User talk:Slacker13

Making an article on Art Brut

Hi there! I read the Teahouse regularly to expand my broad knowledge of policies etc in action, and saw your recent post. I was surprised, because I've definitely heard of Art Brut before, and with the broad coverage en.wiki has at this point, I would have assumed it would be covered!

If you're planning to whip up a draft, I'd love to offer collaborative help. So far I have not worked on drafts, other than offering copyediting to other users on drafts they sought feedback for. However, I'd love to take the next step towards creating original and useful article content here. It would be a lot less intimidating to do so in collab with someone who has created articles and knows what they're doing! 😅

I have many years' experience as an English editor for hire, and went to library school so most of the policies and guidelines (notability, RSes, consensus processes) make tons of sense to me. I guess it's just the actual steps that aren't clear, so I'm curious what you've done in your past article creation.

Do you sit down and search for a handful of Reliable Source information items that cover the subject sufficiently to establish notability, then start drafting in your user sandbox? Is Google Scholar a good jumping off point, or somewhere else?

I am happy to help make Art Brut as a draft and see it through to publication, helping in any way that I can! And if you are too busy or not interested, that's cool too- just let me know. Figured I would propose the awesome team-up as I'm fond of en.wiki's sustained community focus ☺️

Best wishes, have a great day! Chiselinccc (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Absolutely! Let's collaborate. Do you want to start? I usually populate draft versions with content from another page so that the layout is the same. Then i delete and replace with relevant content. It's been my work around. I can start the draft page if you'd like. Slacker13 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chiselinccc here is a link to the Draft Article page: Draft:Art Brut Slacker13 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Slacker13 awesome, thanks so much for getting this started! I am getting my desktop environment set up today and later on, I'll review the original content section from Outsider Art as well as your draft, then do a little literature review and share my findings (and any questions that arise) in the draft Talk page tonight.

Thanks again for welcoming collaboration, it feels so much easier to "break through" the mental barrier of developing new content alongside a teammate who's already walked this path 😅 Cheers! Chiselinccc (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I've populated the page with content from the "Outsider Art" page for formatting purposes. Now we need to add and replace content and sources. Slacker13 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, way ahead of me then on the Outsider Art content- I'll catch myself up and then go looking for additional, notability-worthy RS options as well as coverage that identifies what else we might want to include in this initial draft. Hurrah! Chiselinccc (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Also -- just briefly looking through it, maybe it's a separation job -- meaning much of the content is Art Brut -- maybe we separate into two different articles, like move Art Brut content to Art Brut page and make the "Outsider Art" page smaller and more well defined. Just a thought. Slacker13 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for a period of 6 months. If you still need an IP block exemption after it expires please file a new request. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 11:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Slacker13 (talk) 15:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

mall>(year-long initiative)

Pictures of people

I don't know if this will interest you at all, but I like to add a lead image if possible, and have in some cases managed to do so... when the person is not L: Marian Ewurama Addy, Mercedes Richards, Santo Trafficante Sr., Sylvia Lefkovitz etc.

Rarely but it happens, I've encountered the article subject on WP, asked them to provide an image, and they did. Some will probably balk when they read the "not just for WP" terms. I think some Wikipedians have successfully reached out to article subjects off-WP, asking for an image, but I've never tried that. In some cases, like Nicôle Lecky, it was possible to get a pic from a YT-video that was uploaded with a free license. Maybe this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant idea, and very helpful. Thank you. Will reach out to the subjects. If the subject provides you with an image, it still has copyright though, yes? How is it then uploaded / added to the system? Slacker13 (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

This should help: Wikipedia:A picture of you. Basically, you can upload a selfie of yourself on Commons[1], so can anybody else. You can also upload pictures you have taken yourself with your own camera, so can anybody else. You can also upload such pictures on your private website, marking them with a Commons-acceptable license then anyone can upload them on Commons. It's possible for copyright holders (usually the photographer) to license pics to Commons via mail contact, more on that here:[2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, you just get lucky:[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång-- so incredibly helpful. Thank you! I mean it!! Slacker13 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Slacker13. Thank you for your work on Srijon Chowdhury. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

thanks! I appreciate the time looking at it! Slacker13 (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Prod

Hi Slacker13. You proposed deletion for a lot of articles in a short amount of time with a generic rationale (does not meet notability requirements) and no evidence that you have looked for sources as required by WP:BEFORE, or even considered sources that were already in the article. For example Jack Brogan cites a New York Times obituary, which is unambiguous evidence of notability. The majority of these nominations have been contested by me or other editors. Please slow down and make a good faith effort to look for potential sources before nominating articles for deletion. Thanks! Jfire (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the prod. Just going through the visual artists stub category one by one so this is what it looks like I'm doing significant tags in a short period of time. As I go through the stubs list there are so so many, well stubs or orphans and many lack "significant coverage" and this last part I guess I'm taking rather literally. For historical or deceased persons it's more difficult to find coverage, but for living persons -- please note that I actually am doing searches to check for viability and coverage in articles and books and most fall far far shorter than WP notability requirements of "significant coverage" which I understand to mean more than one or two articles. I agree, I might have missed the mark on Jack Brogan, but I think that was a personal opinion issue. Is the fabricator of other people's works notable? That's a rhetorical question for myself. Thank you for your time and your comments are heard. Slacker13 (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I took a look at a few of your noms. I agree with Jfire here, WP:PROD (especially without a thorough WP:BEFORE is usually not the best way to deal with articles that the level of sourcing here. After doing a search, if you're still unable to find any coverage I'd suggest you open AfDs for these instead. One thing to keep in mind is to look in places you would expect sources to be (for example, a 1920's era police chief is not gonna get any online news hits, but they might have a ton of newspaper entries in their city paper, a researcher might not have news hits but may have many, well cited, papers), if you can't find them after looking there, mention it in the deletion rationale (which will strengthen your case). Source: I've learned this the hard way. Hope I can help a fellow AfDer out. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. Truly. Your comments are heard. Slacker13 (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Zak Smith

The burden of proof is met with regards to this content. It is reliably sourced and is not given undue weight related to the rest of the article. You are free to participate in the discussion that is taking place on the talk page. ... discospinster _talk 22:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Slacker13, Special:Diff/1306996788 is correct! But relatively irrelevant in an article talk page discussion. Please focus on content; the discussion is heated enough already and would probably benefit from you removing this specific comment in case noone has yet replied. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was reliably sourced. Policy clearly states that for a WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE only information relevant to their notability should be allowed to live on their BLP due to ethical concerns. Slacker13 (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Slacker13. It looks like this is going to end up as an RfC which is probably the best course. Just as a friendly FYI, given your involvement with what is shaping up to be a spirited discussion, I would discourage anymore private emails to editors/admins on this topic. I don't think you were consciously doing anything improper, but do be aware of WP:CANVASSING and WP:ADMINSHOPPING. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Noted. It was not my intention. Slacker13 (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi. First, thank you for flagging this as a contentious topic. I have read above that wiki norms are more strictly enforced. Great and thank goodness. I don't believe in people's lives being affected over opinion.

May I ask...

if a subject is designated as a contentious topic -- May i understand why then the page was locked with "damaging" information on a living person rather than having the burden or proof laid on those who wanted the information reinstated?

please and thank you. Slacker13 (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the transparency; I'll copy my message here:

Hi Slacker13,

I generally agree with your position. My usual task when experienced users are fighting over a biography is to remove the disputed material, enforce the removal and require a consensus to be found on the article's talk page. If you have a look at Skywatcher's messages in my talk page archive, you'll find that in about 90% of the cases they ask me about, I had a look, an experienced user was restoring material without discussion and I removed it after page protection to enforce WP:BLPRESTORE. You'll find "BLPRESTORE" 8 times in my last 1000 contributions, which means that about 1% of my recent Wikipedia edits are explicitly enforcing this policy.

The article about Zak Smith is one of the extremely rare examples where people demand the removal of content that is a) properly sourced and b) found relevant in a RfC that had a formal closure on the article's talk page. These are super super rare. In such cases, it should be fine to fully protect the page at any state of the dispute, including (per WP:PREFER) restoring the pre-dispute revision which also has the disputed material in it.

Anything beyond that decision can be discussed on the article's talk page. I have no idea where the storm of like-minded new editors comes from; they don't seem to be sockpuppets though. I guess there's a Twitter/X message or something similar somewhere about the discussion and people followed it.

If you don't mind, please ask the same question on my talk page so I can provide the same reply there. Thank you very much in advance!

Best regards,
Tobias Frei / ToBeFree

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Skywatcher68. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Again thank you. Editing wikipedia is often a thankless job, so I'm taking the time to do the opposite.

Yes, Zak posted a story on his instagram story feed about new news which will have people chattering (both good and bad). He's a contemporary artist I follow that has had some controversy surrounding him. My attempt it to remain neutral and not allow a life to be destroyed in the process of online argumentation (i just simply and fundamentally don't believe in online adjudication). Wikipedia is a substantial platform and I believe we have responsibilities here. I'm not sure where to bring this up. It seems like a bigger issue than arbitration. Slacker13 (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, So, here is my issue. Regardless of the RFC (which is years old and not based on new information), the inclusion of the information violates blp policy since he is not a public person. Would you consider protecting a version that does not contain controversial information while this gets worked out? Such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=850154261 Slacker13 (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to pop by and thank you for amending your talkpage comment to remove the Nazi thing - I very much appreciate it! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it was wrong. Thank you for pointing it out. Slacker13 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

You're going about this the wrong way

I'm going to be honest. I've read enough about the Smith situation in non-reliable sources to have some sympathy for his situation. So please don't take me to be a mindless parrot of the allegations against him. However trying to memory-hole this whole situation is not an appropriate way to handle a BLP.

Let's take as a given that Mr. Smith is innocent of the accusations against him. While I don't think we should be using court documents as direct sources for BLPs my personal interpretation of them (and yes I read them) certainly supports that he was exonerated by the courts. Wouldn't it be a better way to handle this chapter of his life to have his biography demonstrate he was exonerated? Because Wikipedia pretending this never happened will not actually do that.

In the end what I'm asking you to do is something I suspect Mr. Smith would likely agree with: provide evidence that Wikipedia can use that he was exonerated. If you can do that I will strongly support updating the article to demonstrate his exoneration. But right now it looks like you, an experienced editor with very strong views on BLP protection that I don't entirely disagree with, are leading a flock of canvassers. I don't believe you have done the canvassing at all but it happened and it is actually making what should be a relatively routine BLP update harder to complete. You're experienced enough here to know what most of the regulars think about canvassing campaigns, I'm sure.

I'm looking for sources we can use. So far I've found none. The best I could find was an old medium post from a researcher who said Nagy perjured herself and that was why her first lawyer quit. Unfortunately that is WP:SPS which we cannot use for BLP.

If anybody can get us anything that says he was exonerated I would be happy to allow that change to be made. But deleting the accusations and the following incidents is not the way to do this. We put a conclusion on the chapter, we don't just airbrush it out of existence. Simonm223 (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Beginning to suggest you have personal knowledge of the off-wiki identity of editors participating in a discussion is going about things in a much-more-wrong manner. I think you should consider backing down on that approach to thia discussion. It is best practice not to personalize content disputes. Focus on content, not the editors. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I fundamentally believe the page is controlled by players who have banned Smith from the RGP space. The people who have historically edited it are from that space. I don't believe that they are are able to edit or contribute non-neutrally. To allow it to be about the content means that players are well intentioned. There is massive documentation in that scene of people being the exact opposite to Smith. It is harassment. That they would follow him here and continue is not a stretch by any means. Slacker13 (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

This is what I mean when I call your comment at article talk an egregious violation of WP:AGF. Again please avoid doing this to me or to any other editor. Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

As a side note. I am not trying to "out you." I am trying to explicitly say that people from that scene may have apparent, potential, and actual conflict of interest that does not allow them to be unbiased. I am not accusing, you, personally of anything. Slacker13 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Editwarring

Please don't (join in an) editwar. On Wikipedia it is one of the worst possible strategies (maybe #2 after legal threats). I have seen quite a few editwars and there are no winners. Polygnotus (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Why did you close the RFC on a self-declared consensus? Slacker13 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Slacker13 It is in your advantage. Wikipedians (and humans) have a nasty habit of piling on, and of course there is and will be a lot of backlash to the alleged canvassing. When the storm has died down a bit we can try again to come to an consensus. Please read WP:RFCBEFORE, thanks. Polygnotus (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Almost forgot: when you have a clearly flawed RfC you can't ever use it, because people will immediately declare it to be invalid. When you have an RfC that is considered valid it can be used to stop people repeating the same unproductive discussions. Polygnotus (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sure it is obvious that I could use all the advice. Unfortunately, I do believe the edit war will never die down. It has been going on for six years. There are people who do not like Smith, may be subscribed to his page, and will show up as soon as it is changed in any way. The issue is not how to prevent that from happening, but how to handle it when it does inevitably happen. My concern is that there will never be anything plausibly called consensus about this page and whoever is trying to resolve it may need to be realistic about that. warmest --s Slacker13 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

This is pretty much a passive-voice form of "no I will never drop this issue." There is presently an RfC open to discuss whether to include the allegations and if so with how much weight. That will decide the consensus when it closes. At that point, until there is some significant changing to the usable reliable sources, I expect that will settle this question, one way or another. I would recommend you have made your point in the RfC and the best course of action now would be to wait and see what the close brings and then to abide by the RfC, whatever the decision is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Let me be very clear with you about something: if you create an edit warring report against BusterD for collapsing an obvious AI comment one time with zero reverts I will report you to WP:AN/I. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

It was not an obvious AI comment, at least to me. There is not reason to threaten. Slacker13 (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

He should stop collapsing comments. That is evidence of edit warring. Slacker13 (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

No. It really is not. However I have reached the limit of my patience with you as an editor in this space. I've given you several polite, good-faith, suggestions regarding your comportment toward your peers on that page and you have disregarded these, instead pursuing increasingly tendentious attempts to remove editors who disagree with you first through WP:COI/N and then through WP:3RR/N. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING and it is a tendentious abuse of process. Please cease this inappropriate comportment. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that my notice of you to the edit warring notice board was incorrect. I made a retraction and am happy to do it publicly if you tell me where. However, there is now concrete evidence of people who disagree with removing the contentious material, now canvassing on social media -- further supporting my argument that the page is being used as a battleground. Slacker13 (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not what "battleground" means here, Slacker--it refers to the behavior of editors in an article, and it seems pretty clear from the ANI discussions that many editors think that you are the battleground editor. Canvassing on social media is a wholly different thing, and as Simonm223 points out, what is more relevant here is your forum shopping. I foresee a topic ban or even a block from the article and the talk page, unless you change that behavior. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Please help me understand. I really am trying to do the right thing. Forum shopping, I'm guessing means that I posted something on the administrator notice board? I did so because I was threatened that I would be reported there if I attempted to keep editors from collapsing comments during an active RFC. Isn't collapsing during an active discussion bad form? Slacker13 (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, ok reading Simons explanation of forum shopping above.

1. I never tried to remove someone for conflict of interest. That is factually incorrect. I did mention that I thought there was COI. This is what I specifically said: I have respect for your length of time editing Wikipedia. I also know that you have ties to the RPG scene. Although I am not part of that world, I understand that Smith is a decisive figure within it. I believe you should divulge your association with that scene. Slacker13 (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

2. I removed my notice of edit warring because I accused the incorrect person. You can see my attempt at correcting that above. I did not add anyone else to the 3rr. Plus, just reporting them doesn't get them removed from the discussion, correct? Slacker13 (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Slacker13, the best advice I can give you is just stop for at least a few hours (if not days) before you dig yourself into a hole you can't climb out of. You are contacting too many different people, posting on too many noticeboards and it is causing confusion. Nothing on Wikipedia needs to happen immediately so, stop making inquiries, filing complaints, etc. because it's clear you don't know how to use these pages or know what you want. If you don't stop voluntarly, I think other editors will issue you a block or topic ban to force you to stop. Just log out of this website, catch your breath, clear your mind and return when things are calmer. Nothing earthshattering will happen in the next 48 hours. (I'm pretty sure). Because if you keep running around, posting everywhere, I think you will find yourself blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Heard. Thank you for the advice. Slacker13 (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

On what basis did you blank the section that is currently the subject of a contentious RfC? I have rarely seen a more severe case of WP:IDHT. If you continue in this manner you are going to be very lucky if you don't get blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Based on this exchange with Tobefree, I thought I was allowed to:

Slacker13,

I imagine the following will happen:

an RFC will be created at the weekend

page protection will expire or be downgraded to extended-confirmed protection on Monday

you will remove the material while the RfC is still running, pointing to WP:3RRNO #7

I will re-fully-protect the page in response, and I personally won't block you because I don't block people for the removal of disputed BLP content (I'd else have done so far earlier).

Does that seem like a realistic prediction? Great. Should I encourage you to do this? I don't know. You risk being blocked for edit warring. Not by me though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC) Slacker13 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping ToBeFree. I will defer to your judgement here. But with a contentious RfC and a related ANI discussion, this strikes me as highly questionable. And I say that as someone who has BLP concerns about the section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Slacker13, given that section survived a previous RfC, I am dubious about invoking 3RRNO. But I will defer to TBF on this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not reverting your edit. I will defer to the exchange with Tobefree. If tobefree reverts, i won't fight it Slacker13 (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't ... "allow" this. I just said that I personally won't block for removing a BLP section currently under discussion. There's no harm in re-adding it when and if that's the RfC result. The presence of the section in the protected article seems to have been a source of huge frustration for those pushing with off-wiki coordination against it. It can't hurt for them to have reached their goal for 30 days especially if it makes them less disruptive during the 30 days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying that when someone told you, "You risk being blocked for edit warring", that you thought that meant they were giving you permission? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

BLP issues

Hi Slacker13. WP:BLP is a serious concern on Wikipedia. You shoud not be making posts which accuse people of harassment, falsely claim that they are publishing through vanity press, or mispresenting the outcome of court cases. If you wish to comment on sources you are welcome to do so. But you must not make unsubstatianted claims against living people. - Bilby (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I figured that was the issue. So i took it out in the second posting, but you still reverted. Perhaps you didn't notice? Slacker13 (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I will remove the note, as in the second version and repost. If you don't revert, I will remove my topic. Slacker13 (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Meaning -- I took out the note of harassment, because I don't intend to harm. But the rest as far as the publishing house is concerned is factual and derived from the publishers own website. Slacker13 (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

When you are revrted for BLP, you do not post it back. But I acknowledge that you did - on the third attempt - remove the most serious claims.

I should also be very clear. Neither Palgrave Macmillan nor University of British Columbia Press are vanity presses. They are respected academic presses that employ peer review. Claiming that these authors published in vanity press is false. I see this as bordering on BLP, but as the accusation is more towards a company than a person I will hope you simply correct the claims instead. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, i thought it was appropriate to do so if the material was removed. Regarding Pelgrave Macmillan, it is fact that they offer pay-for-publishing services. And UBC does offer non-peer reviewed publishing options. Both of those are not opinion. You are welcome to the research. Slacker13 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

In regard to UBC Press. Scholarly works are peer reviewed, non-scholarly works go through a more standard editorial process. Neither is a vanity press. With Pelgrave Macmillan they have a charge for publishing open access. The work in question is not open access, so it does not fit in that category anyway, and open access in this case is not a way of bypassing an editorial process but a means of making a work that has been through an editorial process released under an open license. It relates to distribution, not publication. But I now see that this has been explained to you in the past. - Bilby (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I find this conversation really interesting and moved it over to the talk page. Will also address the Pelgrave. But give me a minute to put up before you respond. warmly, Slacker13 (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

My only concern was to make it clear that insinuating that academics are engaged in vanity publishing without evidence is a potential BLP issue, especially given that there were already more serious BLP issues in what you wrote. Making any potentially damaging statement about a living person is a concern. It seems like you wish to continue down this line, and while I think this is a mistake, it is borderline in terms of BLP and so I see no value in getting invovled. But making any negative statement about a living person should be done with considerable care due to the potential risk of harm that comes from Wikipedia's reach. - Bilby (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you find something that I currently published about a living person damaging in any way? I am sincerely curious what you find negative? The items I removed, I agree were sensitive. They shouldn't have gone up. Slacker13 (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned, stating that an academic engages in vanity publishing is a concern. The extent to which it is a concern is debatable enough that I'm not acting on it. But I think it was worth noting given the other material was removed. Beyond that, all I am asking is for care. I understand that you are attempting to right wrongs, but we always need to be cautious where living people are concerned. - Bilby (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. Really. Do you think it's worth making a note of my intention of the phrasing on the page? or? Slacker13 (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

It is not in my interest to do harm. I'm happy to learn and to correct mistakes. Feedback is appreciated. Thank you. Slacker13 (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Academic publishing

Hi there again - I'm getting the feeling that you might be mixing up pay-to-publish vanity presses and paying for open access.

Vanity press, also called pay-to-publish, is when an author gives their book to the publisher, gives the publisher money, and the publisher publishes it. There's usually minimal (or no) editorial oversight; the whole goal for these is to publish a book, which the author can then presumably sell. It's called "vanity press" because they're usually willing to publish without regard for quality or even looking the book over, making the whole point stroking the author's ego. The author becomes a published author without having to go through the acceptance and editorial process that they'd normally need at a 'typical' publishing house. Vanity presses don't expect to make any money from what they publish, their income is from authors who only care about getting published.

Open access content is, as the name might suggest, content that is open for anyone to access. Wikipedia, for example, is an open-access encyclopedia. The opposite is when content is locked behind a paywall, which is incredibly common in academic publishing - commonly, a reader can view the title of the document, an abstract (like a summary or thesis statement), the author/s, and sometimes if there are other documents that cite that one as a reference. That's it, unless they pay for the document or have access another way. For example, colleges or libraries may offer students free access to JSTOR, but otherwise the reader needs to subscribe (you can see more details here, if you're curious).

Palgrave Macmillan offers authors the ability to publish open-access for a fee. Authors aren't paying to have their work published, they're paying to have it published freely for all readers. I'd also like to point out that their open access info page also states that Each open access book or chapter receives the same editorial and publishing expertise, rigorous peer review and high quality productions process that non-open access scholarly books receive.

Does that maybe make a little more sense now? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Talk:Zak Smith. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=I believe the block was unnecessary. The admin may have blocked believing I was posting information damaging to the author of a book. What the admin doesn't realize is that the information the admin finds damaging is IN the author's book and is a matter of public record made so by the author. I believe the ban was a misunderstanding ~~~~}}.  Bilby (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi @Bilby. I saw that you blocked me. Which portions were you uncomfortable with? I purchased a copy of the book. The author explicitly talks about her experiences. I don't believe I'm damaging her for mentioning what she herself has mentioned in the book.

Did i miss something? Slacker13 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. You clearly stated that the author has been found guilty of defamation. That is certainly not in the book. It is also, as far as I can tell, not true. After it was reverted the first time you just added it back - after we had an extensive discussion about why you shouldn't just add back material reverted under BLP until you understand why it was removed. The first time was a problem, but I hoped you would wait find out what was wrong, and then decide. But again you seem to be working on the assumption that it was an error that it was reverted and it was ok to return the claims.

With that said, I think that there is a problem with the approach here. You are writing seemingly to question the reputation of an academic (false claims of vanity publication, false claims of being found guilty of defamation, claims she can't write neutrally on the topic because she has previously been involved in a sexually assault case), all to remove her work as a source when it wasn't being used as one - or at least wasn't when the text was last in the article.

I did not intend to block you for adding the claim. The problem was adding the false claims a second time after being reverted, and doing so the day after similar issues in regard to the same people. - Bilby (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

Ah, ok first -- I believe there is a mixing between me not following policy and you disagreeing with my positions. I will deal with policy below. But disagreement is great! We should flesh that out on the RFC as it is intended, rather than here on my talk page -- so that it is part of the conversation.

Regarding Sources and the Talk Page

- I believe I'm allowed to comment on a source that is being presented as reliable in order to support the inclusion of contentious material.

- My position is that the source is NOT reliable due to the fact that the author has a glaring COI by being far too close to the subject matter to be independent, which is a requirement for a reliable source.

Regarding BLP policy and fact

-- You are correct. Ms. Gray did not lose the defamation case. That is ongoing, and that case is spoken about in her book. My mistake is that she is/was involved in TWO court cases. One ongoing (the defamation one in her book) and a second separate case, which was overturned (not in her favor). I mistakenly conflated the two as I didn't realize that there were TWO separate cases. This was a mistake. Thank you for pointing it out.

-- So, my understanding is that I am allowed to discuss a living person on a talk page of a BLP, even if they are not the subject of the BLP, so long as I use the same standards of BLP and provide reliable sourcing.

-- So here we go...MS. Gray is not an independent source as she is far too close to the subject matter.

From the CBC (Canada's largest public national newssource)

-- Judge in Toronto man's sex assault appeal says trial judge focused more on 'rape myths' than evidence. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mustafa-ururyar-mandi-gray-sex-assault-appeal-1.4023805

-- Court throws out conviction, orders new trial in Toronto sex assault case. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mandi-gray-conviction-appeal-1.4213752

-- Sex assault charges against Mustafa Ururyar to be dropped. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ururyar-charges-dropped-gray-1.4444257

From additional news sources:

-- Toronto Star: Mustafa Ururyar will not be retried in Mandi Gray sex assault case. https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/mustafa-ururyar-will-not-be-retried-in-mandi-gray-sex-assault-case/article_9684e0f7-36a9-5a04-add9-87bb9c7ba3ac.html

-- Vice. Did a ‘Feminist’ Judge Pave the Way for Mandi Gray’s Rapist to Appeal? https://www.vice.com/en/article/did-a-feminist-judge-pave-the-way-for-mandi-grays-rapist-to-appeal/

-- Vice. A Judge Has Overturned the Guilty Verdict in the Mandi Gray Rape Case. https://www.vice.com/en/article/a-judge-has-ordered-a-new-trial-n-the-mandi-gray-rape-case/

I believe that should suffice for inclusion.

Thank you. Slacker13 (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you are missing the core points here. None of this matters.

• You stated that Mandi Gray was guilty of defamation on the talk page. You now acknowledge that she was not. The previous post you made was therefore a WP:BLP violation.
• You reposted the claim that Mandi Gray was guilty of defamation, even though it had been reverted per BLP. And, once again, it was false. That was a BLP violation.
• You have previously (yesterday) made BLP violations about both Mandi Gray and another author.
• After being reverted, you reposted one of those BLP-violating claims.
• You have repeatedly insinuated - incorrectly - that Mandi Gray and another person have published via vanity press when this is not the case, even though this was pointed out to you by multiple editors.

Sadly, you now use this as an opportunity to again claim that one of these authors is not independent because she has previously been involved in an unrelated sexual assault case. What you should be doing is acknowledging that you made false statements, and explaining how you will ensure that you will not continue to make false statements about living people in future posts. - Bilby (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

As noted above, I DID acknowledge that I was factually incorrect and gave the reason -- because I mistakenly conflated two separate court cases. I didn't expect that there were TWO cases she was involved in.

Separately, I believe this may be a disagreement with what I am positing rather than a policy issue. Can you please explain how I am breaking policy in the current iteration above rather than that you are simply disagreeing with what I am positing?

However, if you disagree with findings, that is an opinion and I don't believe that is a basis for blocking and we should discuss on the RFC. Slacker13 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Like specifically what BLP rule am I violating (in the above iteration) that is also not based on your personal opinion?

That you don't agree that the publishing houses offer paid-for-publishing services that each publishing house specifically acknowledges and that I've quoted directly, has nothing to do with the claim that I've violating a BLP. Slacker13 (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

If you would prefer that I stick to news sources about the case in the book, well here they are:

-- CBC. B.C. writer Steven Galloway's defamation case clears court hurdle. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/scc-galloway-appeal-1.7349261

-- Vancouver Sun. B.C. writer Steven Galloway’s defamation case clears court hurdle as accusers' appeal rejected. https://vancouversun.com/news/bc-writer-steven-galloways-defamation-case-clears-court-hurdle

-- City News Vancouver. Former UBC prof. Steven Galloway’s defamation case clears court hurdle as appeal rejected. https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2024/10/10/ubc-writer-steven-galloway-defamation-appeal-rejected/

That should be sufficient for inclusion in a talk page discussion. Slacker13 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that this is the best of the many, many, many answers you've been given for this question. Is there some way we could help you acknowledge it? That would be more likely to help you be unblocked than continuing the same bludgeoning and BLP violations but now on your talk page.

Hi there again - I'm getting the feeling that you might be mixing up pay-to-publish vanity presses and paying for open access.

Vanity press, also called pay-to-publish, is when an author gives their book to the publisher, gives the publisher money, and the publisher publishes it. There's usually minimal (or no) editorial oversight; the whole goal for these is to publish a book, which the author can then presumably sell. It's called "vanity press" because they're usually willing to publish without regard for quality or even looking the book over, making the whole point stroking the author's ego. The author becomes a published author without having to go through the acceptance and editorial process that they'd normally need at a 'typical' publishing house. Vanity presses don't expect to make any money from what they publish, their income is from authors who only care about getting published.

Open access content is, as the name might suggest, content that is open for anyone to access. Wikipedia, for example, is an open-access encyclopedia. The opposite is when content is locked behind a paywall, which is incredibly common in academic publishing - commonly, a reader can view the title of the document, an abstract (like a summary or thesis statement), the author/s, and sometimes if there are other documents that cite that one as a reference. That's it, unless they pay for the document or have access another way. For example, colleges or libraries may offer students free access to JSTOR, but otherwise the reader needs to subscribe (you can see more details here, if you're curious).

Palgrave Macmillan offers authors the ability to publish open-access for a fee. Authors aren't paying to have their work published, they're paying to have it published freely for all readers. I'd also like to point out that their open access info page also states that Each open access book or chapter receives the same editorial and publishing expertise, rigorous peer review and high quality productions process that non-open access scholarly books receive.

Does that maybe make a little more sense now? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC) MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi! It is a fact that both publishing houses provide paid-for-publishing services. I've provided direct quotes. If you don't like that they do that, you should take that up with the publishing houses. Regarding the word vanity -- I used it in a very specific context. A vanity press in the most basic sense is when a publishing house charges authors to publish the work rather than relying on revenue from book sales. UBC has acknowledged that they do this in various forms. If you don't like that they do that, you should take that up with the publishing house. Slacker13 (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, if you're determined to continue to be dishonest there's no helping you (and no reason to unblock you). MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that what I've said is dishonest. Slacker13 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

There's no point in continuing to try to communicate with you, especially if you still can't figure out why people believe you're being dishonest about so many things.

You've been given the explanations many times and you ignore them the same way you ignore warnings and counter-arguments. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Howdy there fellow collaborator,

Noticed you have done plum gotten yourself into the proverbial pickle with the back and forth editing on zak sab's article.

Wikipedia got some advice that might help you navigate the choppy waters, here it is, if yer so inclined:

wp:Tendentious

Give it a gander, I'll just be following along if you need any good advice. Augmented Seventh 18:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. truly. Slacker13 (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

And also wanted to make a note -- Excellent advice Slacker13 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It is a fact that both publishing houses provide paid-for-publishing services. I've provided direct quotes.

You are missing the point about these two books. You have not provided any direct quotes that either one of these books fall into the category of paid-for-publishing. So absent any direct quotes from you that specifically state these two books are paid-for-publishing, your argument about these books being paid-for-publishing can be summarily dismissed. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Topic ban

By consensus of the Wikipedia community, you are indefinitely topic banned from Zak Smith. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Welp I've been banned

Well, all i can say is that i will sleep well tonight knowing that truth always finds its way through. Good night folks. :) Slacker13 (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Some advice

I don't really understand the relationship many people have with Zak Smith, but it is definitely not important enough for you to be fighting so hard over it. Wikipedia is just a small part of the Internet, and removing a few lines about his alleged crimes isn't going to have much impact in the long run. I request that you use your time to do something else, either on Wikipedia or in real life. I hope you realize this is pointless and is just giving you undue stress over nothing. Thanks. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. When I first googled Smith, Wikipedia was the top result and looking at his page, the sexual allegations were called out clearly in a separate section. Smith has made no secret that he has had to subsist on food stamps due to backlash from the allegations. Per my comment in the RFC: As everyone knows, the social effect of advertising that accusations were made—even if they were disproved—is basically as bad for a subject as saying they are true.

Plus I've been following Smith's Instagram for years, I've definitely noted it go darker in the recent months with him posting paintings, self-portraits of himself hanging from a noose.

This is a living person.

I just fundamentally don't believe in doing unnecessary harm. We have an ethical duty. Slacker13 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I understand and agree, but I don't think removing removing the claims from the Wikipedia article about him is going to improve his situation. People within "his industry" are probably well-aware of this, and it would still be difficult for him to find work regardless of what the article says (or does not say.) You are absolutely right that Wikipedia is in the real world, and we should try to minimize harm to BLPs as much as possible, but community consensus overrides all, and sadly, consensus has deemed for the material to be reinstated (aside from the obvious sock/meatpuppets.) I know this might be a bit difficult for you, but it helps thinking about the "other side" of this whole debacle as well. And finally, you can always help him off-wiki by providing him food and support. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 22:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. Removing the information means it won't be one of the first things that people learn about him when googling him. The wiki page is like the top google link. Can you imagine any employer or potential employer that googles him, sees that? It does damage.

and as far as the community, if they were neutral parties, I guess I would feel differently -- but most if not all of the people historically editing his page, come from the RPG space where there is a history of harassing the subject. Slacker13 (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I've been following Smith's Instagram for years? After all your concerns about people being WP:INVOLVED and having WP:COI? Oh, honey. You really do need to take a step back and a deep breath - your goal is to persuade people to agree with you, and you have to know that this isn't working. I respectfully urge you to withdraw your ArbCom filing, especially; I'm sincerely concerned that you're going to get yourself permanently blocked over it. Please. Please take a moment and look at your comments - all of them, and when they're posted - and try to see them through outside eyes. Would you be convinced by the sheer volume of your comments? Or would you be concerned and, yes, a little annoyed at the time and effort and noise that you've added? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Look, I can tell the advice is well intentioned. And I actually do appreciate it. But I've seen how that community responds to him and frankly I think most of the behavior is because they're just used to it, its become the norm. They've forgotten that there is a life on the other side of that. What i consider -- when I wonder if I'm doing the right think or not -- is Ed Piskor. I cannot comment on whether the allegations were false or not against him, but he took his life over the overwhelming onslaught that the web and social media allows. That Smith hasn't done that -- is actually surprising based on the short bits I've seen in the forums. Slacker13 (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity why did you include that page in your on Wikipedia comment? GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Lol. Which wikipedia comment? The arb com board? Do you think its too late to add? Slacker13 (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

No maybe I phrased it wrong I meant the original message by User:ChildrenWillListen here when they said you should use your time to do something else either here on wikipedia then added the linked article listed in the on wikipedia link. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Welp, I put up there. It can't hurt and maybe it's a good reminder to people. I genuinely don't think the people who are part of the RPG scene are bad, just that it's habit. And then it becomes easy to forget that our actions have real world consequences on living humans. Slacker13 (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok.If I may ask why do you think they are in the RPG scene? One of them said you had no proof whatsoever that they are in that scene. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I linked to Special:Random, which redirects you to a random article. What I meant by that is for them to move on and edit the other 7 million articles Wikipedia has. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks for the answer. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked you for continuing to discuss Zak Smith on this page after being banned from the topic, and continuing to forum-shop personal allegations and retaliatory complaints against editors involved in a dispute with you on that topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The future

Hello, Slacker13,

I think you have to do a serious reflection when you come back to this platform. Can you edit here and not discuss or involve yourself in the Zak Smith article? If you can't totally cut yourself off from your interest in Smith, then it won't be worth filing an unblock request. Right now, for the past six weeks or so, Zak Smith has been your sole or only interest here. A topic ban is pretty absolute, you can not edit the article or its talk page or even talk about the subject anywhere on the platform. I'm not sure if you're at the place yet where you can comfortable cut yourself off from Zak Smith-discussion. But if you don't think you can abstain from this subject, then I think you should just take a break from Wikipedia until you are not so invested in the subect matter. Good luck whichever direction you take. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Accused of Sockpuppetry

Nope. Not me. I am watching the page though to see how it's going.

I haven't asked for an unblock because frankly, I don't trust that the players on the Smith page will act fairly whereever I go. I've been hounded on this site before and I have a feeling that this group will have a particular hankering for me. With that said, I'm taking a minute to see if this is a platform that is full of ethical individuals trying to make something good, or if it's overrun by a bunch of people that are not that. The jury is still out. Slacker13 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of One Piece characters on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 02:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Removal of IP block exemption

I have removed the IP block exemption permission from your account due to the "Credible evidence or concern of abuse" identified in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slacker13 § 06 September 2025. The Unblock Ticket Request System is available if you wish to request an unblock without turning off your VPN. — Newslinger talk 11:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 21:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)