Talk:764 (organization)

Should this article be protected from editing?

It seems to be a frequent target for edits that aren’t vandalism per se, but do still end up needing to be reverted because they are unverified WP:OR, soapboxing, or speculation concerning 764 or the com. Given the very nature of this topic, it seems likely the article will become and remain a magnet for such things. Perhaps it would be better to indefinitely protect this article and then if new users think it should be changed, they could make their suggestions on the talk page instead. It might be worth doing this for other articles/topics of a similar nature, as well (as has already been done over at Blue Whale Challenge). Any thoughts? 173.27.3.111 (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

We can't protect articles prior to them attracting problems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's attracting problems of WP:BLPCRIME — Safety Cap (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Lots of edit wars re: which subgroups should be listed, too.173.27.3.111 (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The use of the term "com"

To be clear, "the com" doesn't refer only to 764. The "com" generally refers to the entire cybercrime community in the West, including SIM swapping, database dumping, and credential stuffing. The "com" should probably have its own article, though there is overlap between 764 (also known as the "extortion com") and the "com" at large. 2601:644:9100:DA90:7D62:8C4F:BAF0:FE51 (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have proof of that? Because none of the sources care to make this distinction, and we cannot do original research. Given this field especially. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that their uncited claims are just as valid as yours. I believe it is likely true that it's short for community due to the fact that "com" is indeed the first letters of "community". More research is needed on this issue but I'd like to remove it due to the principle that lacking information beats false information. I'll await your reply before doing this though.

Towelbin (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I've found a potentially usable source here: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2024/09/the-dark-nexus-between-harm-groups-and-the-com/

Definitely worth looking into. RhymeWrens (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Krebs is not a usable source for this topic since he is a self-published source and this involves a lot of identifiable living people. We cannot use self-published sources on material about living persons. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Would a source about com groups predating 764 suffice? I believe i may have some somewhere. Burgercrisis (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@RKT7789 there are very many sources that contradict the very brief statement in the RCMP source. I do not believe this holds up to the standards here:

Wikipedia:Verifiability

"If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."

"material whose verifiability has been challenged,"

The majority of sources are clear that, while connected, these are not the same groups, and that Com is a criminal internet subculture, and not something with well defined membership (much like how antifascism consists of both groups and individuals who are united by ideology and practice)

Additionally, one of your sources, the wired article, actually says clearly that "com"=/="764".

"“Their main aim is to traumatize you,” says Anna, a young woman groomed and victimized by 764, one of the most notorious groups under the com umbrella" https://archive.is/Rpn4o#selection-1831.0-1831.150

"contentious material about living and recently deceased persons."

If there is such disagreement amongst primary and secondary sources about whether or not Com groups are 764 groups, and 764 groups are defined by their engagement in child abuse material, then referring to com groups as 764 based on the few sources that say they are the same would be "contentious material about living and recently deceased persons", and being that this is now a topic that implicates a government worker (no matter the legal circumstances of that work), it may even be a potentially risky statement.

Additional sources:

https://www.maargentino.com/the-pillars-of-the-com-network/ This secondary references multiple primary sources that are all aligned on this matter.

Scattered Spider A wikipedia article discussing a com group that very clearly is not a 764 group.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cybersecurity-investigators-worry-ransomware-attacks-may-worsen-as-young-hackers-in-us-work-with-russians-60-minutes-transcript/ Clearly discussing the com with 0 relationship with 764

https://cyberscoop.com/tag/the-com/ a whole bunch of articles that clearly distinguish that these groups are not 1:1 the same

I know we aren't allowed to use primary sources - but this contention that com == 764 disagrees with all primary sources on the COM network, such as Krebs article today, which clearly is not referencing 764 in any manner, but is clearly referencing COM network activity.

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2025/02/teen-on-musks-doge-team-graduated-from-the-com/

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2024/09/the-dark-nexus-between-harm-groups-and-the-com/ Another krebs article that clearly distinguishes the difference as well as how there is overlap; but it is not 1:1, not all members of com engage in sextortion, not all members of com groups are affiliated with groups that engage in sextortion.

I don't want to get involved in edit wars, so I won't edit it back. But I think the vast majority of sources are very clear about this, and if you are willing to read any primary sources, they are unanimous on the subject, regardless of wikipedia policy of using or not primary sources about living persons. Sorry for the TLDR but now I feel I had to back up this position. Burgercrisis (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Burgercrisis: I think you got it backwards: WP:BLP doesn't protect groups, saying the Com is connected to 764 is perfectly permissible. I have no idea what you're talking about when you're bringing up DOGE, but if I said this DOGE guy or whoever is a pedophile, that would not be permissible, at least without a good source. Just because a supposed person is connected to something doesn't extend some sort of protection against bringing up negative facts against a group.RKT7789 (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

And what about the hoard of sources that disagree with the one you provided, included the wired article you also cited? Very clearly every source (edit: but one) presented so far indicates they are different groups, and that 764 is a com group, but com groups are not all 764 groups. What gives the RCMP source extra credibility? It appears to be potentially a tertiary source on the specific claim here even. Burgercrisis (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Burgercrisis:I don't see my source disagreeing with me, 764 goes by many names so its not wrong to describe as 764 both as the same and being under the "umbrella". RCMP is a state source so I would give it preference. Also Krebsonsecurity is just the personal site of Brian Krebs so I don't know how reliable it would be. Same with maargentino.com. I think we should give @PARAKANYAA: a holler since it's pretty much "his" page, he has probably most indepth knowledge.RKT7789 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't own the page, I didn't even make it haha (the page creator NAADAAN and I know each other but we are different people). I just try to guard it from vandalism/badly sourced additions which this topic unceasingly attracts.

It is true that these two concepts are not exactly the same thing, but it is fairly well established that 764 does call itself the com sometimes, so I would oppose entirely leaving it out. Maybe we could do a footnote or clarification between this specific instance and other usages. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I was going mad trying to clarify the difference just now and deleted everything I was typing, looking through sources and all.

I agree that I would prefer it to be mentioned, when I removed it entirely from the intro I just didn't know how to word it clearly without being pedantic. I still don't to be honest. The article does seem to somewhat clarify the difference later, though. EDIT: I think I clarified it enough. If there is still any contention about the source, read this excerpt: https://archive.is/Rpn4o#selection-827.186-827.443 Burgercrisis (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I am very confused about what the contention is. I have provided about a dozen sources that are unanimous and explained the position thoroughly.

"the com" doesn't "sometimes [...] refer to the collective of cybercriminal groups 764 belongs to", the com sometimes refers to 764. The only source to the contrary is the RCMP one which we have gone over, it is a passing statement in a tertiary source. The wired article we cited at [1] doesn't say this anywhere. Would it help if I quote every instance of 764 and com being mentioned in all of these sources? I have provided a lot of secondary sources which were all admissible, as well as many primary sources that, while not admissible due to the privacy policy on recently living persons, are clearly factual enough to warrant a removal of what can only be sourced to a passing statement by Canadian police.

In source [1], can you show me where it says any of what is being attributed to that source? I am going to bed, but if you really need I can continue the list of all the times that article indicates the opposite, and i can do this for very many other sources later. A passing statement by the rocky mountain police in a press statement with no verifiable statement is not a primary source, so lets stick to what the wired article and dozens of other publications have been consistent on instead of throwing all of that out for what is opinion. Burgercrisis (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Would the current version be agreeable?RKT7789 (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I still see it as bluntly stating something as fact that isnt verifiable.

764 wasnt previously known as com. Com predates 764, yes. But there are thousands of members of com and only hundreds of members of 764 related groups. So the statement is very clearly false and unsupported by all sources. Burgercrisis (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Burgercrisis Well that you would have to take up with User:NAADAAN, I think he added it.RKT7789 (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Being that this is an unsourced remnant from the very earliest stages of the article and that they haven't been involved in editing the page since these very early stages, and considerong the dozens of sources that are unanimous on this and that the only disagreement comes from a passing statement in a tertiary source, im going to fix it.

If you disagree, please provide why instead of simply acting as if a single passing statement by the RCMP invalidates all the primary and secondary sources that contradict it with verifiable claims.

And please, read the sources before making such decisions.

RKT, frankly i noticed you arent even opening any of the sources besides the RCMP one because you are still unaware of the DOGE/COM news i linked, nor do you seem aware of the dozen or so statements in the Wired article that contradict the notion that all com groups are 764 groups, nor any of the other sources.

I don't think we should be militantly reverting changes if we aren't willing to read any of the sources on the subjet that contradict our held beliefs.

Thank you. Burgercrisis (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Natalie Rupnow

She has confirmed connections to the Antioch High School shooter. Should a section about her be added? Kommikoira (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Not unless sources tie her to this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I was unable to find any sources suggesting this Towelbin (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

"ties to 764 and similar groups"

this wording implies that he would have had direct connections with these groups, but the source speaks only of “ideological ties”, which does not necessarily imply that he was in contact with these groups. I'd suggest being very careful about mentioning “ideological” so as not to cause confusion. GloBoy93 (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

sorry - I'm talking about the Antioch school shooter, Solomon Henderson. GloBoy93 (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've reviewed the sources and agree, so I've rewritten the statement. Thanks for pointing it out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Good Article Investigation

I'd like to see this become a Good article. I'm going to work on getting it up to standards.

Towelbin (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

What must be done:

Add illustration. This may not be possible, as I believe we have a moral obligation not to promote Bradley. Wikipedia is not censored, but there are perhaps some better images out there. I suggest we forgo the illustration entirely rather than use him. I nominate [1]however it is not members of the cult and would need to reflect this well in the caption. My thinking is that body writing is a prominent manipulation tactic.

Proofreading for the other 5 criteria

Towelbin (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not close to GA, it has broadness issues and is overall formatted as a list of incidents. Worse, there is not really the sourcing for that kind of thing right now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

4 more arrests

See [2]. The article uses the name CVLT for the group they were part of, not 764, but they’re both part of the same network.173.27.3.111 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

original research

@Skinnedface Your sources say the opposite of what you are citing them for. They do not say these are the only names this group uses - they explicitly say these are only some of many names, among others. Please self revert. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Quote from the sources you are citing:

RCMP: "The groups are known by different names, including 764, 676, CVLT, Court, and Harm Nation, among others"

OCCRP: "has identified several" - nowhere does it say the rest are not "real". PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• There is no rule requiring that we use 'official' sources to establish the facts, only that we use reliable sources. The Nightly source supports the names being removed, so the removal makes no sense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I Never said they’re the only groups but they are the ones specifically listed by the Canadian authorities as well as the fbi, your list includes multiple innocent groups who don’t engage with 764, and multiple groups way older than 764 this not sub groups and groups that don’t even exist. Skinnedface (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Skinnedface You have no proof of that, and we cannot use WP:OR against what the sources say. The sources you are adding do not say that these are the only groups, and we have no reason to just restrict it to these. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Like I said you have multiple groups that have nothing to do with 764 and you can’t prove that they do, you have multiple groups older than 764 thus they can’t be sub groups, and groups DO NOT EVEN EXIST you provide absolutely no proof of the groups in your list having connections to 764 and you are openly accusing them of being child groomers and pedophiles, when making articles on subjects such as this you have to be responsible, which is what I’m doing by using the groups the fbi and Canadian authorities specifically warned about, muddying the waters with non existent groups and groups that have no involvement with 764 does nothing but rope innocent people into a horrible organization. Skinnedface (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Also here’s the fbi release where this list comes from I just realized I was adding the wrong link https://web.archive.org/web/20241105133752/https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2023/PSA230912 Skinnedface (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

"use many names, including ..." this just proves the point. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You are also now WP:edit warring which could get you blocked. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The source says it so we say it. You cannot prove that these groups have nothing to do with 764 because all of the sources that mention them say that they do. Not being mentioned in a report that explicitly says they use other names is not exclusionary evidence! PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Your source are amateur investigators who threw together a unverified list of groups who operate online, there’s a reason these groups weren’t mentioned by the fbi and Canada that’s because THEY ARENT TARGETING CHILDREN or they don’t even exist Skinnedface (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

No the reason is because very clearly the FBI's priority was not listing every single name which is why they explicitly said it was only a small fraction of every name they used. The sources in question are reliable for our purposes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

If you want to go through and provide specific proof for every single group mentioned go ahead, for the groups I’ve mentioned there’s plenty of evidence such as arrests statements from government organizations etc, until you provide proof of the wrongdoing of these groups I’ll keep removing them. Skinnedface (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

It's listed in a reliable source. Can you give me specific proof that every group mentioned is not involved, which is needed to overcome that?

You're going to get blocked long before that if you keep edit warring. I would advise you stop. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Let’s go ahead and escalate it Skinnedface (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You have reverted what, 8 times? The "you get blocked" limit is 3, and you've voiced your intention to keep doing it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah so let’s escalate the matter because I’m correct let’s let Wikipedia determine who’s sources are more accurate Skinnedface (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not how this works. You have no P&G based rationale behind your actions besides "i'm right" with no proof. Also, not a single person of the four people who have reverted you has agreed. This operates off of consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, it got escalated, and Skinnedface (appropriately) caught a 24 hour block for edit warring. It's very clear Skinnedface is in the wrong here, and further edit warring will result in escalating blocks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The reliable sources listing them is sufficient proof. Swinub★ 20:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Cvlt, com, 764, etc clarification

Cvlt and 764 arent the same, but they are both com groups engaged in many of the same practices with some members that have overlapped or moved between the two. But they alao compete in terms of content and clout, pretty sure they swat eachother as well. 764 came later, cvlt was an early group. I will try to find sources for this, but it may be difficult to find ones that dont contain any information about living/free/underage subjects. Still, i would like to try. Burgercrisis (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You can just not name them if that is the issue. I think finding any sourcing at all would be the issue. The impression I got was that this was never one discrete thing so yes there's going to be a whole lot of overlap. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm mixed on how to approach this right now honestly. I have noticed in my research that some of the members of these groups call themselves "cvlt" members on social media for clout, regardless of if they have any connection to anyone who was a member of CVLT itself. Being that cvlt was the first "764-type" group, and 764 splintered from it, in addition to the "copycat" cvlt members who coopted the name after all the original members either moved on to other groups or got jailed/died, I feel it does deserve a mention somewhere in the intro at least, but I'm not sure how I would word it to alleviate this contention.

If someone more skilled in linguistics would like to solve this, here are a couple references that could be used.

https://gnet-research.org/2024/01/19/764-the-intersection-of-terrorism-violent-extremism-and-child-sexual-exploitation/

https://www.wired.com/story/764-com-child-predator-network/ Burgercrisis (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Spelling error (can't edit article)

"blood oathes" should be "blood oaths". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A80F:6E3D:D9E4:21B1 (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, I just changed it to "blood covenants" as that word is used more prevalently in the sources. RhymeWrens (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2025

Please add new information about a recent arrest to Law Enforcement.

In late January 2025, A Romanian High-school student was arrested  due to an indictment from the United States and extradition for the teenager has been formally requested by the US as a result of his involvement with a subgroup of 764, called “XVN”. He is accused of making made bomb threats to the United States and the United Kingdom and coerced vulnerable females to engage in self harm for the group. 

Source: Charles09828401 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Where are you getting this information? It is not in the source your provided so we cant use it. It doesnt even mention 764, XVN or COM. Burgercrisis (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Serious Violations of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV in This Article

Having slept on this for a while and committing some time to reviewing the information linked to this article, I feel there's some increasingly serious issues with this page's handling of the subject and how it engages with other topics relating to it. It's a little unnerving to me considering that this ultimately will be where most people looking for initial information are going to find themselves, and there's a responsibility for accuracy and neutrality that we as the community drafting these pages have an obligation to, and considering how this page itself may be addressing one of the most disturbing, challenging subjects on Wikipedia as a whole; I think this deserves some extra attention, refinement, and criticality that remains unbiased, faithfully.

Therefore, I'd like to constructively address several instances of what I feel I've studied Wikipedia's polices enough to come on this talk page and state are violations. In particular; relating to WP:V (Verifiability), WP:RS (Reliable Sources), WP:UNDUE (Undue Weight), and WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The policies are not presented by Wikipedia administration as relative or conditional; and therefore we need to discuss it.

First on the stack:

-Legitimacy of the alleged alliance or “offshoot” categorization of Order of Nine Angles

The current article states that 764 has “alleged ideological ties to the Order of Nine Angles (O9A)” in the opening sentence. I've reviewed the citation for this statement, and I don't see the source itself even making a valid or substantiated argument for this claim. Basically, the article echos a sentiment expressed in the citation, however, these statements in the GNET link [3] are uncited and unsubstantiated. This is a misuse of citations and violates WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. While this source itself may be of academic origin and could be a valid citation for other information; it cannot do so for the statement attributed to it in the opening sentence of this article.

The GNET article attempts to analyze 764's operations in cross reference to what it claims O9A's principles are. While it does point out that some individuals associated with what we know as "764" (actually, just one specifically) have flaunted O9A imagery at times, it does not provide evidence that 764 operates under its ideology, follows its philosophies, or shares actively participating members. The article relies on allegations and inference rather than direct evidence.

To take a direct quote:

 "Analysis of the online activity of O9A and those who adopt their visual aesthetics, such as 764, indicates that there is a significant threat nexus between terrorist and violent extremism content (TVEC) and child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSAM)."

This analysis suggests a hypothetical. It suggests there's a risk of allegiance due to 764's documented use of internet platforms, and O9A's alleged usage of internet platforms; from what it later refers to as "evidence from open source data" which is not referenced or cited. It also claims "[O9A] mostly focus on offline activity and have built online networks to advance their accelerationist and nihilistic goals." No mention of where, or how.

Moreover, it's important to note that, while the article has no shortage of examples of 764's activities; when it references the principles of O9A, its beliefs, and practices; it does so without any sources of these claims. The closest it comes to sourcing what it declares O9A's mission to be is "doctrinal knowledge". I think we should know what that's referring to before assuming everything stated about this group is correct; especially considering how extreme the claims are.

The Guardian article[4] states that 764 is an “offshoot” of O9A, but again, doesn't state any evidence of it. It mentions that Angel Almeida, a convicted criminal and most likely a 764 member, had O9A references on his social media. However, one individual referencing O9A does not mean 764 as a group is affiliated with it. No law enforcement reports, court documents, or reliable intelligence sources have verified this claim. We do know, however, that Almedia regularly used social media to post extreme, disturbing, subversive content, in the manner of an "edgelord" (to an extreme degree) with virtually no limitations to what that entailed as long as it was shocking. This might suggest that any mention of O9A was made simply because of the extremity the public associates it with.

I'm not here to debate the principles of O9A or unpack any of the information about it that's stated here; that would be for a different discussion I'm not here to have. I am here, however, to point out that this article doesn't even reference where it's knowledge and information about O9A comes from, and how weak/unsubstantiated that makes the connections it claims to have with 764, and therefore, how it is not a valid source to cite for these claims to be echoed on Wikipedia.

The opening sentence of this article really should be reworded to remove the emphasized claim that 764 has "alleged ideological ties" to O9A, as there is no verifiable, academic, or law enforcement-based evidence supporting this. Putting this in the introductory sentence of the article gives the implied alliance between the groups a particular amount of weight, but outright lacks the credibility to support it.

I don't think that the subject should be entirely removed from the article. I think that the emphasis on their connection needs to be toned down, to reflect the vagueness of the associations and how credible any of it really is. Wikipedia should not be presenting inference as fact.

Second issue-

I want to address article's current repeat usage of the terms "child pornography" and the cruder alternative "child porn". These should be replaced with CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material), which is the legally, ethically, and academically preferred term used by major law enforcement bodies, researchers, and survivor advocacy groups. I had attempted to make this edit once before, however a particular user seems to defensively like calling it "child porn" more and reverted my edits.

The term pornography is generally weighted with the association of consent, and applying it to recorded acts of what is nothing more than violence and abuse is ethically problematic and misleading. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) expresses that thehy use the term CSAM to "most accurately reflect what is depicted – the sexual abuse and exploitation of children." [5]

While "child pornography" appears in some legal codes, we've seen law enforcement agencies themselves move toward using the term CSAM to prevent conflation with legal adult material. The U.S. Department of Justice states:

"Underlying every sexually explicit image or video of a child is abuse, rape, molestation, and/or exploitation," emphasizing that these materials document criminal abuse rather than constitute a form of pornography.[6]

Virtually any recently published media on the topic will support this terminology shift. A study published in the Journal of Sexual Aggression notes that the term child pornography is being abandoned in professional circles as continuing to use it "minimizes the seriousness of the criminal offense and contributes to victims' stigmatization and re-victimization." [7]

Especially within sex work advocacy spaces, professionals reject the use of pornography in describing recorded abuse, reinforcing that this terminology is neither neutral nor accurate. It goes without saying that professional pornographers want no connection between what they do and abhorrent, illegal acts of abuse and exploitation of children.

Wikipedia should reflect this shift and use CSAM consistently across this article. This is an objective change grounded in accuracy, not a euphemism. Unless there is a compelling, policy-based reason to retain the outdated term, all instances should be updated to CSAM. Exophagism (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Behind this wall of text, you have two complaints:

- the O9A connection. This is well established, and throwing a ChatGPT link (!!) to call it "uncited and unsubstantiated" does not change that. ChatGPT knows nothing, especially not about this kind of topic. The O9A connection is well established.

- vis a vis terminology, the wikipedia article in question is at child pornography so we are going to tend towards that terminology. Take your complaints there. If that gets moved, sure.

So no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Sigh Exophagism this is precisely what I and asilvering were talking about. Wikipedia identifies secondary sources that analyze primary sources, and we sum up what they say, and don't do our own research. Even if you don't agree with me, you can probably see calling it just alleged connection is pretty generous to your position, considering there are no sources challenging it and multiple sources supporting it, even one I added like an hour or two ago. Take care.RKT7789 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I guess I did miss that point, someone should have said it more bluntly; "Something doesn't have to be true to be stated on Wikipedia, it just has to be said somewhere else." Am I understanding? Exophagism (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If you've ever looked into it yourself it's obviously true. Alleged is too weak a word - it's the exact same ideas, just put into practice a different way and for a different audience. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I'm just realizing how in the dark the whole "good faith" thing has kept me here with what my gut's now telling me. I've been trying really hard to understand who it benefits for this reaching information to exist here; where most of people's base knowledge of this group is going to be formed. Again, good faith had me thinking it was for the benefit of the general population, and it didn't add up.

Reading the GNET article in question, it's made pretty clear that 764 make determined effort to appear affiliated with O9A; and "those who adopt the aesthetic do so to make themselves and their group or movement appear to be more dangerous than they are." Also states something crucial; "[764] encourages individuals, either implicitly or explicitly, to seek out more information on the group and possibly put themselves at risk of becoming victims."

I've heard over and over throughout the years how people affiliated with groups like Com implant themselves deep in the internet, undercover and for subversive reasons, and ultimately the power it gives them and what they wish to do with it.

I've finally answered my question. It's actually pretty obvious who it benefits. All this tracks, too; that's the thing. I thought I was fighting the good fight here, ya know, with a pretty honest intention, and I don't feel like I've wasted my time if this is what I learned from it, but, god, I'm gonna go take a shower after realizing who I've been engaging with. Exophagism (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Whatever you think this is, it isn't. That's really all I have to say. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Of course that's all you have to say haha. Genuinely terrifying. Exophagism (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

every day i regret encouraging NAADAAN to make this article PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Well we all know who's happy you did, haha now don't we. Exophagism (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure they're all very happy that they're being given lifetime length sentences by the US Department of Justice. There is no conspiracy against you or towards anything here, despite your insinuations towards anyone who disagrees with you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making issues personal and discuss the ideas and not the person.

As for it being an offshoot of O9A, this is well documented. I will provide documentation here.

First, lets address what how the O9A define offshoots, or "nexions", of their group.

https://archive.org/stream/Nexion1.0/Nexion%201.0_djvu.txt#:~:text=The%20word%20nexion,your%20own%20organization.

The word nexion is used in ONA to point at two different things. A nexion is the individual ONA Initiate. You as a nexion are the link between the written philosophy which is the ONA, and the real world. It is thru you, the nexion, that the ONA, its aims, goals, practices, and teachings becomes real: via your actions and deeds, and your living the ONA Way. Without you, the ONA is not real, meaning that it has no nexion to pass thru into the real world. A Nexion is also the word ONA used to refer to a subgroup of the Order of Nine Angles. In this context the ONA would analogously be the "British Commonwealth of Nations" and a nexion would be an individual country/nation member of that Commonwealth. Take notice that if the individual member nations did not exist, that there would be no Commonwealth of Nations. So it's the same way with the ONA. ONA is the name of a philo- sophical system founded by Anton Long. It's Nexion collectively - individual Initiates and subgroups - is the ONA in the real world as an Order. Just as any person who vibes with ONA can self-initiate themselves into the Order of Nine Angles, an initiate can also found or establish their own Nexion. And you can make your Nexion any way you want, even mix it with other philosophies or occult teachings. You don't need a charter or dispensation from Anton Long or anybody in ONA to make your own Nexion. But you don't even have to make a Nexion. ONA encourages you to use the ONA, borrow from it, and steal from it to create and invent your own Order, or independent group, or whatever. You don't have to be an ONA member or like everything ONA teaches and represents. You can pick-a-part from ONA and put together your own organization.

This is most consistent with other O9A literature.

Now lets consider 764 itself.

https://web.archive.org/web/20241217204703/https://www.wired.com/story/764-com-child-predator-network/

This article explicitly describes the ideological and aesthetic inspiration 764 took from O9A and specifies multiple members including the founder.

https://gnet-research.org/2024/01/19/764-the-intersection-of-terrorism-violent-extremism-and-child-sexual-exploitation/

This article describes the adjacency of 764 and O9A members, including how they take part in the same circles and servers, as well as describes 764's origins in the CVLT server which is itself known to be started by an O9A member to further O9A practices.

https://www.accresearch.org/shortanalysis/svjdmt1twn9ccz0c4uxnbqrauywwcn

This describes CVLT and 764s origins in the O9A.

https://ciacco.org/files/D2DF/CIAC%202024-0000582_UNCLASSIFIED_CO-PTVNewsletter_Q1%202024_FINAL.pdf

Describes the inspiration the groups took from O9A.

https://greydynamics.com/764-decentralised-satanist-terror-network/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/global-satanic-neo-nazi-paedophile-31100970

https://wildhunt.org/2023/10/the-arrest-of-a-23-year-old-has-led-the-fbi-to-a-cult-with-links-to-satanism-and-paganism.html

https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4185796/posts?page=24

Again and again. There are very many sources on this. Additionally, this is a currently brewing topic, and while we can't use primary sources as they may break policies on privacy on WIkipedia, very many of the researchers directly involved in gathering the material used in these articles can attest to the O9A connections, the fact that there are O9A servers dedicated to the discussion of manipulating these groups into doing their bidding, etc... These groups are unequivocally connected to the O9A and if you are going to debate against the validity of our sources used, provide your own, please. Burgercrisis (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes; again and again, someone is very determined to make this appear to be the case. Determined to give the public the impression that a bunch of brain rotted teenagers addicted to depravity and seeing what they can get away with/get others to do, to appear to be something organized, structured, disciplined, committed and posing violence to the masses. Not just a bunch of group chats from hell were the emptiest of the empty swap the worst they can fathom, and torment the easiest targets in a given ecosystem, with no thoughts in their brains beyond what transpires in those moments. Frankly, I think calling it a group to begin with is some out of touch boomer rationalization, but obviously; "a bunch of doughy shut-in teenagers" doesn't seem as terrifying as "Satanic Neo-Nazi Pedophile Cult", and once again; I think it's obvious who'd want the latter to circulate first and foremost. All these citations above are great references for how effective it is, and that's where I'm disengaging but I'm already coming out of this with far more than I expected. And for the record, I don't think it's all of you, but it's here; I'm certain.

By the way; the true origin of 764 is Hurt2TheCore, which there's no mention of in this article; probably a little before most of these "members'" time, considering the majority of the people in these groups were born after 9/11, but might be worth doing diligence with. Would definitely have dramatic effect if nothing else.

Happy Valentines day you all; I'm sure everyone here has big plans. Exophagism (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Which do you think is likelier: People happen to believe what majority of media reports, OR that wikipedia is infiltrated by deep undercover pedophile satanists? Rhetorical question, but I hope you take stock of the situation. The discussion is already veering into pointless foruming. RKT7789 (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Plenty taken; I think you guys have all proven with your sources that that’s exactly what these groups do. Do those citations not apply anymore? 67.173.54.81 (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll take it you're Exo. Just heads up, considering you've already been banned for sockpuppeting, logging out to edit can break the rules.WP:LOUTSOCK. Just fyi.RKT7789 (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

If you continue insinuating that editors here are members of these groups or editing on their behalf, that's a violation of WP:NPA and you're likely to get blocked from Wikipedia entirely. I suggest you step away. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Just want to add, I don't see why you can't add such content into the article (regarding the "origin" of 764) as long as they are backed by WP:V and WP:RELIABLESOURCES, don't give undue weight, etc. RhymeWrens (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

They are not backed by reliable sources, is the issue. They are saying all the reliable sources are wrong. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I have re-read their messages multiple times and do not understand how you came to such an interpretation. At worst, they questioned the veracity of claims from a few cited sources (GNET, the Guardian). RhymeWrens (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Refer to the messages on their talk page that started this whole thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

If anyone can provide any usable evidence of this claim that 764 originates in hurt2thecore, please provide it.

I looked pretty hard just now and all I could find are some inaccessible Doxbin pages and a few rare comments on Kiwifarms that just made insinuations, so I can't read what the connection even is, nor can we use these as sources. Forum posts and random doxbins aren't really usable as evidence. Burgercrisis (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thats a pretty uncharitable way of looking at it, but, essentially, yeah. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth RKT7789 (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Technically, but I don't even concede that the sources are wrong. Reading what Exophagism said as to why they dispute this it's that they read a bunch of the more esoteric O9A materials and are convinced it does not apply in any meaningful way to 764. I disagree and think it does for a variety of reasons that go beyond the scope of this talk page. But, that's exactly why we have "verifiability not truth" and why we don't get into the weeds about that kind of primary source dispute here, because no one has any proof we as individual Wikipedia editors are qualified to make that judgement. Refer to secondary sources, accept that it may be imperfect, and spare us all the suffering. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Fixed the link, guess i was pressing ctrl-L ctrl-C too quickly. I used ChatGPT to spell check since I can't get Kate to do it, where i wrote this initially. My bad. Exophagism (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Exo, I'm sorry for how this thread turned out - although you clearly expressed your issues with the article, I do feel like there has been a visible lack of WP:AGF from all involved, at least in tone.

I am currently revising/re-reading the article with your suggestions in mind, and I hope that we can reach a middle ground here. I changed "alleged ideological ties" to use the word "adjacent" which is directly from the cited source. Regarding your issue with terminology, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I believe it would largely rely on how the cited sources word it. I do think this quote, from one of the sources, may be relevant regarding when this material should be described in the article as CSAM:

“I’ve never seen any individual get as many complaints against him as Bradley,” says Captain Jeremy Lanier of the Stephenville Police Department, who helped conduct the forensic analysis of Cadenhead’s devices. “This wasn’t run-of-the-mill child porn, this was a lot darker. There was one video of a woman being held down and stabbed. This case was awful. It was the worst stuff I’ve ever looked at in six years of working CSAM.” RhymeWrens (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The line of good faith is crossed when someone repeatedly insinuates I am member of a pedophile Neo-Nazi terrorist group, and that every Wikipedia user and admin who disagrees with them is part of a vast conspiracy, and repeatedly uses AI to write their posts instead of engaging with us, I would say. The gripe is with the nazi material at all I would guess because that is what they have repeatedly tried to remove. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

A few things:

1. As far as I can tell, it was not "repeatedly"; it was once, here, in an apparent moment of paranoia and/or anger. I obviously agree that they made a bad decision in saying that (that's why I said "all involved", but you exaggerating it is arguably making the situation worse.
2. Considering that almost every Wikipedia admin and user who has disagreed with them thus far has done so in a rather unforgiving and/or WP:BITE manner, I don't entirely blame them for this. You also seem to be conflating their claim of "Wikipedians are trying to associate 764 with ONA because they (764 and Wikipedia) think it's the truth, but it's not verifiable" with "Wikipedians are part of 764 and ONA".
3. As far as I can tell, none of what they have written on Wikipedia was obviously generated by a chatbot, aside from probably what was posted on Dead Beef's talk page; even if it were, there's not a hard rule against that, and I don't exactly see how that would suggest bad-faith editing in this context. Their accidental posting of a ChatGPT link in this talk page does not indicate all their writing was generated by ChatGPT; it could have been used for spellchecking or research, and indeed their writing here does not come off as at all AI-generated, at least to me.
4. Is this statement about "nazi material" not a prime example of assuming bad faith? I'm going to assume you're referring to their repeated removal of the statement "alleged ideological ties to the Order of Nine Angles", since I have no idea what else it could be. If that's the case, you are majorly reaching by insinuating that a personal bias towards Nazis is responsible for their motivation to remove this phrasing. Indeed, they addressed specifically that in their UTRS appeal.

RhymeWrens (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You also seem to be conflating, no, it's a rather clear understanding of statements like: And for the record, I don't think it's all of you, but it's here; I'm certain.

Regardless, this has moved off the topic of improving the article, so we should drop it here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)