Jump to content

Talk:Twitter suspensions

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

Development

[edit]

If I were to work on this further, I would probably distinguish permanent bans from temporary bans. I've also considered moving the whole thing into a table but I don't know if that works with the manual of style. Deku-shrub (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Deku-shrub (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost notable people

[edit]

A shadow list of people who I've found weak sources for to stop editors wasting their time with unless they can find stronger ones Deku-shrub (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John K. had his Twitter account deleted last year, due of his scandal and the 'fake' threats was not made by John and in truth, was made by a troll called Jimmy Connor trying to be John K. MariaSantanaSilva (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other Twitter lists

[edit]

There's a thread here https://twitter.com/isabelleheck/status/932091283232968704 Deku-shrub (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Andrew Hutchins

[edit]

Twitter's suspension if a candidate on the ballot in a major third party is inherently notable and possibly constitutes election interference. Jimmy Dore has covered Wikipedia's deletionist treatment if Green Party candidates in major elections. Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable, then presumably someone else will add it. Adding information about your own suspension is an obvious conflict of interest. Trivialist (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How are candidates with ballot status in federal elections non-notable?--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB0Bx_Ew6cg video that discusses in part anti-Green Party bias on Wikipedia --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that you shouldn't be adding things about yourself to articles. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines about conflicts of interest. Trivialist (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any coverage of this apart from Hutchins' own blog and website, and Hutchins does not appear to have a Wikipedia article about him. I don't see how it can be included. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should non-notable people be on this list?

[edit]

This list includes some people without Wikipedia articles, including 'journalist Guy Adams', an unidentified Japanese man and an American woman. Should they be included here? Given that hundreds of ordinary people have been banned or suspended from Twitter, I think it would make sense to limit this list to those who are actually notable in their own right. Robofish (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think non-notable people should be included, if their bans received press coverage. Trivialist (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, however the lede/title might need to be updated to reflect this Deku-shrub (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead is general enough and it doesn't explicitly state that the article only covers famous people. I think it could do with some extra info though to cover the full scope of the article. I will do that now. The lead is lacking references, but I think that should be non-controversial as it's merely a general summary of material cited further down. MClay1 (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

banned or suspended / blocked

[edit]

Maybe just say "List of people blocked from Twitter" and expand on the type of blocks in the lead section. More concise. -- GreenC 23:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Blocked has a distinct meaning on Twitter. It refers to an action by one user to prevent another user seeing tweets from or being seen by one's account. Suspended is the correct term for action taken not by an individual, but by Twitter itself. KalHolmann (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, "banned" is likewise not used by Twitter, which suspends an account temporarily or permanently, as the case may be. KalHolmann (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should say "List of people suspended from Twitter" .. or "List of accounts" since "people" isn't totally accurate (the right wing organizations etc). BTW this isn't a RM no need to !vote it's a discussion. -- GreenC 01:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally it would be List of accounts suspended by Twitter. Neutrality changed it to List of people banned or suspended from Twitter to be "more encompassing", but instead it's merely verbose. KalHolmann (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think "suspended" implies a temporary measure, whereas "banned" is more permanent. The sources tend to use both. Neutralitytalk 01:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. As I noted above, Twitter does not use the term "banned." Twitter suspends an account temporarily or permanently. It is only the media that sensationalizes with the word "ban," as if Twitter were some fundamentalist religious authority invoking a fatwa. KalHolmann (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List of accounts suspended by Twitter is concise and accurate. -- GreenC 20:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it to suspended. Not sure if 'accounts' is right given there are more notable people listed than accounts Deku-shrub (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are all accounts, only some are (individual) people. -- GreenC 22:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow banning - See also - RFC

[edit]

Should Shadow banning be added to to the see also section? Per Please explain at Talk:Twitter suspensionshow Shadow banning relates to suspensions.  I'll try to stay out of this discussion as I am not a major editor on this article. Thank you - Endercase (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a prerequisite, I'd welcome a link to at least one WP:RS that relates shadow banning by Twitter to suspensions by Twitter. Although both shadow banning (what Twitter calls "limiting tweet visibility") and suspensions are part of Twitter's published "range of enforcement options," I fail to see any nexus. After all, this article is not about Twitter's policy enforcement generally, but is very specific to suspensions. KalHolmann (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote and point of order: Could you please point me in the direction of a policy says that a RS must be used for linked items under "See Also"? Thank you for your time, Endercase (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I wrote and not what I meant. I'd merely like to see one such source in order to understand how anyone other than you might relate shadow banning by Twitter to suspensions by Twitter. KalHolmann (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're related concepts. Banning people from a site versus shadowbanning people from a site. It doesn't matter if Twitter officially does it or not, it's still a useful link for See also, if only for people to learn the difference. Including it doesn't do any harm. MClay1 (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep up!

[edit]

2018 is too much! Please add!

Deku-shrub (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedy for overpopulation of list

[edit]

Section 3 of the article page is titled "List of notable suspensions." The lead refers vaguely to "Suspensions of high-profile individuals," but nowhere do we define what constitutes notability of a suspension or how individuals are designated high profile. As the list now stands, there are 53 entries, of which 37 are Wikilinked to a Wikipedia page dedicated to that individual or group. The remaining 16 entries have no corresponding WP pages. To remedy the "I can't keep up!" problem identified in the preceding Talk section added today by Deku-shrub, I propose expressly narrowing the criteria for inclusion in our "List of notable suspensions," to include only those individuals or groups to which Wikipedia has dedicated a standalone article page. KalHolmann (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would arbitrarily exclude important things like "2,752 Russian troll accounts" or "Pakistan Defence Forum" or "Jenna Abrams" -- one wonders what is the use and purpose of a list that excludes those things, but keeps trivial things like the temporary suspension of Phil Mason. -- GreenC 15:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem you are trying to solve is that this article is not notable. Notability has not been established in the lead. Twitter (or any user-generated content website) making suspensions of its users is not remarkable. It is routine. I propose the article be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.13.204 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suspensions

[edit]

Suspensions are temporary. Some items on this list are permanent bans; therefore they are not suspensions. Just because Twitter may use Orwellian speech, does not mean Wikipedia can't use the English language. wumbolo ^^^ 06:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. the BBC wrote "pemanent bans" not suspensions. [1] wumbolo ^^^ 13:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're currently on the name 'suspensions' to imply 'temporary and permanent suspensions' because I wanted to keep the article title concise Deku-shrub (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming (post-AfD) Discussions

[edit]

There was a little consideration in the AfD that this article's name should be changed/clarified. I mooted "High-profile Twitter suspensions" or something similar. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 17:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Wikipedia has an implicit notability threshold, this shouldn't need to be reflected in the article title Deku-shrub (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion of Unity4J suspension

[edit]

Regarding this edit from user Kendrick7:

Gateway Pundit is the polar opposite of a reliable source, they've been involved in countless hoaxes, and I think the only reason they haven't been formally deprecated is because they're usually never cited to begin with. Dissident Voice, WSWS seem to be basing their reporting on Unity4J's own claims. The Inquistr appears to be relying on an RT story.

None of these sources support the claim that the account was only temporarily suspended, and the lack of mainstream press coverage suggests that this suspension isn't high profile enough to warrant mention. Nblund talk 20:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the ban and the lifting of the ban with my own eyes. I promise you it really happened. Wikilawyering about the reliability of the sources when it comes to other matters isn't relevant. -- Kendrick7talk 22:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It really isn't a question of whether or not this account was banned, it's a question of whether or not the explanation and time frames are accurate, and whether or not it constitutes a noteworthy incident. The page is not meant to offer an exhaustive list of everyone who has ever been banned from Twitter for any reason and any length of time. Nblund talk 02:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is noteworthy, hence the coverage in multiple independent sources. I don't see any reason for a higher level of scrutiny here compared to any of the other various entries on the page. -- Kendrick7talk 04:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's been mentioned in multiple obscure or unreliable sources, but it doesn't appear to have any coverage in the mainstream press. None of those sources appear to have even reported that the account has been reinstated. I removed several entries with poor sourcing from the table. If there are others, they should also be removed. Nblund talk 12:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a source noting the lifting of the suspension. I realize that resorting to both left-wing and right-wing sources may be less ideal that having some centrist "mainstream" source available, but I don't see that as a necessary requirement per our usual policies. -- Kendrick7talk 16:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be using unreliable sources at all, regardless of where they supposedly fall on the political spectrum. Inquisitr is so often used for pure BS, I though it had already been blacklisted on Wikipedia. What is Dissident Voice? What is Popular Resistance? Is WSWS reliable? Not every social media incident belongs in this article, so we need some way of filtering encyclopedically significant incidents from minor incidents without lasting impact. I sincerely don't know how important this incident was, but these sources are not doing a good job of explaining it, especially since the account was restored less than a week later.
Mainstream sources tend to be more reliable, although not always, because they usually have better reputations for accuracy and fact checking. Therefor, Wikipedia has a mainstream bias, and putting "mainstream" in scare quotes misses the point. Citing a large quantity of bad sources isn't a good substitute for reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt their reliability on the reality that this account was suspended for those days. You can't simply exclude these points of view simply because you don't like the sources; see WP:YESPOV. If you have additional views from other relevant sources you would like to add, please do so. -- Kendrick7talk 03:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I "don't like the sources" because I don't think they demonstrate reliability or due weight. So we can simply exclude sources we don't like, if we don't like them for a valid reason. That's precisely why we differentiate between good sources and bad sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^ this. I don't think anyone doubts that the account was suspended, but WP:DUE weight applies even to true stuff. It's also a question of whether or not we believe that the explanation for the suspension is accurate and whether provides sufficient context for readers to understand what happened and why. I don't think these sources do that because they appear to simply take Unity4J's account at face value. Nblund talk 17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a source presenting your POV that all these different sources are making up this information about Twitter, feel free to add it, but in the meantime, I'm sorry, but our WP:NPOV policy is pretty clear about this. I'll go ahead and add this back with additional sourcing, but this is already quickly becoming the most thoroughly sourced entry on the list. -- Kendrick7talk 13:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, multiple bad sources are not a replacement for one good source. We're not necessarily disputing that the account was temporarily suspended, but without decent sources, it's not clear why this matters, or why it belongs in this list. Not every verifiable WP:FART needs to be meticulously documented on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of the point of public controversy around these suspensions is precisely whether 'mainstream sources' deserve the deference you are suggesting, such that if they ignore something it is automatically unimportant. This is important to many people, and who cares whether those people are mainstream? Also, why would a 'mainstream' media source necessarily deserve more trust than sources that you consider outside the mainstream? What makes a source 'mainstream' anyway? WP:NPOV references mainstream scholarship, but doesn't say anything about 'mainstream' news sources. Anecdotally, I got to this page because I'm writing a paper on deplatforming of anti-police news outlets by social media over the years before George Floyd's murder. The existence and deplatforming of these outlets is notable even if you may not personally find it interesting. 136.32.124.70 (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know what else we can do at this point to settle this dispute. No matter how many sources I add, eight different sources by my current count,[2] mysteriously none of them seem to be good enough. I'm just tagging this up for now. -- Kendrick7talk 14:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That tag seems inappropriate: you haven't really cited a factual dispute with anything in the article, you're just unhappy that it doesn't cite a specific incident you believe is important. If you want to take this issue to the NPOV or reliable source noticeboard maybe you you can get some additional feedback, but I really doubt you're going to get a different answer. Nblund talk 15:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources cited for this content are unreliable or very weak. This particular ban is too insignificant to include. Neutralitytalk 17:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For convenience, here are the proposed sources:
To be blunt, this looks like WP:BOMBARDMENT. Inquistr, Gateway Pundit, and RT.com are blatantly unreliable for anything related to U.S. politics without a lot of context and attribution. This list doesn't provide space for context, so they don't belong here.
I'm guessing WSWS will get the same response at RSN as those three. Regardless, this is an advocacy group which directly supports Unity4J.
The Big Smoke is an opinion site. The Big Smoke (publication) is in desperate need of reliable, independent sources, by the way.
As I said, I don't know that Dissident Voice is, but that particular article is a copy/paste of a Medium post cited by Consortium. Caitlin Johnstone's name comes up often in all of these sources, which is a strong sign this is a walled-garden of sources citing each other.
Google tells me that Insajder is Slovenian. I do not read Slovenian, and I do not trust machine translations, but it seems pretty gossipy. Perhaps someone who does read that language can explain why this is significant. Insajder is a redirect to Brankica Stanković, which says that Insajder is a TV news show, and is a bit out of date. That person doesn't appear to have any involvement with this specific article.
Kendrick7 just created Consortium News as a redirect to Robert Parry (journalist). This makes sense, and I have no problem with this, but Parry died several months before this article was published, making this article useless for evaluating the outlet itself. The article itself is by Elizabeth Vos, who is a co-founder of the Unity4J movement according to the Big Smoke source. Again, another sign of a walled garden. The article is all over the place, but it doesn't actually mention this conflict. It is, however, very clear that Consortium is directly involved with Unity4J as a movement. It is not a particularly reliable source, and it's definitely not an impartial source.
I don't think it's particularly mysterious why these sources aren't good enough. Again, nobody is denying that this account was temporarily suspended. The dispute is on whether or not this belongs in this article. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean make this look like WP:BOMBARDMENT, but the two of you kept asking for more sources. That's the only reason I threw in the non-bylined RT.com source; I'll admit it's fairly weak here.
I'll concede that the Consortium News ref is out. Good catch. (Although, FWIW, Consortiumnews.com has existed as a redirect to since 2005.)
WSWS, previously known as The Bulletin has been in continuous publication since 1964. It seems like a fairly good ref. I don't think the fact that they've written one other article about Unity4J back in February[3] makes them an "advocate"; what are you getting at? Sources are allowed to have a POV without automatically being deemed unreliable.
I don't understand your exact problem with Inquisitr, other than trying to lump it in with The Gateway Pundit. This article isn't about U.S. politics, it's about Twitter suspensions. Since Twitter was never forthcoming about the reason for the suspension, I don't see how anyone can claim that Twitter had a political motivation here, and then just exclude any source which might have a certain domestic U.S. political POV.
I don't think The Big Smoke (publication) of Australia ceases to be a reliable source simply because someone who has blog on Medium writes for them. Again, not a source I would normally use or even come across, but User:Nblund insisted I find a source for the suspension being lifted, a standard with I don't think is reasonable to start holding all the entries on the list to to begin with. Similarly with Insajder, it's a source which shows this suspension was noted outside of the context "U.S. politics". -- Kendrick7talk 15:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bombardment is just an inevitable outcome of trying to include something that ultimately isn't that noteworthy, and no one asked for additional weak sourcing. Caitlin Johnstone, who appears to write for a number of conspiracy theory-oriented outlets is the worst kind of source. The Big Smoke appears to be something close to the Huffington Post contributor platform (which is effectively user-generated content) and it publishes a fair amount of transparent bullshit. The Inquistr is a content mill and it's clear that the person writing that article didn't do "reporting" beyond transcribing a Twitter argument. WSWS actually does publish some legit stuff, but they also seem to be relying on Vos and Johnstone for their account.
We need evidence that this suspension is worthy enough to have been mentioned and examined by reputable mainstream reliable sources that are independent of the event. If there isn't any of that, then it probably doesn't belong on this list. Nblund talk 16:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going to be able to accurately reflect the history here if we ignore niche sources, since given the sheer breadth of Twitter's user base, there could be many notable suspensions of accounts are only going to be noted by such sources. The title of the article isn't Twitter suspensions noted by the mainstream media, nor should it be. Our readers should be given the freedom to make up their own minds and judge the sources on their own merits, rather than be presented with some pre-sanitized version of events. -- Kendrick7talk 11:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news source, we absolutely do give people a sanitized version of events and ignore stories that don't get lasting coverage in high quality sources. People get temporarily suspended from Twitter every day. If people want unfiltered content, they should read those websites. I think you're beating a dead horse at this point. Nblund talk 14:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that the article isn't a list. I think it's worth thinking about what belongs and what doesn't. Even setting aside the quantity of sources, what does this say about the topic? What info does this provide to readers? It sort of vaguely implies something about censorship and activism... or maybe it doesn't. Sources don't really explain why this matters, so neither can we.
Unity4J isn't independently noteworthy, the ban doesn't appear to have any lasting encyclopedic significance (not even to Unity4J) and the sources mentioning this seem to mostly come from the same walled-garden of advocacy sites. If we expanded this list to include every single entry which met this criteria, the article would be unreasonably long and totally unstable. I've already fixed some blatant advocacy and misrepresentations of sources which previously slipped through the cracks, and the list is long enough that I suspect I missed some. If we allow every single verifiable ban or temporary suspension to be listed here, this becomes an unworkable nightmare of sloppy gossip and BLP violations.
I think the sourcing problems are reason enough to remove this. Even setting that aside for a moment, we shouldn't make articles we cannot maintain. This is not a directory of every suspended account. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Names from research

[edit]

@Grayfell: why isn't everyone on this page unnamed per BLPNAME? If I could choose, only those with wiki articles would be named. wumbolo ^^^ 21:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naming a person who was banned, if supported by sources, is useful. Naming a totally different person is not useful. Don't try and make this more complicated then it needs to be. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More names from article

[edit]

There was an article on this:

There were a handful of names not from this list:

Some should be added Deku-shrub (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell

[edit]

Has this individual's twitter suspension been addressed elsewhere? Markvrb (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that now. MClay1 (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding rabbi Yaakov cohen back into list

[edit]

I am from his very, very large congregation, which you can Google to see more information about. This morning he showed us a screenshot of his email from Twitter saying he is banned for discussing certain sections of the Talmud. Shinzurochi (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But this is a list of notable twitter suspensions. We need WP:reliable sources (like mainstream newspapers) that support this information. Nblund talk 15:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About Twitter suspensions on 2017

[edit]

While doing some research on Twitter that had happened on 2nd / 3rd November 2017, it appeared that a Twitter troll going by Threat Slayer abused the reporting system and managed to get many Twitter users permanently suspended for "violent threats." The reason for this was because he knew how exploitable Twitter's automated suspensions are, which permanently suspends users for making "threats to users," even though it was a long time ago. After this, he searches for a tweet containing words/phrases that actually threatens (such as "kill you") and uses bot accounts to continuously report it until the account for that tweet gets permanently suspended automatically. It seems that users affected by Threat Slayer's doing cannot appeal for these suspensions according to Twitter's abusive behavior policy. Garygoh884 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of targeted campaigns to report people and get people suspended but I've never read an article about one. Let me know if you find such a thing Deku-shrub (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other social media suspensions

[edit]

If there are corresponding pages for suspensions on other platforms such as Facebook they should be linked to this page. If similarly formated with reason and length could be useful to indicate whether certain groups claiming they are targeted more than others actually are. If there are none maybe a mention can be included on thispage that other social media do not remove people. (EXAMPLE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_suspensions) Colonial Computer 04:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22yearswothanks (talk • contribs)

"they are told which of Twitter's rules the company claims were violated"

[edit]

Not true. My account has been suspended twitter.com/QuentinUK and it says "Twitter suspends accounts which violate the Twitter Rules" with a link to Twitter Rules page but not an individual rule. And they haven't sent me an email to even say that the account is suspended. They do send emails when I log in, that's all I've heard directly from them. QuentinUK (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Garrison

[edit]

Cartoonist Ben Garrison's account @GrrrGraphics has been suspended, but I can't find any reporting of it other than Twitter mentions. Trivialist (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trivialist: Added Deku-shrub (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass suspensions

[edit]

I think twitter may have just suspended a whole lot of accounts recently, of relative nobodies, possibly connected to the dc events. i cant find any reliable sources at this time (or even unreliable), but if i do i will bring them here for review for entry. i can speculate but i wont ,that is original research, but a whole bunch did seem to drop off in last 2days, and that will be commented on at some point. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercurywoodrose: Ideally there would be a notable source that either mentions the low profile people by name or talks about 'lots of accounts associated with XXX' which can be cited as it's own item Deku-shrub (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction paragraph

[edit]

That Daisy Naylor article in no way substantiates the claim “There have been concerted campaigns to shut down conservative organizations, accounts that promote free speech action”. Bias Nuncacat (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuncacat: Removed Deku-shrub (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a troll edit that was reverted before you deleted the sentence. I've restored the original content. MClay1 (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mclay1: Sorry, where is it sourced? There's a lot of sources on the pages. And if so, I don't think it's major enough to belong in the lede, but maybe one of the introductory paragraphs instead Deku-shrub (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deku-shrub: The ISIS stuff is sourced in the History section. It does feel a bit specific for the lead now that more prominent campaigns, such as targeting QAnon, have overshadowed it. I'll expand it a bit, but overall I'm not bothered where it goes. MClay1 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony (Tony) Shaffer

[edit]

I posted when it was made public that Tony Shaffer was suspended from Twitter and Pokelova has removed it twice now. Is there a reason? Pardon my lack of understanding. DharmaDrummer (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You must provide a reliable and independent source for every entry. --Pokelova (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was @ElonJet reinstated?

[edit]

It was according to @SWinxy but [4] still looks suspended to me. Freoh (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. It's suspended again. According to BuzzFeed, it was "back for a brief period, only to be suspended again." Cuz it's resuspended so soon afterwards, I don't think it's worth mentioning it was unsuspended. Thanks for catching this @Freoh. SWinxy (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serously, no Life demoshit made a wiki about suspension ? 2A01:CB00:118C:7600:B8CB:257A:EAEB:857C (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Followers at the time of suspension"

[edit]

I would like to raise a question regarding the "followers at the time of suspension" figure provided by socialblade.com. It appears that this figure may not be capable of accurately reflecting the sudden surge of followers for a specific account immediately before its suspension. In the case of Tetsuya Yamagami, the main defendant in the assassination case of Shinzo Abe, his account "silent hill 333" (@333_hill)[5] was revealed on July 17, 2022, and subsequently suspended by Twitter on the 19th. SocialBlade was only able to capture the follower count as of the 17th. However, according to various reliable sources, the number of his followers exceeded 40k right before the suspension.[6][7] (Independent screen capture somehow proves that his follower count well exceeded the figure from SocialBlade.[8]) Could someone provide an explanation for this discrepancy? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter_suspensions&oldid=1253705953"