Talk:maia arson crimew

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Tillie Kottmann in 2021

• ... that according to hacker Tillie Kottmann (pictured), most of her data breaches didn't require much technical skill? Source: Forbes: "Kottmann said most of their attacks were relatively simple to carry out, requiring little technical skill. 'Why do complex things when you can do things that require absolutely zero effort?'"
  • ALT1:... that according to the Swiss magazine Republik, Tillie Kottmann (pictured) is "in the tradition of hackers like Jeremy Hammond or Aaron Swartz"? Source: Republik, in German: "Denn die junge Luzernerin steht in der Tradition von Hackern wie Jeremy Hammond oder Aaron Swartz. Hacker, die sich als Hacktivisten verstehen, die häufig mit linken und anarchistischen Motiven im Netz schauen, was möglich ist."
  • ALT2:... that Tillie Kottmann (pictured) and a group of other hackers gained access to more than 150,000 Verkada security cameras using a username and password they found on the public internet? Source: The Verge: "Verkada, a Silicon Valley security startup that provides cloud-based security camera services, has suffered a major security breach. Hackers gained access to over 150,000 of the company’s cameras [...] The hack was apparently relatively simple: the group managed to gain “Super Admin”-level access to Verkada’s system using a username and password they found publicly on the internet."
  • ALT3:... that during a hack of Verkada in March 2021, Tillie Kottmann (pictured) tweeted "What if we just absolutely ended surveillance capitalism in two days"? Source: Newsweek

• Reviewed: Eve Pitts
• Comment: There's probably a goldmine of hooks in this article, I've just read through it so many times that I don't notice them, so anyone should feel free to suggest ALTs!

Improved to Good Article status by Ezlev (talk). Self-nominated at 01:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - In my opinion, ALT0 is more interesting than ALT1. I can give you more time to think up more hooks if you want; however, as the reviewer, I cannot approve any of my own suggested hooks.

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Ezlev: Nice work bringing this to GA. I'm leaving this open for now solely so you can decide if you want to add more hooks for consideration. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Epicgenius! I've added ALT2 and ALT3. Good to go for final hook review, I think. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Everything looks good to go now, as either ALT2 or ALT3 are also fine. Epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Maia arson crimew

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Seems to be the general attitude. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(this is my first time submitting a GAR, please bear with me.)

1. Well-written:

a. the prose may not be clear to a broad audience, as it may not meet WP:TECHNICAL. (although this may be unavoidable due to the article's topics, it could use more explanation of important terms/concepts or rewording, mainly in parts other than the lead section)

b. WP:LEAD: "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." I think this particularly applies to the second paragraph, whose final sentence already appears in the article.

2. Verifiable with no original research: fine, I think

3. Broad in its coverage:

a. Prior to my edit, this article contained no mention of crimew's involvement with music, despite her (currently, at least) describing herself as a musician and DJ on social media and on her personal website linked in the article. Although she is majorly known for her hacking activities, she does have a presence/reputation within various online communities as a DJ, and I feel that the article doesn't cover this at all.

b. With WP:SS in mind, the sectioning of this article feels like it could use some improvement, perhaps with some clearer separation between hacking activities / legal history / personal life and activities.

4. Neutral: I don't see much issue with the article here, although I'm unsure whether the article unduly focuses on statements from the subject herself.

5. Stable: fine

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Media in the article fulfils (a.) and (b.), but is majorly lacking. RhymeWrens (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

These are rather loose criticisms and I'm not seeing an identification of any major problems. This article is not a featured article but a good article, where the standards are considerably lower.

This is not really what GAR is for. Have you brought up these concerns on the talk page? That probably should have been your first step. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd be glad to try and clarify any criticisms I made that were loose/vague. I'm well aware this is not a featured article, and I simply thought that this article did not currently meet the "considerably lower" standards of the GA criteria.

I apologize if this is not what GAR is for, but I don't know what would be the correct action to suggest this article's GA status be reconsidered. If you're simply saying that the problems I pointed out are insignificant, I guess that's valid, but are they not relevant to the criteria? Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm still pretty inexperienced with navigating Wikipedia), but this talk page says that this article was self-nominated for GA in 2021 and its GA status hasn't been reviewed since 2021.

I will admit that I never much considered posting something to the talk page before submitting a GAR, and I apologize for not doing so; I now get the impression that it's much more of an assertive/definitive action than a simple request for reconsideration. RhymeWrens (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I think your last evaluation is spot on; GAR is really for egregious issues that need to be addressed with more immediacy by many of the community. Practically all GAs (and FAs) are self nominated; 2021 is pretty recent for a GA, if you scroll through other GAR nominations, you'll find mostly articles pre-2015, oftentimes from 2006–2008 (those are the really bad ones).

For example, check out Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pipe organ/1 from 2006. Entire uncited paragraphs, bloated messy content, unreliable sources etc. It was even worse when nominated [1] but our standards have increased a lot since then.

This isn't to say that your concerns are not valid, or indeed that you did anything wrong, but I hope it gives some more context to a process like this. From what it sounds like, you seem to have a grasp of the subject matter, so perhaps take a crack at some of the issues yourself. In any case, the original nominator, Vaticidalprophet is an excellent editor, and I'm sure they'd be happy to work with you. Aza24 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with Aza24 that GAR is for major issues, issues so large that they would drive a reviewer to quickly fail a nomination rather than recommend improvements. I'm relatively new to the GAR process, having only opened two a few months ago; of these one had major problems with completeness and unreliable sources and the other cited unreliable sources and had even plagiarised from some. Of what you've mentioned here, it seems like these issues could be addressed by either editing the article yourself or at least discussing it with the primary author. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I can try addressing these issues myself, though given that I don't exactly have the time and definitely not the skill to confidently bring this article to fully meeting the GAC, I'm indeed probably better off trying to bring these concerns to other authors' attention (and evidently doing so through a GAR was the wrong way to go). Thanks RhymeWrens (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I think this GAR should probably be dismissed/closed. Don't worry too much about it, it's a complicated website haha 222emilia222 (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additions to "Later works" section

To get this out of the way right at the start, I am the subject of this article, I asked a seasoned Wikipedian for advice a while back on how to suggest new additions to an article I (obviously) cannot and do not want to edit myself and was told to simply open a topic on the talk page.

So to get right into it, currently the later works section is pretty heavily lacking in terms of widely talked about later work, especially regarding my stalkerware related activism. I think adding at least some of this work makes sense as it clarifies that I did not simply disappear off the internet again after the no-fly leak and still actively do lots of work.

Notable work of hacktivist and/or journalistic nature include:

• public leak of the "Deutsch emails" exposing the secret anti trans working group in the US. This data was originally used in a Mother Jones story, I then published it after it was given to me by a source, which lead to further reporting, such as in Xtra magazine and daily dot
• my coverage of BRG, a cult like online community
• my exclusive coverage of the hack of Rosgosstrakh
• my #FuckStalkerware series exposing the insides of the stalkerware industry via leaks from myself and various sources, including:
  • the SpyHide leak, which got coverage in TechCrunch, NZZ (plus a research report from that articles author) and various other outlets
  • TheTruthSpy leak, which got coverage in TechCrunch
  • the 2024 mSpy leak, which I broke the news about and helped shape follow up research and coverage such as in Crikey and Reason

There have also been more recent portraits of me and my work (also talking about the more journalistic side of it) in SRF and discussions about stalkerware (and the hacking of it) on Radio 3Fach and at a talk i gave at ETH Zürich

also there is a documentary film about me in production right now Nyancrimew (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, maia! I would wait for opinions from other editors before adding more to the section. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hai maia :3

To cover specifically the portraits, I'm inferring that as the picture in the article, we'd need to ensure it's licensed properly. If you can get the copyright holder (which could be you if you want to take a selfie!) to release it under a permissible license, or to upload it to Commons, we can definitely update the picture. I'm not an expert on copyright though, so there might be other ways, I'm just giving the easiest way to handle it.

As for everything else, I'll have to go through and verify the reliability of the sources, but most of them seem fine from a quick glance. Daily Dot and TechCrunch may need a bit of extra scrutiny per WP:RS/PS. Chewsterchew (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Change the pronouns used.

The site itself mentioned that it has a strong preference for it/its pronouns over she/her, but mostly she/her is used. I would like to change this, but before ask you for your opionion on it.

Thanks! MorbitThePlague (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The full text says

She strongly prefers it/its, especially in informal contexts, but is "totally fine" with she/her in more formal contexts, such as in her Wikipedia article. For clarity, accessibility, and consistency, this article uses she/her pronouns throughout.

Bonus Person (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

References to crimew's multiplicity

On 15th October, MichaelsoftBinbows added information stating crimew is plural. This is in principle fine, but the sourceused doesn't seem to support the statement. The source seems to be a joke post about Autism Speaks, rather than actually expressing that crimew is plural. If this is the case, then someone who can edit the page should remove the information, as it is wrong. Thank you in advance, and have a nice day! 90.133.232.139 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree; the source is clearly joking about multiplicity, making it a vague/unclear source for the claim, so I removed it in accordance with WP:BLP. Thanks for pointing it out. :) RhymeWrens (talk) 23:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)