Talk:Ashley Gjøvik

A word on off site canvassing and the request to prohibit IP edits

The subject of this article has been using her Twitter account (in the article, not outing) canvassing for the reversion of certain edits. This is not allowed. Not every IP editor is a vandal, even in the case of this article, which has some history of vandalizing (as many BLPs do). A reminder to assume good faith and constructively edit Wikipedia, instead of just reverting unless it is unsourced, poorly sourced, or a violation of WP:BLP or WP:LP. 69.133.28.44 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is pretty egregious off-wiki campaigning mischaracterizing edits as vandalism.[1] 172.59.223.176 (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You should probably report this to the page protection noticeboard. OhHaiMark (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It isn't just Ashley or associated parties (which I am not, to be clear) canvassing. I'm willing to bet this article has been linked from some cesspool like AppleInsider or RoughlyDrafted, or one of the many other sites full of rabid fanboys for whom Apple can do no wrong. 76.6.213.65 (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

article ownership

the article, while mostly adhering to reliable sources, is being group edited and being blockaded against reasonable contrary edits.

we will go ahead and follow along as a learning exercise. fairly certain i can ascertain where the tangeles are being directed, so that other disinterested editors can make constructive edits.

thanks in advance for attempting to keep the encyclopedia accurate, Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

specifically, the claims in the bio are often sourced to a pdf of her self-created resume.

that specific content will be removed as being effectively unsourced biographical content. Augmented Seventh (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

we're going over all the sources and claims, removing poorly sourced, rewriting for POV, and making adjustments to match facts in the sources.

you are welcome to contribute, Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

and there's another ip editor, the 9th in the last hour, reverting any and all, and implying ownership. Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

and there's interested editor number 10, in barely 1:15 minutes. Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

you do realize this woman told millions of people in the last 24h that Apple almost killed her right 2603:8000:6500:BC1:1489:824D:1F09:4FFC (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

i dont knee jerk edit, i edit for the ages.

what she has recently claimed in her social media has zero effect on the edits currently being made, all of which are evidently long standing issues with balance, tone, and sourcing.

thanks for they heads up, i didn't know she existed until this afternoon. Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

ip editor 12 just raised its head. Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Facts about herself which are not contentious such as birthday, places of residence, place of birth, family, volunteer work, education, and work places all fall under WP:ABOUTSELF. 2600:1702:3890:1940:5CF7:1314:DC8F:6F9 (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the of you taking the time to reply.

about self does not cover philanthropy or volunteer work, or other fan cruft that is excessively laudatory.

links to PDFs of resumes fail for multiple reasons.

also, self editing, ip hopping, and inserting peacock/unbalanced prose has no place in the wikipedia project, as im sure you will realize.

thanks again for helping keeping the encyclopedia accurate. i hope to hear similar reasonable comments from the other 8 ip editors who swarmed over the last hour.

have a wikipedia afternoon, Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

being blockaded against reasonable contrary edits

1. Your edits to expand the table were reverted because they broke the table with incorrect code.

2. Breaking up the lead where you are doesn't make sense and is confusing the flow. She is known for her legal complaints and termination at Apple. The rest of the paragraph explains the most notable legal complaints and why she was fired. The RICO lawsuit is a separate paragraph as it was more than 2 years later and not part of why she's notable.

3. Per WP:AWW, edits were made to some of your additions to remove a passive voice.

Hope this helps. 47.145.204.243 (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

i read the same thing you read, and disagree about the table being collapsed, about the prose being used, and about the length of the lead, and about using marginal sources.

the article lacks balance, is excessively congratulatory, and will be edited to reflect these facts.

poorly sourced content, particularly, will need to be pruned.

thanks for taking an interest in the accuracy of the encyclopedia, Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

mate that says your edits BROKE the table template 24.126.135.220 (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

i check all sources, all edits, all content, for all of my edits, and then recheck the article for weeks afterwards.

if i broke the table it was in error, and i appreciate reliable competent assistance wherever i can find it.

thanks for helping create a world class online reference, Augmented Seventh (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

1) I support the way the IP wants the lead, because it breaks it up time-wise and subject wise.

2) I have removed some of the volunteer resume sourced "puffery".

2) TO THE IP EDITOR: IP hopping MAY be against Wikipedia rules, or it MAY be frowned upon, because it gives the false impression of consensus by many editors when in fact only one person is behind the IP's. WP:SOCKPUPPETRY is against Wikipedia rules, but I don't know about IP hopping. I do understand people's want for privacy and I am not criticizing that. I just wanted to bring the subject up. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to clairfy, I am not alleging any ABUSIVE use of these multiple IP's. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Came across this last night and found some duplication of notes and things, saw the edit history had some warring. Restored it to your latest version and trust you can sort out the content dispute with it now page protected. Iridiasaurus (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Manufacturing vs R&D

Some IP editors are aggressively removing any reference that the facility code-named Aria is a "manufacturing" facility. It makes stuff for research purposes, not large quantities for production, and this is confirmed by Bloomberg here: "designing and producing its own device displays for the first time, using a secret manufacturing facility near its California headquarters"

I changed my edit from R&D manufacturing to "manufacturing R&D" because the primary purpose of the facility appears to be R&D, but they have to manufacture on a small scale in order to DO that R&D, and the construction of the facility is tailored for that manufacturing operation. It isn't a cozy "lab" where people just sit at their desks all day! I don't know what that's called, but "R&D to make stuff, by also making small quantities of stuff to test making stuff" sounds like "manufacturing R&D" to me! 76.6.213.65 (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

From the same article: " the Santa Clara facility is capable of manufacturing a handful of fully operational Apple Watch-sized (under 2 inches diagonally) MicroLED screens at a time" & "The California facility is too small for mass-production"

I don't think it's appropriate for the lead. 66.146.183.70 (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Care to describe how you're yet ANOTHER IP address that has jumped into this article as their very very first edit?? In fact, there haven't been any edits from your entire /20 CIDR block in 6 months! What other IP addresses have you been using to constantly edit and violate WP revert rules on this article? 76.6.213.65 (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet IPs "contributing" to this article

This edit was posted on my talk page relating to this article from an IPv6 address that has never contributed to this article (nor its parent /64). It is unclear what this indicates, but someone is definitely using multiple IP addresses at the same time while editing this article. 76.6.213.65 (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

BLPN

Due to this BLPN discussion,[2] I intend to clean up this article, mostly by removing the massive reliance of prohibited assertions based on WP:BLPPRIMARY citations. This article should be based on what secondary reliable sources have discussed about her. And no...[3] a court reporter (re)publishing an opinion as is does not make the opinion a secondary source for the purposes of BLPPRIMARY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Source

In case it's useful: https://www.404media.co/california-apple-manufacturing-facility-has-19-potential-violations-of-epa-regulations/ GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that it repeated some of the removed items from this wikipedia article. I am concerned about WP:CITOGENESIS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I just read that, and to me it can be summed up as: "The EPA is in the middle of an investigation, with no released results yet." All these POTENTIAL problems still need to be classified as to whether they are larger than might be found on ANY inspection, meaning will Apple be fined for any of this, or are these all minor problems. The potential problems found: mislabelling and mischaracterizing waste, are significantly different than dumping or leaking waste. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of content and sources

The Ashley Gjøvik article was expanded previously with an over-reliance on WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Morbidthoughts recently cleaned this up, removing published judicial decisions, Gjøvik's blog and website, and public records published by the EPA. Some of what remains requires a consensus for inclusion or removal.

• RICO Lawsuit: I suggest we remove this from the article. The only source is AppleInsider, which may not meet the standards for inclusion on a WP:BLP as a WP:RS due to the lack of editorial oversight and their own description as an Apple community site and the ultimate destination for Apple news, rumors, and tips for all user skill levels.[4] If it does meet the bar, it fails as a WP:SECONDARY because as the only source (and the first source) For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. Last, it feels WP:SENSATIONAL and under WP:NOTNEWS, should not be included. Last, because the only other available information about the topic are judicial decisions which dismiss several of the included claims from the lawsuit, leaving them in as pending adjudication is problematic and after 10 months with no other coverage may indicate it fails WP:SUSTAINED.
• Environmental health and safety concerns:
  • The first paragraph relies on three sources and I suggest be removed entirely. AppleInsider, an article written by Gjøvik in San Francisco Bay View, and Index on Censorship. The AppleInsider source has the same issues as the lawsuit and the quote itself is obvious sensationalism. There is another source mentioned on Talk:Ashley Gjøvik#Source, but there are concerns that it is based on the same resources that were removed and may not have been interpreted by the source because the wording looks like WP:CITOGENESIS. Other concerns from Avatar317 are that the source states that "The report is an initial observation by EPA’s inspectors; it is not a final determination of facts or liability," an EPA spokesperson told 404 Media,[5] and that Gjøvik's direct claims quoted from AppleInsider are challenged by the EPA's report. While the source may meet the standard as a reliable secondary source, the topic itself may not be suitable for inclusion. Index on Censorship may run into the same issues as AppleInsider in that there's no clear indication of editorial oversight. Many of their articles rate "poor" for reliability on independent bias evaluation sites. As the only source other than Gjøvik's own article, it would also be considered a primary source.
  • The second part is well-sourced, but mostly covered in TRW Microwave Superfund, other than the ADA request, which seems like it might be WP:UNDUE. The second concern with this is WP:RECENTISM, because the EPA published documentation from 2021 and 2023 that the site was safe and no volatile organic compounds were escaping in or around the office. I suggest removing this, or, cutting it down to a couple of sentences that don't imply there is a possible safety issue at the site.
• Whistleblower complaints: This is well-sourced and was WP:NOTABLE in 2021. However, through primary sources including judicial decisions and Gjøvik's blog, we know the DOL complaints were adjudicated multiple times with dismissals. There are no secondary sources for including the dismissals. There is a source that says she filed a whistleblower complaint with CalOSHA. Gjøvik has also filed a whistleblower complaint with the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration, as well as its state counterpart CalOSHA, given her complaint to Apple regarding the office being on a Superfund site.[6] I'm not sure if this would still be considered RECENTISM, but at the very least this is still in her lawsuit pending adjudication. We don't need a primary source to say it hasn't been adjudicated. It may still fail SUSTAINED. I suggest removing this, and possibly leaving the CalOSHA complaint as it relates to what survives in Environmental health and safety concerns.

Say ocean again (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

My two cents: there’s no historical significance to any of this, including the California whistleblower complaint. This entire article is narrative. IMO this discussion isn’t needed. BRD and edit requests exist for a reason. 2001:5A8:4270:4C00:4408:C96E:CE11:FC4D (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Because of the lack of discussion I'm going to remove the source/content on bullet 1 and bullet 2a.

I'm leaving the rest for the consensus of WT:BLP#Published judicial documents. Say ocean again (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is against using judicial documents in BLPs. Removed remaining content under Wikipedia:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, but left "environmental concerns" for NLRB complaint and further info on the Superfund site in a hatnote. Say ocean again (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)