Talk:Hunter Moore/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early Life Section?

The content in this section feels made-up to me. It doesn't appear to have any sources or citations. Unless, someone can get sources, I think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.145.171 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up the page

The page as I found it might have been edited by Hunter Moore himself. It was full of unverifiable claims, apparent boasting, and possible self-justification. I stripped it down to verifiable facts. It's rather bare at the moment. Other editors may want to flesh it out, being extremely careful to be neutral and reference everything. The WP page for the website needs a similar clean up. I have spent too much time on this already ... perhaps someone else could clean up the website page. Zora (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Article under attack

New editors with no history of any edits save to this article are attacking it many times per day. Fortunately we seem to have a cadre of article defenders. I am wondering if the attackers are Moore, Moore's friends, or just random malicious trolls. Oh well, no way to know. It would be more productive to discuss remedies. Perhaps it is time to call for semi-protection. Zora (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Revenge Porn

Isn't there a better term that can be used? Many of the people he exposed on his site had no relationship to or with him. There was no real reason for "revenge." Rather, it seems he was getting some sort of perverse pleasure out of humiliating people, people who were complete strangers to him. To put this another way, many of the people singled out, had done nothing at all to him or to any of his "followers;" they were simply victims of apparent hacks. Where's the motivation for revenge? William J Bean (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted

Okay, he's a deplorable human being, but I'm pretty sure posting dox is a violation of BLP. I know that's more courtesy than he afforded the subjects of IAU, but those are the rules here. Skyraider (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC) If you wish I can post my reference. It's public info that he does not own. Make it an official posting conforming to Wikipedia standards

Part of me feels that if we erased all mention of him on the internet (not possible, but those outlets that we control) and people could not find information about him, it might represent a real wound. 99.246.21.8 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

^^ "Wounding" someone is not the point of Wikipedia. 68.45.154.46 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014

I request this page be edited because all of the information is false. 207.161.159.148 (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. LittleMountain5 03:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2014

Request that the page be merged with Is Anyone Up?, the only thing that the person mentioned in this article is notable for 75.70.221.14 (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have initiated a merge proposal at Talk:Is Anyone Up?#Merger proposal on your behalf. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose Merge into website's article

Not sure I can get a NPOV discussion on this talk page, but worth the try. Has there been a discussion on merging this article into the article about the site itself. Not sure how this article could pass the policy on being known for one thing. There is nothing in this article that is not in the other article. Could probably blank the page and redirect to the site's article to be honest. Anyway, this could easily get pushed through very quickly, but thought I would start a discussion in hopes the transition can be civil and not inflammatory. Thoughts on redirect/merge to the notable version of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.68.32 (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Has there been any thoughts to merging this article with the site itself? It seems that it could strengthen both the other article as well as the this article. Would the best way to do it be redirecting or just a merger of the two? Either option seems feasible and I would recommend this happen soon. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?Paymoney (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Civility

The wiki page for Adolf Hitler is written with more civility than this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.160.193 (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Felon as "occupation"

Having represented many alleged criminals, I would say it is true. Although if things went well, they were just wannabe felons. Saying it isn't an occupation is naive. I suppose that conspirator, thief, pornographer, etc. are out of the question. In any event, I'll go along with consensus on this one. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not willing to argue over the use of "felon" in the very first sentence, but having it restored with the edit summary "I would like to know the reason before anyone undoes it. If he is your hero keep it to yourself" makes me want to clarify that no, Hunter Moore is not my "hero" but I do not think it is Wikipedia policy to describe someone this way in the first sentence, which is the only reason I made the changes. I will leave it as it is but it looks like I got some dates wrong. generic_hipster 22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)