Talk:SiegedSec

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 Sohom Datta talk 03:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that NATO was once targeted by a group of "gay furry hackers"?

• Source: https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/04/nato_data_attack/

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/McVey Fire

Moved to mainspace by B3251 (talk) and PixyPoxxy (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 18 past nominations.

B3251_(talk) 17:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC).

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

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Personally, I'd format the "Notable attacks" section as prose, rather than as a bulleted list. As it is, the article has just over 1,500 prose characters, so this isn't a requirement, just a suggestion.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - Although it is technically correct that NATO has been targeted by "gay furry hackers" in the past, the wording "has been" might mislead people into thinking that the hacking is currently ongoing. I'd suggest something along the lines of "... that NATO was once targeted by a group of "gay furry hackers"?".

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @B3251 and PixyPoxxy: Nice work on this article. I had a few comments above, but otherwise there don't seem to be any other issues with this nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks for the review. I've changed the hook. B3251_(talk) 18:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Information about data leaked?

Seems relevant and notable to the article. Could use expansion. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about the Heritage Foundation attack, no reliable source at this time has published specific info on the leaked data. If and when an outlet does, it will be added ASAP. CitrusHemlock 04:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Leah Kemp as a BLP issue

The entire section regarding Kittyhawk is sourced to one article from the Daily Dot and her own website. WP:DAILYDOT states that editors should "Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article", and I believe that as a matter concerning a living persion this is a fairly contentious subject to include this much information about without broader reporting. -- Reconrabbit 16:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@PixyPoxxy:, @Ethernetsw1tch: since there is some back and forth on the article, can you put forward reasons that the daily dot and a self published website is enough to include a section on Kittyhawk's involvement, which includes substantial allegations about their involvement? -- Reconrabbit 15:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah for sure. The section of Kittyhawk's involvement is notable in Siegedsec's history. Their law enforcement cooperation and allegations against vio attracted news coverage and impacted the overall image of Siegedsec.. However, by nature of making these statements, its sourced from the Siegedsec member's personal website, which are then sourced by news outlets. Despite this section being extensive and ultimately sourced by one member, I think it's important to include it as it covers a significant moment in Siegedsec's history. Ethernetsw1tch (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that it being a significant moment makes sourcing this thin acceptable. -- Reconrabbit 16:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I believe other input is necessary to come to a consensus. I opened a thread at the BLP noticeboard. -- Reconrabbit 16:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

its sourced from the Siegedsec member's personal website, which are then sourced by news outlets if reliable news outlets have reported on this, we should cite them. I agree with Reconrabbit that the Daily Dot alone is probably not sufficient to justify inclusion here. Even if it were sufficient, much of the paragraph currently cited to the Daily Dot is not actually supported by that article, e.g.:

• a 271-page document - article says it's 267 pages
• The material allegedly included chat logs, operational details, and other internal group data - I can't see where this comes from: unless I'm missing something the Daily Dot just says "screenshots from an internal support chat"
• Actions by former members, such as "mirrorless" sharing allegations of Kemp working with federal agencies, indicated internal division and disapproval: Daily Dot reports on mirrorless' claims, but "division and disapproval" seems to be an editor's original interpretation.
• these fears were amplified by the internal conflict and distrust stemming from the informant rumors and Kemp's cooperation with authorities I don't see that this is supported by the article either.

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

we judge what content is "significant" based on its coverage in reliable, secondary, high quality sources. this is especially important for potentially negative content regarding living people. by that standard this content is not significant enough for wikipedia. Rainsage (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense, apologies for my earlier edits. Thanks for clearing it up. Ethernetsw1tch (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)