Talk:maia arson crimew

Leak Exposes Members of Peter Thiel’s Secretive ‘Dialog’ Society

Would it make sense for someone to add this to her Wikipedia page, given that it seems newsworthy?

https://www.wired.com/story/leak-exposes-members-of-peter-thiels-secretive-dialog-society/

" Alphonse elric12 (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it got truncated from my original post, but specifically this part: "The group, called Dialog, is a private, invitation-only organization cofounded in 2006 by the billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel. It convenes US officials, foreign government figures, and Silicon Valley executives at off-the-record annual retreats. Dialog has spent two decades declining to disclose its members.

A directory in the website's code was first revealed by the Swiss hacktivist maia arson crimew. Known for exposing the US government’s No Fly List and breaching the surveillance-camera company Verkada, crimew tells WIRED the directory surfaced via an anonymous tip. WIRED independently verified its contents." Alphonse elric12 (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I took a crack at editting the article and citing the news source, feel free to add the info to one of the article sections instead or remove the edit if you don't think it's useful. Alphonse elric12 (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the kind of detail that I would wait to include, because it's not yet clear if it deserves a paragraph, a sentence, a passing mention in a list, or no mention at all in this article. Regardless, the lede is not the place for "breaking news" like this; I moved it down to a new section in the article. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, apologies for putting it in the wrong place initially! Alphonse elric12 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding my name/deadname and recent revisions

Hi, it appears a few months ago someone changed the phrasing in the lead paragraph from maia arson crimew (previously Tillie Kottmann) to maia arson crimew (née Tillie Kottmann), and this has lead to some current back and forth edits regarding removing my "deadname". This is not true, Tillie Kottmann was a previous chosen name I was known under for the start of my career. It is not my deadname, so earlier phrasing ("previously") would be correct, my actual deadname can easily be found (such as in my 2021 DOJ indictment) for verification, it has however been previously considered not relevant enough to be added to the article.

I am not well versed enough in Wikipedia to figure out who made the original mistaken edit, so I'll just tag three of the recent users who have edited things regarding my name, I hope that's okay. @Adakiko@~2026-35733-56@Ringtail Raider

Best, maia Nyancrimew (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I changed it to previously known as, which I think makes more sense. I'm not entirely sure what the best language to use is, though. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 14:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Added a comment about "previously v. nee" here. Notifying interested party: Epicazowski Adakiko (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I also removed the name Tillie from the 'born' section of the infobox blair (she/her) chat 17:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

concerns about the article

I have a few concerns about this article that I think are worth discussing.

The sourcing is unusually self-referential for a Wikipedia article. A significant number of citations point directly to the subject's own tweets, Tumblr posts, blog entries, and personal website. This includes citations for her birth date, her name styling preferences, her pronoun preferences, her autism self-identification, and her own account of several hacks. Primary self-citation at this level doesn't meet the sourcing standards Wikipedia expects, particularly for a Biography of Living Persons.

The Personal Life section feels like it carries undue weight for someone whose notability rests entirely on a handful of hacking incidents. Details about her pronoun preferences, sexual identity, political candidacy, and autism are sourced almost entirely to her own social media. A subject doesn't need to be ultra-famous to have a Wikipedia article, but the depth of personal detail here isn't proportionate to her actual public profile.

The tone of the article overall reads more like a fan page than a neutral encyclopedia entry. The coverage of an internet meme stemming from one of her blog posts, the verbatim inclusion of her informal blog caption, and the framing of her hacks as culturally significant events all suggest the article was written by someone with an admiring rather than neutral perspective.

I'd suggest a significant trim of the Personal Life section, removal or replacement of self-citations with third-party sourcing where possible, and a general tone review against WP:NPOV and WP:BLP standards. ~2026-36543-50 (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)