Jump to content

Talk:Zak Smith

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rrraaaeee (talk | contribs) at 02:09, 6 July 2020 (→‎RfC: Allegations of Rape Sourced to Game Blogs and Fanzines). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Outstanding Issues and Consensus

RE: recent attempted edit , Jan 29 2020

Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

"For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including any material- in any article- that suggests this person has committed, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigation and arrests do not amount to a conviction."

- the individual page with edits made is not a public figure according to Wikipedia's rules, please lift autoconfirm to allow proper edits to this page

Note: Underscore789 was blocked for being a sockpuppet in March 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive#30_January_2020 Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing some points here. There is consensus that this is relevant. Not to mention, what most of the paragraph is talking about are very specific facts. Nowhere does it say "Zak is a rapist." Rather, it says, "Because he was accused, X happened," which are all true statements. Even if it turned out for the rape claims to be false, the statements regarding his ban from Ennies, DriveThru, et al would still be factual and relevant to the article as a person in the RPG industry. --Ishmayl (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be wary of anonymous or single purpose accounts lobbying against the administration decisions made for this page. The argument against deletion provided for the RPG industry related issues to be published on this page. Merxa (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly I've brought up major issues with the phrasing about the allegations in the "personal life" section and the entire article has had so much content erased it's pretty much only about the problematic paragraph. Every question I've raised has been ignored and everyone who argues against it or changes it has been accused of being me by editors here--that is not an assumption of good faith. I was asked to provide a sourced alternate paragraph and it's been provided. It was ignored--the fact that several editors making arguments assuming bad faith on the same page are ignoring other editors doesn't mean there's a consensus. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer[reply]

Note: FixerFixerFixer was blocked in April 2019 for abusing multiple accounts. Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been left in a sorry state and then locked. Practically all the valid content about this person's career spanning art, RPGs, and publications has been erased, and a paragraph about unsubstantiated allegations (which cites the one and only unreliable source six times in that one paragraph) is now dominating the page. This is clearly vandalism and needs to be rectified. Precious Island (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)— Precious Island (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@PeterTheFourth: a large chunk describing his artwork and books was removed with the edit summary that it was based on unreliable or self-published sources. Honeysuckle seems like a reliable art magazine while there should be no dispute about the LA Times or Huffington Post. Can't some of the descriptions based on those sources be reinstated in a neutral way? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts: I'm okay with reinstating some of the content in a cut down way, but not the reams of detail we had before - it's a question of how due things are. We don't need to list every single thing they've created, as that's already covered by the bibliography. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the amount of detail that was removed seemed excessive where it is a flowery description of his style rather a historical view of his career. However his works and style have been reviewed by notable academic journals (for example) and that arguably should be given greater weight than the controversial content. I am not an art expert though and cannot properly evaluate and summarise the criticism of his work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts: The 2006 book is listed in the #Art sub-section of #Bibliography, and I don't see why the questia.com excerpt from an article about it should be relevant, how about a wikilink to Gravity's Rainbow#Art in a new #See also section, or a 4th sentence in #Career?
See below for Honeysuckle, it's not my bold day, I won't try to establish new RS out of thin air without compelling reasons. For HuffPost see WP:RS/P#HuffPost, red flag. –84.46.53.163 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the publishing model of the Huffington Post. My example of the Chicago Review is that these are the types of sources that we should be striving for in discussing evaluation/criticism of his art. Peer-reviewed academic journals are the gold standard. It doesn't matter that it's behind a pay wall. Some editors have subscription access through their academic affiliations, and you can always request an article through WP:LIBRARY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest then the best way to use verified and true sources to properly cite and use for the content in this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artandcrypto (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See above, apparently some folks agree with Morbidthoughts, ignoring eight characters in #Personal life discussed below. –84.46.53.102 (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile above is archived, JFTR, because some single purpose accounts tend to ignore it, and because I didn't know WP:BLPCRIME in summer 2019. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rape Allegations and Fallout with Role Playing Games Industry

I have reverted a recent change that saw a large and reasonably well cited section on the rape allegations and resulting fallout removed and replaced with a short section praising him. If there are problems with the section it should be discussed here, not suddenly deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.189.112.210 (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far for the wonders of semi-protection, I used a copy+paste variant of {{Uw-delete1}} for this business.
JFTR, HoneysuckleMag.com  is used only once as source on enwiki, therefore it might be no RS, otherwise another source for some BLP details (found in the reverted edit) could be fine:[1] The second TheFanzine.com  source could also do this, but I can't as IP, some silly edit filter insists on no Fock and Purn  in references without log-in.
TL;DR: Only one source for adult film is too minimalistic. –84.46.53.163 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction Rrraaaeee (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You conveniently left out the preceding sentence. "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures". Smith is a public figure who has been featured in books, videos, newspapers, and a bunch of porn videos. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May people have published media wouldn’t be considered public figures. Generally social media personalities have a large out a reach of 40k followers or more on each platform. Arguably he’s not a mass public figure, nor a social media personality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_celebrity Rrraaaeee (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naw. He's a public figure. Voluntary even. He was an adult actor for several years so he put himself in the limelight. Hell he's written nationally published books about it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Rrraaaeee was blocked for being a sockpuppet in March 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive#30_January_2020 Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." This guideline seems extremely clear and obviously applies in this case. The rules need to be followed. There's currently a lawsuit pending against the accuser for defamation. If the original unsubstantiated accusations can be included here, then surely the details of that defamation case can too? IMO neither belongs on this page because nothing has been settled or proven in court or any credible investigation. The referenced source of the accusations itself references nothing but the accuser's own social media posts. No actual journalism or investigation is connected up anywhere in the chain, and this kind of unsubstantiated information doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Precious Island (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)— Precious Island (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Wiki policies are fairly clear on the subject. Is it noteworthy and relevant? His infobox lists him as known for RPG development, and he's been 100% banned from the ENnies and Gen Con; I'd call that both noteworthy and relevant. Is it well-documented? That paragraph has five sources, that's pretty well-documented. Cut and dried. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing stated has to do with accusations of crime policy. The sources are all just in reference to each other. The allegations are not proven. Recent attempted edit, 19:41, 29 January 2020

Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

"For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including any material- in any article- that suggests this person has committed, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigation and arrests do not amount to a conviction."

- the individual page with edits made is not a public figure according to Wikipedia's rules, please lift autoconfirm to allow proper edits to this page Underscore789 22 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2020 (EST)

Note: Underscore789 was blocked for being a sockpuppet in March 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive#30_January_2020 Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.“ as far as the “it doesn’t apply to public figures” comments, I feel like the wiki page makes it pretty clear that Wikipedia isn’t trying to push the narrative of being a tabloid or gossip page, it seems less informing the public of facts and more forming a negative narrative with a disregard for evidence. Xone21gunsX (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." NekoKatsun (nyaa) 03:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find no evidence on this article that would support the opinion of Xone21gunsX.Merxa (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Xone21gunsX was blocked for being a sockpuppet in February 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive#01_February_2020 Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find the inclusion of the second paragraph of the 'personal life' section to be problematic. While the contents of the pharagraph (results of allegations) may be accurate, the allegations themselves have not been proven true at this point. To my knowledge no criminal charges has been filed against the subject. Several court cases related to libel against the subject are currently ongoing, at least one of which has been completed in favour of the subject. It seems to me the second paragraph has been included to hurt the subject, which I beleive is not what wikipedia is about. I suggest the problematic content is removed.Midtre (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC) — Midtre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I disagree that it is problematic. If we just say WoTC, OneBookShelf, etc will no longer work with Zac Smith without listing the reason, then it doesn't make sense. The reported allegation gives context for why these major companies in the RPG space won't work with Smith. It should perhaps be moved into the career section. Per NekoKatsun, WP:PUBLICFIGURE states "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". This allegation is noteworthy because it has a direct link to the professional fall out. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are these reliable sources?

As a Wikipedia admin, I'm concerned that the three refs cited in the Personal Life section may not be sufficiently reliable sources to meet our BLP requirements: they are not exactly the NY Times or People magazine. In fact, it appears that The Fandomentals and ‎‎Pop Culture Uncovered‎ have user-generated content mirroring social media posts, with minimal editorial oversight. If so, that doesn't meet our standard. I don't know about Polygon and would appreciate additional input.  JGHowes  talk 17:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the Fandomental editorial staff and its writers.[2]. The PCU is less clear.[3] Throw in 411Mania which also reported on this.[4][5] Since these are niche publications, we should consult with editors who are familiar with the gaming community to comment on the reliability of their reporting. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Throw in Bleeding Cool[6] and comicbook.com (a Gamespot site)[7][8] while we're at it. The sources do not merely mirror the original allegations and press release, they report on them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about this. Note that author of the polygon story is an expert, possibly independent. There is an "editorial policy and ethics" link at page bottom, which leads to [9], which says "Polygon makes every effort for stories to be completely accurate upon publication. Inaccurate stories will be corrected but not removed.", implying there is some degree of editorial oversight. However, I have expressed concerns above, about Polygon among others, that the fact that it re-reports social media without a conviction being recorded makes me suspect that its standards about what to report are not up to mark despite whatever it says in its documentation. Gryllida (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources do not have to confirm that the abuse actually happened to report on whether allegations have been made. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. You keep conflating the two issues. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should go ahead and ping the non-banned people involved in these discussions[10][11] the past year about the allegations and the sources. @NekoKatsun: @Merxa: @Nick: @PeterTheFourth: Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a year, I'd go back through the Archive, but I seem to recall consensus was that Polygon was reliable. I also recall we had some extensive discussion about making allegations versus reporting on allegations. I would say, in light of how many news outlets have reported on #MeToo related allegations made on social media, I see no significant issues about allowing a source which reports on a serious allegation made via social media, as long as the source itself meets the usual criteria for a reliable source. I've said this previously, if there's a concern about the source and the participants here can't come to agreement, head over to the reliable source noticeboard and discuss those sources to see what the crowd there think. It may be that there's evidence elsewhere that the source is good, or that it's shoddy and unreliable. Nick (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two issues relating to the validity of the references are as follows: 1) In terms of the role playing publishing industry, the references cited are the most reliable format available based upon consideration of all references created by publishers in that industry. It's just not the high technical standard of a refereed academic journal that you are ever going to see published by the industry. This is as good as it gets. Furthermore, as its relating to personal matters by definition, how much effort do you think publishers will be prepared to go to publish content on this topic? Particularly when you consider the litigious behaviour of the subject. They take a risk by daring to publish anything on the subject, and therefore significant weight should be placed upon what effort they took. 2) The nature of the references is related to the actions that the publishers have taken. That is, the content is undeniable fact, since it represents exactly the actions taken by the publishers in response to the offensive behaviour of the subject. The content cannot be disputed, it doesn't reflect opinions or bias, merely historical factual record.
The continued efforts to undermine the work on this page such as continued removal of material, and contesting references really goes to undermine the integrity of this website. Furthermore, it serves as a campaign to whitewash the history of the subject. Merxa (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the sources Morbidthoughts lists above:
  • I would second that Polygon is a reliable source and many gaming wiki articles rely on its articles to meet notability. It is one of the Vox Media brands.
  • 411Mania appears to have gotten its start in reporting on wrestling (and is primarily used as a reliable source in wiki wrestling articles) but at some point branched out into other topics including D&D. I would have to do more research to figure out exactly when. I have definitely used its D&D reviews as a source before for 5E articles.
  • Bleeding Cool is known for breaking information in the comic book sphere (from secret projects to sexual harassment accusations). Similar to 411Mania, at some point they started to branch out into the wider niche of geek/gaming topics.
  • ComicBook.Com is about the same as Bleeding Cool in terms of what they cover & how reliable they are. This is a 2017 article from a competitor that breaks down how much each comic book news site (including itself, Bleeding Cool & ComicBook.com) actually covers comics versus other topics: https://www.comicsbeat.com/breaking-news-only-30-of-the-news-on-comics-news-sites-is-actually-about-comics/
  • I've never come across The Fandomentals before. The article from 411Mania (linked above) gives a "hat tip" to The Fandomentals: "However, he has also has a history of harassment, having been accused (h/t to Fandomentals) of attacking marginalized groups and sending his fans to attack his critics. There was an uproar against White Wolf when he was hired to write We Eat Blood, though the claims were largely ignored by the publisher".
I primarily spend my Wikipedia time on D&D articles & have used most of these sites as reliable sources. If I had the above sites reporting on a new D&D adventure book I was creating an article for, then I would typically rely on Polygon & 411Mania to be the strongest reliable sources for the article and then I would site Bleeding Cool & ComicBook.com for any missing nity gritty niche details. I'm not sure I'd use The Fandomentals simply because I don't know enough about it. I agree with Merxa - it is highly concerning that there appears to be an ongoing attempt to whitewash the subject especially at the expense of reliable references that are used all over Wikipedia in the gaming niche. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


JGHowes, what would you suggest from there? I don't think these sources are lying, but from my perspective such information is not acceptable for inclusion in a BLP as these allegations are not confirmed. Gryllida (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is just a rehash of what I said in the above section "Rape Allegations and Fallout with Role Playing Games Industry" - WP:PUBLICFIGURE states "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". This allegation is noteworthy because it has a direct link to the professional fall out (ie. WoTc, OneBookShelf, etc will no longer work with Zac Smith). The reported allegation gives context for why these major companies in the RPG space won't work with Smith. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Allegations of Rape Sourced to Game Blogs and Fanzines

Should allegations of rape against this BLP be included if the only available sources are roleplay game fanzines and blogs? (At present the second paragraph of "Personal Life" details criminal rape allegations made by persons, via social media post and spoken word, against the subject of this article. These allegations are sourced to thefandomentals.com, popcultureuncovered.com, and Polygon Magazine.) Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove Until or Unless Conventional WP:RS are Available By conventional RS I mean daily newspapers or their websites, TV or radio broadcasts or their associated websites, academic journals, etc. While the sources in the article may (or may not) be RS for purposes of documenting when a game was published or who worked on what expansion of X board game, I don't believe blogs and fanzines like popcultureuncovered.com (which bills itself as "The Place for All Things Geeky", uses authors who don't post their surnames, and has no About page or physical address by which it can be held liable for what it publishes) has the journalistic capability or capacity to conduct original crime reporting. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the reliability of a source for one type of reporting does not make it universally reliable. We would not source an article on Quantum field theory to Snowboarder Magazine, nor should we source crime reporting to Polygon. I believe content in this article runs afoul of criteria 1 of WP:GRAPEVINE as well as our customary high threshold for inclusion of potentially controversial material on WP:BLPs generally.
    (For full disclosure, I have previously expressed concern about using RPG fanzines and publications in any manner in BLPs. In August 2018 I started this thread on the suitability of Designers and Dragons for BLPs. Also for disclosure, earlier today, I posted a message on JGHowes' [12] Talk page [prior to opening this RfC]; this was not intended to canvass him here, rather I was still undecided about a course of action, and I apologize in advance for any appearance of impropriety.) Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Polygon is a Vox Media property and is a reliable source, not a 'blog'. - MrOllie (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is corporate structure indicative of reliability? Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made". While Polygon may be RS for reporting on games, I don't believe a reasonable person would consider it a RS for crime, breaking medical news, the war in Syria, etc. The other two sources are even less so; one doesn't even have a physical address and uses pseudononymous authors (a byline that reads "Brooke H." is not usually the sign of Pulitzer-eligible reporting). Chetsford (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is WP:RSCONTEXT can't apply because such a person isn't notable enough for coverage in NYT or WSJ. If mainstream popular media doesn't cover him for his occupation, they certainly won't cover him when he's accused of assault. In other words, his notability on wikipedia comes from niche gaming sources, so allegations against him coming from the same sources shouldn't be a problem. - Harsh 21:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that perspective, however, I would counter that these sources aren't even viable for the career aspects of a BLP. For instance, popcultureuncovered.com is an anonymous blog. We have no address of business, no (full) names of authors, it's never been cited by other RS. Also, if he's so low-profile that mainstream media won't cover him at all, he's a low-profile individual in which case WP:BLPCRIME comes into play which requires that (in the case of LPIs) "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". In any case, I very much appreciate your feedback and your taking the time to comment! It's given me a few things to think about. Chetsford (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to re-read WP:LPI - A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. There could be a scope of different interpretation in the reading (especially the other criteria in lpi guideline) but I think the subject qualifies for lpi even though being an author, artist, and adult movie actor is inherently an attention-seeking profession. But you are spot on with BLPCRIME. - Harsh 22:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - they are reliable enough to report on news about the gaming industry, including the industry's reactions to these allegations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, but with language that emphasizes that these are allegations not proven in court. Otherwise, there would be a hole missing as to why Smith has been "cancelled".
Also, do you think someone should perhaps advertise this discussion on WP:BLPN or WP:RSN as well as the feedback request service? I'm a bit concerned, not about good faith, but about people unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy incompetently adding in/removing the allegations against consensus. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 20:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"advertise this discussion on WP:BLPN or WP:RSN" Good suggestion, I dream of horses. No objection from me. Chetsford (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford,  Done I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 04:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While at it, I have gone ahead and notified the following wikiprojects, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include As per my comment above. The RfC was made on a very stern interpretation of wiki policies in my opinion (Disclosure: I was invited through FRS). - Harsh 21:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to take back my include vote. WP:BLPCRIME for low-profile individuals is very clear. "Editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". - Harsh 22:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • exclude Per above. - Harsh 22:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include 1) The sources used are considered reliable for the RPG/gaming space. 2) RPG companies (WoTC, OneBookShelf, Gen Con, etc) took direct action due to these allegations (ie. not working with Smith, etc). If we just say X, Y, Z no longer work with Smith without context, then the article doesn't really make sense. Regardless of how true the allegations are, companies made public business decisions based on the reports. 3)The AfD sided with Keep mostly on the basis of including these allegations with these sources. If we remove the allegations & all the sources, then I think this article should be put back to AfD. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no point in discussing whether the person fails notability and therefore a subsequent AfD. BLPCRIME is very clear. For LPIs, don't include any allegations, before a conviction. - Harsh 23:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A different interpretation can be made after a reading of Characteristics of high- versus low-profile figures in LPI. An adult actor does not seek public attention just because he/she features in a video. Such a person doesn't do Promotional activities unlike hollywood movie stars and their Appearances and performances aren't in the public space. They lead a normal life outside their work. - Harsh 23:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not too well aware of the person's career, but is he a live streamer, or an artist and author of RPG books? If the the latter then it could be considered a non attention-seeking profession. - Harsh 00:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the crux of the analysis is that, if he is a public figure, we should be able to source better references than anonymous blogs like popcultureuncovered.com for criminal accusations. But, if he's so low profile that the The Syracuse Post-Standard won't even run a three-sentence police blotter on, then he's - by definition - a LPI. Chetsford (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the fundamental issue is that you (as you said up top) don't consider sources like Polygon or 411mania reliable sources while other editors in the RPG space do. Also, your police blotter example is hyperbole. What was reported was allegations and he was never arrested by police (so something like local news wouldn't have covered it). We also have primary sources where businesses made statements that they won't work with Smith again & that they're donating money to RAINN. For example, the WoTC statement (a subsidiary of Hasbro): 1. Tabletop Role-Playing Games and the Experience of Imagined Worlds listed Smith as an "influential gamer": 2 Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fair point. However, the WOTC corporation is - in my view - not a RS. In this discussion it was discovered that they falsified information about one of their own authors. I'm unclear how we could trust their press releases to reliably and independently report on their other authors. Chetsford (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever weirdness with Salvatore aside, WoTC said they were removing the Smith credit & not working with Smith again. That has a direct professional link to Smith (given that WoTC is the big fish in the RPG industry pond). Also, other RPG companies took similar actions (ex: OneBookShelf 1 & Gen Con 2). What I'm trying to understand is, if we removed the allegations does that mean removing references to companies saying they're no longer working with Smith? Because again, if we're striving towards accuracy - it is a fact that RPG companies publicly disavowed Smith and will no longer work with him. For an RPG designer, that should be clearly part of his career section. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...if we removed the allegations does that mean removing references to companies saying they're no longer working with Smith?. Maybe we can mention in a single line that xyz companies refused to work with him because of sexual assault allegations and leave it at that without going into details. This sounds absurd but there's no no choice. BLPCRIME cannot be overridden and mentioning that xyz company has refused to work with him is also important and cannot be left out. - Harsh 18:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • if we removed the allegations does that mean removing references to companies saying they're no longer working with Smith - Yes, I think so. Per WP:PRESSRELEASE, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. If WOTC is promoting their products as "Zak Smith free" through a press release, and that hasn't been widely reported by WP:RS, it would be hard to make the case that it would be appropriate to try to cram that in here. Since this has only come about in the last three months and it appears he has a several decades history in game design it would probably also be a case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:UNDUE to include it in this very succinct and short biography. Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WOTC refusing to work with him and publishing news of such event on their website should not be included in the bio. You are right because that would be just a PR activity per WP:PRESSRELEASE. I agree with you there. But another Reliable source (Polygon) publishing a story of such an event does carry some weight I guess and needs mentioning in the article. - Harsh 21:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Chetsford's excellent reasoning. On a sensitive BLP issue, we need actually reliable sources to cover it at all. These sorts of accusations have a serious impact on people's lives in the real world, so it's especially important to get it right. (t · c) buidhe 05:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude for now. Polygon is the best source of the list currently in the article. All of the sources listed are gaming related, and not of the caliber we expect for crime allegations. Furthermore, the sources themselves mostly repeat DND's statement, with little analysis of their own. This should not be included until better sources cover it.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude until there are high-quality sources per WP:SUSPECT and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE":
"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." --WP:SUSPECT
"Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." --WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE
--Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Wiki policies are fairly clear on the subject. Is it noteworthy and relevant? His infobox lists him as known for RPG development, and he's been 100% banned from the ENnies and Gen Con; I'd call that both noteworthy and relevant. Is it well-documented? That's more of a debate, but I believe the sources we have are reliable, especially for the standard we tend to hold gaming articles to. I will also note that this article has a frankly jaw-dropping history of sock- and meat-puppetry, almost all of which were trying to have these allegations removed, and almost all of whom are now indef'd, which is something unrelated editors may want to have a look at. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, in "Career". RfC statements should be neutral and this one is far from it; I recommend it be changed. Onto the matter at hand: without the context of the allegations, we are unable to properly cover Smith's career as there would either be no explanation for why he was dropped from OneBookShelf etc. or no mention of such facts, when they should form a significant part of any biography on the man. Polygon is reliable enough to report these accusations and the other sources are reliable for the specific consequences of the allegations that they are cited for. However, this is not a "Personal life" detail but something that belongs under "Career" as it has received coverage not primarily because it's a personal detail about his life, but because of the responses by companies he worked for. — Bilorv (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. His hosting of a livestream game makes him not a low-profile person, and the use of Polygon is a reliable source. oknazevad (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove in agreement with Chetsford's reasons, as well as Buidhe. The source isn’t not reputable enough, and leaving in these accusations without reliable sources are harmful. Rrraaaeee (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&oldid=966260390"