Talk:Zak Smith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Why does it say "you wish jellyfish" randomly in the intro paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.69.126 (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability/significance?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to restate my doubts as to the notability or significance of Zak Smith. A small-time artist and sometimes porn actor is not particularly notable. Despite the apparent age of this article. I think the question has not been proven so much as it's never been asked. After investigating some of the supplied links, I am now even more suspicious that the editor reverting my edits and accusing me of vandalism is Zak Smith himself. He seems to have participated in a flame war on a forum recently and may be sensitive to such things as a notability question of the wikipedia article about him. I will make no outright accusations without some proof but if it is Zak Smith, his editing and defense of his own page seems like it would be a conflict of interest. I would like an open discussion to determine the right course of action here, for the improvement of Wikipedia. 63.23.5.79 (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I've closed the RFC. You misunderstand what RFCs are for, and how notability works here. You are welcome to nominate the article for deletion instead (you will have to create an account first). The repeated addition of the {{notability}} template serves no good, nor is notability or a subject's merits for inclusion decided in the article's talk page. So, go ahead and nominate if you feel that is the right course of action, and please stop adding the template. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability question

I doubt Zak Smith rates an article for notability reasons. He's a small artist, with a handful of displays and a couple of books, and his other claim to fame is appearing as a pornographic actor. This does not indicate 'notable person the world is richer for knowing about' to me. I have been accused of being a vandal because of, of all things, having not edited before and because of some link on some forum. How would the accuser know about that link, unless they are Zak Smith? Would attempting to defend your own page represent a conflict of interest and make you unable to argue it's merits rationally, does anyone know? Furthermore, I find it slightly ridiculous to be accused of being a 'new' account by an IP address that only started posting after my notability concerns arose. 63.23.1.197 (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering that he's been featured in the '04 Whitney Biennial, had some well-reviewed art books published (e.g. Washington Post and LA Times gave it good reviews), and has had numerous articles written about him in notable publications (such as the NY Times and Artforum) I'd say he meets the requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.159.170 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Books

Zak has recently written A Red and Pleasant Land, a follow-up book to Vornheim for the Dungeons & Dragons game which has received good reviews. The reviews alone make this book noteworthy in my opinion: http://www.lotfp.com/store/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=190 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.234.22 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zak Smith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050603004305/http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/zak_smith/title.htm to http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/zak_smith/title.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous edit to this page and use of references

This anonymous edit removed content regarding publisher announcements relevant to the subject's career. I would like this edit to be reviewed, and if necessary reverted so that the content can be restored.

I'm concerned that there may be other anonymous edits to this page which have also removed content relevant to the subject.

Regardless of the reasons for these announcements or the character of the subject, these announcements remain as hard facts relevant to the subject's career. Here are some example references for relevant content created by publishers:

• https://oneblogshelf.blogspot.com/2019/02/drivethrurpg-responds-to-current.html
• https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1095486649977384960
• https://www.gauntlet-rpg.com/blog/the-gauntlets-statement-on-zak-s
• https://www.black-book-editions.fr/news-2262.html

Please advise regarding the validity of the above references for use on this page.

I will look for other sources and post them here. I wonder if other editors can respond to advise if they believe that these sources can be used on this page?

• https://popcultureuncovered.com/2019/02/15/tabletop-rpg-community-snubs-zak-smith/
• https://www.thefandomentals.com/new-allegations-against-zak-smith-spotlight-rampant-harassment-in-the-rpg-industry/
• https://www.geeknative.com/64538/the-rpg-industry-reacts-to-the-zak-s-with-bans-and-donating-commissions-to-charities/ Merxa (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• http://www.contessa.rocks/blog/contessa-statement-on-zak-smith Merxa (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please advise regarding the validity of the above references for use on this page. --Merxa (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It might be time to discuss the allegations at WP:BLPN. This is an issue that has received significant coverage within the RPG subculture but hasn't caught the attention of sources that we would normally consider to be reliable. Some of these blogs and social media posts seem to be reliable primary-source opinions, but I don't see any independent secondary-source coverage that could be used to establish WP:WEIGHT.

I do have a problem with the vague statements in this version: "On 12 February 2019, Steve Wieck announced that Smith's future works would no longer be accepted on DriveThruRPG. On 13 February 2019, Mike Mearls posted an announcement regarding the working relationship between Smith and Wizards of the Coast." It's not appropriate to mention these things while ignoring the reason. We either cover this or we don't. –dlthewave ☎ 04:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

OK That is a reasonable response. I can start a discussion at WP:BLPN. Merxa (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I have started a WP:BLPN discussion.Merxa (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Further anonymous edits to this page

Since my last post there have been further anonymous edits involving controversial content to this page, for example. If you have an opinion on the editing of this page, please post a response to the deletion or the BLPN. Thanks! Merxa (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please post your opinion on either proposals: 1) the page deletion or 2) that the controversial content is published on the page.Merxa (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) 2600:1700:7642:25E0:852A:B0EF:77D1:347C (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) because it's met notability guidelines for over a decade the subject has art in the Museum of Modern Art, Whitney Museum, and muultiple publications

I suggest the case for deletion is strong, for the reasons already listed on this page, and no I don't agree that the page has ever met the notability guidelines.Merxa (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the AFD/AFSD is obviously an attempt to remove a disliked person (regarding remain arguments, list of references from history gives enough reasons). Is stalinism Wikipedia's moto? 2A01:E35:8BBB:5D50:E0CB:C8E0:B642:6D2C (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article that you would like to declare at this time? Simonm223 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Google News

The following references have been included in Google News:

• Polygon https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2019/2/20/18232181/dungeons-dragons-zak-smith-sabbath-abuse-accusations-players-handbook

• Comicbook.com https://comicbook.com/gaming/amp/2019/02/19/dungeons-and-dragons-zak-smith-statement/

• Bleedingcool https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/02/19/dungeons-dragons-issues-a-statement-on-the-zak-smith-situation/ttps://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/02/19/dungeons-dragons-issues-a-statement-on-the-zak-smith-situation/

• AIPT http://www.adventuresinpoortaste.com/2019/02/21/wizards-of-the-coast-issues-statement-regarding-alleged-abuser-and-dd-contributor-zak-smith/ Merxa (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• 411mania https://411mania.com/games/wizards-of-the-coast-statement-dd-5e-contributor-zak-smith-abuse-allegations/ Merxa (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Merxa (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

These legitimate news stories provide the references needed to create a Sexual abuse allegations section within this article. Merxa (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 February 2019

Recent Accusations

The summary section regarding Zak's recent accusations is woefully underrepresented. "Emotional abuse" in quotes is frankly insulting to the victims.

At the very least, the section should indicate the multiple accusations (as of now, no less than four) out there right now, as well as reactions from major companies such as WOTC's removal of his credits, as well as the cessation of all further work as multiple companies have dropped him.

None of that is immaterial or false, as you can see from the following links. I'm not sure how this hasn't been updated, but I generally have more faith in Wikipedia than this would suggest I should.

Ms. Morbid's Accusation: https://www.facebook.com/amandapatricianagy/posts/10215845527064252blog

WOTC Responses: https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1095486649977384960 http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/dndstatement

GenCon Statements: https://twitter.com/Gen_Con/status/1096118847357169665 https://twitter.com/mforbeck/status/1097306061495767040

Other References on Accusations: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?6042-RPG-Writer-Zak-S-Accused-Of-Abusive-Behaviour https://www.thefandomentals.com/new-allegations-against-zak-smith-spotlight-rampant-harassment-in-the-rpg-industry/ https://www.gauntlet-rpg.com/blog/the-gauntlets-statement-on-zak-s https://oneblogshelf.blogspot.com/2019/02/drivethrurpg-responds-to-current.html https://www.facebook.com/kenneth.hite/posts/10214130904974060

I am disappointed to see nothing in that section but a defensive comment; I will be happy to write a dispassionate summary of the above. However I feel about it, this is a real situation, and if he's notable enough for an article, then these accusations deserve note as well. I would argue for editing, or total deletion. EWither he's relevant enough for these accusatoins to be recorded, or he's not notable enough for a page at all. Daemon8666 (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I'm surprised even that much made it past his defenders here; a very rigid interpretation of WP:BLP is being applied. Do you have a specific edit with reliable sources (not social media) that you would like to propose? Because if you have RSes for the recent controversy, I think a lot of people would welcome inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is polygon a reliable source? Not familiar with wikipedia standards https://www.polygon.com/2019/2/20/18232181/dungeons-dragons-zak-smith-sabbath-abuse-accusations-players-handbook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.51.178 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say yes. The polygon article should certainly be considered a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed.Merxa (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

info to add please

hi admins, could you please make a "Collections" section and included the following (MOMA words can be moved to it): "Smith's works are held by a number of galleries including MOMA, Walker Art Center, and Saatchi Gallery.

"References"

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a note Saatchi is an online storefront and having art there is just about as curated as having books on Amazon. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Simonm223 Not quite. Saatchi Art (www.saatchiart.com) is a website where anyone can create a profile, but this is the gallery(www.saatchigallery.com). The two have only the name in common. The Saatchi Gallery is highly selective, Saatchi Art not at all. Vexations (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Industry awards.

Zak Smith received various RPG industry awards, noteably ENnies, the 'oscars' of the RPG world. The ENnies have now made an announcement regarding him, blacklisting him from further consideration for awards and banning him from the awards ceremony. :http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/ennie-award-announcement/?fbclid=IwAR3IYgA3MglX-SErgKmZpdUGxlc8eXJ5KLCLgEFZ8Ftwmk3b64eAYxyL8uM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.1.135 (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Feb 22 2019 Fully Protected edit request

After several women accused Smith of abuse in February 2019, Wizards of the Coast announced they would be removing all references to him from the print and digital editions of D&D fifth edition. In addition, DriveThruRPG announced it would no longer work with Smith and would be donating its portion of any revenue generated from the sale of products by Smith already on the storefront to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network

Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This edit should be placed below the current paragraph of the Other Works sub-header of the Career section. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support - This provides a well-sourced description of recent events involving Smith, without giving undue weight or detail to the allegations. –dlthewave ☎ 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support - This paragraph should be added to the article. It captures the documented content well. Merxa (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Any update? Hey guys, I've been waiting three days on an answer to this edit request. Any help? Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done This page is not or is no longer protected and may be edited directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Assault accusations should be in the career section

The section is almost entirely about the industry response to the accusations; that's why I put it under career rather than personal life originally. The guy abused people - and his career was tanked for it. That's the notable hook here. Abusive porn actors are sadly common. Same with abusive RPG pros. It's less common for someone in either category to have his career crash and burn as a result. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. This came from his personal life, even if the main upshot of that has been repercussions in his RPG career. We've yet to see how this plays out in the medium to long term. We can adjust it accordingly later, as long as we keep this tight and well-sourced for now. Emperor (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

I'm keeping an eye on the page and will lock it down if the reversions continue. Emperor (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've locked down the page for a week - I expect to see discussion regarding sources, the BLP issues etc, being discussed here (though please do remember that BLP applies equally to talk pages) and if there's no consensus in a week's time, I'll consider extending the protection. Nick (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I got busy and couldn't keep an eye on it. I think the previous edit should probably be reversed as it removed too much and the edit before that would give everyone something to discuss, although no-one seemed that concerned about talking it through. Without any discussion on content I agree extending protection would be required, it is difficult to know motivations but the issue is still quite emotive. Emperor (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

So I'm uncertain about the lack of quality references. The references in the last version included primary sources from organizations affected and secondary sources associated with the gaming industry and balancing statements from Smith himself, the subject of the article, offered without interpretation. The source of information about the ban from Gen Con and ENnies appears to be the same quality as the source of information about the awards themselves, and Polygon is also the type of secondary source that would be cited for the bibliography and awards listed in the career section. I could be very wrong and would love to learn more if so, but would like to get a better sense of the type of secondary sources and primary sources being sought as high quality sources. Thanks! --AmandaTrust (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The editor who claimed the assault allegations were from primary sources only was making inaccurate edit summaries; we were referencing Polygon (website) which is the best quality source one can have for gaming news. I would like to know why this section has been, yet again, purged and the page locked absent this information which people worked very hard to properly source, and the inclusion of which was the reason this page survived a recent AfD attempt. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Like you, I am happy to use Polygon as a reliable source for the allegations, this side of legal action all we can really say is that these allegations were made.

The primary sources for the reaction of publishers doesn't seem unreasonable as long as we know they are the official outlets for that companies news. Equally the best source for award information would seem to be the awards themselves.

See my comments above for the state of the article I'd prefer it to be left in as that previous edit not only removed the accusations but also other information fleshing the article out. However, as the article has been the subject of far too many reversions and too little discussion so it would seem remiss of me to reverting it again without further discussion. Emperor (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm simply going to say that the only reason I walked back my !vote at AfD from delete to neutral was because reliable sources were found for these allegations. Aside from his career collapsing under the weight of these allegations, Smith is a painfully ordinary RPG professional of no particular noteworthiness, and I remain of the opinion that an article about Smith that excludes the incidents that form the basis of his notability is not an acceptable state of affairs per WP:NPOV. Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The sources I posted in the AfD was enough to satisfy myself that this article would have met the notability criteria before the allegations were made. What people think about the quality of his work (and I've seen plenty of opinions in both directions) is purely subjective and I'm sure there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about untalented people, that isn't really our concern at least when trying to demonstrate an article is notable. Emperor (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Expired references

These reference links almost all need updating or replacing with archived versions, as right now the majority are broken.

1. Molossus is a dead website.
2. The Fredericks and Freiser link doesn't lead to Zak Smith.
3. The Kavi Gupta link doesn't lead to Zak Smith.
4. MOMA is working.
5. Turnstyle News is dead.
6. Fleshbot is working.
7. Escapist is working.
8. Artnet (1) is working, but does not seem relevant or useful, and should probably be removed.
9. VICE is working.
10. Artnet (2) is a link to a German webpage that does not appear to include the referenced article.
11. Dazed is working.

5 out of 11 links isn't a great ratio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alma Coben (talk • contribs) 00:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I was just working back through previous versions and there were fuller articles in the past for example which mentions some of his awards, a version that would probably not been AfDed even if it needed work. I think they've had to be trimmed back partly becuase it smells of [[WP:PROMO] but largely because some of the sources expired (some are presumably in the Internet Archive) and it looks like quite a few references were added as external links and they were cleaned up. So I was trying to find a source for the statement that he is Jewish. He says so on Twitter but that isn't good enough but it was previously sourced to an expired link that it is possible to find that link on the Internet Archive. It should be possible to unearth more such expired sources to flesh out the article. For example, the Fleshbot link is dead, but Fleshbot (NSFW obviously) has tags for Zak Sabbath and Zak Smith which could be used to source the porn work. Emperor (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed update to "Personal life" section

Following the discussion above I took the contentious paragraph and scrubbed any primary sources so it is drawing on what is in the Polygon article:

Due to allegations of abuse, the online RPG storefront DriveThruRPG, owned by OneBookShelf, announced it would accept no new titles with Smith as a contributor and would be donating its portion of any revenue generated from the sale of products by Smith already on the storefront to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Wizards of the Coast announced they would be removing all references to Smith from the print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition that he had playtested. Kenneth Hite, who worked with Smith on Demon City: The Ultimate Horror RPG which was part way through its Kickstarter, apologised to anyone effected and he said he was going to donate any money he made from it to Connections for Abused Women and their Children. Smith has been banned from the ENnie Awards ceremony held at Gen Con. Smith released a statement denying the accusations.

NB: In the edit before the article was locked more than that paragraph was removed - the whole section on his RPG work and the awards he has won for it. I can't see how this material is WP:BLP violating and this can be added back in (although I'd want to move the awards to their own section as he has also been nominated for an adult movie award). Emperor (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion of this paragraph. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I tried to base this on the wording of the paragraph as it was, but reading it over I think it'd be best to move the 5th ed D&D information up into the first sentence as that is the reason this gained the attention that it did. The wording would remain the same. Emperor (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think you're right about moving the WotC information up front. Also, the article doesn't say the Kickstarter was ongoing at the time of the allegations but that it was almost delivered at that time. Also, the article doesn't mention the ENnies, just the ban from Gen Con (in the update near the bottom). Would the following paragraph work?

Due to allegations of abuse, Wizards of the Coast announced they would be removing all references to Smith from the print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition that he had playtested. The online RPG storefront DriveThruRPG, owned by OneBookShelf, announced it would accept no new titles with Smith as a contributor and would be donating its portion of any revenue generated from the sale of products by Smith already on the storefront to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Kenneth Hite, who worked with Smith on Demon City: The Ultimate Horror RPG, which was funded on Kickstarter, apologised to anyone effected and he said he was going to donate any money he made from it to Connections for Abused Women and their Children. Smith has been banned from attending Gen Con. Smith released a statement denying the accusations.

AmandaTrust (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Rather than separately supporting every single permutation of the paragraph, I'm going to just go on the record that I am less concerned with the specifics of para order as with the presence of the para in some form. Thumbs up and wikilove all around. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Good catch on the awards - I probably had them in mind as they were removed in the edit that also removed that paragraph and I will be adding them back in separately. The only tweak I'd suggest is that I put down that he playtested D&D 5E for WotC, where the wording is that he was listed as a consultant on it. I've read elsewhere that he playtested it but the process may have been more complex than that or everyone who pitched in got a consultant credit. So instead of "that he playtested" and put in... perhaps "which had credited him as a consultant" or something like that. We are trying to focus on what we can prove from the Polygon report after all. Emperor (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment As long as it matches what Polygon said, I'm good on the playtester/consultant issue. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaTrust (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support these allegations made up a large part of the argument to keep the article in the deletion debate, and make up a significant part of the notability of the subject. --Slashme (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support AmandaTrust's version with or without my suggestion of changing playtesting to consulting. Emperor (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support With thanks to AmandaTrust! Merxa (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

These edits and their content have to be seen in context of the near-decade of harassment the subject has received in the RPG sphere. The actual accusations are paper-thin, and proved false by signed statements from eyewitnesses, the accusers' family, and the accusers' own statements at the time and picked up currency in the gaming sphere (and only the gaming sphere) because of widespread gamer antipathy to the subject's activism in that world rather than because they have any credibility or notability . The attempts to edit this page to find ways to include them are a part of the larger harassment campaign that forced Gen Con, D&D et al to disavow the subject without an investigation. One only has to look at the history of edits and comments here to see that these edits are an attempt to take the accusations out of context and use them as another front in an endless war (occasionally anti-sex-worker, occasionally antisemitic) agains the subject. Either the charges--having been disproved--are not notable OR the harassment campaign that caused them to be taken seriously in the gamer world are more notable and should be the main thrust of the edits. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Fixer (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@FixerFixerFixer: The allegations of ongoing harassment and such are of no material interest to us, we are solely interested in what reliable third party sources say about the article subject. The inclusion of material you claimed to be violating the BLP (and some of which may have done, based on poor quality sources) has been edited into something that now meets the requirements of our BLP policy, and which has support from all significant recent contributors to the article other than yourself. Can you confirm you are not going to resume edit warring to remove this material and will abide by consensus decisions made here on this talk page. Your answer should include a Yes or No. Nick (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: No. The "Recent Contributors to the article" all dogpiled on after February 10th (when the allegations were made) to suggest a variety of hostile edits--they aren't disinterested parties, they're clearly part of-, or influenced by-, the harassment campaign. Ethnic slurs and seeking out a friend to tell her to kill herself 40 times in 48 minutes are undoubtedly harassment, as is this attempt to turn a tribal gamer argument into the largest section on the page. Compare this page to the February 9th version--they've effectively shrunk the page down to being about nothing _other_ than their issue. The "consensus decisions" is a bunch of harassers brigading the page. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: As for reliable third-party sources on harassment: FixerFixerFixer (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@FixerFixerFixer: The current proposed edits are an attempt to address that last part: What we can prove is that a) the allegations were made and b) that these allegations had consequences for his career, including statements from high profile companies. We can't address how truthful these allegations are as that'd require some in-depth reporting from a reliable source and, as things have died down, I suspect this will only happen if there is legal action. I'll look over the Matter article, but I've also got sources about his harassment of people online and was minded to not use it yet as it could leave this article more open to the kind of edit warring that got us to this point. I'll keep it in mind but would rather focus on the current proposal so we can continue editing this piece - as you point out the article was previously much larger (also see my comments a few sections further up) and I'd like to expand it again using the sources I dug up during the AfD and using archived versions of some of the links that were removed because the site was down. I should also point out we must assume good faith over other editors motivations. Emperor (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Emperor: and @Nick: - I'd noticed that protection had expired, but didn't want to add content without checking on Talk in order to avoid starting an edit war. --AmandaTrust (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm keeping my eye on the page in case the edit warring starts again. We can add the proposed edit in later, although it seems to have the universal thumbs up I'm not in any rush. I'll work on drawing together other sources to support other statements and so I can add a section on awards. Emperor (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Sexual Assault

Mandy Morbid, his ex-wife, has just recently posted a long article about the abuse she and others went through because of him. This, we think, is quite important. https://www.facebook.com/amandapatricianagy/posts/10215845527064252 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E4B4:4E4:65C7:3A27:DAFB:2773 (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the "accused sexual abuser" from the opening paragraph. I believe it's ridicolous to define a person because of unproved allegations coming from an ex wife, and unless being a sexual abuser becomes the main trait of his life I don't think it should be in the opening paragraph at all; I therefore strongly encourage to keep a neutral and unbiased POV while writing and refrain from using Wikipedia as your social battlefield. 151.30.32.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the material at the start of the article was inappropriate. There however was a section added at the end 'Allegations of sexual abuse' which seemed consistent with similar text on other pages. There are now multiple sources reporting patterns of behavior consistent with this report, see: https://tabletopsmissingstairs.blogspot.com/2019/02/zak-s-and-other-horrible-tabletop-people.html and http://falsemachine.blogspot.com/2019/02/you-should-read-this.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.104.131 (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that the statement by Mandy Morbid would constitute an allowed instance of WP:PRIMARY. Especially since his minimal claim to notability is derived from his relationship to her. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hold on here please. May I remind you all of WP:BLPPRIMARY and your very serious obligation not to use primary sources that would go against our BLP policy? You must all wait until secondary sources that meet WP:RS have picked up on other people's allegations, and then and only then may you report that reporting in factual and neutral tōnes. I advise all editors not to post statements or links to any allegations on Facebook or blog posts until legitimate news sources have reported those concerns under due editorial scrutiny. We are an encyclopaedia reflecting what others have said about notable topics, and we do it in a neutral way. We are not a lynch mob promoting unsubstantiated allegations of crimes or misdemeanours. Be warned. I will be reporting to WP:ANI any editor who reinserts BLP material without suitable WP:RS. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate that you are supporting abusers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.126.95 (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not supporting alleged abusers - I've never even heard of this person; I am purely supporting Wikipedia. When I checked Google News before posting here last night, there was no coverage of any such stories anywhere. If there are today, then please go ahead and include content. Until that time, it is not acceptable to rely on Facebook posts to promote allegations of criminal behaviour. It is as simple as that. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Honest question because I don't know- do these count as appropriate secondary sources? They official (blog) posts from major RGP industry organizations- https://www.gauntlet-rpg.com/blog/the-gauntlets-statement-on-zak-s, https://oneblogshelf.blogspot.com/2019/02/drivethrurpg-responds-to-current.html?m=1 Webster100 (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that someone request that the article be protected or semi-protected at WP:RFP, at least for now. V2Blast (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Nick Moyes (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It feels weird to ask protection for an article covering an obscure artist like this one but it's probably for the best.Alves Stargazer (talk)

There are now additional accusations, by a second person. While this not meet your standards, I feel it is pertinent to report an additional source. https://web.archive.org/web/20190213060849/https://www.facebook.com/VivkaCriesWolf/posts/2478145012257909 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:21D0:3A40:AC71:CAD1:B857:9294 (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I understand how some of you feel in need to smack this guy down but let's be honest for a minute: there is no ongoing process, no sentence, nothing beside an ex-wife and an ex-girlfriend raising unproved and debatable accuses against a porn actor which still has to defend himself. Wikipedia is no tribunal, and unless we actually have some neutral source I'd ask everyone here to not fill this article of hearsays or slander.Alves Stargazer (talk)

Frankly the only article establishing notability for this person is an article from Vice called "Nik loves Mandy" - hiding behind an aggressive adherence to WP:BLP looks a lot like sheltering a person who is a notorious missing stair, and otherwise not someone Wikipedia should be commenting on. What I'm saying is that since the only notable thing about Smith is that he is an abuser who worked in media, to comment that he worked in media while ignoring that he's an abuser simply because newsmedia doesn't think "non-notable dirtbag abuses his spouse" is worthy of coverage is providing an abuser cover. This sort of nonsense makes the WMF look far worse than a "blp violation". Simonm223 (talk)

If I may give an analogous example, the Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal is allowed to stand because it cites multiple high-quality broadsheet news sources, including the New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian and BBC News. All of these have very strict editorial standards on what they will print, and have traditionally been aligned with journalists and printers' codes of conduct to avoid libel. Therefore, when they all print something on an event over a duration of time, we can take reasonable assumption that it is not libellous. By contrast, anyone can write a blog and anyone can write a Facebook post without any professional journalist qualifications, and should never be used. The Biographies of living persons policy on sourcing has further information, but in a nutshell - do not add potential libel to the encyclopedia. I don't know Zak Smith from a hole in the ground, and if you think he's not a suitable encyclopedia subject, I would recommend filing at a discussion at WP:AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So the bar for believing victims is nothing less than recognition by a national newspaper; any abuser below their notice gets to be as much a bastard as they want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7AA1:1160:80DD:E1F3:E5AD:E99A (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

What I would like is for Wikipedia not to be a safe haven for blatantly promotional pages for media workers who beat their spouses. And that's what this page was. I'll note that somebody keeps reinserting the un-cited WP:PEACOCK material about all the positive things Smith is purported to do and the same people up in arms that we might report that he's been pulled from the biggest online RPG market seem to have no problem with claims that connect Smith's work to Pynchon, donates money to charity, etc. This double standard is deplorable. Simonm223 (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So I'm only commenting as an observer from the rpg scene, but what sources would be suitable for this? I do feel that if an event like this isn't being covered by sources wikipedia consider appropriate to cite, then the individual in question is probably not noteable enough to be on wikipedia in the first place.

Agreed. As things stand, there is a category of people who are notable enough to have a wiki page (because at some point in the past there may have been an isolated mention of them in a borderline mainstream news source), but who are not notable enough to have abusive behavior covered (because they are no longer of any interest to the media, or were only ever picked up by chance. I would suggest that Smith never really met the notability criterion and that the page therefore be removed. (FWIW, looking for me on google news turns up a dozen hits in the last year from media sources much more prominent than have ever mentioned Smith, and I'm certainly not notable enough to have a wiki page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.116.107 (talk)

As I have said (and has been said before), if you don't think the guy is notable, you should file a discussion at AfD. I've done this for you - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zak Smith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the industry statements listed above (OneBookShelf and Gauntlet, now the ENnies and several others) are not New York Times, but for tabletop RPG they basically are. With context, IF this individual is notable according to Wikipedia standards (and you have flagged that question), then these outlets must be considered notable as well given the context of the industry in which he works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.193.147 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

this also exists which seems like a secondary source to me? https://popcultureuncovered.com/2019/02/15/tabletop-rpg-community-snubs-zak-smith/

This was considered notable enough to be covered by the website "Pop Culture Uncovered," which has been cited as a source on Wikipedia before. https://popcultureuncovered.com/2019/02/15/tabletop-rpg-community-snubs-zak-smith/ 71.231.2.35 (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The sexual assault allegations are being reported by a number of news outlets. Whoever is conducting an edit war to remove the section regarding the allegations needs to stop.Stormkith (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

At this point the allegations are being reported on by polygon - https://www.polygon.com/2019/2/20/18232181/dungeons-dragons-zak-smith-sabbath-abuse-accusations-players-handbook - not a wikipedian but I assume this meets your standards of sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.51.178 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The allegations are single-source, self-published, violate BLP, are contentious, are contested by more eyewitnesses than originally made the allegations (they are allegations of ongoing continuous abuse, so eyewitnesses are relevant). The attempts to refer to other sources referencing the allegations are just attempts to get around BLP and introduce the issue by the same ongoing gamer harassment campaign that's been responsible for the many past vandalisms of the page. You just have to look at the many obviously poorly-sourced and subjective claims gamers have tried to drop on this page (as well as previous attempts to simply delete the page entirely) in the past to see that the motive here is not good faith. The state of the situation around the allegations is changing rapidly and each time it does there will be another edit war as these same trolls see an opening to vandalize the page, or blow up the current allegations so they become the dominant part of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FixerFixerFixer (talk • contribs) 18:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC) — FixerFixerFixer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The recent edits to this page are clearly part of the long running campaign of harassment directed at Zak Smith, mixed in with a bunch of drama that is essentially interpersonal (not legal or criminal) between him and his ex wife. None of these abuse allegations have been substantiated in any way. Wikipedia is a totally inappropriate battleground for this. It's not serving the people involved nor the truth to let it play out here. When the page is unlocked, the section about abuse allegations should be removed, or at the very least, should be balanced with additional information available from sources equally reliable to Polygon that go into the harassment campaign, such as the Matter article (https://medium.com/matter/the-best-monster-38461c5cbbf1) and the BleedingCool article (https://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/07/07/this-is-why-tabletop-rpg-fans-cant-have-nice-things/). The Polygon article's source is the first person accounts of a few people, posted on their personal Facebook pages. It also links to Zak's response, which sources actual evidence and includes signed legal affidavits from his ex-Wife's father and several people close to the situation supporting Zak's story. The way this paragraph currently reads gives undue weight to one side of a controversial story without the other, despite the underlying sources being at least equal in reliability. The page should address the situation in a balanced way, or not at all. Precious Island (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)— Precious Island (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sexual Abuse Allegations

There needs to be a Sexual Abuse Allegations section created. I would be happy to compile the necessary authoritative references that document the allegations and the impact of this upon the RPG community. However, it seems as though any content relating to this subject will be removed. Is there any way to be able to add such content with any confidence?

The section under Personal Life is questionable - it references the subject's girlfriends. Is that necessarily lending any notability to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merxa (talk • contribs) 10:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

For now, I'd personally prefer to keep this as a tight paragraph in the Personal Life section (basically as it was before large quantities of the article were removed) as they are only allegations at the moment and there isn't much more left to say on the matter at the moment. If legal proceedings kick off (in one direction or another), then it might be time for a new section as long as it is discussed in reliable sources. Emperor (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Why was this article locked with the tight paragraph I drafted with a careful eye to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV using multiple WP:RSes deleted? Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for Nick but it seems that the priority was to lock it down to stop the edit war. You'd need to speak to Nick directly. Emperor (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: Would you care to comment on why this state of affairs was allowed to transpire? The article as it stands right now is worse than no article at all. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: It was protected to stop an edit war, and to allow the concerns regarding possible breaches of the BLP which led to that edit war to be discussed on this talk page. Nick (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: The edit summary that deleted the carefully crafted, BLP compliant paragraph on this controversy was explicitly misleading. High quality sources were deleted because the editor in question, whose edit you protected was upset we described Smith losing work over the allegations of assault. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: can you clarify "was upset we described" in your post, please. Nick (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: FixerFixerFixer is an SPA whose only edits are to this page. They routinely call edits they dislike vandalism, and every insertion they've made has been to fix the removal of unsourced WP:PEACOCK material related to Smith (such as his charitable donations) or to fix the insertion of unflattering details such as Smith being banned from awards, and removed from book credits and storefronts. I would propose that they very likely have an undisclosed WP:COI based on even the gentlest read of WP:DUCK. You have locked this page on their preferred version. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: I locked the page to stop an edit war, and to allow allegations of breaches of the BLP to be discussed. I would suggest you actually begin discussion concerning the content and not the page protection, and I would appreciate clarification of the term "was upset we described" please. Nick (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick: I am interpreting an SPA with a likely COI making misleading edit summaries to edit-war out reliably sourced due and notable information as being upset. If you wish me to strike through that assertion under those grounds I will. Now returning to discussing the material, per your request, the following was improperly deleted despite being carefully worded and thoroughly sourced to WP:RS:

Due to allegations of abuse, the online RPG storefront DriveThruRPG, owned by OneBookShelf, announced it would accept no new titles with Smith as a contributor and would be donating its portion of any revenue generated from the sale of products by Smith already on the storefront to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Wizards of the Coast announced they would be removing all references to Smith from the print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition. Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which published several of Smith's books announced that they would not do future projects with him. Smith has been banned from the ENnie Awards ceremony held at Gen Con. Gen Con released a statement stating Smith was banned from the convention entirely. Smith released a statement denying the accusations.

Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

References

As an entirely uninvolved editor here with absolutely no knowledge of this person, I have to say that I'm not aware of any changes in policy that would allow for Facebook, blogposts or PR pieces to be used to support rape allegations in a BLP. Praxidicae (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of the word rape: this is the first time I've seen that term used in relation to this article. Is there any background/reference for this? Merxa (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

As quoted above, the contentious paragraph only mentions "abuse" because that is the term used in the Polygon article mainly because its focus is on the fallout not the specific claims. The link given earlier from Fandomentals does go into more detail on what has been claimed and does mention accusations of rape. It's why I prefer the wording as it was because it focuses more on the impact it has had on his career (which is not controversial in itself) and avoided addressing the specifics of the claims made against him, which I think should only really be included in the article if this escalates to legal action. Emperor (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That's right. When I drafted the first sentence of that paragraph I very carefully limited it to what was explicitly stated in reliable sources - allegations of abuse. The only reference to the word "rape" in it was the name of the charity Drive Thru RPG promised to donate to. And that word only is used in the context of the proper name of an organization mentioned by primary sources as the organization they were supporting within the context of this controversy. Talking about themselves is a legitimate use of WP:PRIMARY sources, and the primary sources in the paragraph are exclusively used for groups to talk about their own reactions to the allegations reported by Polygon, a high-tier reliable secondary source. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The allegations are of abuse rather than rape and are sourced to Polygon (website) which is definitely a reliable source - the majority of other content is WP:PRIMARY, also supported by Polygon but speaks only to their own organizational responses to the allegations and as such are a legitimate use of primary material. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah a bunch of blogspot posts don't equate to anything reliable, period. As far as Polygon, none of what is there is substantiated enough to call it "well sourced" in any BLP. In fact this piece from Polygon doesn't even say the words "rape" aside from saying that there will be donations to an organization with rape in the title and the rest doesn't even cover allegations in any actual detail. WP:PRIMARY definitely doesn't apply to this either. Praxidicae (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Then we're back to the same bloody problem we were at before the AfD. We know he's notable, but it's for something we're apparently not permitted to discuss (the allegations). These articles were brought out at the AfD to estabish notability so if the Polygon article establishes notability but we can't use it, we can't actually meet WP:NPOV with regard to this otherwise mediocre and unremarkable RPG designer. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I can definitely understand the point of not suggesting allegations such as rape that were not made anywhere else and want to avoid making that assertion. I believe the primary sources were intended not to report allegations but to indicate that people Smith was notable for working with in the past (publishers, conventions, marketplaces, awards) and that are mentioned in his bio (which rely on the same quality of sources) were stating they would not work with him, admit him, or accept his work for consideration. Since his RPG work is significant, it seems like an attempt to boycott his work would be significant and those primary sources seem to indicate that without relying on more than common sense interpretation? --AmandaTrust (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This is what is driving me batty with this conflict. The impact these allegations had on Smith's career is the single-most notable thing about him, especially in that it's one of the first time we've seen a meetoo movement type moment in the RPG space. It's infuriating that we cannot create a fulsome article with regard to Smith but we also can't remove the white-washed article. Were I being pointed I'd be tempted to convert the page to a redirect to Me Too movement#US media and fashion industries. Of course I am not doing something so silly, but my point is that what we have here is just as gross a violation of WP:NPOV as that would be. Maintaining an article about Smith that doesn't mention what is very possibly the event that ended his career is ridiculous. Simonm223 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The point of my post in the AfD was to satisfy myself that he was notable before these abuse allegations and I'm personally happy that the article could have been in a state that would demonstrate notability before the recent developments. So it should, in theory, be possible to improve this article and we can then discuss the specifics of the paragraph discussing the abuse. Emperor (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The abuse allegations are single-sourced, self-published, contentious, contested (in many cases under penalty of perjury) by more witnesses than the original allegations and are part of an ongoing and rapidly-changing back-and-forth. The attempts to get around BLP by referencing slightly more mainstream references to the allegations are clearly not made in good faith: they're being made by the same gamer harassers who have been vandalizing this page for years. You only have to look at the repeated attempt to delete the page and insert poorly-sourced and subjective material over the years in order to see the motive. Every time the page is opened, they attempt any strategy possible to vandalize the page, get rid of the page, make the recent allegations dominate the page, etc. --FixerFixerFixer (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)— FixerFixerFixer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1. Polygon is not a self-published source.
2. Please disclose if you have a CoI with regard to Zach Smith.
3. Your accusations of vandalism are a stunning failure of WP:AGF and deeply inappropriate in this context. Simonm223 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The core of the problem, as far as I see it is that a notable (and apparently reliable) source is reporting claims made by a number of individuals. The question then is: Is including such a statement a WP:BLP violation?

Best I can tell from following the news (but not the more detailed discussion on the relevant pages) this is the core of the #MeToo movement. At least up to the point that criminal charges are brought that is the bulk of what happened in the early days and a lot of people have seen real world impacts to their careers and social standing purely based on the claims. This is pretty much what we've got here with the allegations of abuse. I feel Polygon is a reliable enough source to demonstrate that these allegations have been made and that is all that the contentious paragraph was saying about the allegations before demonstrating the impact it has had on his career.

I wonder if it'd be an idea to ask for input from editors who have been at the coal face of integrating #MeToo allegations into Wikipedia articles. Emperor (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Support - The allegations have been reported by reliable media sources, these news items were distributed by Google News, and numerous RPG industry companies have issued statements regarding their stance on the career of the subject directly as a result of the sexual abuse allegations. Merxa (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've only had time to skim #metoo related articles, but tried to focus on ones that did not result in charges or court cases. In the cases of Senator Al Franken, comedian Louis C.K., or adult entertainer James Deen, all seemed to add a section on the allegations as soon as they were recorded/reported by secondary sources. Some details were removed or edited for appearing in low-quality secondary sources, but in all cases the sexual misconduct allegations remained, though only reported as allegations. Where available, statements from the accused were included as they were in Simonm223's paragraph above. None of these are perfect analogies - all were covered very quickly by major news sources as was their aftermath, and were usually reported in secondary sources the day the allegations were made. While GenCon, The ENnies, DIY RPG, and Wizards of the Coast responses have been reported in Polygon and elsewhere (linked above in prior section on allegations), there's been no secondary sources reporting Lamentations of the Flame Princess's announcement nor the ENnies announcement. Those announcements do not add new information about the allegations but do indicate the response of specific organizations. --AmandaTrust (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That parallels what I found too. Although we should keep WP:CSECTION in mind. On some information not having secondary sources: following WP:NORUSH we don't have to get everything in right now, we could add what we can source properly and then discuss further additions on here until we reach a consensus. Emperor (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That works for me. --AmandaTrust (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Nick has this discussion resolved your concerns about WP:BLP sufficiently to reduce the protection level sufficiently that autoconfirmed users can re-insert the improperly deleted paragraph? Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer a little more input but it's definitely moving in the right direction - could you perhaps agree on exactly what you intend to add amongst yourselves if/when I drop the page protection. I also expect input from FixerFixerFixer and confirmation from FixerFixerFixer that they're going to abide by consensus and accept the outcome of what's agreed. I don't intend to unprotect the page and then have to re-protect it again due to edit warring (or indeed any further insertions of material incompatible with the BLP policy). Nick (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I'll start a new section on here and throw in an example based on the above discussion, so we can see how it looks. Emperor (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

See my comment below on that Nick FixerFixerFixer (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The concerns of Praxidicae, who said "a bunch of blogspot posts don't equate to anything reliable, period. As far as Polygon, none of what is there is substantiated enough to call it "well sourced" in any BLP", have not been addressed at all by the current outcome. This article has been subjected to regular attempts at vandalism over years, long predating these recent unsubstantiated allegations. Allowing drama and infighting from the RPG community to leak into Wikipedia edit wars will not serve anyone. The article has now been pruned way back, with undue space given over to these allegations, giving an extremely skewed view of someone who has paintings in MOMA and has authored numerous books and other publications. We can't have it both ways: either this article should be a very brief overview of Smith's life and works (in line with the modest notability that seems to be the consensus) without undue attention given to recent and rapidly changing interpersonal drama, or it should be a detailed article going in-depth into both his work and his personal life. Precious Island (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)— Precious Island (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Precious Island: Jee thanks Zak. Stick to one account. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 April 2019

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

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

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

• • @MSGJ: Why is this edit going forward when none of these issues raised have been addressed? To repeat: "These edits and their content have to be seen in context of the near-decade of harassment [1] the subject has received in the RPG sphere. The actual accusations are paper-thin, and proved false by signed statements from eyewitnesses, the accusers' family, and the accusers' own statements at the time [2] and picked up currency in the gaming sphere (and only the gaming sphere) because of widespread gamer antipathy to the subject's activism in that world rather than because they have any credibility or notability [3] . The attempts to edit this page to find ways to include them are a part of the larger harassment campaign that forced Gen Con, D&D et al to disavow the subject without an investigation. One only has to look at the history of edits and comments here to see that these edits are an attempt to take the accusations out of context and use them as another front in an endless war (occasionally anti-sex-worker, occasionally antisemitic) agains the subject. Either the charges--having been disproved--are not notable OR the harassment campaign that caused them to be taken seriously in the gamer world are more notable and should be the main thrust of the edits." (FixerFixerFixer · talk)FixerFixerFixer (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    • There is a consensus on article content. If you'd like to propose changes to that using reliable sources, you are welcome and indeed encouraged to do so, but it is now only you who feels this way, so continuing to edit war would be disruptive and will result in a block. Furthermore, please do not cast aspersions on other editors. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Amorymeltzer: To repeat myself: "Either the charges--having been disproved--are not notable OR the harassment campaign that caused them to be taken seriously in the gamer world are more notable and should be the main thrust of the edits." The section should note the actions of Gen Con et al are not the result of accusations of abuse, they're a result of the harassment campaign that followed them. If they were reactions to accusations of abuse then Gen Con et al would've reacted by investigating--which they did not. (None of the witnesses have been contacted by the parties involved, for example). Since they were instead reacting to the pressure of a harassment campaign, they simply severed ties to avoid being themselves harassed. This has all been said before and is well-sourced. If these accusations are notable, the paragraph should read "Due to an ongoing harassment campaign stemming from Smith's activism in the RPG sphere, Wizards of the Coast and other companies were forced to sever ties with him. (u • t • c) 22:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

References

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

This article needs to be unlocked so it can be restored. Almost all the valid content covering the artist's career, works, and other activities in RPGs, authoring books, awards, etc, have been erased, leaving only an overly detailed and badly under-sourced paragraph about unsubstantiated allegations. This page has become an edit war battleground for disputes in the subject's personal life, and is not being held to BLP standard. The page should be reverted to the edit @ 19:10, 24 April 2019‎ 2600:1700:7642:25e0:1401:1142:ea8:65e9 and then locked. Precious Island (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)— Precious Island (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ennie Award reference

http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/ennie-award-announcement/

This reference could be added to the awards section with a quote such as: "...any product that includes Zak Smith as a contributor is banned from ENnies consideration now and in the future." Merxa (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't quite see why that info went to #Personal life, but once is certainly good enough:

Resolved

 – by Merxa, –84.46.52.65 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at BLPN

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

That's now archived, and I see no consensus for the "rape" added by User:Morbidthoughts with summary "add and cite" here or in the BLP/N archives. The added source "thefandomentals.com" cites a FaceBook posting by Morbid citing a long-time friend, or similar, IMHO that's not good enough for a BLP. I suggest an immediate fix per policy by Nick, Praxidicae, Morbidthoughts, Ad Orientem, or whoever is awake at this time of the day. –84.46.53.175 (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The Fandomentals article meets our requirements under the BLP policy, being a reliable source with editorial control and authors with experience in the subject matter about which they are writing. If you have concerns with the content of The Fandomentals article, you should contact that organisation directly, but as things currently stand, the sources have been reviewed fully by multiple editors and found to be compliant with our BLP policy. Nick (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I found no "reviews" for Fandomentals as RS in the project pages, there are no occurences of Fandomentals at all in this namespace incl. RS/P, RS/N archives, and BLP/N archives. The last BLP/N discussion ended on April 18, this source was added here on April 24, and it's used on only nine enwiki articles. No matter how reliable they are, they quote a FaceBook post allegedly based on the say-so of a friend of the poster, and their subject matter is not legal enforcement. Are you aware of WP:ARBBLP? –84.46.53.175 (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Not all sources will be discussed prior to use. If you have concerns about the source, you may wish to begin such a discussion yourself. Nick (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems reliable to me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, IP person, are you disputing that there were allegations of rape or that companies had dropped him due to these allegations? If the source cites a Facebook post that makes these allegations, what is the issue here? This seems like an attempt at cherrypicking. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: The consensus version of the paragraph with your later tweaks incl. the added source are okay, but the word "rape" isn't, hear-say reported in a Facebook post isn't good enough to overrule WP:ARBBLP#Biographies of living persons do no harm. I arranged as IP to have that linked in the BLP policy, because I want to keep a possibly harmful TMZ statement quoted by RS out of Sasha Grey per a 2016 talk page consensus. –84.46.52.129 (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Let me quote two of the sources: "Two days later, cosplayer and model Vivka Grey posted her own allegations, describing Smith’s abuse of both her and Morbid and incidents of non-consensual sex and forced body modification"[1] and "Another accuser, Vivka Grey, posted her own experiences of abuse and rape, furthering the outrage."[2]. They are reporting on direct allegations of what the sources interpret as rape or "non-consensual sex". It is also irrelevant that some of Mandy Morbid's allegations are repeating hearsay as wikipedia is not a courtroom bound by legal rules of evidence. The evidentiary standard is verifiability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Bloodthirsty: One Nation Under Water cites popcultureuncovered.com as "mainstream online blog". This source is used on four articles so far, no mention at all on project pages. Blogs and social media do not follow WP:BLP, that's why we avoid to use them in references. But maybe you could adopt the term "sexual assault" instead of "rape" from this source, or explain how the use of "rape" should follow other rules than "murder" in BLPs, i.e., is Smith in prison expecting a trial? –84.46.53.51 (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The allegation is an allegation of rape, not sexual assault. Why should we use innuendo? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Being in a blog format does not disqualify a website from being considered a reliable source. The criteria is whether the website has a reputation for fact checking and their writers are subject to editorial control. You also misunderstand Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or "rules" for mentioning allegations. The requirement is that reliable sources report that the allegations have been made. Excluding the mention of specific allegations because they were based on hearsay or that there was no trial or criminal investigation is improper because those reasons are not relevant to whether the allegations were made. Not all allegations lead to trials nor does the absence of a trial mean that the allegation was not made. Hell, she could have based those allegations on a clairvoyant dream. If Smith had lost work because of them, and the appropriate news sources had reported that, it is appropriate for mention on Wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe what our random IP address (which, suspiciously BTW, didn't start posting until other sock puppets were banned, and has also only ever posted on 2 articles, for what it's worth) is saying, to be fair, is that the previous paragraph, before User:Morbidthoughts began editing, had been approved after weeks of debate. That approval led to the article even being allowed to mention the to allegations *at all* after a pretty fierce battle with Zak sock puppets and supporters. The fact that Morbidthoughts has now just decided to change the paragraph to whatever suits him/her means that the debate is re-opened. Several administrators are already on board with completely removing the paragraph to begin with, which means that Morbidthoughts has probably made it easier for them to argue that case. IE, the paragraph should be changed back to the census-approved paragraph from the middle of April, and probably left alone for awhile. But I'm personally tired of dealing with it and the edit wars, so if Morbidthoughts and their like decide it's important enough to include 1 extra word, and risk having the entire paragraph removed, then that's on them. Just putting the info out there in case they weren't aware of what harm they were potentially causing. - Ishmayl (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

JFTR, about 512 IPs in the range 84.46.5[23].*, and you don't need CU-rights to check that these IPs were active on Sasha Grey since 2018-12-09, and this page still has a link to Zak Smith not added by one of these IPs. BTW, in case that I forget this when the current protection expires, the BLP still has to be fixed outside of the section with the criminal case, three sources, Vanessa Veselka:^[3], thefanzine.com:^[4], and some silly edit filter won't let me write thefanzine.com/zak-smith-superpo⁠rnstar/ without tricks. RS as far as I can judge it by looking at other pages using these sources. –84.46.52.77 (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

One statement with both references added as #Career intro, RPG author + adult actor added to the lede. –84.46.52.65 (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Occupations

The occupations in the infobox (none), the lede (artist), and in #Career (artist) are incomplete. The categories + IAFD suggest "porn actor" (maybe "former"), the #Bibliography suggests "author" or "writer" or whatever is in those books + RPGs, and the #Awards are apparently for a "game developer" (notably not artist/author/actor).
Unrelated, the same source six times as only source for one paragraph is ugly. Maybe reduce this to two references (paragraph before last statement + last statement), and add a reference for his view to the last statement, apparently he updated it twice.^[5] –84.46.53.188 (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

BTW, what is {{WikiProject Punk music|importance=mid}} about? Importance=mid for a YouTuber can be about 1.5 million followers + professional with lots of YouTube stuff, but here musician is not even mentioned, there's no {{discogs artist}} in the external links and no musicbrainz ID in the {{authority control}}, is this some WikiProject BS bingo? –84.46.53.188 (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

This page has been vandalised and virtually wiped, over an interpersonal dispute between the subject and his ex-wife, which is now dominating the page despite no reliable secondary sources reporting on the facts. The occupations should include artist, porn actor, author, and game developer, at least. Precious Island (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)— Precious Island (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'll interpret that as "no punk music" here. –84.46.53.175 (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – –84.46.52.65 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Miscellany

Trying to find a review for one of his books (this is always a pain if the non-seller results start after page 5 of the search hits) I stumbled over 2 tumblr blog posts, 2 RS, and a connected source:

• Mandy Morbid had a gofundme.com legal fund against the defamation suit in 2019.^[6]
• Zak Smith opposed FOSTA-SESTA in 2018, reported by his gallerist.^[7]
• ArtsBeat (NYT) featured his top 11 songs in 2009 mentioning three of his books.^[8]
• RPG Publisher Lamentations of the Flame Princess Cuts Ties with Zak Smith Following Abuse Allegations.^[9]
• Somebody working for Artillery (magazine) had a lunch with Zak Smith in 2010.^[10]

–84.46.52.59 (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Revisions to Career

All revisions I made to Career yesterday have verifiable sources sufficient for BLP. The content objectively details work he is known for. @NekoKatsun what is the reason for removing content on Zak's art and books? AlexaSmooth (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This page in general (and that information in particular) has been the subject of a huge amount of debate for months now, effectively since the abuse allegations were brought to light. The content that you've been reinserting is vastly overdetailed and has previously been removed with the rationale that it's based on unreliable and self-published sources. It's also content that's been previously championed by a number of single-purpose accounts and IPs, including at least one strongly suspected of being the article's subject (which breaks all sorts of COI policies). My suggestion would be to present a trimmed-down and tightened version of the information you'd like in the article here on the talkpage, so that other editors can comment and we can get it to a state everyone agrees on. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The main issue is that some of the descriptions or analysis of his work is cited directly to his works rather than a secondary reliable source. This is prohibited original research. I would recommend reinstating the portions that are supported by reputable art critic sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your responses. Can you be more specific about which parts are overly detailed and supported by unreliable sources? I took quite a bit of time to make sure that the content I had included came from news sources, published books, and appropriate organizations. As such, clarity on the specific parts that are of concern would be much appreciated so we can reach a consensus together. AlexaSmooth (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Even though you're responding to Neko, I would like to point out an example of original research. "Smith's body of work primarily comprises portraits, drawings, and abstract art executed in acrylic and ink" cites to three of his works directly or summaries from the publisher to establish this rather than a news article or an art journal. The next sentence, "An enduring interest in comic books informs the artist's dynamic and obsessively detailed depictions of the people, objects, and stories that inhabit his world." cites to another of his works directly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

There has been recent activity by the subject over the past few days in which he has allegedly been threatening his detractors. In the light of this, please be wary of revisions which may occur around this time.Merxa (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Morbid and Merxa! Alexa, it's interesting you should say that - that makes it sound like this is original content from you, but all of it is pure copy-paste from a much older (and messier) version of this exact article, and has been discussed on this very talkpage. Beg pardon, but I'm starting to have some serious concerns about COI, and whether your account happens to be single-purpose. I note that you were asked point-blank at one point if you were the subject of the article, and I also note that this is one of two Wiki mainspace pages you've edited. Care to address? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Morbid, definitely helps. NekoKatsun, I can understand your suspicions, happy to clear things up. I am not the subject of the article. I have some other drafts I'm working on for other articles, with regards to pole dancing and sex worker rights, I have yet to publish. Between the holidays and other family matters, I have unfortunately not had the time I need to upload much more than small edits when I can. I would classify the copy/paste of the prior version of this page within that realm of edits. As prior observed, it's tightened up, I focused primarily on making sure the sources were appropriate. Years ago, I had actually read this page, so I was surprised when I recently revisited and saw all of the information on the subject's art and books had been removed. Considering that many other public figures with convictions for abuse still have content about their work on their pages, it seemed strange that this particular person's career would be deleted in lieu of accusations. My interpretation was that the deletion of subject's career was with a very specific intention, and my assumption was vandalism. My intention was to reverse that perceived vandalism, while honoring the additions to subject's personal life. AlexaSmooth (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe add thefanzine.com/zak-smith-superpornstar/ as 2nd reference to the adult actor statement. I'm not logging in only to bypass a slightly silly fock+purn edit filter for references. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, 84.46.53.211, Morbid, Neko, do I have your consensus to include this suggested citation? AlexaSmooth (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I see any real issues with it. Your latest attempt still included all of the OR mentioned by Morbid earlier, though; please establish consensus before reinstating your edits. Like I suggested earlier, why not post it here so that we can all work on it together and get to a version we like before it hits the article? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The fanzine is a more appropriate source for analysis than citing to his works directly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you please clarify how the prior mentioned lines are original research? The content currently subject to debate in the art section has proper reference from museums, news articles, international art institutions, and literature published by reputable art historians published through respected book publishing companies that specialize in art criticism and art history. The citations for the published books comes directly from news articles and the ennies website. With all due respect, I did take Morbid's feedback into consideration. Considering that all the sources cited are still reliable and up to standard for BLP, I still maintain that the information I have added back is up to standard. This is my conclusion after comparing the content subject to debate with other living artists, including Takashi Murakami, Anselm Kiefer, Yayoi Kusama, and Marina Abramovic. AlexaSmooth (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

So having taken Morbid's feedback into consideration, why did you keep the multiple first-party references in there? The sentences they describe above have four references to Smith's work directly; we need reliable third party sources. Those four refs are also used throughout the rest of the content, rendering the whole thing a problem. Also, the entire "Books" section is more or less already covered in the bibliography section - about the only part that's not is that some of the RPGs he's affiliated with won ENnies, and that fits better just before the extant portion of the article pointing out that all future products with him as a contributor are banned from ENnie consideration. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I was also researching and noticed that the ref you titled :2 (the book is Vitamin D2) doesn't mention him at all. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 01:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Alexa, please read WP:PSTS. I told you that a review or analysis of his works must be based on independent reliable sources. When a sentence concludes what his works mostly consist of and cites to his works directly, it is an analysis of his work by the wikipedia editor who wrote that. Further, a gallery that is exhibiting his work like Saatchi is not a proper source to critique his art because it is not independent of Smith's work. This is the flaw of what you are trying to put in. Instead, summarise direct criticism from newspapers and art journals rather than force the reader to have to infer things.Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Neko, according to the article Morbid references, third party is not a requirement for a page, secondary is. The information on books is acceptable for both books and bibliography, there's no reason why it shouldn't be included on both, nor is there adequate reason that subject's gaming books should not be included in books section. Subject's ban from ENnie's in the future is a result of allegations from personal life, and have nothing to do with the publication or reviews of prior work. As for the Vitamin D citation, apologies if I accidentally cited the wrong volume, that was meant to be volume 1. Subject's work is described in detail on page 302 by art critic Martha Schwender. Morbid, I would think that this source would be up to standard based on your feedback, and the articles you have asked me to read. Saatchi, in addition to being a gallery, is a news source. All the citations included come from news sources, which already include newspapers and art journals. Demanding I include those sources when they are already included and already up to par with BLP standards, and the standards you have verbalized, is not a productive debate, as it's not actually constructive feedback. AlexaSmooth (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexaSmooth (talk • contribs) 21:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Alexa, "third-party" and "secondary" both mean the same thing in this context - not his works directly. If you believe your sources are up to the standards that have been explained, then you are willfully misunderstanding policy as well as what I and other editors are telling you. Post your suggested text here on the talkpage, and ensure that it doesn't reference his works directly, nor any organization not independent of his works (Saatchi). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Third party and secondary are completely different types of sources. In addition to citing the published works, I also included news sources that consistently references the books and their content. AlexaSmooth (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep re-adding the contested material before consensus is established? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Also why would you remove sources established to be reliable? Did you not check the talkpage archive? There's only one, not much of an excuse, but here, I've done the legwork for you.

Alexa, this is the part of WP:PSTS I want you to focus on: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Tell me how analysing his works as being mostly portraits and abstract art executed in acrylic and ink as straight forward descriptive statements that can be verified by a layman? It requires you to look a look at his work and come to that conclusion and a layman is not expected to understand that his work was done in acrylic. Further describing his art as "dynamic and obsessively detailed" is critique that cannot be cited to galleries who are trying to exhibit or sell his work. Are you the original author of this paragraph? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not. Those are statements backed up by the news articles and art criticism book that I cited. AlexaSmooth (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Workdraft review

We're going to have to review the art section, sentence by sentence, then:

1. Smith's body of work primarily comprises portraits, drawings, and abstract art executed in acrylic and ink.
2. An enduring interest in comic books informs the artist's dynamic and obsessively detailed depictions of the people, objects, and stories that inhabit his world.
3. Allied with punk and hardcore culture and the DIY aesthetic associated with these movements, Smith draws on traditions of decorative art to produce visually complex, labor-intensive pictures characterized by intricate patterns and vivid coloration.
4. These include repeated shapes (such as squares and lines) that are compressed to form 3D hints that form the picture.
5. Zak also contrasts colors in his work, often using black and white with clear differentiation within the scene.
6. Smith is best known for his portraits of female subjects – with an emphasis on eroticism as well as the mundane aspects of his subjects' lives.
7. The latter were featured in the 2004 Whitney Biennial at the Whitney Museum of American Art and are now in the collection of the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis.

The purpose of this section is not to act as Zak Smith's CV or portfolio, but to summarise what other people have written about his art. The art galleries that exhibit his work are disqualified as sources because they have an interest in promoting his work. Tell me which independent reliable sources directly support each sentence. If not, we'll throw it out. I've already commented on why I believe 1 and 2 are problematic. Please do not reinstate anything before we complete this process. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

1. #Smith's body of work primarily comprises portraits, drawings, and abstract art executed in acrylic and ink. http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/honigman/honigman6-7-04.asp

2. An enduring interest in comic books informs the artist's dynamic and obsessively detailed depictions of the people, objects, and stories that inhabit his world. Tablonsky, L. (2003).

(Zak Smith's comic-book illustration techniques). ARTnews. 102. 96-96. 

3. Allied with punk and hardcore culture and the DIY aesthetic associated with these movements, Smith draws on traditions of decorative art to produce visually complex, labor-intensive pictures characterized by intricate patterns and vivid coloration. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/miranda/la-et-cam-moment-of-friday-artist-zak-smith-metal-band-celtic-frost-20140703-column.html Vitamin D: New Perspectives on Drawing, Martha Schwendener, Phaidon Press (with Illustrations), pg.009, 010, 302-305, 348

4. These include repeated shapes (such as squares and lines) that are compressed to form 3D hints that form the picture. Vitamin D: New Perspectives on Drawing, Martha Schwendener, Phaidon Press (with Illustrations), pg.009, 010, 302-305, 348

5. Zak also contrasts colors in his work, often using black and white with clear differentiation within the scene. https://honeysucklemag.com/zak-smith-zak-sabbath-art/ http://www.curbsidesplendor.com/blog/2015/6/20/we-did-an-interview-zak-smith-talks-art-writing-porn

6. Smith is best known for his portraits of female subjects – with an emphasis on eroticism as well as the mundane aspects of his subjects' lives. https://honeysucklemag.com/zak-smith-zak-sabbath-art/ https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/miranda/la-et-cam-moment-of-friday-artist-zak-smith-metal-band-celtic-frost-20140703-column.html

7. The latter were featured in the 2004 Whitney Biennial at the Whitney Museum of American Art and are now in the collection of the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis. https://honeysucklemag.com/zak-smith-zak-sabbath-art/ https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/miranda/la-et-cam-moment-of-friday-artist-zak-smith-metal-band-celtic-frost-20140703-column.html http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/trice/trice10-15-07.asp https://www.minnpost.com/artscape/2019/11/the-expressionist-figure-drawings-at-the-walker-carmens-tragedy-at-the-u/ https://www.juxtapoz.com/news/zak-smith-shred-richard-heller-gallery-la/

AlexaSmooth (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

1. The artnet article does not mention abstract art and was written in 2004 so it may be outdated on properly verifying what his work consists of. Based on that article, the sentence will need to be rewritten to: "Smith's body of work include portraits and drawings using ink, paint and mixed media."
2. Is this flowery sentence a direct quote from the Artnews article? It's hard to believe an editor summarised such flowery prose. Do you have a copy of the article?
3. The LA Times article says he likes to listen to music when he creates art. It doesn't explicitly support "Allied with punk and hardcore culture and the DIY aesthetic associated with these movements" or describe on the traditions he draws on. I assume the latter is from Martha Schwendener's book. Do you have a copy of it? This seems to be the most pertinent quote from the LA Times, "And the spare materials with which the song is built (guitar, accompanied by Tom Gabriel Fischer’s growling vocals) is something that Smith sees as connecting with his own work." However this connection would seem to contradict that his work is visually complex with intricate patterns and vivid coloration.
4. Seems like a reasonable description that would be supported in that art book."
5. No mention of color or contrast in the honeysuckle article. The curbsidesplendor site is not an acceptable source given that it is a retail business possibly selling Smith's book. It also doesn't directly mention contrast or even the word black or white.
6. The two citations do not discuss what he is best known for? Can you point to me where in those articles they discuss the emphasis on eroticism and mundane?
7. What does "latter" refer to? The citations don't explicitly mention which one of his works ended up at the Walker Art Center.

Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If you need an example for #6 maybe include this, it supports "Acrylic and metallic ink" on a 2007 portrait of Sasha Grey in the Saatchi Gallery. You already have another 2005 example for the Girls in the Naked Girl Business series at the Whitney Museum of American Art. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Erm... not sure how "Acrylic and metallic ink" supports "Smith is best known for his portraits of female subjects – with an emphasis on eroticism as well as the mundane aspects of his subjects' lives." If anything I feel like this is more a potential reference for #1 ("Smith's body of work include portraits and drawings using ink, paint and mixed media.")? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this essay can be reduced to one or two statements with the given references for #1 + #6. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Apologies for just coming in on this conservation now, i see that amongst the information removed from the article was galleries/museums that hold his works, this should be reinstated as it is the usual way to show that an artist is notable, see WP:CREATIVE. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:NNC. The fact that they exhibit his works is already in the article. The problem with relying on art criticism directly from those galleries is that they have an interest in promoting their exhibits violating WP:V and WP:UNDUE. See WP:COISOURCE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I missed that there are already three references incl. Sasha Grey for three Girls in the Naked Girl Business, added to the Infobox as notable work, not explicitly mentioning it in the article is odd, but this BLP will never be a class=B. OTOH his former RPG development (not counting the reason for former in "Personal life") should be addressed by somebody with a clue about RPGs after the early 80s, i.e., not me. –84.46.52.59 (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph of "personal life"

@Morbidthoughts:. --Gryllida (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(I've performed some immediate removals as per WP:BLP. Discussion to come to agreement would be appreciated.) Gryllida (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I am opposed to those immediate removals by Gryllida that took away work that was the result of extensive discussions. I am grateful to Morbidthoughts for restoring them. As significant time and effort has been contributed to this page to achieve the inclusion of that paragraph, I would be concerned to see that lost.Merxa (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sentence 1

"Due to allegations of abuse and rape by several women including his ex-girlfriend, Morbid,"

• This is not verified in any reputable source, I would replace it with "Due to sexual misconduct". See WP:BLP "remove immediately [...] what [...] is unsourced or poorly sourced;" and "relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.". I simply do not believe who wrote what in this case unless these allegations are presented and confirmed in court it is all hear say. --Gryllida (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Three secondary sources (WP:SECONDARY) wrote about the allegations. It is inappropriate for you to second-guess their reporting of the allegations themselves (WP:PRIMARY). Verification requires us to confirm what reliable secondary sources wrote, not substitute our judgment on what to believe about the allegations themselves. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No, we need third-party (not secondary) sources for this. See "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (blp). I'm inclined to leave out the specifics of the allegations as the companies which placed various bans didn't report these specifics. Gryllida (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources are third-party sources. Polygon, Fandomentals, and Pop Culture Uncovered are third-party to Smith, Morbid, and the companies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, thanks for that. I think the question here is how reliable these sources are; while they did a seemingly good analysis of the connected events (the various bans and businesses disengaging from future work with Zac), which I approve of as they linked to the respective official announcements, their attempt to fact check the allegations was limited to them locating the respective social media posts. This means these sources' story of what has occurred is seemingly true, as they retold what the allegations told indeed. However, as I think you may already know, Wikipedia's policy is that allegations are not reported entirely, unless they are confirmed (for instance, a conviction is issued by the court). If one were to follow this policy, the various resulting bans etc would qualify for inclusion into the article, but content of allegations ("x abused y in manner z") wouldn't. In my opinion, these sources not following such a strict limitation does not excuse us from not following it in this article. I.e. "this reliable source re reported these allegations, so I will put them in", in my opinion, won't fly, unless the source provided some sort of convincing evidence that went beyond "we can read social media". Gryllida (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

What you are trying to apply to this scenario by requiring a conviction is WP:BLPCRIME. This reasoning has been discussed and refuted earlier in this talk page.[11]. You can also review the discussion where we discuss the reliability of the sources in the archives.[12] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

That section, and particularly that archive, is excessively long. It would be great to have a summary of it here, particularly as you were involved in it at that time and would have a good memory of what the key argument there was. The onus of refuting my above argument is, I believe, on you. Gryllida (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Naw, do a search for the term BLPCRIME on this page with a CTRL-F.[13]] Then do the same for the archive with the individual sites.[14] You are failing at a good faith discussion by waving the TLDR flag. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Sentence 2

"Wizards of the Coast announced they would be removing all references to Smith from the print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition (for which they had credited him as a consultant).[14][15][16]"

• This is OK. --Gryllida (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sentence 3

"The online RPG storefront DriveThruRPG, owned by OneBookShelf, announced it would accept no new titles with Smith as a contributor, and would be donating its portion of any revenue generated from the sale of products by Smith already on the storefront to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network."

• This is verified, but over-detailed I think. Specifically I would remove the reference to the network (it is a verifiable fact but it is not relevant). --Gryllida (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No objections to reducing due to WP:WEIGHT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Gryllida (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, after giving it some thought, there are better ways to pare sentence 3 and 4 down without eliminating the substance. I don't think it is appropriate to question whether their actions with the revenue are relevant. Sentence 6 should be eliminated if sources didn't actually cover the Ennie announcement. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sentence 4

"Kenneth Hite, who worked with Smith on Demon City: The Ultimate Horror RPG, which was funded on Kickstarter, apologised to anyone affected and he said he was going to donate any money he made from it to Connections for Abused Women and their Children."

• Morbidthoughts wrote to me "Your comments about Hite and the Gen Con ban show that you did not review the Polygon article adequately when you tried to verify the information." The only source for this is a Facebook post. I am not sure it should be included. See "remove immediately [...] what [...] relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP" from WP:BLP. I am not even sure it belongs to the correct person, or that the person followed the promise that they set in the post (e.g. I do not believe what they have said). I would like to remove this sentence. --Gryllida (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Again verification requires us to check that Polygon wrote about the apology and the intent to donate rather than whether it actually happened. See WP:BURDEN] and WP:NOTTRUTH Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sentence 5

"Smith has been banned from attending Gen Con,[14]"

• Morbidthoughts wrote to me "Your comments about Hite and the Gen Con ban show that you did not review the Polygon article adequately when you tried to verify the information." I could not verify this. This message from Gen Con is pretty generic as [14] and their twitter says. I would like to remove this sentence unless adequate source is found. --Gryllida (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"Update (Feb. 22): Peter Adkison, co-owner of the Gen Con convention and chair of its board, has expanded his organization’s statement. In a post linked from the front page of the convention website, he has publicly banned Zak Smith from attending the event." Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sentence 6

and any products that include Smith as a contributor will be banned from future ENnie Awards.[17]"

• This is OK. --Gryllida (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Is this in relation to this reference? http://www.ennie-awards.com/blog/ennie-award-announcement/ Merxa (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Can the above reference be used as a source for this statement? Merxa (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but is the information really that important if no one else reported on the ban per WP:UNDUE? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going for yes it is important considering that the subject's related history with regards to the ENnie Awards is published in detail on this article. How is it conceivable that we publish the subject's achievements within the ENnie Awards without mention that he is actually banned from said awards? Merxa (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sentence 7

Smith released a statement denying the accusations,[18] and has since said he has filed a defamation lawsuit against Morbid.[19]

• This is OK, but I would leave out the name. Can you find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting this? --Gryllida (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It's for clarity based on Smith's own writing since reliable sources wrote that the allegations came from multiple women. You can remove her name, but readers might be confused on who he filed the lawsuit against. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

And two more sources

• Morbidthoughts wrote to me "You also did not explain why you removed two other citations about the allegations. ". I removed two sources which did not seem to include any information which is not included in the polygon source. --Gryllida (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG requires multiple reliable sources especially since they involve "Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources" Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Rape Allegations and Fallout with Role Playing Games Industry

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

So far for the wonders of semi-protection, I used a copy+paste variant of {{Uw-delete1}} for this business.
JFTR, HoneysuckleMag.com  is used only once as source on enwiki, therefore it might be no RS, otherwise another source for some BLP details (found in the reverted edit) could be fine:^[15] The second TheFanzine.com  source could also do this, but I can't as IP, some silly edit filter insists on no Fock and Purn  in references without log-in.
TL;DR: Only one source for adult film is too minimalistic. –84.46.53.163 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Naw. He's a public figure. Voluntary even. He was an adult actor for several years so he put himself in the limelight. Hell he's written nationally published books about it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Wiki policies are fairly clear on the subject. Is it noteworthy and relevant? His infobox lists him as known for RPG development, and he's been 100% banned from the ENnies and Gen Con; I'd call that both noteworthy and relevant. Is it well-documented? That paragraph has five sources, that's pretty well-documented. Cut and dried. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing stated has to do with accusations of crime policy. The sources are all just in reference to each other. The allegations are not proven. Recent attempted edit, 19:41, 29 January 2020

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

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

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

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

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

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." NekoKatsun (nyaa) 03:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I find no evidence on this article that would support the opinion of Xone21gunsX.Merxa (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: Xone21gunsX was blocked for being a sockpuppet in February 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive#01_February_2020 Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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