NPOV. I disagree with your leaving the offending paragaphs in there to be fixed, because frankly I don't believe that any reliable sources exist for this kind of information. I'm taking them out. You can put them back in if you're willing to take responsibility for such poorly written, unsourced material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.63.151 (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
Most of the page, actually, seems to be written by Jeremy himself (or perhaps his girlfriend? HTS users who worship him?) Surely not the ones who know him in real life. It seems that most of the biographies and stories told are just as censored as this article. I won't stop reposting that information. Why? Because it is sourced. I see it everyday with kids I know. I saw it when he lied to me about his past and put tons of unknowing kids in danger. I saw it when he backed people into corners and demanded that they stop telling people about how he turned over the tape. Why? Not because he didn't do it, because he admitted that right away each time, but because they wouldn't let him into conferences anymore. Because he wasn't allowed in people's houses or at their shows. I'm sure if he weren't in prison, everything would've been deleted right away anyway. The purpose of the sections were to provide a look into why people don't like Jeremy, instead of glorifying all that he does, which is exactly what the people who wrote this article wanted. - dancet0k 68.74.179.111 02:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I created this article. A whole lot of people from different viewpoints have contributed. I don't want to glorify Mr. Hammond, who I never met. Nor do I want to slander him. Mostly I think he (and event that pertain) is/are interesting more than good, although I don't see any great evil in the guy. I don't object to negative information. If Jeremy provided a tape that exonerated him, and did not directly implicate other, accept for the crime of being "anarchist" I don't see how that makes him a snitch. His counsel would be very insistent about this, and rightly so. Please try to have perspective here. I'm trying to understand and I think it's interesting and important. Please elaborate on this talk page. I will look carefully at the sources. Edivorce 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Edivorce, I didn't mean to be so abrasive and jump to so many accusations. Here's the issue: there are a lot of thoughts and issues that deal with Jeremy Hammond. He does get blamed for a lot of things he didn't do, but he also has done some really risky things as well. The idea of posting to this article was not to slander him, but rather to show different viewpoints and try to explain why so many people "have it out for him". Their reasons are legitimate and present a lot of different feelings and backgrounds. Events and people aren't all one-dimensional, and the only real sources I can provide for things that have happened, especially because it's not well-documented, are articles with discussions on Jeremy and the CAN press release. Since summer 2004, Chicagoland Anarchist Network has dissolved, but it did a lot for the community. I recognize Jeremy's attempts to work for good, and I'm not indicating that they weren't well-intentioned. I'm just trying to speak for a lot more of the people here and get it out in a less aggressive way. Again, I can't post the Chicago ABCN statement, because I was asked not to by another member of the network. I will work to find more information and sources, but honestly, this is a really hard subject to cover in the way Wikipedia does, because there are so many different levels, stories and outcomes. Maybe it would just be better to delete the entire article. - dancet0k 68.74.179.111 02:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I carefully and with interest read the CAN statement on Indy Media. I am impressed with both their and your grasp of the complexities involved. Certainly the fact that some members of the Chicago Anarchist community have concerns about Jeremy's conduct belongs in the article. That the video was of a planned event in a public place and that its only useful purpose to law enforcement is to identify membership/involvement, not criminal activities just makes snitch an inappropriate moniker. Also that Jeremy expresses remorse over violating this community's, in my opinion heightened expectation of loyalty, makes him rather sympathetic. But I think I better understand the views all around.
We currently have two redundant/conflicting/shifting sections in the article, History and Security Risk. I would propose combining them into one, appearing where "History" currently sits and title it "North Halsted Street Incident." This would fit the chronology. I would further propose a NPOV description of the parade and bust; That it also includes a sentence about Jeremy turning over the tape; That it covers the Anarchist community's discussion of this conduct as possible inappropriate cooperation with authorities; It should include Jeremy's admission of fault and remorse; It should also indicate that others view these actions as perfectly acceptable. Let me know what you think of this proposal. If no one objects, and no one else tries their hand at making the edits I will do so in a few days. Edivorce 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halsted Three

In regards to the halsted three incident noted by an anonymous visitor I recalled the incident and pulled up some articles at least discussing the points made. One is an Indymedia article regarding Jeremy Hammond's 'snitching' and an article regarding the three's arrest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ejfox (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Changed some things...

I added two sections, "History" and "Security Risks". These include information that is true, but you will not hear from either Jeremy or his supporters. I also added to "Other Activism", and changed some of the information on the Toledo arrests; as I was one of the seven arrested in the group with Jeremy. The charges were of contempt of court, not disorderly conduct. I think it is important for people to recognize how much they are putting themselves in harm's way by befriending and supporting Jeremy, especially those who consider themselves activists. Among all the chaos that surrounds this situation, there are a lot of truths. Jeremy seems like he has his heart in the right place when it comes to his friends, but he is horribly jaded when it comes to everything else... He deliberately puts others at risk with the choices he makes, all for this sort of martyr status he wants to portray. The last thing I ever heard him say? "I've got nothing to lose!" - dancet0k 68.74.179.111 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a few more links, specifically ones to discussion on Chicago Indymedia between activists on how they feel about Jeremy. Also, I received a copy of the statement put out by Chicago ABCN, but was asked by a member of the network not to put it directly onto the internet, as neither of us can speak for the network as a whole; there is obviously a chance that some members of the International ABCN do not even know who Jeremy is, and it is important not to make singular decisions for such a large group. - dancet0k 68.74.179.111 02:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for Changes

I made a specific proposal for addressing some problems with the current state of the article. They can be found in the "Security Risk" section above on this talk page. Edivorce 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/r/Talk%7EJeremy_Hammond_3d22.html"