Talk:Violentacrez

Merge or change scope?

Is he really notable enough in his own right from this one event to need an article to himself? Most of the content would be better suited to a subsection on the Reddit article, or changed into something like 'Reddit/Gawker Affair' that goes into more detail on the background and nature of online anonymous communities and the subsequent fallout. Brutsch was just the catalyst for this, it could have been any number of moderators or reddit users who caused the media fallout. He is not unique there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Technically there are multiple events. One was the r/beatingwomen image in August of last year, another was the jailbait subreddit that closed down last year after a lot of media coverage, and then this outing that came about because of his connection with the creepshots subreddit. I actually first found out about violentacrez last year because of the coverage given to the jailbait subreddit so with this recent development and the significant coverage about him I came to believe there is more than enough basis for a BLP article as I noted in my initial edit summary. There are sources talking about Brutsch as a model for a certain type of harmful online behavior and others condemning his treatment in the media.

Your suggestion is certainly something I considered, but any dispute between Gawker and Reddit at this point is predominantly a matter of Chen outing someone he believes needs to be exposed for immoral activity and Reddit defending Brutsch against Chen and Gawker from what they perceive as malicious and harmful action. It is all about Brutsch/violentacrez and this has been a brewing controversy due to Brutsch's activity on Reddit being repeatedly brought to attention in the media, with this just being the most recent incident. Fundamentally, he is the subject of the controversy and I would very much not want this to become a "violentacrez/Michael Brutsch controversy" article. An article on him as a controversy would be more problematic from a BLP perspective than an article on him as a person.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a merge or re-work of this page into an article about the event, or about controversial reddit communities in general. Many participants in the AfD discussion were in favor of a merge of this kind as well. Breadblade (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but the article you just created is exactly the wrong kind of article to create for such a purpose as it is just a BLP coatrack that excises much of the positive or humanizing material about him in favor of the negative. That is exactly why I have and continue to oppose such a re-focusing. Not to mention it is a typical "controversy" article that essentially serves no purpose other than to provide negative material about Reddit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Correct me if I am wrong but I think that the discussion of a merge is supposed to go on the destination's talk page, so please post your comment over there. Breadblade (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The award(s) Reddit gave to Brutsch

Brutsch also described the support he had from administrators, stating that he had received an award from Reddit for his contributions. Reddit noted that the award was for winning a community vote for "Worst Subreddit", and stated that they regretted sending it as well as claiming the violentacrez account had been banned on several occasions

From the original Gawker article: "A few years ago, while Jailbait was still going strong, Reddit's administrators gave him a special one-of-a-kind 'pimp hat' badge to honor his contributions to the site, which he proudly displayed on his profile."

So given the quote (from this WP article) at the top of this comment, Reddit was either lying or not telling the full story, or Gawker was wrong. Either way, I think the "pimp hat" award that Reddit gave Brutsch deserves to be mentioned in the article.

EDIT: Well, I saw the pimp hat award on Violentacrez's profile, before it was deleted, so I know it existed. I doubt very much that Gawker was wrong.

75.5.249.99 (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Porn

The article provided as source for M. Butsch's job seeking in porn uses a weak source; a reddit post linking to his publicly available online resume with the account having been deleted now. Any body could have made this post just to stir up controversy. (The one an only source of the claim: via reddit.com/r/forhire)

He deleted the violentacrez account, it is pretty obvious from looking at the responses that it was violentacrez who posted it and Fox News is definitely a reliable source for this detail.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't like this

This is a successful attempt at defamation. Someone who hates him likely created this article - probably the same people who made him an internet "star". He did nothing exceptional. There are thousands of people who moderate controversial subreddits. OK, he appeared in several internet bullettins...but carefully assembling all the sources to make a long article about a person who barely meets the notability criteria? This smells of revenge. --Seerus (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That is precisely the argument I made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brutsch a few months or so ago, but editors like "The Devil's Advocate" above had a near-manic obsession with seeing the article retained. As that closed without a finding of consensus either way, perhaps another deletion discussion is in order in the near future. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Coverage of Brutsch/Violentacrez continues even now, however, and not just in the context of the outing. See this source and this one. He even got a brief mention in an article about Aaron Swartz, apparently just because Reddit was mentioned in the article. There are many other significant mentions in reliable sources just since the beginning of the new year. Many mention Brutsch less in the context of his outing and more in the context of his general activity on Reddit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeking explanation of reverts

I placed a WP:SELFPUB tag on the first paragraph, as it is primarily (at least halfway) based on a self-published primary source from Brutsch. Instead of providing reliable seconary or tertiary sources for this information, this edit was reverted. Seeking an explanation for this.

I tried removing an unsourced sentence reading, " It has led to concerns about such measures contributing to a mob mentality on the Internet that seeks to have people such as Brutsch singled out and publicly excoriated so they can serve as an example to those engaged in similar conduct." It seems like redundant editorializing in that the next sentence says more or less the same thing, except that it has a citation. Saying that something has "led to concerns" is not nearly as useful as stating sourced concerns from reliable secondary sources. It was reverted, and I placed a "WP:WEASEL" tag on this segment (as it contains weasel words), and that was reverted instead of reworded.

Instead of dismissing and reverting proposed changes, it would be more helpful to consider these changes and make improvements to this page. Breadblade (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have noted why you are mistaken on your talk page. Please read the policies you keep citing. Also, that material was not unsourced as was explained to you already.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't conflate a differing interpretation with a lack of reading comprehension. Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field... so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources. The self-published resume is used as a source for over half of the "Career" section. I'm taking "over half" to qualify as "primarily" in this case.

I stand by my previous assertion that the WP:WEASEL tagged sentence is redundant, but I merged the sentences in question to absorb the tag. Feel free to work on it some more if you need to.Breadblade (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You nailed the important word there with "article" as in, the whole article. A single paragraph about the subject's background in a single section being sourced to self-published material is not an issue at all.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The tag is on the section, not the article. Is Wikipedia really the place for someone's resume? Anyway, I'd be willing to hear some input from an uninvolved third party on this because I don't forsee us making significant headway. Breadblade (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A site he maintains about himself is being used as a source for a small amount of material about himself. This is, again, well within the acceptable use of such sourcing. Other sources have noted many of these details with less specifics. I am just using this source to get the specifics. Your tag is without any merit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If you could add in those extra sources to supplement the information from the primary source, that would be acceptable. Breadblade (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no need as the current section fully complies with policy and I have explained that to you enough times for you to understand. I am removing the tag. Don't add it back please.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As a compromise, I have edited this section to make note the source of this information. Breadblade (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, I am responding here to a request at WP:3O. I agree that a primary sources tag is not necessary at the top of the career section unless there are concerns that the information sourced from the subject is not accurate. Since the career information seems rather mundane and based on the discussion above, that does not seem to be the case. A compromise seems to have already been reached so I am keeping my reply here brief. VQuakr (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Images

Why is the only photo on this page of someone else? Can we not find a photo of Michael to include? 76.10.176.194 (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

/r/jailbait VS r/BannedDomains VS jailbait ... Reddit formatting??

Sorry, I don't use Reddit. Using /r/ or r/ or nothing in the text is unclear. I think en.wikipedia articles should be clear, and I don't understand the formatting of the article in regards to Reddit. I would love to see someone explain what the formatting means: /r/ or r/ or nothing at all. I understand they may indicate sub-Reddits, but the article seems very inconsistent with this. Makes for difficult, confusing reading. Are you referring to something on Reddit, or actual jail bait? Even if it's not explained per Reddit, just being consistent with the copy editing would be helpful, I believe. If someone would explain it to me I'd be happy to fix. Thanks in advance. Hajnalka (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Reddit communities are named after their URL: "/r/jailbait" is what one would call a reddit jailbait forum found at reddit.com/r/jailbait. I don't think the prefix "r/" is used as widely, but it would refer to the same place. Hope that helps. Breadblade (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No opposition has been raised. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Michael Brutsch → Violentacrez – web results. This BLP's notability extends from his user handle. It's been several years and nothing since then has indicated that he is notable outside of his doxing. This might even be a BLP1E situation. Plesse discuss . That man from Nantucket (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support (2nd choice) as nominator.That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, and per the Unidan article's title. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support renaming, but in fact this should just be merged to Controversial Reddit communities instead. The material actually about Brutsch runs afoul of BLP1E as mentioned above. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Violentacrez and Michael Brutsch are one and the same, so I'm not sure I really understand the point of this RM. The IP 64.xx makes a good point in that this article content would be more appropriate on the Controversial Reddit communities page. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

AfD

Just posting as a courtesy that I started a AfD per 64.X's !vote aboveThat man from Nantucket (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the AFD. We do not nominate talk pages for deletion. Await the outcome of your own RM above. — Sam Sailor 11:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply)

I nomed a TP for deletion? Whoops.That man from Nantucket (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussion notice

I've initiated a discussion on the talkpage of Controversial Reddit communities to see whether there is any objection to merging this article there. I'm crossposting here since editors of this page, or participants in the recent move discussion, might want to address a potential merge. If so, please add your comments there, and not here. If there is no objection in the next few days, I will probably perform a merge soon. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Updated notice: Rather than split the discussion needlessly, I've pointed the other discussion toward the one initiated separately below. You should comment below instead. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC to merge with Controversial Reddit communities

Should this page be merged into Controversial Reddit communities? --That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Merge Years after this incident, it is clear that thhe person associated with Violentacrez would not pass any notability guidelines for s stand alone article. This is BLP1E territory.--That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge, just for the record. I don't suppose I need to repeat my previous comments; the subject is known for one negative event, and should not have a biography on Wikipedia. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record, due to the obvious lack of objections I would be proceeding with the merge already, except that the merge target is currently protected. I intend to proceed once protection is lifted. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Merge. I echo the comment above WP:BLP1E applies here. The subject appears mainly in Oct of 2012, but his case seems to have set a precedent or standard in terms of anonymity and is referred to occasionally in other years.Dig Deeper (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Merge - Any reason this was presented as an WP:RfC as opposed to a WP:PM? Regardless, I support a merge as this is a clear example of WP:ONEEVENT. Meatsgains (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - Violentacrez is not a reddit community but a reddit user. It might be merged into a List of notable redditors (that's not for famous people with reddit accounts but people like Shitty_Watercolour etc).--Fixuture (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I've gone ahead and performed the merge. I won't close this discussion, but unless the merge is undone someone else probably should. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)