Talk:Zak Smith

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 tōnes. 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.

Hi, Zed. The allegations are not 'single source'. One person go the ball rolling, which gave others the courage to speak out. Your official announcement was classic DARVO. The event is noteworthy, the fallout just as noteworthy considering the impact it is having on your career. 2607:F2C0:E4B4:4E4:CDB7:CBC6:2462:631 (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The recent edits to this page are clearly part of the long running campaign of harassment directed at Zak Smith, mixed in with a bunch of drama that is essentially interpersonal (not legal or criminal) between him and his ex wife. None of these abuse allegations have been substantiated in any way. Wikipedia is a totally inappropriate battleground for this. It's not serving the people involved nor the truth to let it play out here. When the page is unlocked, the section about abuse allegations should be removed, or at the very least, should be balanced with additional information available from sources equally reliable to Polygon that go into the harassment campaign, such as the Matter article (https://medium.com/matter/the-best-monster-38461c5cbbf1) and the BleedingCool article (https://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/07/07/this-is-why-tabletop-rpg-fans-cant-have-nice-things/). The Polygon article's source is the first person accounts of a few people, posted on their personal Facebook pages. It also links to Zak's response, which sources actual evidence and includes signed legal affidavits from his ex-Wife's father and several people close to the situation supporting Zak's story. The way this paragraph currently reads gives undue weight to one side of a controversial story without the other, despite the underlying sources being at least equal in reliability. The page should address the situation in a balanced way, or not at all. Precious Island (talk) 06:39, 10 April 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)

The concerns of Praxidicae, who said "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", have not been addressed at all by the current outcome. This article has been subjected to regular attempts at vandalism over years, long predating these recent unsubstantiated allegations. Allowing drama and infighting from the RPG community to leak into Wikipedia edit wars will not serve anyone. The article has now been pruned way back, with undue space given over to these allegations, giving an extremely skewed view of someone who has paintings in MOMA and has authored numerous books and other publications. We can't have it both ways: either this article should be a very brief overview of Smith's life and works (in line with the modest notability that seems to be the consensus) without undue attention given to recent and rapidly changing interpersonal drama, or it should be a detailed article going in-depth into both his work and his personal life. Precious Island (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Precious Island: Jee thanks Zak. Stick to one account. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:17, 11 April 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)

I've added the awards and a couple of other tweaks. Nothing controversial but it might rattle the hornets nest/ring the dinner bell. However, all edits need to be checked so it should help avoid any major issues. So if anyone wants to make a controversial edit they'd need to discuss it here first as I'd be minded not to accept it otherwise. I'll be going through sorting out references and doing some tweaks, then work on expanding the section on his career as this article needs a lot of improving and it was in a better state previously, although I won't directly resurrect content as I want to check what can be demonstrated by sources (some of which have been lost to link rot or various clean ups).

If it is felt that we've reached a consensus on the proposed edit then I can post that at some point. @Nick: are you OK with this? @FixerFixerFixer: you haven't commented on the edit directly, will you at least stop reverting its inclusion? Emperor (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@AmandaTrust: I'll give it a couple of days (so a fortnight since your post) and we'll move ahead with that paragraph unless @Nick: or @FixerFixerFixer: have ay finally comments. I'll busk up a final version based on my most recent comment on playtesting/consulting and we'll be good to go. I want to crack on and flesh this article out again, back towards the kind of length it was previously, and was wary about doing anything before resolving this as I don't want content lost in a revert war like last time. Emperor (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it all looks absolutely in order. I also trust that FixerFixerFixer will discuss here any concerns with the content rather than edit warring. Nick (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No, Emperor I'm 100% not ok with that paragraph being included as is, for the reasons already stated above--the change addresses none of the issues raised. Here's another source on the ongoing harassment . FixerFixerFixer (talk) 8:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@FixerFixerFixer: That appears to be a five year old article, how does it interact with the issues raising during 2019 which form the basis of the paragraph that other users wish to include. Do you have more recent sources which might allow the suggested paragraph to be further expanded to discuss the allegations of harassment in relation to the current allegations, perhaps ? Nick (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: This is all laid out here in the FAQ in more detail, but basically: the subject has been harassed repeatedly by gamers for almost a decade (thus the relevance of old articles, like the on cited and like this one --and thus all the many issues with vandalism of this page over the years). The allegations have been supported in the gamer world and only in the gamer world because of the previous harassment--which mostly took the form of smears. As already stated above, many supporters of the claims are now saying they don't care if the allegations are true, they support the claims out of general antipathy to the subject . The claim these allegations are substantive or relevant rests entirely on how they've been received not in the wider press, not in the art world, not in the porn press, but exclusively in the gamer world, where harassing the subject with false or unsubstantiated claims has been s.o.p. for a long time .

The problem I see is that: a) there have been accusations of harassment of and by Smith, if we include one side using the only good source, we need to include the other and b) there is no obvious connection between that and the current claims as they don't come from some random person online, but from people who have been close to him in his life and isn't connected to his online or RPG existence but his personal life. As I say, we can discuss the inclusion of harassment allegations but, pending some recent reliable secondary source, there is no way you can link a) and b) as they are separate issues (the only connections I see that people who aren't fans of his would use this as a stick to beat him with, but that has no bearing on the veracity of b) which has to stand and fall on its own merits). As it stands, you most certainly can't try and link a) to b) in a way to undermine b). So pointing to a) doesn't have any impact on the paragraph we've proposed which addresses b). Emperor (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. These aren't substantive or accurate objections: a) Harassment of the subject is attested in 3rd party sources (Bleeding Cool and the Matter/Medium article), screenshotted and proven in the links. It definitely happened. Harassment by the subject isn't attested in reliable third party sources and there is no evidence anywhere of it, even though it is all alleged to have happened over the internet and therefore should've been recordable. b) There are three obvious connections between the current accusations and the harassers: the false claims were spread by nearly all of the same exact people (same names and screen-names) involved in the original harassment of the subject, they weren't carried outside the game world (where the subject has not been harassed), and (again, in the links provided) when confronted with evidence the accusations aren't true, they justify letting them slide using the smears from the previous harassment. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC) — FixerFixerFixer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Bleeding Cool article details claims of abuse from Zak Smith - it isn't our place to say whether they are true or false but what we can demonstrate is those claims were made. The fact that people who don't like Smith supported the recent claims of abuse by Smith has no bearing on the truth of the accusations themselves. Most of the other sources are primary or blogs/forums and aren't usable here on Wikipedia. Emperor (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bleeding Cool article does not detail claims of abuse from Zak Smith. It details abuse of him--it details people harassing the subject. The fact that people who don't like Smith supported the recent claims of abuse by Smith has no bearing on the truth of the accusations themselves--but it does have a bearing on whether the claims are relevant or not. The entire argument for these claims' relevance comes from the fact that harassers found them relevant. Sources from the subject are usable--a subject's own blog record of things that happened to them is usable. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC) — FixerFixerFixer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Support for edit to go ahead Yes I'm happy for this edit to go ahead as agreed. Please add the agreed section to the page. Merxa (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment As a previous reader of his blogs, I feel a responsibility to point out that this FixerFixerFixer person is very likely to be Zak himself. He's using Zak's signature writing/argument style (eg. declaring his opinion as though it is established fact, overuse of lists, using the phrase "a decade long harassment campaign," refusing to give up the last word, sealioning and demanding evidence for everything). Not to mention their contribs page shows the account's only purpose is to perform damage control on this page and they have been doing this since 2014. Anyway, sorry if I'm stating the obvious, I just thought I'd point it out so you all had that context for the future. His detractors have pointed out that he is fond of using sock puppet accounts, so keep that in mind as well. This blog post of an RPG writer who previously was friends (and collaborator on Maze of the Blue Medusa) with Zak includes a reference to a time when Zak was caught in the act of impersonating one of his enemies on Reddit. Also I just want to say that personally I hope you guys do go ahead and make some modification, any modification soon because it's a really bad look to mention his relationship with Mandy Morbid without mentioning this. It continues to use her name to promote someone in a way I would assume causes her pain. I hope you guys go ahead with this change soon, thanks for listening! Acidbleu (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented the version proposed by AmandaTrust given the wide consensus including the abuse information has. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• So FixerFixerFixer (Zak) reverted the change. What's the protocol for this kind of situation? He is known for being bullheaded and refusing to consider an argument over until he wins so I would find it extremely unlikely that he will stop reverting. Given that he benefits from stagnating the conversation (the default here of making no changes is a victory for him), and that he has the most interest in this subject (because its about him), I think it's likely he'll outlast any other editors. Is it possible to make the paragraph protected? Acidbleu (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support & @Acidbleu: It is my understanding that we cannot protect a specific paragraph, and due to edit warring the whole article has now been protected again. I believe there is a clear consensus for the inclusion of the paragraph, and have given it my support. From my reading, FixerFixerFixer is the only user in opposition to the changes, and implying that it has not reached consensus is clearly not in good faith.  vwilding  ^talk 21:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support this paragraph absolutely, and also support FixerFixerFixer getting a topic ban. It's pretty clearly a single-purpose account, and the person behind it isn't here to discuss this in a productive manner in order to reach a consensus (they appear to be here to 'win'). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support the inclusion of the paragraph to the Personal Life section. It should also be noted that FixerFixerFixer is using debating tactics commonly employeed by Zak himself (such as refusing to accept a consensus while steering the conversation in a direction that more directly benefits him without addressing the issues at hand). Plus, looking over his account, it is clear through his contributions & credits that he is a Single Purpose Account. - Ishmayl (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 4 April 2019

Add the paragraph detailing Zak smith's abuse which had been discussed in the above section and was removed by FixerFixerFixer in this edit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support the re-inclusion of this paragraph. (Sorry, I'm not sure if us regular users are supposed to be putting in our support or if you all are mods or something. I'm new and just learning the ropes :P) Acidbleu (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done per the near-unanimous consensus demonstrated on this talk page. @FixerFixerFixer: if you edit war against consensus when the protection of this article expires then I will block your account. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• • @MSGJ: Why is this edit going forward when none of these issues raised have been addressed? To repeat: "These edits and their content have to be seen in context of the near-decade of harassment [1] 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 [2] 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 [3] . 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)FixerFixerFixer (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    • There is a consensus on article content. If you'd like to propose changes to that using reliable sources, you are welcome and indeed encouraged to do so, but it is now only you who feels this way, so continuing to edit war would be disruptive and will result in a block. Furthermore, please do not cast aspersions on other editors. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Amorymeltzer: To repeat myself: "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." The section should note the actions of Gen Con et al are not the result of accusations of abuse, they're a result of the harassment campaign that followed them. If they were reactions to accusations of abuse then Gen Con et al would've reacted by investigating--which they did not. (None of the witnesses have been contacted by the parties involved, for example). Since they were instead reacting to the pressure of a harassment campaign, they simply severed ties to avoid being themselves harassed. This has all been said before and is well-sourced. If these accusations are notable, the paragraph should read "Due to an ongoing harassment campaign stemming from Smith's activism in the RPG sphere, Wizards of the Coast and other companies were forced to sever ties with him. (u • t • c) 22:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

References

• • • • • This article is almost a stub, why is it locked with so little info on it except on the harassment thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmieHarker (talk • contribs) 07:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Outstanding Issues and Consensus

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

Discussion at BLPN

There is currently a discussion pertaining to this article at WP:BLPN. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Occupations

The occupations in the infobox (none), the lede (artist), and in #Career (artist) are incomplete. The categories + IAFD suggest "porn actor" (maybe "former"), the #Bibliography suggests "author" or "writer" or whatever is in those books + RPGs, and the #Awards are apparently for a "game developer" (notably not artist/author/actor).
Unrelated, the same source six times as only source for one paragraph is ugly. Maybe reduce this to two references (paragraph before last statement + last statement), and add his own view to the last statement, apparently he updated it twice.^[1] –84.46.53.188 (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)