User talk:198.200.106.6

Hello Anonymous editor, thank you for your feedback details in the revision in regards to the Aubrey Cottle article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_Cottle) that was made, but I feel that I disagree with your choice to completely reverse the changes that were made in it it's entirity. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts however about the Aubrey Cottle article without getting into an edit war over details.

I am unhappy with the Cottle article for a number of reasons: greatest of which is the lack of 3rd party sources, almost all information presented here is Cottle's own words, spoken in his own interviews, about himself specifically, and given Cottle's history in recent years of media interviews I am concerned that this wikipedia article is biased because of that, and is functioning more as a resumé for Cottle's exploits (or claimed exploits) than it's intended biographical purposes. Cottle is still alive, and was/is born in the modern digitized age; this level of information availablity would be fine for deceased peoples in times where less information would have been available, but there should be more 3rd party sources present to substantiate these claims, otherwise there really is no grounds presented for the Cottle article, or any other as long as the person themselves claims something about themselves, which I feel is an unhealthy precident for the article and does not conform to Wikipedia's standards.

Secondly is the lack of any information about Cottle's history with Anonymous, outside of his own words, including on Wikipedia's own Anonymous article or it's 420chan one. I have no reason to doubt that Cottle is/was an active hacker and was affiliated with Anonymous at some point, and created an Twitter-centric organization in 2020 which he calls "Anonymous", but to claim that he is an authorative figure for Anonymous does not make any sense given the group's decades long and well documented history as being highly decentralized and even disorganized.

I feel that my edit earlier on the 20th of February kept the spirit of the article (including multiple internal cross-links to 420chan and other well established articles here on Wikipedia), and helped to expand and embellish the article in reasonable ways. As the article stands as-is, it presents little if any information. As it stands the Aubrey Cottle article provides little, if any evidence that the individual is associated with the "Anonymous", which according to Wikipedia's own [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(hacker_group) Anonymous page, is has a "decentralized leadership" at best. So I find it difficult to believe from just Cottle's own claims that he is a "founding member" of the organization, especially given the article's cited birthdates for the user (1986-1987) and how young the user would be when 4chan and Anonymous would have been founded. I think these references and news articles/interviews are useful and important to have on the page, but without 3rd party sources on Cottle

I will edit the article again later today, and try to incorporate the essentials of my earlier edit, while adhering closer to the present media citations like you requested. If you disagree with anything in my edit, I would greatly prefer that you leave a comment here, so that we can discuss how best to proceed with creating the best article that we can, without completely undoing one another's work.

Thank you.

—-

The age thing makes more sense when you realize Christopher Poole was 14 when he created 4chan, and Aubrey Cottle was part of his social circle during that time.

The Atlantic also named him as a founder of the original movement, not the revival. Additionally, other figures that were critical to the formation of the movement were involved in that piece and have publicly confirmed the claims.