Talk:Zak Smith

Untitled

Why does it say "you wish jellyfish" randomly in the intro paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.69.126 (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability question

I doubt Zak Smith rates an article for notability reasons. He's a small artist, with a handful of displays and a couple of books, and his other claim to fame is appearing as a pornographic actor. This does not indicate 'notable person the world is richer for knowing about' to me. I have been accused of being a vandal because of, of all things, having not edited before and because of some link on some forum. How would the accuser know about that link, unless they are Zak Smith? Would attempting to defend your own page represent a conflict of interest and make you unable to argue it's merits rationally, does anyone know? Furthermore, I find it slightly ridiculous to be accused of being a 'new' account by an IP address that only started posting after my notability concerns arose. 63.23.1.197 (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering that he's been featured in the '04 Whitney Biennial, had some well-reviewed art books published (e.g. Washington Post and LA Times gave it good reviews), and has had numerous articles written about him in notable publications (such as the NY Times and Artforum) I'd say he meets the requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.159.170 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability/significance?

The following discussion 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.

---

I would like to restate my doubts as to the notability or significance of Zak Smith. A small-time artist and sometimes porn actor is not particularly notable. Despite the apparent age of this article. I think the question has not been proven so much as it's never been asked. After investigating some of the supplied links, I am now even more suspicious that the editor reverting my edits and accusing me of vandalism is Zak Smith himself. He seems to have participated in a flame war on a forum recently and may be sensitive to such things as a notability question of the wikipedia article about him. I will make no outright accusations without some proof but if it is Zak Smith, his editing and defense of his own page seems like it would be a conflict of interest. I would like an open discussion to determine the right course of action here, for the improvement of Wikipedia. 63.23.5.79 (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I've closed the RFC. You misunderstand what RFCs are for, and how notability works here. You are welcome to nominate the article for deletion instead (you will have to create an account first). The repeated addition of the {{notability}} template serves no good, nor is notability or a subject's merits for inclusion decided in the article's talk page. So, go ahead and nominate if you feel that is the right course of action, and please stop adding the template. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:58, 28 March 2014 (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.

Books

Zak has recently written A Red and Pleasant Land, a follow-up book to Vornheim for the Dungeons & Dragons game which has received good reviews. The reviews alone make this book noteworthy in my opinion: http://www.lotfp.com/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=190 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.234.22 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zak Smith. 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/20050603004305/http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/zak_smith/title.htm to http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/zak_smith/title.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Expired references

These reference links almost all need updating or replacing with archived versions, as right now the majority are broken.

1. Molossus is a dead website.
2. The Fredericks and Freiser link doesn't lead to Zak Smith.
3. The Kavi Gupta link doesn't lead to Zak Smith.
4. MOMA is working.
5. Turnstyle News is dead.
6. Fleshbot is working.
7. Escapist is working.
8. Artnet (1) is working, but does not seem relevant or useful, and should probably be removed.
9. VICE is working.
10. Artnet (2) is a link to a German webpage that does not appear to include the referenced article.
11. Dazed is working.

5 out of 11 links isn't a great ratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alma Coben (talk • contribs) 00:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I was just working back through previous versions and there were fuller articles in the past for example which mentions some of his awards, a version that would probably not been AfDed even if it needed work. I think they've had to be trimmed back partly becuase it smells of [[WP:PROMO] but largely because some of the sources expired (some are presumably in the Internet Archive) and it looks like quite a few references were added as external links and they were cleaned up. So I was trying to find a source for the statement that he is Jewish. He says so on Twitter but that isn't good enough but it was previously sourced to an expired link that it is possible to find that link on the Internet Archive. It should be possible to unearth more such expired sources to flesh out the article. For example, the Fleshbot link is dead, but Fleshbot (NSFW obviously) has tags for Zak Sabbath and Zak Smith which could be used to source the porn work. Emperor (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sexual Assault

Mandy Morbid, his ex-wife, has just recently posted a long article about the abuse she and others went through because of him. This, we think, is quite important. https://www.facebook.com/amandapatricianagy/posts/10215845527064252 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E4B4:4E4:65C7:3A27:DAFB:2773 (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the "accused sexual abuser" from the opening paragraph. I believe it's ridicolous to define a person because of unproved allegations coming from an ex wife, and unless being a sexual abuser becomes the main trait of his life I don't think it should be in the opening paragraph at all; I therefore strongly encourage to keep a neutral and unbiased POV while writing and refrain from using Wikipedia as your social battlefield. 151.30.32.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the material at the start of the article was inappropriate. There however was a section added at the end 'Allegations of sexual abuse' which seemed consistent with similar text on other pages. There are now multiple sources reporting patterns of behavior consistent with this report, see: https://tabletopsmissingstairs.blogspot.com/2019/02/zak-s-and-other-horrible-tabletop-people.html and http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2019/02/you-should-read-this.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.104.131 (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that the statement by Mandy Morbid would constitute an allowed instance of WP:PRIMARY. Especially since his minimal claim to notability is derived from his relationship to her. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hold on here please. May I remind you all of WP:BLPPRIMARY and your very serious obligation not to use primary sources that would go against our BLP policy? You must all wait until secondary sources that meet WP:RS have picked up on other people's allegations, and then and only then may you report that reporting in factual and neutral tones. I advise all editors not to post statements or links to any allegations on Facebook or blog posts until legitimate news sources have reported those concerns under due editorial scrutiny. We are an encyclopaedia reflecting what others have said about notable topics, and we do it in a neutral way. We are not a lynch mob promoting unsubstantiated allegations of crimes or misdemeanours. Be warned. I will be reporting to WP:ANI any editor who reinserts BLP material without suitable WP:RS. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate that you are supporting abusers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.126.95 (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not supporting alleged abusers - I've never even heard of this person; I am purely supporting Wikipedia. When I checked Google News before posting here last night, there was no coverage of any such stories anywhere. If there are today, then please go ahead and include content. Until that time, it is not acceptable to rely on Facebook posts to promote allegations of criminal behaviour. It is as simple as that. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Honest question because I don't know- do these count as appropriate secondary sources? They official (blog) posts from major RGP industry organizations- https://www.gauntlet-rpg.com/blog/the-gauntlets-statement-on-zak-s, https://oneblogshelf.blogspot.com/2019/02/drivethrurpg-responds-to-current.html?m=1 Webster100 (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that someone request that the article be protected or semi-protected at WP:RFP, at least for now. V2Blast (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Nick Moyes (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It feels weird to ask protection for an article covering an obscure artist like this one but it's probably for the best.Alves Stargazer (talk)

There are now additional accusations, by a second person. While this not meet your standards, I feel it is pertinent to report an additional source. https://web.archive.org/web/20190213060849/https://www.facebook.com/VivkaCriesWolf/posts/2478145012257909 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:21D0:3A40:AC71:CAD1:B857:9294 (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I understand how some of you feel in need to smack this guy down but let's be honest for a minute: there is no ongoing process, no sentence, nothing beside an ex-wife and an ex-girlfriend raising unproved and debatable accuses against a porn actor which still has to defend himself. Wikipedia is no tribunal, and unless we actually have some neutral source I'd ask everyone here to not fill this article of hearsays or slander.Alves Stargazer (talk)

Frankly the only article establishing notability for this person is an article from Vice called "Nik loves Mandy" - hiding behind an aggressive adherence to WP:BLP looks a lot like sheltering a person who is a notorious missing stair, and otherwise not someone Wikipedia should be commenting on. What I'm saying is that since the only notable thing about Smith is that he is an abuser who worked in media, to comment that he worked in media while ignoring that he's an abuser simply because newsmedia doesn't think "non-notable dirtbag abuses his spouse" is worthy of coverage is providing an abuser cover. This sort of nonsense makes the WMF look far worse than a "blp violation". Simonm223 (talk)

If I may give an analogous example, the Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal is allowed to stand because it cites multiple high-quality broadsheet news sources, including the New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian and BBC News. All of these have very strict editorial standards on what they will print, and have traditionally been aligned with journalists and printers' codes of conduct to avoid libel. Therefore, when they all print something on an event over a duration of time, we can take reasonable assumption that it is not libellous. By contrast, anyone can write a blog and anyone can write a Facebook post without any professional journalist qualifications, and should never be used. The Biographies of living persons policy on sourcing has further information, but in a nutshell - do not add potential libel to the encyclopedia. I don't know Zak Smith from a hole in the ground, and if you think he's not a suitable encyclopedia subject, I would recommend filing at a discussion at WP:AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So the bar for believing victims is nothing less than recognition by a national newspaper; any abuser below their notice gets to be as much a bastard as they want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7AA1:1160:80DD:E1F3:E5AD:E99A (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What I would like is for Wikipedia not to be a safe haven for blatantly promotional pages for media workers who beat their spouses. And that's what this page was. I'll note that somebody keeps reinserting the un-cited WP:PEACOCK material about all the positive things Smith is purported to do and the same people up in arms that we might report that he's been pulled from the biggest online RPG market seem to have no problem with claims that connect Smith's work to Pynchon, donates money to charity, etc. This double standard is deplorable. Simonm223 (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So I'm only commenting as an observer from the rpg scene, but what sources would be suitable for this? I do feel that if an event like this isn't being covered by sources wikipedia consider appropriate to cite, then the individual in question is probably not noteable enough to be on wikipedia in the first place.

Agreed. As things stand, there is a category of people who are notable enough to have a wiki page (because at some point in the past there may have been an isolated mention of them in a borderline mainstream news source), but who are not notable enough to have abusive behavior covered (because they are no longer of any interest to the media, or were only ever picked up by chance. I would suggest that Smith never really met the notability criterion and that the page therefore be removed. (FWIW, looking for me on google news turns up a dozen hits in the last year from media sources much more prominent than have ever mentioned Smith, and I'm certainly not notable enough to have a wiki page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.116.107 (talk)

As I have said (and has been said before), if you don't think the guy is notable, you should file a discussion at AfD. I've done this for you - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zak Smith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the industry statements listed above (OneBookShelf and Gauntlet, now the ENnies and several others) are not New York Times, but for tabletop RPG they basically are. With context, IF this individual is notable according to Wikipedia standards (and you have flagged that question), then these outlets must be considered notable as well given the context of the industry in which he works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.193.147 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

this also exists which seems like a secondary source to me? https://popcultureuncovered.com/2019/02/15/tabletop-rpg-community-snubs-zak-smith/

This was considered notable enough to be covered by the website "Pop Culture Uncovered," which has been cited as a source on Wikipedia before. https://popcultureuncovered.com/2019/02/15/tabletop-rpg-community-snubs-zak-smith/ 71.231.2.35 (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The sexual assault allegations are being reported by a number of news outlets. Whoever is conducting an edit war to remove the section regarding the allegations needs to stop.Stormkith (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

At this point the allegations are being reported on by polygon - https://www.polygon.com/2019/2/20/18232181/dungeons-dragons-zak-smith-sabbath-abuse-accusations-players-handbook - not a wikipedian but I assume this meets your standards of sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.51.178 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The allegations are single-source, self-published, violate BLP, are contentious, are contested by more eyewitnesses than originally made the allegations (they are allegations of ongoing continuous abuse, so eyewitnesses are relevant). The attempts to refer to other sources referencing the allegations are just attempts to get around BLP and introduce the issue by the same ongoing gamer harassment campaign that's been responsible for the many past vandalisms of the page. You just have to look at the many obviously poorly-sourced and subjective claims gamers have tried to drop on this page (as well as previous attempts to simply delete the page entirely) in the past to see that the motive here is not good faith. The state of the situation around the allegations is changing rapidly and each time it does there will be another edit war as these same trolls see an opening to vandalize the page, or blow up the current allegations so they become the dominant part of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FixerFixerFixer (talk • contribs) 18:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC) — FixerFixerFixer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Anonymous edit to this page and use of references

This anonymous edit removed content regarding publisher announcements relevant to the subject's career. I would like this edit to be reviewed, and if necessary reverted so that the content can be restored.

I'm concerned that there may be other anonymous edits to this page which have also removed content relevant to the subject.

Regardless of the reasons for these announcements or the character of the subject, these announcements remain as hard facts relevant to the subject's career. Here are some example references for relevant content created by publishers:

• https://oneblogshelf.blogspot.com/2019/02/drivethrurpg-responds-to-current.html
• https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1095486649977384960
• https://www.gauntlet-rpg.com/blog/the-gauntlets-statement-on-zak-s
• https://www.black-book-editions.fr/news-2262.html

Please advise regarding the validity of the above references for use on this page.

I will look for other sources and post them here. I wonder if other editors can respond to advise if they believe that these sources can be used on this page?

• https://popcultureuncovered.com/2019/02/15/tabletop-rpg-community-snubs-zak-smith/
• https://www.thefandomentals.com/new-allegations-against-zak-smith-spotlight-rampant-harassment-in-the-rpg-industry/
• https://www.geeknative.com/64538/the-rpg-industry-reacts-to-the-zak-s-with-bans-and-donating-commissions-to-charities/ Merxa (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• http://www.contessa.rocks/blog/contessa-statement-on-zak-smith Merxa (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please advise regarding the validity of the above references for use on this page. --Merxa (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It might be time to discuss the allegations at WP:BLPN. This is an issue that has received significant coverage within the RPG subculture but hasn't caught the attention of sources that we would normally consider to be reliable. Some of these blogs and social media posts seem to be reliable primary-source opinions, but I don't see any independent secondary-source coverage that could be used to establish WP:WEIGHT.

I do have a problem with the vague statements in this version: "On 12 February 2019, Steve Wieck announced that Smith's future works would no longer be accepted on DriveThruRPG. On 13 February 2019, Mike Mearls posted an announcement regarding the working relationship between Smith and Wizards of the Coast." It's not appropriate to mention these things while ignoring the reason. We either cover this or we don't. –dlthewave ☎ 04:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

OK That is a reasonable response. I can start a discussion at WP:BLPN. Merxa (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I have started a WP:BLPN discussion.Merxa (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Further anonymous edits to this page

Since my last post there have been further anonymous edits involving controversial content to this page, for example. If you have an opinion on the editing of this page, please post a response to the deletion or the BLPN. Thanks! Merxa (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please post your opinion on either proposals: 1) the page deletion or 2) that the controversial content is published on the page.Merxa (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) 2600:1700:7642:25E0:852A:B0EF:77D1:347C (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) because it's met notability guidelines for over a decade the subject has art in the Museum of Modern Art, Whitney Museum, and muultiple publications

I suggest the case for deletion is strong, for the reasons already listed on this page, and no I don't agree that the page has ever met the notability guidelines.Merxa (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the AFD/AFSD is obviously an attempt to remove a disliked person (regarding remain arguments, list of references from history gives enough reasons). Is stalinism Wikipedia's moto? 2A01:E35:8BBB:5D50:E0CB:C8E0:B642:6D2C (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article that you would like to declare at this time? Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 February 2019

Recent Accusations

The summary section regarding Zak's recent accusations is woefully underrepresented. "Emotional abuse" in quotes is frankly insulting to the victims.

At the very least, the section should indicate the multiple accusations (as of now, no less than four) out there right now, as well as reactions from major companies such as WOTC's removal of his credits, as well as the cessation of all further work as multiple companies have dropped him.

None of that is immaterial or false, as you can see from the following links. I'm not sure how this hasn't been updated, but I generally have more faith in Wikipedia than this would suggest I should.

Ms. Morbid's Accusation: https://www.facebook.com/amandapatricianagy/posts/10215845527064252blog

WOTC Responses: https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1095486649977384960 http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/dndstatement

GenCon Statements: https://twitter.com/Gen_Con/status/1096118847357169665 https://twitter.com/mforbeck/status/1097306061495767040

Other References on Accusations: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?6042-RPG-Writer-Zak-S-Accused-Of-Abusive-Behaviour https://www.thefandomentals.com/new-allegations-against-zak-smith-spotlight-rampant-harassment-in-the-rpg-industry/ https://www.gauntlet-rpg.com/blog/the-gauntlets-statement-on-zak-s https://oneblogshelf.blogspot.com/2019/02/drivethrurpg-responds-to-current.html https://www.facebook.com/kenneth.hite/posts/10214130904974060

I am disappointed to see nothing in that section but a defensive comment; I will be happy to write a dispassionate summary of the above. However I feel about it, this is a real situation, and if he's notable enough for an article, then these accusations deserve note as well. I would argue for editing, or total deletion. EWither he's relevant enough for these accusatoins to be recorded, or he's not notable enough for a page at all. Daemon8666 (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I'm surprised even that much made it past his defenders here; a very rigid interpretation of WP:BLP is being applied. Do you have a specific edit with reliable sources (not social media) that you would like to propose? Because if you have RSes for the recent controversy, I think a lot of people would welcome inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is polygon a reliable source? Not familiar with wikipedia standards https://www.polygon.com/2019/2/20/18232181/dungeons-dragons-zak-smith-sabbath-abuse-accusations-players-handbook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.51.178 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say yes. The polygon article should certainly be considered a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed.Merxa (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Google News

The following references have been included in Google News:

• Polygon https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2019/2/20/18232181/dungeons-dragons-zak-smith-sabbath-abuse-accusations-players-handbook

• Comicbook.com https://comicbook.com/gaming/amp/2019/02/19/dungeons-and-dragons-zak-smith-statement/

• Bleedingcool https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/02/19/dungeons-dragons-issues-a-statement-on-the-zak-smith-situation/ttps://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/02/19/dungeons-dragons-issues-a-statement-on-the-zak-smith-situation/

• AIPT http://www.adventuresinpoortaste.com/2019/02/21/wizards-of-the-coast-issues-statement-regarding-alleged-abuser-and-dd-contributor-zak-smith/ Merxa (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• 411mania https://411mania.com/games/wizards-of-the-coast-statement-dd-5e-contributor-zak-smith-abuse-allegations/ Merxa (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Merxa (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

These legitimate news stories provide the references needed to create a Sexual abuse allegations section within this article. Merxa (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Feb 22 2019 Fully Protected edit request

After several women accused Smith of abuse in February 2019, Wizards of the Coast announced they would be removing all references to him from the print and digital editions of D&D fifth edition. In addition, DriveThruRPG announced it would no longer work with Smith and would be donating its portion of any revenue generated from the sale of products by Smith already on the storefront to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network

Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This edit should be placed below the current paragraph of the Other Works sub-header of the Career section. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support - This provides a well-sourced description of recent events involving Smith, without giving undue weight or detail to the allegations. –dlthewave ☎ 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support - This paragraph should be added to the article. It captures the documented content well. Merxa (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Any update? Hey guys, I've been waiting three days on an answer to this edit request. Any help? Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done This page is not or is no longer protected and may be edited directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

info to add please

hi admins, could you please make a "Collections" section and included the following (MOMA words can be moved to it): "Smith's works are held by a number of galleries including MOMA, Walker Art Center, and Saatchi Gallery.

"References"

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a note Saatchi is an online storefront and having art there is just about as curated as having books on Amazon. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 Not quite. Saatchi Art (www.saatchiart.com) is a website where anyone can create a profile, but this is the gallery(www.saatchigallery.com). The two have only the name in common. The Saatchi Gallery is highly selective, Saatchi Art not at all. Vexations (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Industry awards.

Zak Smith received various RPG industry awards, noteably ENnies, the 'oscars' of the RPG world. The ENnies have now made an announcement regarding him, blacklisting him from further consideration for awards and banning him from the awards ceremony. :http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/ennie-award-announcement/?fbclid=IwAR3IYgA3MglX-SErgKmZpdUGxlc8eXJ5KLCLgEFZ8Ftwmk3b64eAYxyL8uM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.1.135 (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Assault accusations should be in the career section

The section is almost entirely about the industry response to the accusations; that's why I put it under career rather than personal life originally. The guy abused people - and his career was tanked for it. That's the notable hook here. Abusive porn actors are sadly common. Same with abusive RPG pros. It's less common for someone in either category to have his career crash and burn as a result. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. This came from his personal life, even if the main upshot of that has been repercussions in his RPG career. We've yet to see how this plays out in the medium to long term. We can adjust it accordingly later, as long as we keep this tight and well-sourced for now. Emperor (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

I'm keeping an eye on the page and will lock it down if the reversions continue. Emperor (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've locked down the page for a week - I expect to see discussion regarding sources, the BLP issues etc, being discussed here (though please do remember that BLP applies equally to talk pages) and if there's no consensus in a week's time, I'll consider extending the protection. Nick (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I got busy and couldn't keep an eye on it. I think the previous edit should probably be reversed as it removed too much and the edit before that would give everyone something to discuss, although no-one seemed that concerned about talking it through. Without any discussion on content I agree extending protection would be required, it is difficult to know motivations but the issue is still quite emotive. Emperor (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

So I'm uncertain about the lack of quality references. The references in the last version included primary sources from organizations affected and secondary sources associated with the gaming industry and balancing statements from Smith himself, the subject of the article, offered without interpretation. The source of information about the ban from Gen Con and ENnies appears to be the same quality as the source of information about the awards themselves, and Polygon is also the type of secondary source that would be cited for the bibliography and awards listed in the career section. I could be very wrong and would love to learn more if so, but would like to get a better sense of the type of secondary sources and primary sources being sought as high quality sources. Thanks! --AmandaTrust (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The editor who claimed the assault allegations were from primary sources only was making inaccurate edit summaries; we were referencing Polygon (website) which is the best quality source one can have for gaming news. I would like to know why this section has been, yet again, purged and the page locked absent this information which people worked very hard to properly source, and the inclusion of which was the reason this page survived a recent AfD attempt. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Like you, I am happy to use Polygon as a reliable source for the allegations, this side of legal action all we can really say is that these allegations were made.

The primary sources for the reaction of publishers doesn't seem unreasonable as long as we know they are the official outlets for that companies news. Equally the best source for award information would seem to be the awards themselves.

See my comments above for the state of the article I'd prefer it to be left in as that previous edit not only removed the accusations but also other information fleshing the article out. However, as the article has been the subject of far too many reversions and too little discussion so it would seem remiss of me to reverting it again without further discussion. Emperor (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm simply going to say that the only reason I walked back my !vote at AfD from delete to neutral was because reliable sources were found for these allegations. Aside from his career collapsing under the weight of these allegations, Smith is a painfully ordinary RPG professional of no particular noteworthiness, and I remain of the opinion that an article about Smith that excludes the incidents that form the basis of his notability is not an acceptable state of affairs per WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The sources I posted in the AfD was enough to satisfy myself that this article would have met the notability criteria before the allegations were made. What people think about the quality of his work (and I've seen plenty of opinions in both directions) is purely subjective and I'm sure there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about untalented people, that isn't really our concern at least when trying to demonstrate an article is notable. Emperor (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse Allegations

There needs to be a Sexual Abuse Allegations section created. I would be happy to compile the necessary authoritative references that document the allegations and the impact of this upon the RPG community. However, it seems as though any content relating to this subject will be removed. Is there any way to be able to add such content with any confidence?

The section under Personal Life is questionable - it references the subject's girlfriends. Is that necessarily lending any notability to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merxa (talk • contribs) 10:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

For now, I'd personally prefer to keep this as a tight paragraph in the Personal Life section (basically as it was before large quantities of the article were removed) as they are only allegations at the moment and there isn't much more left to say on the matter at the moment. If legal proceedings kick off (in one direction or another), then it might be time for a new section as long as it is discussed in reliable sources. Emperor (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Why was this article locked with the tight paragraph I drafted with a careful eye to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV using multiple WP:RSes deleted? Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for Nick but it seems that the priority was to lock it down to stop the edit war. You'd need to speak to Nick directly. Emperor (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: Would you care to comment on why this state of affairs was allowed to transpire? The article as it stands right now is worse than no article at all. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: It was protected to stop an edit war, and to allow the concerns regarding possible breaches of the BLP which led to that edit war to be discussed on this talk page. Nick (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: The edit summary that deleted the carefully crafted, BLP compliant paragraph on this controversy was explicitly misleading. High quality sources were deleted because the editor in question, whose edit you protected was upset we described Smith losing work over the allegations of assault. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: can you clarify "was upset we described" in your post, please. Nick (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: FixerFixerFixer is an SPA whose only edits are to this page. They routinely call edits they dislike vandalism, and every insertion they've made has been to fix the removal of unsourced WP:PEACOCK material related to Smith (such as his charitable donations) or to fix the insertion of unflattering details such as Smith being banned from awards, and removed from book credits and storefronts. I would propose that they very likely have an undisclosed WP:COI based on even the gentlest read of WP:DUCK. You have locked this page on their preferred version. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I locked the page to stop an edit war, and to allow allegations of breaches of the BLP to be discussed. I would suggest you actually begin discussion concerning the content and not the page protection, and I would appreciate clarification of the term "was upset we described" please. Nick (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: I am interpreting an SPA with a likely COI making misleading edit summaries to edit-war out reliably sourced due and notable information as being upset. If you wish me to strike through that assertion under those grounds I will. Now returning to discussing the material, per your request, the following was improperly deleted despite being carefully worded and thoroughly sourced to WP:RS:

Due to allegations of abuse, the online RPG storefront DriveThruRPG, owned by OneBookShelf, announced it would accept no new titles with Smith as a contributor and would be donating its portion of any revenue generated from the sale of products by Smith already on the storefront to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Wizards of the Coast announced they would be removing all references to Smith from the print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition. Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which published several of Smith's books announced that they would not do future projects with him. Smith has been banned from the ENnie Awards ceremony held at Gen Con. Gen Con released a statement stating Smith was banned from the convention entirely. Smith released a statement denying the accusations.

Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

References

As an entirely uninvolved editor here with absolutely no knowledge of this person, I have to say that I'm not aware of any changes in policy that would allow for Facebook, blogposts or PR pieces to be used to support rape allegations in a BLP. Praxidicae (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of the word rape: this is the first time I've seen that term used in relation to this article. Is there any background/reference for this? Merxa (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

As quoted above, the contentious paragraph only mentions "abuse" because that is the term used in the Polygon article mainly because its focus is on the fallout not the specific claims. The link given earlier from Fandomentals does go into more detail on what has been claimed and does mention accusations of rape. It's why I prefer the wording as it was because it focuses more on the impact it has had on his career (which is not controversial in itself) and avoided addressing the specifics of the claims made against him, which I think should only really be included in the article if this escalates to legal action. Emperor (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That's right. When I drafted the first sentence of that paragraph I very carefully limited it to what was explicitly stated in reliable sources - allegations of abuse. The only reference to the word "rape" in it was the name of the charity Drive Thru RPG promised to donate to. And that word only is used in the context of the proper name of an organization mentioned by primary sources as the organization they were supporting within the context of this controversy. Talking about themselves is a legitimate use of WP:PRIMARY sources, and the primary sources in the paragraph are exclusively used for groups to talk about their own reactions to the allegations reported by Polygon, a high-tier reliable secondary source. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The allegations are of abuse rather than rape and are sourced to Polygon (website) which is definitely a reliable source - the majority of other content is WP:PRIMARY, also supported by Polygon but speaks only to their own organizational responses to the allegations and as such are a legitimate use of primary material. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah a bunch of blogspot posts don't equate to anything reliable, period. As far as Polygon, none of what is there is substantiated enough to call it "well sourced" in any BLP. In fact this piece from Polygon doesn't even say the words "rape" aside from saying that there will be donations to an organization with rape in the title and the rest doesn't even cover allegations in any actual detail. WP:PRIMARY definitely doesn't apply to this either. Praxidicae (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Then we're back to the same bloody problem we were at before the AfD. We know he's notable, but it's for something we're apparently not permitted to discuss (the allegations). These articles were brought out at the AfD to estabish notability so if the Polygon article establishes notability but we can't use it, we can't actually meet WP:NPOV with regard to this otherwise mediocre and unremarkable RPG designer. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I can definitely understand the point of not suggesting allegations such as rape that were not made anywhere else and want to avoid making that assertion. I believe the primary sources were intended not to report allegations but to indicate that people Smith was notable for working with in the past (publishers, conventions, marketplaces, awards) and that are mentioned in his bio (which rely on the same quality of sources) were stating they would not work with him, admit him, or accept his work for consideration. Since his RPG work is significant, it seems like an attempt to boycott his work would be significant and those primary sources seem to indicate that without relying on more than common sense interpretation? --AmandaTrust (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This is what is driving me batty with this conflict. The impact these allegations had on Smith's career is the single-most notable thing about him, especially in that it's one of the first time we've seen a meetoo movement type moment in the RPG space. It's infuriating that we cannot create a fulsome article with regard to Smith but we also can't remove the white-washed article. Were I being pointed I'd be tempted to convert the page to a redirect to Me Too movement#US media and fashion industries. Of course I am not doing something so silly, but my point is that what we have here is just as gross a violation of WP:NPOV as that would be. Maintaining an article about Smith that doesn't mention what is very possibly the event that ended his career is ridiculous. Simonm223 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The point of my post in the AfD was to satisfy myself that he was notable before these abuse allegations and I'm personally happy that the article could have been in a state that would demonstrate notability before the recent developments. So it should, in theory, be possible to improve this article and we can then discuss the specifics of the paragraph discussing the abuse. Emperor (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The abuse allegations are single-sourced, self-published, contentious, contested (in many cases under penalty of perjury) by more witnesses than the original allegations and are part of an ongoing and rapidly-changing back-and-forth. The attempts to get around BLP by referencing slightly more mainstream references to the allegations are clearly not made in good faith: they're being made by the same gamer harassers who have been vandalizing this page for years. You only have to look at the repeated attempt to delete the page and insert poorly-sourced and subjective material over the years in order to see the motive. Every time the page is opened, they attempt any strategy possible to vandalize the page, get rid of the page, make the recent allegations dominate the page, etc. --FixerFixerFixer (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)— FixerFixerFixer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1. Polygon is not a self-published source.
2. Please disclose if you have a CoI with regard to Zach Smith.
3. Your accusations of vandalism are a stunning failure of WP:AGF and deeply inappropriate in this context. Simonm223 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The core of the problem, as far as I see it is that a notable (and apparently reliable) source is reporting claims made by a number of individuals. The question then is: Is including such a statement a WP:BLP violation?

Best I can tell from following the news (but not the more detailed discussion on the relevant pages) this is the core of the #MeToo movement. At least up to the point that criminal charges are brought that is the bulk of what happened in the early days and a lot of people have seen real world impacts to their careers and social standing purely based on the claims. This is pretty much what we've got here with the allegations of abuse. I feel Polygon is a reliable enough source to demonstrate that these allegations have been made and that is all that the contentious paragraph was saying about the allegations before demonstrating the impact it has had on his career.

I wonder if it'd be an idea to ask for input from editors who have been at the coal face of integrating #MeToo allegations into Wikipedia articles. Emperor (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Support - The allegations have been reported by reliable media sources, these news items were distributed by Google News, and numerous RPG industry companies have issued statements regarding their stance on the career of the subject directly as a result of the sexual abuse allegations. Merxa (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've only had time to skim #metoo related articles, but tried to focus on ones that did not result in charges or court cases. In the cases of Senator Al Franken, comedian Louis C.K., or adult entertainer James Deen, all seemed to add a section on the allegations as soon as they were recorded/reported by secondary sources. Some details were removed or edited for appearing in low-quality secondary sources, but in all cases the sexual misconduct allegations remained, though only reported as allegations. Where available, statements from the accused were included as they were in Simonm223's paragraph above. None of these are perfect analogies - all were covered very quickly by major news sources as was their aftermath, and were usually reported in secondary sources the day the allegations were made. While GenCon, The ENnies, DIY RPG, and Wizards of the Coast responses have been reported in Polygon and elsewhere (linked above in prior section on allegations), there's been no secondary sources reporting Lamentations of the Flame Princess's announcement nor the ENnies announcement. Those announcements do not add new information about the allegations but do indicate the response of specific organizations. --AmandaTrust (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That parallels what I found too. Although we should keep WP:CSECTION in mind. On some information not having secondary sources: following WP:NORUSH we don't have to get everything in right now, we could add what we can source properly and then discuss further additions on here until we reach a consensus. Emperor (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That works for me. --AmandaTrust (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick has this discussion resolved your concerns about WP:BLP sufficiently to reduce the protection level sufficiently that autoconfirmed users can re-insert the improperly deleted paragraph? Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer a little more input but it's definitely moving in the right direction - could you perhaps agree on exactly what you intend to add amongst yourselves if/when I drop the page protection. I also expect input from FixerFixerFixer and confirmation from FixerFixerFixer that they're going to abide by consensus and accept the outcome of what's agreed. I don't intend to unprotect the page and then have to re-protect it again due to edit warring (or indeed any further insertions of material incompatible with the BLP policy). Nick (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I'll start a new section on here and throw in an example based on the above discussion, so we can see how it looks. Emperor (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

See my comment below on that Nick FixerFixerFixer (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed update to "Personal life" section

Following the discussion above I took the contentious paragraph and scrubbed any primary sources so it is drawing on what is in the Polygon article:

Due to allegations of abuse, the online RPG storefront DriveThruRPG, owned by OneBookShelf, announced it would accept no new titles with Smith as a contributor and would be donating its portion of any revenue generated from the sale of products by Smith already on the storefront to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Wizards of the Coast announced they would be removing all references to Smith from the print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition that he had playtested. Kenneth Hite, who worked with Smith on Demon City: The Ultimate Horror RPG which was part way through its Kickstarter, apologised to anyone effected and he said he was going to donate any money he made from it to Connections for Abused Women and their Children. Smith has been banned from the ENnie Awards ceremony held at Gen Con. Smith released a statement denying the accusations.

NB: In the edit before the article was locked more than that paragraph was removed - the whole section on his RPG work and the awards he has won for it. I can't see how this material is WP:BLP violating and this can be added back in (although I'd want to move the awards to their own section as he has also been nominated for an adult movie award). Emperor (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion of this paragraph. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I tried to base this on the wording of the paragraph as it was, but reading it over I think it'd be best to move the 5th ed D&D information up into the first sentence as that is the reason this gained the attention that it did. The wording would remain the same. Emperor (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think you're right about moving the WotC information up front. Also, the article doesn't say the Kickstarter was ongoing at the time of the allegations but that it was almost delivered at that time. Also, the article doesn't mention the ENnies, just the ban from Gen Con (in the update near the bottom). Would the following paragraph work?

Due to allegations of abuse, Wizards of the Coast announced they would be removing all references to Smith from the print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition that he had playtested. The online RPG storefront DriveThruRPG, owned by OneBookShelf, announced it would accept no new titles with Smith as a contributor and would be donating its portion of any revenue generated from the sale of products by Smith already on the storefront to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Kenneth Hite, who worked with Smith on Demon City: The Ultimate Horror RPG, which was funded on Kickstarter, apologised to anyone effected and he said he was going to donate any money he made from it to Connections for Abused Women and their Children. Smith has been banned from attending Gen Con. Smith released a statement denying the accusations.

AmandaTrust (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Rather than separately supporting every single permutation of the paragraph, I'm going to just go on the record that I am less concerned with the specifics of para order as with the presence of the para in some form. Thumbs up and wikilove all around. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Good catch on the awards - I probably had them in mind as they were removed in the edit that also removed that paragraph and I will be adding them back in separately. The only tweak I'd suggest is that I put down that he playtested D&D 5E for WotC, where the wording is that he was listed as a consultant on it. I've read elsewhere that he playtested it but the process may have been more complex than that or everyone who pitched in got a consultant credit. So instead of "that he playtested" and put in... perhaps "which had credited him as a consultant" or something like that. We are trying to focus on what we can prove from the Polygon report after all. Emperor (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment As long as it matches what Polygon said, I'm good on the playtester/consultant issue. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaTrust (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support these allegations made up a large part of the argument to keep the article in the deletion debate, and make up a significant part of the notability of the subject. --Slashme (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support AmandaTrust's version with or without my suggestion of changing playtesting to consulting. Emperor (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support With thanks to AmandaTrust! Merxa (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

These edits and their content have to be seen in context of the near-decade of harassment the subject has received in the RPG sphere. The actual accusations are paper-thin, and proved false by signed statements from eyewitnesses, the accusers' family, and the accusers' own statements at the time and picked up currency in the gaming sphere (and only the gaming sphere) because of widespread gamer antipathy to the subject's activism in that world rather than because they have any credibility or notability . The attempts to edit this page to find ways to include them are a part of the larger harassment campaign that forced Gen Con, D&D et al to disavow the subject without an investigation. One only has to look at the history of edits and comments here to see that these edits are an attempt to take the accusations out of context and use them as another front in an endless war (occasionally anti-sex-worker, occasionally antisemitic) agains the subject. Either the charges--having been disproved--are not notable OR the harassment campaign that caused them to be taken seriously in the gamer world are more notable and should be the main thrust of the edits. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Fixer (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@FixerFixerFixer: The allegations of ongoing harassment and such are of no material interest to us, we are solely interested in what reliable third party sources say about the article subject. The inclusion of material you claimed to be violating the BLP (and some of which may have done, based on poor quality sources) has been edited into something that now meets the requirements of our BLP policy, and which has support from all significant recent contributors to the article other than yourself. Can you confirm you are not going to resume edit warring to remove this material and will abide by consensus decisions made here on this talk page. Your answer should include a Yes or No. Nick (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: No. The "Recent Contributors to the article" all dogpiled on after February 10th (when the allegations were made) to suggest a variety of hostile edits--they aren't disinterested parties, they're clearly part of-, or influenced by-, the harassment campaign. Ethnic slurs and seeking out a friend to tell her to kill herself 40 times in 48 minutes are undoubtedly harassment, as is this attempt to turn a tribal gamer argument into the largest section on the page. Compare this page to the February 9th version--they've effectively shrunk the page down to being about nothing _other_ than their issue. The "consensus decisions" is a bunch of harassers brigading the page. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: As for reliable third-party sources on harassment: FixerFixerFixer (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@FixerFixerFixer: The current proposed edits are an attempt to address that last part: What we can prove is that a) the allegations were made and b) that these allegations had consequences for his career, including statements from high profile companies. We can't address how truthful these allegations are as that'd require some in-depth reporting from a reliable source and, as things have died down, I suspect this will only happen if there is legal action. I'll look over the Matter article, but I've also got sources about his harassment of people online and was minded to not use it yet as it could leave this article more open to the kind of edit warring that got us to this point. I'll keep it in mind but would rather focus on the current proposal so we can continue editing this piece - as you point out the article was previously much larger (also see my comments a few sections further up) and I'd like to expand it again using the sources I dug up during the AfD and using archived versions of some of the links that were removed because the site was down. I should also point out we must assume good faith over other editors motivations. Emperor (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Emperor: and @Nick: - I'd noticed that protection had expired, but didn't want to add content without checking on Talk in order to avoid starting an edit war. --AmandaTrust (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm keeping my eye on the page in case the edit warring starts again. We can add the proposed edit in later, although it seems to have the universal thumbs up I'm not in any rush. I'll work on drawing together other sources to support other statements and so I can add a section on awards. Emperor (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)