Talk:Tarah Wheeler/Archive 1

Archive 1

Controversy

No sources presented, nothing to discuss.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The subject of this article has been the center of some significant drama. I’m specifically referring to the controversy about Tarah Wheeler being an associate of black hat/grey hat hacker Weev. Oh yeah, Weev is also an enthusiastic neo Nazi, which Tarah Wheeler apparently doesn’t have a problem with. Any particular reason why this detail is omitted in this Wikipedia article? The sources are verifiable and live up to Wikipedia’s BLP policies.185.107.12.99 (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

It appears that this page has been subject to repeated defacement and malicious edits by parties who have clearly demonstrated their conflict-of-interest. Most recently, citations of this subject's work in international publications have been repeatedly removed with an explanation that vaguely references "notability" guidelines. This, despite the fact that the Wikipedia notability guidelines clearly state that, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." These articles are (a) germane to the professional work of the subject and (2) appeared both in print and online under her name and byline.

At this point, even a casual glance at this subject's edit history makes it clear that almost any new content being added by contributors is likely to be attacked and subject to defacement, often by the same parties. Said users also appear to have edited the discussion of their conflict of interest that appeared on their own talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TisiphoneFury (talk • contribs) 13:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

repeated defacement

Reverting the addition of questionable content, and making repeated efforts to initiate a discussion to reach a consensus, is not "defacement" (WP:BRD) - especially on a WP:BLP article.

by parties who have clearly demonstrated their conflict-of-interest

Being actively involved with an article is not a "conflict of interest". A good example of a "conflict of interest" would be someone close to (or is?) the subject, who has not edited any other article, or perhaps who has access to physical copies of relevant legal documents. Please review WP:COI.

Said users also appear to have edited the discussion of their conflict of interest that appeared on their own talk pages.

Please review WP:TALK. On my talk page, I can remove whatever the hell I want.

However, our activities are not what this discussion should be about - the disputed content should be the sole matter at hand on this page. Feel free to respond to the above points on my talk page.

Standalone speaking engagements with minimal coverage are simply not notable. Please review [1]. BLDM (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Constructive contribution

@BLDM (talk · contribs) Every time you removed content for lack of sourcing, it has been reintroduced by other editors along with new sources. The ones I found were always by simply doing a couple minutes of research with a search engine. Have you considered contributing more constructively, and adding sources instead of removing content to have others do the work? The goal should be to have a good, accurate page, right? (And while at it, can you explain why defining Wheeler an "enthusiast"? [2] I don't see how you could have formed that opinion from the page and its sources. Do you have a personal opinion of Wheeler?) -- FiloSottile (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a BLP article, and per those guidelines, it's important to remove improperly sourced content. I would've pursued the addition of proper sources had the content seemed notable.

Assume good faith, please, and reveal your COI if present.

For future reference, discussions like this belong on user talk pages. BLDM (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

BLDM, what makes you think that discussions about editing this article belong on user talk pages?

As for your aggressive and apparently utterly unfounded demand to "reveal your COI if present", FiloSottile has been editing for about ten years longer than you. It's extremely unlikely that someone would set up an account more than a decade ago, and make thousands of edits across multiple wikis, just to be able to add sources to this article.

Oh, and individual facts within an article aren't supposed to be "notable", per WP:N itself. We use the word "notable" to mean "worthy of having a separate, stand-alone article". Individual facts need to be WP:DUE (roughly, worth mentioning in an article about a notable subject), but not WP:Notable (worth their own article). I hope that makes sense. I know the wiki-jargon is complex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a discussion about *my* editing activity, with a secondary question of specific article content.

My suggestion of revealing COI was the furthest thing from aggressive. An editor can develop COI at any point - not a very complex concept... BLDM (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, when you are already in a dispute with another editor, then asking them to announce that they aren't secretly violating policies is an aggressive action. It is not an innocent question; it is an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute and a strong statement that you are ready to have a fight about whether the other editor should be allowed to contribute to this article. It also suggests that you are not assuming good faith, as you are asking an exclusionary question with no apparent basis beyond an experienced editor happening to disagree with your content changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no dispute. Content was removed due to lack of sources, content was re-added with sources, all is well. BLDM (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

That is a dispute. To WP:CHALLENGE unsourced content, you need to be able to say (with a clear conscience) that you believe that it's not possible for you to WP:PRESERVE that content through means such as "simply doing a couple minutes of research with a search engine". Wikipedia is not some kind of online game, in which you add something, and I say "I'm blanking your contributions, because you didn't say Mother, May I? and give me a source. Start over!" You are experienced enough to actually build the encyclopedia, even when it means slightly more work for you than just removing any sentence that you happen to think is imperfect. A total newbie can get away with lazy work. You may not have realized this, but you are in the top 1% of all registered accounts (as measured by volume of edits). You need to do better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:BLP is that unsourced content should be removed immediately and re-added when sources are found. BLDM (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced contentious matter about BLPs should either be sourced or removed immediately – not any or all unsourced matter. The odds of "entrepreneur" being considered "contentious" matter, in an article that names two companies that she founded, is basically zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems quite subjective. BLDM (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that the process of deciding whether a given claim is contentious requires editors to use their best judgment. But that's okay: I have confidence that you will be able to figure it out, now that you know the rule is only to immediately blank or source contentious matter instead of all matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)