Talk:Gab (social network)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RE: the lede[edit] Whatever consensus of POV warriors are here should take a look at that. I dont like far-right politics, but this article is NOT NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwill0415 (talkcontribs) 04:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

↑I reverted 4 consecutive edits by this user, who accused other contributors on this page "POV warriors" while injected unsourced/poorly sourced personal opinion, falsified quote, removed referece, and inserted undue attrubutions to delegitimize citations. Claiming article PoV while soapboxing isn't new, we've seen this. And if you don't want to attract any more sanctions, please let this be your last such edit, Will. Tsumikiria (T/C) 10:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

it is a fact that this article was written by POV warriors. To suggest otherwise is a gross insult of everyones intelligenceWillwill0415 (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
No, it isnt a fact. Whilst I do personally believe that users like Tsumikiria have pushed non-neutral views into the article, it certainly is not 'Intended'. If you believe that something is violating NPOV, you can discuss it here. Rogue editing isn't the solution, discussion is. Not following WP guidelines affects us all, so please follow them when editing an article. Ridiceo (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The lede seems like a way to state 6 different times that a censorship-free platform has a right wing userbase, while minimizing its anti-censorship stance to imply it took some kind of advanced social engineering on Gab's part. Can you imagine any platform with a liberal or left-leaning userbase having the demographics repeated 6+ times? Then pointing out how the individual left wing papers compete with each other? You could just use this sentence alone,'Gab's target market are those banned from major social media platforms, which takes the form of extremist right-wingers.' This sixth paragraph of this source says that [1]. And that's it! That condenses all of the following repetitions of demographics in a lede: "The site stated conservative, libertarian, nationalists and populist internet users as its target markets.[14] Gab has been described as "extremist friendly"[15] or a "safe haven"[16] for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[15] Two academic papers criticized Gab's free-speech policy as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide",[17] and blamed free-speech for creating "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".[18] Gab attracted migration of users banned from other social networks, including members of the far right. The site recognizes far-right websites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars as its competitors.[14]", and says the same thing held to the same standard of weight as other platforms. Willwill0415 (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The lede reflects what reliable sources say about the topic. Most sources emphasize the far right/neo-Nazi aspect of the site, and most sources do not take the "free speech" fig-leaf seriously. Volunteer Marek 04:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Will is not going to accept anything. He's a right-wing warrior and is probably heading for a topic ban. Arguing with him is probably not worth your time.--Jorm (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I probably agree alot with Will on alot of things, but I also realize that this is Wikipedia. Wikipedia isnt here so that you can spout your personal views, It's here to document all relevant information on a topic. This includes (unfortunately) far-right presence on their platform. I believe this should be included in the article, just not in the lede. Ridiceo (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The only reason Gab exists (for now) is for Nazis to yammer at each other while claiming that they're free-speech martyrs. It stays in the lede.--Jorm (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
That's an opinion. We don't use personal opinions to choose what stays in an article or not. The claim in the lede "Known for it's far-right user base" isn't supported by any of the sources that are cited. I've already explained this in previous discussions. The lede also violates WP:NPOV by ignoring views by reliable sources that describe Gab as a "Free speech" platform or describe Gab as being de-platformed, whilst including sources that label Gab as a far-right platform. There is also question to whether "far-right user base" has anything to do with why the website is notable. None of the sources cited describe a user-base that is far-right on Gab, nor did the website (Gab) become popular in the media because of a supposed far-right user base. This has all been well discussed. Ridiceo (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, during discussion, another user added more sources to it to distract from the main concerns of that discussion, I looked over each and every new source, and none of those discussed a far-right user base either. It seems they were trying to distract from the main concerns by flooding the page with more "sources" to waste my time. They never explained why these sources were added, nor did they explain how they support the claim that Gab is "Known for it's far-right user base". Ridiceo (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Ridiceo, The (sources describe the sites userbase as mostly conservative. The citation saying those on the right are Gab's target demographic according to the SEC filing is accurate. Gab's CCO denies the platform has an ideological bent, but admits it attracts those on the far-right [2]. The problem isn't the fact that this article points out that the site has a far-right userbase (accurately). The problem is that POV warriors conflate the platform structure with the userbase by purposefully minimizing the site's hands off approach which many secondary, reliable sources describe as a free speech policy without quotations. What do you think about keeping far-right, but just condensing the demographics to a single sentence in the lede and a single subsection in the article? As that is the way most articles are written, for good reason, it is a NPOV way of writing. Repeating the same demographic point over and over and over (demographics) is just meant to propagandize, not really inform about how a business is run. And no Jorm I'm not far-right, I've spent many year in left-wing activism, but that's a site tangent I don't want to pollute this page with you trying to start a baseless ad-hominem fight.Willwill0415 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I know who you are, Will. --Jorm (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The articles don't say "far-right" user base. In any of them. A "Mostly conservative" user-base is not even remotely the same as a "Far-right" user base. These sources don't reflect the full claim that it is "Known for it's far-right user base", nor do any of them discuss Gab as having a far-right user base. Whilst i do agree that demographics of a site should be included, I don't believe that they should be included in the lede, because it does not accurately represent what the site is about. Whats notable should be included in the article, but it doesn't necessarily need to be included in the lede. I've tried discussing this, but other users attack me, rather than my concerns on the issue. Removing this claim from the lede, and possibly moving it somewhere else, and re-stating it so that it actually reflects what the article states or implies, is what i want. I don't want to "white-wash" Gab in any way, like other users have accused me of doing, but I also don't want information that falsely attributes something to Gab. There only needs to be a single section on the issue, not something that's repeated throughout the article, as you just said (unless that piece of information directly pertains to something else stated). I believe there should be a section on demographics, and a section named controversies that documents world events that involved Gab in some way, shape or form. Consistently, editors have tried to minimize the "Free-speech" aspect of the article, and push the "Far-right" attribution to Gab. There needs to be something done, and I feel as if there aren't enough editors on this page to reach consensus. My main goal as of now is simply removing "Known for it's far-right user base" for 3 reasons: 1. The sources cited don't support the claim as a whole, 2. It violates NPOV by falsely attributing far-right to Gab and by suppressing other information by reliable sources that mention it's "Free speech" aspects, and 3. A "far-right" user base isn't the reason that Gab is notable. Almost all of these articles state a world event, rather than simply a "Far-right" user base. Ridiceo (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ridiceo: No, BRD isn't a's a supplementary page to both a policy and a guideline. It is good that you are in mid-discussion here; you are, however, expected to honour the discussion as a search for consensus, and that means not removing relevant material until such a consensus appears. I note that it has not yet done so. I also note that you are under the misapprehension that [[WP:3RR] gives you three "free" reverts, before going over which you cannot be blocked. This is, unfortunately, a common misunderstanding. ——SerialNumber54129 18:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: I was not using 3RR rule as a "3 free reverts", i was using it to further explain why the edit was made. I explained thoroughly in both the talk page and in the description of the change. You ignored these reasons and continued to revert changes without explaining why you reverted them. Just because you disagree with the edit, doesn't mean you should revert it. Ridiceo (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind also, these concerns were brought up over a week ago. Those concerns were archived, despite being still relevant and undiscussed. I've made these concerns crystal clear, and not a single user has responded directly to the concerns raised. Ridiceo (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A list of issues with this article.[edit]

Neutral Point Of View[edit]

This article has numerous issues with neutrality. I will attempt to document most of them here.

Representation of Gab[edit]

A significant portion of this article attempts to represent Gab as a "far-right" website, and attempts to minimize the "free speech" aspect of Gab, despite reliable sources reflecting Gab's lack of user guidelines. It gives weight against gab being a "free speech" website, and in support of gab being a far-right website. I will attempt to put all quotes directly from the article below.

Gab has been described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.
This self-promotion of "free speech" has been criticised in research articles as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide", and "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".
Gab attracted migration of users banned from other social networks, including members of the far right.
The site's most followed users include high-profile far-right individuals such as Richard B. Spencer, Mike Cernovich, and Alex Jones.
The site is a favorite of "alt-right" users who have been banned or suspended from other services, including former Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos, formerly anonymous Twitter user "Ricky Vaughn", and white supremacists
According to that study, the site hosted a high volume of racism and hate speech,[42] and primarily "attracts alt-right users, conspiracy theorists, and other trolls".
The authors of the study concluded that while anyone can join Gab, the site is aligned with the alt-right and its use of free speech rhetoric "merely functions as a shield for its alt-right users to hide behind".
Another study in late 2018 confirmed that Gab is crowded by extremist users.
This has led to the conclusion that Gab "has become an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".
In addition to allowing Holocaust denial and other forms of anti-Semitism, Gab has been used as a recruitment tool by violent neo-Nazi groups
Gab has been described as "Twitter for racists" by Salon, a "hate-filled echo chamber of racism and conspiracy theories" by The Guardian, and "safe haven for banned Twitter trolls, Gamergaters, Pizzagaters and high-profile white nationalists" by Mic. An editorial in Wired criticized Gab for not explicitly prohibiting hate speech.
Torba has denied that Gab is "designed specifically for conservatives" and has stated that "we welcome everyone and always will". However, in filings made with the SEC in 2016, Gab admitted that its target market is "conservative, libertarian, nationalists and populist internet users around the world", and listed far-right conspiracy theorist websites Breitbart News and InfoWars as its main competitors.
The logo has been compared to Pepe the Frog, a cartoon character used as a meme by the alt-right.

These are all quotes in the current article at time of writing. They all reflect the same point of view that Gab is not a platform for free speech, or that Gab is filled with far-right users, despite reliable sources in support of and against both of these points of view. However, The point of view that Gab is for "free speech" is not accurately represented alongside the point of view that Gab is simply a "far-right" website. It doesn't give due weight to both sides of the issue. There are a large amount sources that reflect that Gab is a free speech website or that Gab has a lack of user guidelines. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The article also omits information on the de-platforming of Gab, which is also covered by a large amount of sources. The only reference to this de-platforming in the article is "PayPal, GoDaddy and Medium terminated their relationship with Gab" which is vague and doesn't specifically state that gab was de-platformed or removed.

Impartial Tone[edit]

In this article, there are statements that give a biased tone / attempts to confirm disputes against Gab. Some of these quotes with this issue will be included below.

Another study in late 2018 confirmed that Gab is crowded by extremist users
This has led to the conclusion that Gab "has become an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination"
In addition to allowing Holocaust denial and other forms of anti-Semitism, Gab has been used as a recruitment tool by violent neo-Nazi groups

These quotes have language that endorses the point of view that Gab is filled with far-right users, the first quote saying it's "Confirmed", the second saying "It led to the conclusion", and third, "allowing"

Words to watch[edit]

Some words used in this article express doubt or promote a certain point of view. Some examples are below.

this self-promotion of "free speech" has been criticised in research articles as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide"

"this self-promotion" along with quoting "free speech" serves to express doubt/ go against the point of view that Gab is a platform for free speech. This can be written in an impartial tone by changing it to something like Although gab presents it's self as a "free speech platform", some research articles have criticized this self-promotion as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide"

Another study in late 2018 confirmed that Gab is crowded by extremist users.

the words "confirmed" and "crowded" are used to promote the point of view that Gab is filled with far-right users. A better quote would be something like A study by (Group or list of main contributors who conducted the study) found that Gab is filled with extremist users.

Words to watch in quotes from articles[edit]

Several quotes in this article quote directly from other articles. These quotes include very biased language. Some examples of bias are quoted below.

"merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide" and "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".
According to The Verge, the posts "express intense anti-Semitism and meet any reasonable definition of hate speech."
attracts alt-right users, conspiracy theorists, and other trolls"

Quotes like these should be avoided or paraphrased because it gives a biased tone to the article against Gab. Many of these quotes are also merely opinions by the sources, rather than actual research, and shouldn't be included anyways.

No Original Research[edit]

This section is brief, and only is about WP:STICKTOSOURCE

Sticking to what the source says[edit]

Multiple claims on this article fail to accurately summarize what the article it's citing is claiming, and often cherry-pick language used by the article in either the title or in the article it's self. Some examples of this behavior are listed below.

Gab is an English-language social media website, known for its far-right user base. [12][13][14]

the cited sources for this claim don't state or imply that Gab is "known for it's far-right user base", nor provide any sources showing that it has a far-right user base.

The site gained extensive public scrutiny following the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting on October 27, 2018, as the perpetrator maintained a verified account on Gab[15]

The claim that the site gained extensive "Public scrutiny" isn't supported by the article cited.

The site is a favorite of "alt-right" users who have been banned or suspended from other services.[16][17]

The claim that the site is a "favorite" of alt-right users isn't supported by the sources given. However, it does show that far-right users moved to Gab after being banned from other services. A better way to write this would be something like The site has increasingly been used by alt-right users who have been banned or suspended from other services

The authors of the study concluded that while anyone can join Gab, the site is aligned with the alt-right and its use of free speech rhetoric "merely functions as a shield for its alt-right users to hide behind".[18][19]

To start off, the strange thing about this is that it cites an article, and then it cites a study, but the article it's self already cites that same study. There is no reason to cite the same thing twice. Anyhow, neither the article nor the study state that Gab is "aligned" with the alt-right. The vice article does include a quote by Jeremy Blackburn, which states "But if you look at the top posts and what the site admins are talking about, Gab is very clearly aligned with the alt-right ideology.", however this is an opinion, and in the Wikipedia article, it says the study's authors said this, but only a single quote by a single person (not plural) reflects this. The quote is not in the study either, despite the quote from the Wikipedia article associating the author's opinion with the "conclusion" of the study, when it isn't. Ridiceo (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^
  19. ^

For discussion, please use the section below


You will not be allowed to white-wash this article. Provide sources that show your points or stop being disruptive.--Jorm (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not white-washing the article. I'm explaining the numerous issues with the article in regards to NPOV, and other Wikipedia guidelines. White-washing would imply that Gab has done something wrong. I've taken quotes directly from the Wikipedia article, and explained the issues with those quotes, phrases in those quotes, or whether the sources of those quotes actually support the claim. I've explained thoroughly how each mentioned item could be improved or what's wrong with it. I've explained that there is more than one side to what type of website gab is, and have put several sources for that claim. Please clarify how I've attempted to white-wash the article. Please see WP:AOBF also. Ridiceo (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
He's not white-washing the Article, and you should stop attacking people just because you disagree with them. Also he's not being disruptive, he's attempting to achieve consensus and have dialogue with several people that would rather throw pejoratives around than defend their positions.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
My dude you have linked to a hell of a lot of policies but I don't see much 'this thing X is wrong because source Y does not say it.' Try to stick to that, not soapboxing. Consider your word salad where you claim that none of the sources used for 'far-right userbase' say that. Well, I just checked the first exact source we used and the article is literally about its far-right userbase. It says And since its debut in August, it has emerged as a digital safe space for the far right, where white nationalists, conspiracy-theorist YouTubers, and minivan majority moms can gather without liberal interference., and more! The headline is The Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space. You need to focus on quantifiable things, because this vague dancing around things does you no favour, especially when you're so obviously wrong. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Digital safe space for the far right is not the same as "Known for it's far-right user base" by any factor. Please refer to specific things I've said when you're replying to said thing. I've not said these things were "wrong" in the article, I'm stating problems with them. That's the key. Please be more specific when talking about what I've written.
You said: "My dude you have linked to a hell of a lot of policies but I don't see much 'this thing X is wrong because source Y does not say it.'"
What are you referring to specifically? I'm not claiming everything I've quoted is wrong. I'm using these as examples and pointing out the problems with those examples or problems surrounding them.
You said: "You need to focus on quantifiable things
What exact quantifiable things should I be focusing on? Not everything is quantifiable, especially when talking about editing an article. Certain language and phrases cannot be expressed or discussed the same as quantifiable data.
You said: "because this vague dancing around things does you no favour, especially when you're so obviously wrong."
Could you explain exactly am I "[vaguely] dancing around things"? And could you explain how I'm "obviously wrong."?
And again, I can't stress this enough. Please be more specific when discussing what I've said, and please discuss the content of my post, rather than my conduct. Ridiceo (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Impressive 11,000 text wall you've composed. No, we will not mass delete and doctor valid content and replace them with fig leaf "free speech aspect" that no reliable source treats seriously. You cannot create false balance out of thin air. Wikipedia policies does not back your filibustering that suggests a motive of whitewashing your favorite website. You have contributed nothing of value to the article or anywhere else on Wikipedia and please stop further wasting everyone's time. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Calling something a "wall of text" is a means of demonizing the person that posted it, and avoid being expected to actually read it.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Sources aren't required to change the article the way Ridiceo suggests, he's pointing out that the current sources are inadequate. If you want the article to remain the same, it's up to you to source what is currently written. Fnordware (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Tsumikiria I have not suggested we mass delete anything, nor have I suggested that we edit the article to deceive anyone. I've pointed out several problems with certain parts of the article that don't adhere to Wikipedia policy, or that shouldn't be in the article. I haven't attempted to "white-wash" the article either. If you have any issues with what I wrote, you can reply and point out specifically what I had said, and I encourage you to do so. I'm here for the same reason as most anyone else would be, and that is to improve the article.Ridiceo (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
No one here is going to to your job for you. This is a waste of time, and your giant walls of text don't help. Your desired changes are not going to make it into the article. If you really, truly want to push the point, I suppose you can try to escalate somehow but that isn't going to go the way you think. You're a single purpose account that is clearly pushing an agenda. We've gotten very experienced at recognizing this and won't be fooled. --Jorm (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with almost everything he's posted, and think that everything he's posted is valid, worth reading and worth paying attention to. I also think that you are trying to "win" the conversation (strike 1) by demonizing someone who disagrees with you (strike 2). I also think it's odd that you can behave this way and still predict that you'll "win" if it escalates. Is it really like that here on Wikipedia? If someone has a substantive disagreement with another Editor, and that Editor has "friends" somewhere, that the act of posting something in disagreement is a waste of time? If so, that's very discouraging.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, Jorm, I've written this to point out several problems with the article, and have only made few suggestions to possible changes. If you have any issues with content I've written on this talk page, please be specific about it.Ridiceo (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The specific thing is that you are relentlessly gaming the system. You listed everything that doesn't submit to your own viewpoint and do you expect us to reply to every single sentence you listed? Of course you're going to declare "But you didn't respond to my points!" Stop wasting time. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, if you'd like to comment on the content I've posted, you can do that. But please don't assume that I'm breaking Wikipedia guidelines. I'm simply asking that you don't assume bad faith. I've made a section documenting multiple things that I believe are issues with the article. I'm not asking that you reply to everything I've brought up, I simply put this here to document what I believe to be problems with the article. I'm not using it as a justification for an edit, nor am i going to make a wall of text in response, expecting you to respond to every new point I may put forward. If you'd like, you can respond specifically, and we can discuss specifically on that topic. Ridiceo (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You're sea-lioning. No one is going to respond to you "point by point"; you've been given a blanket "no". "Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. You reek of being a single-purpose, agenda driven account. You've had your rope. You can go back to gab now.--Jorm (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

But Tsumikiria, I notice that you make a regular practice of posting links to Wikipedia Policy, but never not once have you ever bothered to try to explain HOW that Wikipedia Policy applies to the topic being discussed. Almost as if you are using the act of posting some Wikipedia Policy as a means by which to prevent discussion. I notice you fail to respond to what appears to me to be valid points, and questions, and at one point you even stated openly that you "didn't care" about the fact that the Article was patently inaccurate. This is all very confusing to me. I read all these Wikipedia Policies, and yet I see those that seem to know them fail to uphold them, and at the same time they claim to be able to use them to have another Editor "blocked". Is this the way things are supposed to be? Are you a good Editor? Earlier I tried to emulate your conversational style and ended-up being chastised for "not a forum". It appears to me that you and at least one other person make a regular practice of using "Wikipedia Policy" as a conversational cudgel, and when that fails you then attack, name-call, demonize and finally threaten to have the object of your ire blocked from the Article. So I ask again; Are you a Good Editor? Are you a good role model? Should I style myself after how you comport yourself here? I'm new at this, and looking for guidance.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Tym, I have read the entirety of Ridiceo's post above, the entirety of your lengthy replies, and the entirety of WP guidelines that I cited. Although some of his suggestions about particular wordings are worth discussing, he claimed the article minimized the "free speech aspect" of Gab, despite the sources he presented does not do his favor. Sources write about "free speech" rhetoric of Gab in sections that introduces its labels of itself, rather than establishing plainly as fact. Without quoting from sources that support the proposal of adding "free speech perspective", instead he cherrypicked sentences from article and exclaimed an unfair representation of the subject. Other editors and I have told him that he was proposing an undue viewpoint and calling for bothsidesism, but to no avail, he continued to protest, to a disruptive degree that everyone had to take time replying to him. I fully understand the frustration of fellow editors dealing with him.
And you were warned by others of NOTAFORUM mainly due to your frequent and lengthy post of 2018 mail bombing conspiracy theory. That was not what I did. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I've not asked any questions. I've not asked that anyone respond to me "point by point". Please stop accusing me of things that aren't attributable. I've simply asked that, if you'd like, you can respond specifically to any single thing from what I've stated. I don't expect you to go through them all, or even any. As I've stated, I put this section here to express my concerns with the article, and to push forward discussion. That is it. Ridiceo (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that Ridiceo is being a good Wikipedia citizen, editing in the proper way which does involve discussing the specifics of the text to be edited. It is the rest of you who seem to have no regard for Wikipedia guidelines, NPOV, or genuinely improving this article. Fnordware (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Part of the conflict here is resolved by everyone acknowledging that, within the current political/ideological environment, "the far right" and "censorship" are two sides of the exact same coin. It's not about one, or the other. It's about both. They are axiomatically related. Failure to accept this point will result in a continuation of "more of the same".
Tym Whittier (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was made to keep "known for it's far-right user base" in the lede. Ridiceo (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC about whether "Known for it's far-right user base" should be kept or excluded from the lede[edit]

Should the phrase "Known for it's far-right user base" be included in the lede of this article? Ridiceo (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes. Additional note to people arriving from elsewhere: Ridiceo is a single purpose account (99% of edits on this page) and is trying to force their agenda (to white-wash Gab) into the article, an agenda which has been roundly thrashed.. This is a premature RFC, is disruptive, and was opened in bad-faith. This RFC should be procedurally closed and the user admonished for frivolously wasting everyone's time.--Jorm (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Your claims of "forcing an agenda", whitewashing, disruptive behavior, bad-faith, and the accusation that I'm a single-purpose account are all unsubstantiated claims. Please stop attacking other editors because of their attempts to change an article. Thank you. Ridiceo (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, this is not a "premature" RFC. I've gone through basic dispute resolutions, and they've gone nowhere. In Archive 5, I started a discussion about whether "Known for it's far-right user base" was supported by the sources cited. This was nearly a month ago. Instead of attempting to reach consensus, other users attacked me for my 'conduct', rather than discussing the content of the article. One of these examples is right here. Ridiceo (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes When you search for Gab in Google News ("gab social network"), it's clear that Gab's notability comes primarily from its use by right-wing extremists. R2 (bleep) 05:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - absolutely overwhelming number of sources report Gab because of its far-right users. Phrase should be duly included in the first sentence. SPA RfC proposer has relentlessly filibustered to make the article submit to his "free speech perspective" soapboxing, as you can see in his latest 10-page essay above. Per Jorm, editor should be topic banned for being frustratingly disruptive and WP:NOTHERE. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Your claim that "absolutely overwhelming number of sources report Gab because of its far-right users." is unsourced. Your claim that I have "relentlessly filibustered", or I have "soapboxed" are unsubstantiated claims. Please follow Wikipedia Etiquette, and be civil when talking about other users. If you have an issue with how I'm conducting myself, please see WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE for information on how to deal with conduct disputes. Please avoid talking about conduct issues on a talk page about Gab (Social Network). If you think I've seriously violated Wikipedia guidelines, you can ask an administrator to evaluate my behavior at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. Ridiceo (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes: that's what the site is known for, as can be seen from the sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes the site is known and used primarily because of its user base, and this is clear from the sources and a neutrally written academic article. SportingFlyer talk 06:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Please see my comment in one of the many discussions started by Ridiceo - the reliable sources establish this as fact. One of the reliable sources used is solely focused on its far-right user base. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
This source does not support the claim that Gab is "Known for" having a far-right user base. I've discussed this in Archive 5, but that concern got ignored and the section archived. Ridiceo (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, passes MOS:LEADREL. Although "far-right" sounds like whitewashing. I note a lot of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by other yes-voters above. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 09:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, as much as it pains me to agree with many of the people involved with editing this page. Perhaps it is not fair for Gab to be characterized this way in left-leaning media, but it is. While much of this article is imbalanced, that particular sentence is not. It would be more balanced if "The site presents itself as an 'alternative of Twitter' that 'champions free speech'" was the second sentence. Fnordware (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Even better would be if the article were to begin: "Gab is an English-language social media website. Gab is known for its far-right user base, but presents itself as an 'alternative of Twitter' that 'champions free speech.'" Fnordware (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - Would vaguely prefer "Commonly cited for its association with far right users", as a slightly less narrative statement. But either works... NickCT (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, AND... - Also include some mention that is also known for it's opposition to censorship, aka free speech. I do not believe the encyclopedia can say the one without including the other. They go "hand in glove". Also lose the scare quotes and sarcastic/skeptical POV attitude around free speech. It's about the far right, free speech, and censorship. Tym Whittier (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - That's clearly what reliable sources are telling us. At the risk of obviousness, the user-base is what makes the site notable in the first place. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems we've got clear consensus here...motion to close? ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"before he deleted them", Reverted ("Reception" Section)[edit]

I deleted the text "before he deleted them" because the source given (11) does not support it. That edit was reverted by Tsumikiria, with the comment "the article contains links todead tweet links, which means they're deleted)". The Article having "dead links" does not mean that any of the dead links were used to support the statement (before he deleted them). I assume you would need to show that one of the dead links actually conveyed the idea that "he" (Torba) "deleted them". Those dead links could be about anything, and at this point I see no reason how you can use the idea that "dead links" somewhere in the Article somehow justifies keeping this language. Further, the only citation given is #11. If your "dead links" theory were valid, there would be a citation for that particular passage associated with that particular passage.

I also note what appears to be the start of a pattern. In the past you've tried to used "deleted tweets" to support other text that does not appear to have reliable sources. If the journalist that wrote the Article did not consider the supposed Tweet important enough to include in the actual Article, that's an indicator of how important it was to the Article. I checked all the tweets referenced in the source Article, and none of them appeared to have been about a statement about Torba actually deleting anything. So exactly which "dead link" are you saying had the reference that Torba deleted the posts. Further, to remind you, that same passage has already been discovered to contain factually incorrect information ("two jews", when only one character in the meme was obviously jewish), which indicates (at best) sloppy workmanship on the part of whoever built this area of the Article. Was it you?

Torba alternately explained the tweets as possibly inauthentic or doctored, later "clearly satire / comedy", and then much later "a few edgy tweets posted by interns", before he deleted them.[11]

Tym Whittier (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with this change. The article does not state that Torba had deleted the tweets. Additionally, those tweets could have been removed by Twitter, or the article could have made an error in linking to the tweet in question. A dead link on an article doesn't imply anything about what happened to the tweet. Ridiceo (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
It was a bit inaccurate, but the tweets are indeed removed from the account. The WaPo article contain a link to a archived tweet by Wayback Machine: [1], which is a archive to the now-nonexistent tweet linked here:[https:/]. The article also contain a link to google archive which is unfortunately 404 now: [2]. The google archive too links to another removed tweet: [3]. I believe we can trust the authenticity of Washington Post authors and and google archived URLs. This particular phrase used to be referenced directly by the links, but they were integrated to the larger sentence and had the references removed. Rewriting it as something observable and objective like "the tweets are removed from the account" would not constitute OR, I believe. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Why we're including this in the first place doesn't make any sense to me, except to push the idea that Torba is secretly far-right and is secretly deleting content he put out to make it seem like he's not. The incident isn't particularly notable either, and only discusses the owner, Andrew Torba, rather than the site it's self. Nonetheless, we shouldn't be including in the article that the tweets were deleted if it isn't covered in the cited material that these tweets were deleted. Even if several archives show that the tweet was deleted, it still needs to be covered by a secondary source. The source cited isn't enough, and including different archives to "prove" that the tweet/s were deleted is WP:OR Ridiceo (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The CNN source in the paragraph indeed say "But the company has itself taken part in anti-Semitic commentary, deleted tweets show." This phrase could be included and sourced. No one here have "pushed the idea that Torba is secretly far-right and is secretly deleting content" as you accused. We don't have agendas on that. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Let's get consensus on that first. One source is pretty weak. @Tsumikiria: You're at 4 reverts by my count. More discussion/BRD and fewer reverts would be good. And what's, never heard of it. D.Creish (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I explained reasonably for my reverts. is an American magazine focused on small businesses. Even is there is only one or two context occurrences, The Verge, Daily Beast, and Inc, are all reliable enough to pass verifiability support a the "favourite" statement. Verge is a good source for tech news, and article is from 2016, long before any recent controversies.
CNN and Washington Post are currently the only two source that covered Gab's own antisemitic commentary. Requesting more sources on an obvious matter would be unreasonable and unnecessary. Tsumikiria (T/C) 08:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
CNN and Washington Post reported on tweets you *think* are antisemetic. That's called an opinion, Tsumikiria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridiceo (talkcontribs) 2018-12-06T08:07:53 (UTC)
And now you're beating a horse, long dead, dismembered and disfigured. let it go. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Jorm rolling back several changes based on "consensus", not giving a reason for the revert.[edit]

Hello, I made small changes to the article for different reasons, but they were rolled back for no given reason

My first change is because "The site is a favorite of "alt-right" users who have been banned or suspended from other services" isn't fully supportive of the statement. I changed "is a favorite of "alt-right"" to "Has been increasingly popular with", because that actually reflects what the articles state,

"With those figureheads banned from Twitter and suddenly much more active on Gab, the little-known network instantly became more popular. Also helping matters: Facebook’s simultaneous crackdown on “fake news,” which raised suspicions among some conservatives that the much larger platform was going to try to “censor” alt-right friendly sites like Breitbart. When the new users arrived to Gab, they found a whole lot of people who thought a whole lot like them."

. This doesn't mean that it's a "favorite", however it does say that the site became more popular with alt-right users that were banned from the site. Neither article even used the word "favorite" in any sentence of the article, making the phrase "is a favorite of "alt-right" not supported by either article.

My second change was made because none of the sources support the claim that Gab "gained extensive public scrutiny". I modified it to add {CN} because neither source describes any "extensive public scrutiny" that took place.

My third change was adding "two" behind "research articles" since it was two research articles, and two quotes. Ridiceo (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I take no position on the validity of Ridiceo's edits, but Jorm's rollback of multiple editors' changes was not appropriate. I am here and happy to discuss why I made the changes I did--which are fully in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. R2 (bleep) 19:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ridiceo that the "favorite" language wasn't verified by the cited sources. Neither says that. The source about Spencer comes the closest, saying that Gab is used by "many" alt-righters. We should stick with that language or a close paraphrase. R2 (bleep) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
"Public scrutiny" was originally a reasonable summary of the situation of sources around that time. If you really want to advance your scrutiny for verbatim, here is everything that says "public scrutiny". And "favorite" is also fully supported by sources. You were misusing CN template to undermine, and misrepresenting legitimate sources. Adding "two" was also undue attribution. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I was not using CN to undermine the sources. I was pointing out that "public scrutiny" wasn't supported by the source given. I found sources that do recognize "public scrutiny" in their article, and will add those as sources. Favorite is not supported by the sources. The sources do not say that it is a "favorite" of alt-right or far-right users. Not a single word in that article described the site as a "favorite" of the alt-right. You then added two more sources which do say that it is a "favorite" of the alt-right. These sources only say in the title (and one in the second paragraph), that it is a "favorite of the alt-right". Furthermore, neither source says that the site is a favorite of ""alt-right" users who have been banned or suspended from other services". Also, saying it's a "Favorite" of the alt-right is editorializing, and none of the sources you added, and the sources that were there previously, cite any research papers or any statistics showing that the site is a "Favorite" of the alt-right. That's why I changed it to "Became increasingly popular with" because that is actually documented by the articles. In a quote from one of the articles "In the last eight days alone, we’ve added 60,000 new accounts,” Gab founder Andrew Torba said in an interview last week. “And that [growth] does coincide with a lot of the bans that we’re seeing.”", they quote Gab's owner, saying that the growth (60,000 new accounts) coincides with the bans made by other social media platforms. Ridiceo (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ridiceo and Ahrtoodeetoo: Jorm did not use rollback. Rollback only works on consecutive edits by one editor. Reverting back to an earlier version is fairly common. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I used "rollback" meaning "reverting several edits", not "Rollback" as a tool. Im using the same language as that user did. Ridiceo (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Rollback, one word, is different from 'roll all the way back', 'rolling back', 'roll this back' etc. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I used "Rolling back" in the title of this section. I said "Rollback" because that's what Doug Weller said in reference to the title being "Rolling back". Can we please end this discussion? It's not useful to the article.Ridiceo (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You linked our guidelines on rollback in this revert of Jorm. Reminding you to make sure you know what is happening before you act is perfectly germane in this situation. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Tsumikiria is continuously distracting by adding and changing references to the article to justify keeping the phrase in the article, rather than answering to concerns that "Favorite" is editorializing, and isn't supported in the sources cited, as those sources don't cite any research articles or statistics that show that Gab is a "Favorite" of the alt-right. Ridiceo (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

In a news article, we do not pick and choose what are 'facts' and what is 'opinion' based on how much we like it. An article is generally an opinion piece e.g. op-eds/etc. or it is factual writing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Then that means any source goes. Even unreliable ones. This assertion is ridiculous. There is a very clear distinction between opinion and fact. It is an opinion BECAUSE it's not supported by anything the source has said. Ridiceo (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the verifiability of the "favorite" language now that we have sourcing that supports it. However we now have citation overkill. Not as big a deal, but I'd suggest we remove the sources that don't verify the current language (both Washington Post articles) and one or two of the weaker other ones. I don't know the relative reliability of, The Verge, and The Daily Beast. My hunch is that The Daily Beast is the most reliable of those three. R2 (bleep) 22:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Sourcing doesn't support it. It's still an opinion, and the article does not cite any information showing that Gab is a "favorite" of the alt-right. Ridiceo (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You made your "opinion" point, no need to beat it to death. The consensus is against you on that one. R2 (bleep) 22:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
If the opinion is to be included, it should be included in quotes. It is an opinion that the site is a favorite of the alt-right. Not a fact. See: WP:SUBSTANTIATE Ridiceo (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ridiceo: The far-right’s favorite social network is facing its own censorship controversy, Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooter Spewed His Hate on Gab, the Alt-Right’s Favorite Social Network. Please note these are A) not opinion pieces B) directly cited next to the thing you removed as 'opinion'. Please at least read the sources used before you claim something isn't in them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ridiceo: You don't get to dictate whether sources are opinion or not, and they clearly does not do you favor. Your repeated attempt at manipulating the reliability of sources has been noted. This is a typicality of POV pushing, so please don't do that. Tsumikiria (T/C) 09:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tsumikiria: It is very clear that it is an opinion. I'm not dictating what is and isn't fact, because that's pretty clear. For example, if a reliable source posts that "Far-right social network Gab", we don't include that Gab is "Far-right" simply because the author *thinks* it's far-right. Acting like there isn't any opinion in any media articles at all is an absurd claim. Ridiceo (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
That is not an accurate description of our policies or practices. I'm happy to discuss this more on my user talk, but consensus is against you and restating your position over and over again isn't productive. Please drop the stick. R2 (bleep) 16:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Pittsburgh shooting[edit]

Tsumikiria, I think you're missing the importance of the Pittsburgh shooter to this article. The fact that the guy had a Gab account isn't notable. Heck, I have a Gab account (for research purposes). What's notable is that the guy posted some crazy shit on Gab right before storming into the synagogue, and the crazy shit was part of the broader extremist phenomenon there, prompting concerns that Gab was partially/indirectly responsible for the shooting. R2 (bleep) 19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The Pittsburgh shooter being on Gab was one of the sole reasons why it was covered widely in the media.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] It was the primary reason why Gab was shut down. Ridiceo (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Read those sources. They all emphasize the views the shooter expressed on Gab, not the fact that he had a registered account. I believe it's in the first sentence of every single source you listed. R2 (bleep) 21:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ridiceo: Next time you may want to actually read the dozens of sources you're listing. It is tiresome to re-read through all of them and find that they clearly does not support your idiosyncratic assertions. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 09:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


@Ahrtoodeetoo: Yeah, but the attacker's history of extremist antisemitism is also pertinent. I reworded it to "as the perpetrator posted an immediate intent to harm before the shooting, among a history of extreme anti-Semitic postings on Gab." But it could be better written. Thanks. Tsumikiria (T/C) 09:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a step in the right direction. The "immediate intent to harm" language may be accurate it's legal jargony and isn't what the reliable sources are emphasizing, in fact I'm not even sure it's verifieded by most of the sources you listed. I'd trim that part out. R2 (bleep) 16:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

'Still not improvements'[edit]

Hi D.Creish. In your 3rd revert of the day, you said that the edits made by me and Tsumikiria were 'still not improvements' (that is all the edit summary said) when reverting them. I'm having difficulty understanding what you meant - your edit goes from removing a description of antisemitic commentary made by the platform to rephrasing the well-sourced (please see above sections) 'favorite of' wording being discussed to the contentious phrasing proposed by Ridiceo, as well as other, even harder to understand reverts of edits made. I note that you have only made one small comment on this talk page, which makes your unexplained reverts hard to understand. Could you please explain? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"Favorite of" is not "well-sourced". It's an opinion. Just because a source says it doesn't make it true. None of the sources cited provided any studies or arguments that supported the claim that gab is a "favorite" of alt-right users. Ridiceo (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
D.Creish also reverted important copyedits made by Ahrtoodeetoo and me without adequate explanation. At this point these reverts are hard to understand to be other than out of personal liking, rather than genuine improvement of the article, especially when the reverted material are well sourced and under consensus. Explain your reasons, or do not revert in questionable faith. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
So like, the several reverts you have done to both mine and his edits? I make an edit, you revert it, I discuss on the talk page, you accuse me of breaking Wikipedia guideline, rinse and repeat. Ridiceo (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I provided detailed explanation for my reverts and actively discussed and explaned my changes on this talk page, unlike the other user. You ignored PeterTheFourth's explanation in above sections, so here I repeat for you: All three sources, The far-right’s favorite social network is facing its own censorship controversy, Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooter Spewed His Hate on Gab, the Alt-Right’s Favorite Social Network, Gab, the Alt-Right's Favorite Social Network, Gets Rejections From Apple, Twitter, they are all factual reporting, not op/eds, from reliable sources. This is especially true when startup-focused Inc identified Gab as such in 2016, long before any recent controversies. And yes, article titles too count as content that can be used to verify facts, and the articles did have in-text support for such: "Gab has marketed itself as a home for extremists", "built catering to right-wing extremists into its business model", "back-up social network for white supremacist". Outside of these sources, 61% of individuals on ADL's extremist list is also something. "Favorite of far-right" is a verified, better descriptor than mere "popular with". Twitter/Facebook/Tumblr is popular with far-right too. Facts should not be written as opinions.
And because you did go against Wikipedia guidelines? Your idiosyncratic interpretation of factual reporting being opinion, based on your own liking, was a clear misreading of Wikipedia guideline to your own advantage. You are shown to repeatedly push your interpretations with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree and refuse to concede when your points has been disproved or rejected by the community. Please spare the now dead beyond-all-recognition horse you have beaten. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
To insist that each and every source wont have some sort of opinion is absurd. Yes, they are factual reporting. That's because what they're reporting on is verifiable as a fact. The first article you linked, it's reporting on Gab having been told by their domain registrar to remove a post. NOT whether or not gab is a "favorite" of the alt-right. Gab being a "favorite" of the alt-right is objectively their opinion. And for the 15 millionth time, the article doesn't even claim & back up the statement "far-right's favorite social network", in their article. Why? because the article is not about whether Gab is the alt-right or far-right's favorite website. Furthermore, Media bias is an actual thing that exists. It's not some phony far-right conspiracy theory. "This article says it so that must mean it's fact" isn't how Wikipedia uses sources. We discern what it's reporting on and it's actual bias by writing about it in a neutral point of view. It's why we have WP:ASSERT, and WP:YESPOV. Gab being a "favorite" of the alt-right isn't verifiable. None of the sources you cited report on Gab being a "Favorite" of the alt-right. Ridiceo (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I just told you why the articles support this particular wording. It is also a better choice than mere "popular with", as "popular with" fails to distinguish the difference in notability between Gab and Twitter/FB etc that are also widely used by extremists. And NPOV is not "No POV". Even bot writers are trained by their journalist owners' biases to some degree. It's improbable to demand some absolutely POV untainted GMO-free content. They don't readily exist, if any. If they are reliable, verified, weight and writing considered, then yes, they're in. No questions asked. The horse you've beaten is now up to eleven beyond dead, so once again, please drop the stick Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The articles do not support the particular wording. These articles are not about whether or not Gab is a "Favorite" of far-right or alt-right users. It's important to include opinions as opinions. In quotes. They don't support the claim that it is a "favorite" of far-right users. They simply say it in their title. I've explained thoroughly why that is an opinion.

I said: ""Favorite" is editorializing, and isn't supported in the sources cited, as those sources don't cite any research articles or statistics that show that Gab is a "Favorite" of the alt-right." My response from PeterTheFourth was: "In a news article, we do not pick and choose what are 'facts' and what is 'opinion' based on how much we like it. An article is generally an opinion piece e.g. op-eds/etc. or it is factual writing." This isn't a refutation of my main point. I replied to him: "Then that means any source goes. Even unreliable ones. This assertion is ridiculous. There is a very clear distinction between opinion and fact. It is an opinion BECAUSE it's not supported by anything the source has said."

Another user then replied, "I'm satisfied with the verifiability of the "favorite" language now that we have sourcing that supports it. However we now have citation overkill. Not as big a deal, but I'd suggest we remove the sources that don't verify the current language (both Washington Post articles) and one or two of the weaker other ones. I don't know the relative reliability of, The Verge, and The Daily Beast. My hunch is that The Daily Beast is the most reliable of those three. " Which again, doesn't refute my central point. It only states that the sources support the language used, and doesn't show how this sourcing supports the language. I replied, then, saying "Sourcing doesn't support it. It's still an opinion, and the article does not cite any information showing that Gab is a "favorite" of the alt-right. " And then *gasp* as soon as I disagreed with him, now I'm suddenly against consensus. they said, "You made your "opinion" point, no need to beat it to death. The consensus is against you on that one." That's weird, I didn't know that a single user got to choose when a consensus was made. Ridiceo (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ridiceo: WP:DROPTHESTICK. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Ignoring my argument doesn't make it go away, PeterTheFourth. Ridiceo (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Fine. The rest of us already moved on and you don't even have to agree. Concede while you can. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Reaching consensus is important. However consensus isn't made just because you say it's been made. You can continue to ignore me and lie about consensus being made, however that doesn't change the core meaning of my argument. My argument is still the same. Consensus-Blacklisting another editor (aka reaching a consensus by ignoring another editor's concerns, then claiming a consensus was made, and reversing any edits that single editor made) can lead to meat-puppetry or edit-warring. Remember: Consensus doesn't prevent me from editing the article. Creating factions to abuse the consensus-making process doesn't end well. You can continue to ignore my concerns, or you can respond directly to them, instead of crying "concensus has already been made", and you may change my mind. However, blacklisting me from consensus-making isn't going to go how you think it will. Ridiceo (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Again I've removed "extreme" and "immediate intent to harm" from the lede because neither was in the cited sources. Don't restore it without a source and consensus. D.Creish (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    I've restored it. It's in the sources; you're being intentionally obtuse.--Jorm (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought I reviewed them all. Can you tell me which one best supports it and I'll check again? D.Creish (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC) The justification you gave in your edit summary is OR. Per WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME wait for consensus before restoring. D.Creish (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Source 1 [4] says: "Bowers' final post on Gab announced his imminent attack on the synagogue"; notes his "anti-Semitic posts about the mass killing of Jews"; "he announced his 'imminent, lawless' attack on the religious center". Source 2 [5] quotes Bowers' post: "HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in." -- Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
<chef's kiss>--Jorm (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
How's this? My objections are specifically to "immediate" (which is different from imminent) and "intent to harm" which is one way to phrase it but not one used by the sources. D.Creish (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As far as sourcing I'm fine with the protected version which includes Softlavender edit. Style could be improved but I don't think anyone's going to edit war over that. D.Creish (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    No. You put in what I think is your fifth revert before it was locked; we'll return to the earlier text when the lock expires, I think.--Jorm (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 December 2018[edit]

Please add in {{short description|Alt-right social network}} at top of page. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Not done while the page is fully protected you will need to establish a consensus for this specific change, after one emerges in this section feel free to reactivate the edit request if needed. — xaosflux Talk 04:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with change.--Jorm (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree - although "far-right" may be a broader, more suitable descriptor based on sources. We can edit on Wikidata in the meantime. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
If the Wikidata info is appropriate for this article, then it should be added. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
yellow tickY Partly done on Wikidata. Now this stuff should show up in your mobile WP apps. Check it out. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Far-right is preferable based on the first sentence of the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected until 4 November 2019[edit]

Locking the article for nearly a year over a one-sentence editing conflict seems excessive to me. PaulCHebert (talk)

Locked till 2018-12-17 due to edit war by one user, after which semiprotection will resume till 2019-11-04. Semi was due to long history of the subject itself recruiting editors towards this article, and disruptive editing and POV pushing in general. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. PaulCHebert (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)