Talk:Alexa O'Brien/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexa O'Brien. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124160056/https://news.vice.com/article/the-most-militarized-universities-in-america-a-vice-news-investigation to https://news.vice.com/article/the-most-militarized-universities-in-america-a-vice-news-investigation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160128203530/https://news.vice.com/article/doctors-of-doom-what-a-phd-really-means-in-the-us-national-security-community-1 to https://news.vice.com/article/doctors-of-doom-what-a-phd-really-means-in-the-us-national-security-community-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Twitter as source

I can't see that any part of the article reflects badly on O'Brien. Assange comes into the article when we are describing O'Brien's views on him and Wikileaks and her previous connection to Wikileaks. This is sourced to her own words at the time. The paragraph which illustrates how her view of Assange changed is sourced only to her twitter feed which is generally not the done thing. Still, it is unclear where the perceived problem lies. Btw you [NedFausa] are the most prolific editor of the page with 75.3% of the content. Well done. Burrobert (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing an entire paragraph with only two tweets by the subject themselves is a blatant violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I have erred on side of caution re WP:BLP but happy to continue discussing it here, in WP:Good faith ~ Shushugah (talk)

@Shushugah: Thank you for your willingness to discuss this in good faith. With your indulgence, I'd like to distinguish between the two halves of the paragraph you deleted, each consisting of two sentences. I have no objection to removing the first half. However, I believe the second half should be restored (with revisions). For convenience, here it is, changed as I propose.

Two days later, sheIn February 2020, O'Brien tweeted from her verified account that although she'd been approached by agents over the last decade to write a book on Manning or her work, she was glad she had not done so. "If I ever write it," she joked, "title will be Useful Idiot, an autobiography."

References

I believe this satisfies the WP:TWITTER exception allowing self-published sources as the provenance of information about a person in articles about themselves. The revised content does not involve claims about a third party (Assange). Rather, it is strictly a reflection by O'Brien on her own experience, without insulting anyone by name. NedFausa (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue is, it's not our job to determine the weight/relevance of these tweets, in contrast to other tweets. That's a fine task for journalists/scholars to document/synthesis about. We're a WP:TERTIARY source. For a non controversial descriptive/factual statement, that is factually true/permanently true "I got married on this day", the self published source may be forgivable, however synthesizing "Here is a tweet with my opinion on a topic" is not.

The only way to confirm whether this is timely/relevant is to do more research, which is not our role/purpose on Wikipedia. What if O'Brien changes her mind, do we need to regularly search her twitter profile? This is where the claim of stalking stems from. Her twitter timeline is not meant to be used as a search engine for the content of this article. I should also note, that she and I have crossed paths in 2011/2013, but not since then.

Shushugah (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Shushugah: The idea that citing two tweets, in good faith, constitutes stalking is absurd. NedFausa (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Accusation of off-wiki stalking

On Twitter today, the subject of this BLP accused "the obsessive who took over my Wikipedia page" of stalking her, "bordering on harassment." In a pair of follow-up tweets, she identified me as the editor in question. For the record, I deny stalking Alexa O'Brien on Twitter or anywhere else. Her accusation is unfounded. Moreover, Twitter has a procedure for users to report abusive behavior, and as far as I know, neither Ms. O'Brien nor anyone else has reported my Twitter account for stalking or harassing her. Indeed, as of the time I am creating this talk page section, O'Brien has not even blocked my account from viewing hers on Twitter. Her accusation is bogus and offensive. NedFausa (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That’s odd. Your last significant edit on the page was in May last year. What are the problematic edits that the BLP identified? Burrobert (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea. She tweeted today about elevating the page for review "to make sure it abides by their biography of living persons standards for its tone/conservatism" and "so that it's clear that it isn't pro-Assange fascists or otherwise untreated people trying to harass me." I admit to being untreated but I am not a pro-Assange fascist and haven't harassed anyone. NedFausa (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edits related to Assange seem pretty innocuous. It sounds as though the Assange related material on the BLP's page might be causing angst. I will have a look at it to see that it is well sourced and written in a neutral way. The phrase "pro-Assange fascist" seems like an oxymoron given his beliefs. When are you being treated? Burrobert (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the term pro-Assange fascist stems from Donald Trump saying "I love WikiLeaks" after they published hacked emails damaging to his opponent during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. MAGA types thereafter embraced Assange as being helpful to their champion. During his last weeks in office, many of them urged Trump to pardon Assange. To progressives, anyone who supports Trump is a fascist. Thus the phrase. As for being treated, I've applied endlessly but my insurance provider won't approve the paperwork. Something about preexisting condition. I'm afraid I'll just have to live with it. Damn fascists. NedFausa (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The legal research and reporting that I have done on the Manning and WikiLeaks investigations and/or prosecutions have been overfocused on while *demoting* my other work (see the Oklahoma Death Penalty Report). Your statements about my not being credited in that report are false. The use of tweets between myself and others in casual conversations (and intended with humor) were provided here without context. I have actually provided serious discussion and my ideas extensively both on my blog and even in a radio interview as well as my academic work on the ethics of hacked/leaked material. You seem not want to consider that experience and *expertise with the subject matter,* and are focused on personalities, gossip, and intrigue. That I am a woman, perhaps you feel gives you license to not take my work seriously. See for example, here: https://risky.biz/HF4/ ; here: https://alexaobrien.com/archives/4835 ; or even in the context of the Schulte trial archive https://alexaobrien.com/archives/4380. You have also not even included my analysis of the Sup. 2 indictment https://alexaobrien.com/archives/4339. These and other reasons, including this page being tweeted by pro-Asssange accounts when you first began your work, have given me pause as to your intent, since WikiLeaks has been known to harass individuals. https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/9/12864328/wikileaks-threat-reporters-syria-russia-emails I will not be harassed or fear that my hard work will be diminished. I am a living breathing working person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobrien (talk • contribs) 17:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Gap in chronology

Per WP:ABOUTSELF, I have cited both Alexa O'Brien's blog and her verified Twitter account to document her transition from what she now jokingly calls a "useful idiot" on behalf of WikiLeaks (2011) to a harsh critic of Julian Assange (2020). However, her turnabout did not happen overnight. It surfaced during the run-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election in which Assange, pulling the strings from his diplomatic sanctuary, cast WikiLeaks as would-be spoiler. This alienated Alexa O'Brien, who tweeted: "WikiLeaks & information activists are as insular; xenophobic; autocratic and ultimately fascist as security state they claim they oppose." Regrettably from a historical standpoint, O'Brien subsequently changed her Twitter username from carwinb to alexadobrien and deleted all tweets from that period. Nor can I find snapshots of those pages at either Wayback Machine or archive.today. If any editors can help fill in this gap with citable sources, it would improve our BLP. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This to me, reads like an explicitly journalistic/original research project, and not the encyclopedic compilation of a well documented and notable subject. This would be true whether the subject was living or not, but becomes even more serious when we're talking about a WP:BLP. O'Brien herself is repeatedly pointing out (in her words) her own nuanced writings about Wikileaks, but fundamentally we should not care what she has to say about this, whether it's her writings and certainly not her tweets. We are only interested in what secondary sources have to say. This essay comes to mind Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I have established before I have a WP:COI which is why I refrain from editing this topic, except once, to remove a paragraph that was sourced solely on two archived tweets. Shushugah (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Falling out with WikiLeaks

Now that an editor who is personally acquainted with the subject of this BLP has expunged all mention of Alexa O'Brien's falling out with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, I seek help from other, uninvolved editors to help locate WP:RS. At some point, O'Brien turned against the organization (and later lashed out at its founder) that funded directly or indirectly through their lawyer her coverage of the Manning court-martial, which made her world famous. Such an important development merits inclusion in her BLP. I suspect there may be sources to support it in German, given that the break occurred when she was living in Berlin with Sarah Harrison, then WikiLeaks section editor described as Assange's closest adviser. Since I read English only, the assistance of German readers would be invaluable. NedFausa (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

She did an interview in early 2020 with an Australian security podcast called Risky Business in which she discussed Wikileaks at length. She is very hostile both to Wikileaks and Assange. Moreover her philosophy also seems to have changed. She doesn't come across as someone who would get involved in the Occupy Movement anymore. Regarding Wikileaks, her criticism included what she called its "naivety" and whether it was being used to launder information that is harmful to the US. She mentioned that during her time at Wikileaks she was approached by RT and Telesur. She said that she didn't consider Wikileaks a media organisation because it did not have the appropriate "authority". She also discussed what she called the moral aspect of their work. An indication of her current positioning is that she compared Wikileaks unfavourably with Bellingcat. A don't think we can use the podcast as a source for this article though. Burrobert (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I take issue with your comment, that I appear to you to be "very hostile both to Wikileaks and Assange. Moreover her philosophy also seems to have changed. She doesn't come across as someone who would get involved in the Occupy Movement anymore." I feel like you have an agenda to discredit my ideas and work and focus on my your real or imagined perception of personalities and feelings, which is unfortunate and I don't trust it. You claim I have not provided context-- I have written extensively on the subject and about my ideas. I have also provided analysis and the most extensive archive of research work products on those cases and others. I have also discussed the evolution of that phenomenon of mass leaking in a social and political context. I explain *in detail* the questions and issues and ideas I have approached the subject of WikiLeaks with (in that interview and in other source-- including on my personal blog-- I provided some of those above). You also assume you know what my personal politics were or are, again without any nuance or context from 2011 onward, except one stupid line. You don't understand my politics-- which are routed in Classical political philosophy and a belief that liberal democracy is the best regime. There is nothing happening today that contradicts my actual politics from 2010 period. I am not a brand or a political candidate. I am not a zombie. I am someone who thinks about things seriously. You provide no context for the USDOR Twitter profile, which was always independent from Occupy, and solely focused on voting rights and free and fair elections, which was stated in that early source interviews. Instead you focus on very superficial and provocative comments that are not about ideas, but instead dubious preoccupation with uncovering some personal issue. Again, given the preponderance of evidence about the date of this entry and it being retweeted by pro-Assange accounts after that Risky Business interview gives me pause as to your conscious or unconscious agenda. I am a living person, and a working professional. If you can't handle ideas, then stay the hell out of my personal life and business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobrien (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps "hostile" was the wrong word to use and "critical" would have been a better choice. My intention wasn't to discredit your work, rather to understand it so that it can be summarised in your bio. If there is a consistent intellectual thread in your beliefs from 2010 until now then obviously I have missed it and apologise. The point about your politics being "routed in Classical political philosophy and a belief that liberal democracy is the best regime" would be perfect for inclusion if there was a suitable source that we could use. The difficulty for Wikipedia editors is the lack of secondary sources that cover your work. I have had a look at some of your blog but it does not seem suitable for inclusion here because of its technical nature. My feeling is that we need a secondary source to digest it and provide a usable summary. Burrobert (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That there is a lack of appropriate sourcing for you, but that it exists is not what you said-- also the lack of sourcing places the onus on you to be discriminate as to what your conclusions, assumptions, and intent are with regards to the subject matter. You cannot focus on one existing subpar source and ignore the rest as if it doesn't exists when you write. Since this is a living person's biography and I am not a celebrity should be obvious that I don't have paparazzi and scholars following my every thought and action. The ideas and issues and questions have been articulated. So your comments that they do not exist and you are mystified is suspect. You may not be able to cite them, but they do exist, and I urge you to read them if you plan on continuing to author this page. I realize I am a blunt sort of person-- but that is also my style-- I despise pretense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobrien (talk • contribs) 19:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like Ned to address why it is okay for him to quote my personal disclaimer on my website, and personal statement on a podcast, but not the ethics of intelligence that I articulate on my personal website which uses WikiLeaks as a case study. I have a multipart series that I only superficially discuss on the podcast, because I was in the midst of academic work on it. If the podcast is not appropriate, and/or my website where I literally discuss ideas it not appropriate-- then Ned does not get to use it in the bio in one place, but not the other. That is a contradiction-- and makes no sense, just as his weird false claim that I was not cited in the Oklahoma report, or did not have a titling credit for research support on the Cost Study. Until those kind of contradictions are not directly addressed, I do not see him operating on good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.229.184 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

If IP 69.200.229.184 = User Adobrien it would be less confusing if you'd post here consistently under one or the other ID. Also, please sign each comment by clicking the button Sign your posts on talk pages: or typing four consecutive tildes at the bottom before saving. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC about usage of tweets/other primary sources about BLP subject

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

BLP was cleaned up, and tweets/primary sources were removed. See this ANI discussion Shushugah (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

---

I'd appreciate a third opinion, about the usage of primary sources, particularly tweets, the allegations of stalking, and the active research endeavors by User:NedFausa who is the most prolific editor of this subject, and generally active on topics relating to Wikileaks.

I have a WP:COI, because I have met the subject of this article before, and generally refrain from editing this directly. To best of my knowledge, no edits in talk page have been reverted/deleted, so should be easy enough to reason about. Shushugah (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I have contributed to the discussion on the page already so I am not sure whether you would consider me a third opinion. Anyway ...

• You previously removed a section that was based on O'Brien's tweets [[1]].
• Generally it is not a good idea to use tweets in a BLP and our policy discourages it. I don't think we should use Twitter to measure the changes in a person's views over time.
• O'Brien herself has indicated that one of the tweets was posted jokingly so doesn't fully represent her views.
• O'Brien has suggested we provide better coverage of her work post Wikileaks and has provided some references. Given that we have decided she deserves a bio, we should provide readers with an up to date list of her work.
• Except for the section that was based on Twitter, I didn't find anything in the bio that was unfair to O'Brien. However, she has indicated that some parts misrepresent her views, in particular the part that suggests her involvement in Day of Rage led her to be equally involved in the Occupy movement. I think she has indicated that was not the case and that her primary interest was in "voting rights and free and fair elections" so perhaps we need to look more closely at the source for that.
• Regarding Ned's contributions, they generally seem fine to me. I agree with your removal of the tweets and I did disagree with Ned about mention of O'Brien's work on the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review. Burrobert (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of information solely based off Twitter - If a tweet a person made was of importance, we have to determine its importance based off whether a secondary source has covered it. Otherwise, we would pick through endless tweets, Facebook posts, blogs and vlogs to cobble information about someone, which is simply WP:SYNTH. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Contributions by NedFausa to WikiLeaks-related pages

Since Shushugah has raised the issue in this RfC of my being "generally active on topics relating to WikiLeaks," here is a table showing my contributions in that area.

Edits	Page title	Percentage of total edits to page	Last edited
272	Cassandra Fairbanks	79.07%	06 January 2021
94	Alexa O'Brien	60.65%	15 February 2021
86	Chelsea Manning	1.47%	11 February 2021
38	Julian Assange	0.39%	06 February 2021
10	July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike	0.43%	04 October 2020
8	Guantanamo Bay files leak	2.79%	13 July 2020
5	Sarah Harrison (journalist)	2.84%	21 February 2020
3	WikiLeaks	0.04%	21 February 2020
3	XY Chelsea	7.5%	26 March 2020

I trust the table will save time for editors interested in my activity in this slice of post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. NedFausa (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2021 (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.

Apology to Alexa O'Brien

I apologize to the subject of this BLP for wrongly citing two tweets of hers in February 2020 relating to WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. It is no excuse, but I was then a relatively new volunteer editor, having joined English Wikipedia 70 days before. Observing what I thought was a significant omission, I sought to convey O'Brien's disenchantment with WikiLeaks after she'd been supported financially over a period of years by their defense fund. Accordingly, I referenced two tweets from her verified account that I construed as statements about self in the sense that she was expressing how she felt, and would be thus acceptable per WP:ABOUTSELF. However, I failed to think it through. Since she was making claims about third parties, these tweets failed the WP:TWITTER exception and should not have been included. I apologize to the Wikipedia community for my error, which after a year of being overlooked came to embarrass us on Twitter and at Wikipediocracy. More importantly, I am sorry that my mistake caused emotional distress to Ms. O'Brien. I wish her continued success in her professional life. NedFausa (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)