Talk:Zak Smith

Outstanding Issues and Consensus

RE: recent attempted edit , Jan 29 2020

Please refer to https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=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

• • • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underscore789 22 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: Underscore789 was blocked for being a sockpuppet in March 2020: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive#30_January_2020 Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be missing some points here. There is consensus that this is relevant. Not to mention, what most of the paragraph is talking about are very specific facts. Nowhere does it say "Zak is a rapist." Rather, it says, "Because he was accused, X happened," which are all true statements. Even if it turned out for the rape claims to be false, the statements regarding his ban from Ennies, DriveThru, et al would still be factual and relevant to the article as a person in the RPG industry. --Ishmayl (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering at which point something becomes defamatory. Looking at the "People who are relatively unknown" part of the BLP guidelines it suggests not repeating claims that are defamatory. The fact that it doesn't say anywhere "Zak is a rapist" is irrelevant when the allegations are vaguely mentioned and then followed by a statement that a company donated money to an anti rape charity. I think most reasonable people would read that and infer that from the context it is presented in, so I'm curious as to how that can be justified. SenseiDaH (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

We need to be wary of anonymous or single purpose accounts lobbying against the administration decisions made for this page. The argument against deletion provided for the RPG industry related issues to be published on this page. Merxa (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly I've brought up major issues with the phrasing about the allegations in the "personal life" section and the entire article has had so much content erased it's pretty much only about the problematic paragraph. Every question I've raised has been ignored and everyone who argues against it or changes it has been accused of being me by editors here--that is not an assumption of good faith. I was asked to provide a sourced alternate paragraph and it's been provided. It was ignored--the fact that several editors making arguments assuming bad faith on the same page are ignoring other editors doesn't mean there's a consensus. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer

Note: FixerFixerFixer was blocked in April 2019 for abusing multiple accounts. Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This article has been left in a sorry state and then locked. Practically all the valid content about this person's career spanning art, RPGs, and publications has been erased, and a paragraph about unsubstantiated allegations (which cites the one and only unreliable source six times in that one paragraph) is now dominating the page. This is clearly vandalism and needs to be rectified. Precious Island (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)— Precious Island (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@PeterTheFourth: a large chunk describing his artwork and books was removed with the edit summary that it was based on unreliable or self-published sources. Honeysuckle seems like a reliable art magazine while there should be no dispute about the LA Times or Huffington Post. Can't some of the descriptions based on those sources be reinstated in a neutral way? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: I'm okay with reinstating some of the content in a cut down way, but not the reams of detail we had before - it's a question of how due things are. We don't need to list every single thing they've created, as that's already covered by the bibliography. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the amount of detail that was removed seemed excessive where it is a flowery description of his style rather a historical view of his career. However his works and style have been reviewed by notable academic journals (for example) and that arguably should be given greater weight than the controversial content. I am not an art expert though and cannot properly evaluate and summarise the criticism of his work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: The 2006 book is listed in the #Art sub-section of #Bibliography, and I don't see why the questia.com excerpt from an article about it should be relevant, how about a wikilink to Gravity's Rainbow#Art in a new #See also section, or a 4th sentence in #Career?
See below for Honeysuckle, it's not my bold day, I won't try to establish new RS out of thin air without compelling reasons. For HuffPost see WP:RS/P#HuffPost, red flag. –84.46.53.163 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the publishing model of the Huffington Post. My example of the Chicago Review is that these are the types of sources that we should be striving for in discussing evaluation/criticism of his art. Peer-reviewed academic journals are the gold standard. It doesn't matter that it's behind a pay wall. Some editors have subscription access through their academic affiliations, and you can always request an article through WP:LIBRARY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you suggest then the best way to use verified and true sources to properly cite and use for the content in this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artandcrypto (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

See above, apparently some folks agree with Morbidthoughts, ignoring eight characters in #Personal life discussed below. –84.46.53.102 (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile above is archived, JFTR, because some single purpose accounts tend to ignore it, and because I didn't know WP:BLPCRIME in summer 2019. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources?

As a Wikipedia admin, I'm concerned that the three refs cited in the Personal Life section may not be sufficiently reliable sources to meet our BLP requirements: they are not exactly the NY Times or People magazine. In fact, it appears that The Fandomentals and ‎‎Pop Culture Uncovered‎ have user-generated content mirroring social media posts, with minimal editorial oversight. If so, that doesn't meet our standard. I don't know about Polygon and would appreciate additional input.  JGHowes  ^talk 17:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

About the Fandomental editorial staff and its writers.[1]. The PCU is less clear.[2] Throw in 411Mania which also reported on this.[3][4] Since these are niche publications, we should consult with editors who are familiar with the gaming community to comment on the reliability of their reporting. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Throw in Bleeding Cool[5] and comicbook.com (a Gamespot site)[6][7] while we're at it. The sources do not merely mirror the original allegations and press release, they report on them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you about this. Note that author of the polygon story is an expert, possibly independent. There is an "editorial policy and ethics" link at page bottom, which leads to [8], which says "Polygon makes every effort for stories to be completely accurate upon publication. Inaccurate stories will be corrected but not removed.", implying there is some degree of editorial oversight. However, I have expressed concerns above, about Polygon among others, that the fact that it re-reports social media without a conviction being recorded makes me suspect that its standards about what to report are not up to mark despite whatever it says in its documentation. Gryllida (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not have to confirm that the abuse actually happened to report on whether allegations have been made. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. You keep conflating the two issues. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I should go ahead and ping the non-banned people involved in these discussions[9][10] the past year about the allegations and the sources. @NekoKatsun: @Merxa: @Nick: @PeterTheFourth: Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It has been a year, I'd go back through the Archive, but I seem to recall consensus was that Polygon was reliable. I also recall we had some extensive discussion about making allegations versus reporting on allegations. I would say, in light of how many news outlets have reported on #MeToo related allegations made on social media, I see no significant issues about allowing a source which reports on a serious allegation made via social media, as long as the source itself meets the usual criteria for a reliable source. I've said this previously, if there's a concern about the source and the participants here can't come to agreement, head over to the reliable source noticeboard and discuss those sources to see what the crowd there think. It may be that there's evidence elsewhere that the source is good, or that it's shoddy and unreliable. Nick (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The two issues relating to the validity of the references are as follows: 1) In terms of the role playing publishing industry, the references cited are the most reliable format available based upon consideration of all references created by publishers in that industry. It's just not the high technical standard of a refereed academic journal that you are ever going to see published by the industry. This is as good as it gets. Furthermore, as its relating to personal matters by definition, how much effort do you think publishers will be prepared to go to publish content on this topic? Particularly when you consider the litigious behaviour of the subject. They take a risk by daring to publish anything on the subject, and therefore significant weight should be placed upon what effort they took. 2) The nature of the references is related to the actions that the publishers have taken. That is, the content is undeniable fact, since it represents exactly the actions taken by the publishers in response to the offensive behaviour of the subject. The content cannot be disputed, it doesn't reflect opinions or bias, merely historical factual record.

The continued efforts to undermine the work on this page such as continued removal of material, and contesting references really goes to undermine the integrity of this website. Furthermore, it serves as a campaign to whitewash the history of the subject. Merxa (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

On the sources Morbidthoughts lists above:

• I would second that Polygon is a reliable source and many gaming wiki articles rely on its articles to meet notability. It is one of the Vox Media brands.
• 411Mania appears to have gotten its start in reporting on wrestling (and is primarily used as a reliable source in wiki wrestling articles) but at some point branched out into other topics including D&D. I would have to do more research to figure out exactly when. I have definitely used its D&D reviews as a source before for 5E articles.
• Bleeding Cool is known for breaking information in the comic book sphere (from secret projects to sexual harassment accusations). Similar to 411Mania, at some point they started to branch out into the wider niche of geek/gaming topics.
• ComicBook.Com is about the same as Bleeding Cool in terms of what they cover & how reliable they are. This is a 2017 article from a competitor that breaks down how much each comic book news site (including itself, Bleeding Cool & ComicBook.com) actually covers comics versus other topics: https://www.comicsbeat.com/breaking-news-only-30-of-the-news-on-comics-news-sites-is-actually-about-comics/
• I've never come across The Fandomentals before. The article from 411Mania (linked above) gives a "hat tip" to The Fandomentals: "However, he has also has a history of harassment, having been accused (h/t to Fandomentals) of attacking marginalized groups and sending his fans to attack his critics. There was an uproar against White Wolf when he was hired to write We Eat Blood, though the claims were largely ignored by the publisher".

I primarily spend my Wikipedia time on D&D articles & have used most of these sites as reliable sources. If I had the above sites reporting on a new D&D adventure book I was creating an article for, then I would typically rely on Polygon & 411Mania to be the strongest reliable sources for the article and then I would site Bleeding Cool & ComicBook.com for any missing nity gritty niche details. I'm not sure I'd use The Fandomentals simply because I don't know enough about it. I agree with Merxa - it is highly concerning that there appears to be an ongoing attempt to whitewash the subject especially at the expense of reliable references that are used all over Wikipedia in the gaming niche. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

JGHowes, what would you suggest from there? I don't think these sources are lying, but from my perspective such information is not acceptable for inclusion in a BLP as these allegations are not confirmed. Gryllida (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This comment is just a rehash of what I said in the above section "Rape Allegations and Fallout with Role Playing Games Industry" - 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 (ie. WoTc, OneBookShelf, etc will no longer work with Zac Smith). The reported allegation gives context for why these major companies in the RPG space won't work with Smith. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Allegations of Rape Sourced to Game Blogs and Fanzines

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.

---

Should allegations of rape against this BLP be included if the only available sources are roleplay game fanzines and blogs? (At present the second paragraph of "Personal Life" details criminal rape allegations made by persons, via social media post and spoken word, against the subject of this article. These allegations are sourced to thefandomentals.com, popcultureuncovered.com, and Polygon Magazine.) Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Until or Unless Conventional WP:RS are Available By conventional RS I mean daily newspapers or their websites, TV or radio broadcasts or their associated websites, academic journals, etc. While the sources in the article may (or may not) be RS for purposes of documenting when a game was published or who worked on what expansion of X board game, I don't believe blogs and fanzines like popcultureuncovered.com (which bills itself as "The Place for All Things Geeky", uses authors who don't post their surnames, and has no About page or physical address by which it can be held liable for what it publishes) has the journalistic capability or capacity to conduct original crime reporting. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the reliability of a source for one type of reporting does not make it universally reliable. We would not source an article on Quantum field theory to Snowboarder Magazine, nor should we source crime reporting to Polygon. I believe content in this article runs afoul of criteria 1 of WP:GRAPEVINE as well as our customary high threshold for inclusion of potentially controversial material on WP:BLPs generally.
  (For full disclosure, I have previously expressed concern about using RPG fanzines and publications in any manner in BLPs. In August 2018 I started this thread on the suitability of Designers and Dragons for BLPs. Also for disclosure, earlier today, I posted a message on JGHowes' [11] Talk page [prior to opening this RfC]; this was not intended to canvass him here, rather I was still undecided about a course of action, and I apologize in advance for any appearance of impropriety.) Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include Polygon is a Vox Media property and is a reliable source, not a 'blog'. - MrOllie (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is corporate structure indicative of reliability? Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made". While Polygon may be RS for reporting on games, I don't believe a reasonable person would consider it a RS for crime, breaking medical news, the war in Syria, etc. The other two sources are even less so; one doesn't even have a physical address and uses pseudononymous authors (a byline that reads "Brooke H." is not usually the sign of Pulitzer-eligible reporting). Chetsford (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• The problem here is WP:RSCONTEXT can't apply because such a person isn't notable enough for coverage in NYT or WSJ. If mainstream popular media doesn't cover him for his occupation, they certainly won't cover him when he's accused of assault. In other words, his notability on wikipedia comes from niche gaming sources, so allegations against him coming from the same sources shouldn't be a problem. - Harsh 21:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I appreciate that perspective, however, I would counter that these sources aren't even viable for the career aspects of a BLP. For instance, popcultureuncovered.com is an anonymous blog. We have no address of business, no (full) names of authors, it's never been cited by other RS. Also, if he's so low-profile that mainstream media won't cover him at all, he's a low-profile individual in which case WP:BLPCRIME comes into play which requires that (in the case of LPIs) "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". In any case, I very much appreciate your feedback and your taking the time to comment! It's given me a few things to think about. Chetsford (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I had to re-read WP:LPI - A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. There could be a scope of different interpretation in the reading (especially the other criteria in lpi guideline) but I think the subject qualifies for lpi even though being an author, artist, and adult movie actor is inherently an attention-seeking profession. But you are spot on with BLPCRIME. - Harsh 22:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Include - they are reliable enough to report on news about the gaming industry, including the industry's reactions to these allegations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include, but with language that emphasizes that these are allegations not proven in court. Otherwise, there would be a hole missing as to why Smith has been "cancelled".

Also, do you think someone should perhaps advertise this discussion on WP:BLPN or WP:RSN as well as the feedback request service? I'm a bit concerned, not about good faith, but about people unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy incompetently adding in/removing the allegations against consensus. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 20:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"advertise this discussion on WP:BLPN or WP:RSN" Good suggestion, I dream of horses. No objection from me. Chetsford (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Chetsford,  Done I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 04:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

While at it, I have gone ahead and notified the following wikiprojects, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Forgot Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Great idea, Morbidthoughts. I've also posted this to WikiProject Crime, WikiProject Biography, and am pinging everyone who participated in the preceding discussion on this Talk page (User:Morbidthoughts, User:JGHowes, User:Nick, User:Gryllida, User:Sariel Xilo). Chetsford (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Include As per my comment above. The RfC was made on a very stern interpretation of wiki policies in my opinion (Disclosure: I was invited through FRS). - Harsh 21:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to take back my include vote. WP:BLPCRIME for low-profile individuals is very clear. "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". - Harsh 22:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• exclude Per above. - Harsh 22:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include 1) The sources used are considered reliable for the RPG/gaming space. 2) RPG companies (WoTC, OneBookShelf, Gen Con, etc) took direct action due to these allegations (ie. not working with Smith, etc). If we just say X, Y, Z no longer work with Smith without context, then the article doesn't really make sense. Regardless of how true the allegations are, companies made public business decisions based on the reports. 3)The AfD sided with Keep mostly on the basis of including these allegations with these sources. If we remove the allegations & all the sources, then I think this article should be put back to AfD. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• There's no point in discussing whether the person fails notability and therefore a subsequent AfD. BLPCRIME is very clear. For LPIs, don't include any allegations, before a conviction. - Harsh 23:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't agree that Smith is a LPI. He's a former porn star who courted attention in a niche space but he's a public figure in that space. So the allegations & professional fallout are noteworthy per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Also, my point above was that we should consider the discussion that occurred in the February 2019 AfD. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• A different interpretation can be made after a reading of Characteristics of high- versus low-profile figures in LPI. An adult actor does not seek public attention just because he/she features in a video. Such a person doesn't do Promotional activities unlike hollywood movie stars and their Appearances and performances aren't in the public space. They lead a normal life outside their work. - Harsh 23:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• My niche space reference was referring to the RPG space (live stream games and such) but I should have clarified my initial statement. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am not too well aware of the person's career, but is he a live streamer, or an artist and author of RPG books? If the the latter then it could be considered a non attention-seeking profession. - Harsh 00:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• When he published a book called, We Did Porn capitalising on his porn career, that's attention seeking behaviour.[12][13] Other evidence of not shying away from the limelight: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] He may not be famous famous as a public figure but he's not a low profile person Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think the crux of the analysis is that, if he is a public figure, we should be able to source better references than anonymous blogs like popcultureuncovered.com for criminal accusations. But, if he's so low profile that the The Syracuse Post-Standard won't even run a three-sentence police blotter on, then he's - by definition - a LPI. Chetsford (talk) 04:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think the fundamental issue is that you (as you said up top) don't consider sources like Polygon or 411mania reliable sources while other editors in the RPG space do. Also, your police blotter example is hyperbole. What was reported was allegations and he was never arrested by police (so something like local news wouldn't have covered it). We also have primary sources where businesses made statements that they won't work with Smith again & that they're donating money to RAINN. For example, the WoTC statement (a subsidiary of Hasbro): 1. Tabletop Role-Playing Games and the Experience of Imagined Worlds listed Smith as an "influential gamer": 2 Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• That's a fair point. However, the WOTC corporation is - in my view - not a RS. In this discussion it was discovered that they falsified information about one of their own authors. I'm unclear how we could trust their press releases to reliably and independently report on their other authors. Chetsford (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Whatever weirdness with Salvatore aside, WoTC said they were removing the Smith credit & not working with Smith again. That has a direct professional link to Smith (given that WoTC is the big fish in the RPG industry pond). Also, other RPG companies took similar actions (ex: OneBookShelf 1 & Gen Con 2). What I'm trying to understand is, if we removed the allegations does that mean removing references to companies saying they're no longer working with Smith? Because again, if we're striving towards accuracy - it is a fact that RPG companies publicly disavowed Smith and will no longer work with him. For an RPG designer, that should be clearly part of his career section. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• ...if we removed the allegations does that mean removing references to companies saying they're no longer working with Smith?. Maybe we can mention in a single line that xyz companies refused to work with him because of sexual assault allegations and leave it at that without going into details. This sounds absurd but there's no no choice. BLPCRIME cannot be overridden and mentioning that xyz company has refused to work with him is also important and cannot be left out. - Harsh 18:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• if we removed the allegations does that mean removing references to companies saying they're no longer working with Smith - Yes, I think so. Per WP:PRESSRELEASE, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. If WOTC is promoting their products as "Zak Smith free" through a press release, and that hasn't been widely reported by WP:RS, it would be hard to make the case that it would be appropriate to try to cram that in here. Since this has only come about in the last three months and it appears he has a several decades history in game design it would probably also be a case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:UNDUE to include it in this very succinct and short biography. Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• WOTC refusing to work with him and publishing news of such event on their website should not be included in the bio. You are right because that would be just a PR activity per WP:PRESSRELEASE. I agree with you there. But another Reliable source (Polygon) publishing a story of such an event does carry some weight I guess and needs mentioning in the article. - Harsh 21:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove per Chetsford's excellent reasoning. On a sensitive BLP issue, we need actually reliable sources to cover it at all. These sorts of accusations have a serious impact on people's lives in the real world, so it's especially important to get it right. (t · c) buidhe 05:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude for now. Polygon is the best source of the list currently in the article. All of the sources listed are gaming related, and not of the caliber we expect for crime allegations. Furthermore, the sources themselves mostly repeat DND's statement, with little analysis of their own. This should not be included until better sources cover it.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude until there are high-quality sources per WP:SUSPECT and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE":

"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. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, 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." --WP:SUSPECT

"Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." --WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Include. "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's more of a debate, but I believe the sources we have are reliable, especially for the standard we tend to hold gaming articles to. I will also note that this article has a frankly jaw-dropping history of sock- and meat-puppetry, almost all of which were trying to have these allegations removed, and almost all of whom are now indef'd, which is something unrelated editors may want to have a look at. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include, in "Career". RfC statements should be neutral and this one is far from it; I recommend it be changed. Onto the matter at hand: without the context of the allegations, we are unable to properly cover Smith's career as there would either be no explanation for why he was dropped from OneBookShelf etc. or no mention of such facts, when they should form a significant part of any biography on the man. Polygon is reliable enough to report these accusations and the other sources are reliable for the specific consequences of the allegations that they are cited for. However, this is not a "Personal life" detail but something that belongs under "Career" as it has received coverage not primarily because it's a personal detail about his life, but because of the responses by companies he worked for. — Bilorv (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include. His hosting of a livestream game makes him not a low-profile person, and the use of Polygon is a reliable source. oknazevad (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove in agreement with Chetsford's reasons, as well as Buidhe. The source isn’t not reputable enough, and leaving in these accusations without reliable sources are harmful. Rrraaaeee (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC) — Rrraaaeee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Remove As per above in agreement with Chetsford's reasons, as well as Buidhe. The source isn’t not reputable enough, and leaving in these accusations without reliable sources are harmful. Cameronmurtagh (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include, With Significant Reorganization. I dream of horses and Bilorv put it well, removal of allegations while retaining gaming industry reactions leaves a hole better filled with clarity than inference. If the subject is so well-known it is vital that allegations be included, they are known well-enough that to post only dire allegations damages neutral tone. The current last line does not address whether the allegations themselves were brought before the law but should remain in substance as it presents novel information. Negative career impacts brought by various publishers should be moved to the “Career” section, with the driving reason something akin to “Criminal Allegations.” A section “Criminal Allegations,” should be created and contain the reported details of the allegations and clarification they have not been brought to law enforcement. The final line of “Personal Life” can then remain as-is and be moved to "Criminal Allegations." - 2PennyDreadful (talk) 3:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:BLPCRIME and the poor WP:V might be called WP:GOSSIP. Seriously, unless there are actual criminal charges, present in RS, just do not go for the gutter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include briefly within the context of the impact of his work This is a huge part of the RS coverage of him. That said, our coverage, IMO, should be very terse indeed. Something like "an allegation of rape caused XXX, YYY, and ZZZ to end their business relations with him" with ~3 citations. And then just drop it. As far as I know, there are no formal charges and we should be very conservative wrt drawing UNDUE attention to such things. They've clearly impacted his life and coverage of him in a serious way. But even though sources spend a lot of time on these allegations and their fallout, I think we should just mention it and move on, more-or-less per WP:CRIME and related BLP issues. We can't have an article and just ignore it, that would really be an UNDUE violation. The cites would give anyone interested in understanding that context someplace to go. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • And yeah, the sources are reliable enough for this. That's not the issue. It's WP:CRIME and WP:BLP. Hobit (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include, in "Career" Provides context and is supported by what I see as at least one reliable source (Polygon). Comatmebro (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include. It is absurd to suggest that a artist, role-playing game author, and adult actor could qualify as a WP:LPI, and in any case Polygon is more than sufficient as a source. Note that the question for WP:LPI is not how much attention he has but how much attention he seeks; Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.--Aquillion (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per WP:BLPCRIME. There was no conviction. It seems contradictory to argue that the person is not a "low-profile individual" while at the same time implicitly acknowledging that there's no mention of this criminal allegation in mainstream media because he's of interest to a niche audience only, that is, a low-profile individual. The allegation is extremely serious, with severe real-world consequences, and the weak sourcing simply doesn't justify its inclusion in this BLP.  JGHowes  ^talk 16:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @JGHowes: So do we not mention his current issues with working in the field at all? If we do, what do we say? Do we not link to sources that mention the accusations at all? Where is the line here and how would you suggest we address things in this situation? Hobit (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• When Hallmark said it would no longer work with Lori Laughlin, that was covered by RS like the Associated Press [22] and would be appropriate to include in her article. When Wizards of the Coast announced they would no longer work with Zac Smith, that was not covered by RS. It was simply a WP:PRESSRELEASE issued by WOTC (that also was mentioned in non-RS anonymously-authored blogs like popcultureuncovered.com). Per PRESSRELEASE, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. If WOTC is promoting their products as "Zak Smith free" we have no obligation to include that in this BLP until it is editorially legitimized through widespread coverage in WP:RS. Encyclopedia writing is different from chronicling and a BLP is not an exhaustive timeline of every incident in the subject's life. Chetsford (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Polygon is certainly not an "anonymously authored blog". And WotC is reliable for their own actions and opinions. He is reliable for things about himself and his blog acknowledges these accusations (and rebuffs them in great detail). Are you suggesting we also remove links to his own posts? Hobit (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Popcultureuncovered.com is most definitely an anonymously authored blog. It provides no address or place of business and cannot be held legally liable for what it publishes; its authors don't use their last names. "And WotC is reliable for their own actions and opinions." First, per WP:PRESSRELEASE, we don't include merely promotional information. The press release by WOTC you've advocated using as a source is a promotion for "Zac Smith free" books that no independent RS has editorially legitimized as newsworthy. Second, here [23] we discovered that WOTC (a division of the manufacturer of Nerf and My Little Pony, so not exactly Harvard University Press) had been presenting materially false information about their authors in press releases and jacket notes, going so far as to even claim the existence of non-existent libraries named after their authors. As this is a source with a proved history of publishing lies (and I use that word with intent; no one can rationally say "I accidentally thought a library was named after me"), any content from its press releases — even that which is customarily innocuous — should make its way onto WP. Chetsford (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Lots of issues here, but let's just do one for now. What does Polygon (website) have to do with Popcultureuncovered.com? Sorry I have the wikilink wrong above, but I'd think you'd be familiar with it given all the AfDs and discussion above you've been involved in at this point. My guess is that you are confusing it with comicbooks.com. Hobit (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• What does popcultureuncovered.com have to do with Polygon? Chetsford (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK, now I'm confused. We have a good source. I don't see why it matters if we also have a poor one. What are you getting at here? Hobit (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• "We have a good source. I don't see why it matters if we also have a poor one." Yes, that seems to be the crux of the disagreement between the two sides here. The consensus belief of WP is that unreliable sources simply don't exist as far as WP is concerned; I understand the position advanced by some here is that "3 unreliable sources = 1 reliable source" or "if there are no reliable sources, then unreliable ones are okay" and I disagree with it. I also disagree that Polygon is a "good source" for reporting on things like medical research, the Syrian Civil War, elections in Mexico, neoclassical architecture, or sex crimes. I'm okay with it for reporting on games, though. The reliability of a source for one subject is not proof of its infinite reliability on all subjects throughout time and space (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). Chetsford (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• You seem to be claiming that an undisputed fact, backed by two primary sources as well as a part of Vox Media can't be said because we don't have reliable sources? We have at least three. If you think they aren't reliable, take it to WP:RSN. But to claim a company's press release isn't reliable for, well, what the press release says, isn't reasonable. To claim that the subject's blog isn't reliable for what the subject says is also not reasonable. Are you claiming that you have actual doubt about the press release existing? What it says? Do you have a *shadow of a doubt* about it? I get that you don't think this should be included. And there are really good reasons for us to consider not including it. WP:CRIME is a big one. The lack of reliable sourcing isn't. If you continue to disagree, you know where WP:RSN is. It's possible I'm wrong about what counts as a RS here for the press release. But I'm pretty sure I'm on solid ground. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• Also, your example of Polygon reporting on medical research, etc and sex crimes is a false equivalence. Polygon is reliable for reporting on the gaming industry. Games are not created in a vacuum - they are created by people and companies. Polygon can reliably report on the actions taken by people & companies in the gaming industry even if that action is "allegations of a sex crime" and then the fallout (ie companies discontinuing professional relationships). Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• I want to add an additional source from Italy about the allegations independent from Polygon as the RPG scene is international.[24]. It provides more information on how Smith ended up contributing to the DnD books so it is not just rehashed info. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Re: WP:PRESSRELEASE, WoTC announcing that they discontinued a professional relationship isn't advertising. And again, OneBookShelf 1 & Gen Con 2 did the same thing. Second, the case with Salvatore (as far as I can tell) is that WoTC called an archive section of his university's library the "Salvatore Library". Which, while an overstatement, is a common overstatement in academia where (for marketing reasons) they'll call a section the "Author's name library" especially if the materials were donated by the author (even if the extent of the section is a bunch of boxes in storage). So in that case, the editor who added it to an article should have done a closer read and not included it to begin with (because it was clearly promotional language). But that doesn't indicate a pattern of lying in WoTC press releases. And you can cite primary sources if you're neutral about it and strip out marketing language especially when it is then reported on in a reliable source (ie. Polygon - which is held to same editorial standards as the other Vox Media properties on the official RS list). Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• "is a common overstatement in academia" No, that's not at all true.
  I guess, for me, it comes down to this: it is an established fact WOTC has lied about its own authors in press releases it's issued. Should we, therefore, source BLPs - the single most sensitive type of article we have on WP - to WOTC press releases? My answer is no. Others are free to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• So your position is that WOTC might be employing Smith and lying about it? - MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• The argument that he is a low-profile individual due to a lack of coverage flatly misunderstands WP:LPI. Whether they have successfully attracted attention is completely irrelevant to whether someone is WP:LPI; only whether they seek it matters. As the policy says, persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Therefore, the lack of coverage outside of the industry is irrelevant - Zak plainly seeks attention and therefore cannot count as an LPI. --Aquillion (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Include. News sites that specialize in coverage of the video game industry are reliable enough to cover all aspects of the video game industry, good or bad. I would also point out that the dismissive nature of the heading of the RFC and the opening statement make towards these sources is a clear violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Calidum 20:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include. At the least, Polygon is a high-quality source for gaming-related content, and can be used for covering the existence of the allegations and the gaming industry's response. Smith' career has involved a great deal of seeking name-recognition and trying to raise his profile/brand. The qualifier about people who seek attention in WP:LPI does not require a person to have had any great success getting media attention and so WP:LPI does not apply here. 157.131.93.55 (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Include in some form (I see there is another discussion below about what/how to include); despite the non-WP:RFCNEUTRAL phrasing of the RfC, at least some of the sources (like Polygon) are reliable for this to the same extent as for other content about him / his games (etc); appropriate care must be taken that we're not saying "he did it" in wikivoice, but that's true in any such situation. I agree with Aquillion, including that LPI does not (by my reading) apply here, since he seeks attention. -sche (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude, or include in trimmed form where unverified parts are skipped. Would prefer words "abuse" or "sexual abuse" over "rape"; these words should be prefixed with "alleged" each time; no need to go in details of which person was victim; no need to say which charities were donated to; yes please shorten or remove the paragraph entirely, as it being excessively large or even existing may cause undue weight. Moreover I would prefer strong exclude as there has been no confirmed published or otherwise verified court cases about this issue. --Gryllida (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2020 (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.

Proposed language

In response to Hobit, I would suggest a considerably shortened version to avoid UNDUE and over-reliance on marginal sources, limiting it to the one supposedly RS we have that has a direct bearing on his role in the video gaming business. Something along the lines of:

Polygon, a video game website, reported in February, 2019, that Wizards of the Coast was removing all references to Smith in its print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition as a result of allegations of abuse by Smith's ex-girlfriend Morbid and other woman. However, no charges have been brought against him as of 29 April 2024. Smith denied the accusations and filed a defamation lawsuit against Morbid.

—  JGHowes  ^talk 00:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I like JGHowes version as it isn't substantially different than what's in the article currently and hits the mark of neutrality. The only change I would suggest is to also include that OneBookShelf said that its own portion of any revenue generated by Smith’s existing titles already up for sale on its storefront will be donated to RAINN & that Smith was banned from Gen Con. Both of these companies issued press releases & are included in the Polygon article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support very neutral text Cameronmurtagh (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude in agreement with Chetsford's reasoning as well as JGHowes. The lack of a conviction or any coverage by high profile sources render the information unnecessary in my view. Tibbs1891 (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC) — Tibbs1891 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support this wording it's much cleaner and, IMO, much more fair than what we have. I moved this into its own section, hope that's okay. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• No - The no charges qualifier is prohibited OR and the reporting about the other repercussions reported by Polygon should not have been eliminated. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for two reasons: (a) I don't believe the source says that no charges were filed so, in the absence of that - for all we know - he's been convicted and is currently serving a prison sentence; (b) I don't recognize Polygon as a reliable source for originating investigative coverage of sex crimes per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The outlet has no previous history of covering a complex, specialized topic such as sex crimes and the reporter - Charlie Hall - has no published history of legal issues reporting. Real media outlets like daily newspapers usually restrict which of their staff are assigned to sex crimes beats to reporters with specialized training and experience; entire workshops are held to educate reporters on these highly complex beats [25]. Someone whose articles are things like "Horizon Zero Dawn comes to PC on August 7" and "2020’s best tabletop RPGs" can't just pivot to reporting on sex crimes. In evaluating RS we have to examine whether a source has the capacity and infrastructure to conduct reporting on the topic. The Bainbridge Island Review may be RS for news about Bainbridge Island but no reasonable person would believe it could originate reporting on the Syrian Civil War. It does not have the resources or capability to deploy war correspondents or enterprise military sources. Chetsford (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC); edited 20:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• 1) Polygon is part of Vox Media and is held to the Vox Media Ethics guidelines. 2) I think that media outlets that cover niche topics (to the extent we can call the multi-billion dollar gaming industry niche) can reliably report on people in the industry even when that reporting is on crimes or allegations of crimes by people in the industry. I would go a step further and say this kind of reporting in the wake of the MeToo movement is vital to the health of these niche communities because reporters are doing their jobs of holding industry accountable for the actions people in it take. 3) Charlie Hall has a history of covering harassment related to the gaming industry for Polygon (here are few articles: 1 2 3 4 5) 4) Just to be thorough, Polygon appears to regularly report on harassment in the gaming industry (here are few articles by other reporters: 6 7 8 9 10) 5) I would argue that Polygon is clearly a RS on reporting harassment & lawsuits related to it in the gaming industry. Chetsford is right that if Polygon suddenly pivoted and started to regularly report on the Syrian Civil War, it would need some good vetting to verify it as a RS. But Polygon has built a relationship with the gaming industry which gives them not only access & sources but also insight in how issues of harassment impact the gaming industry. It isn't out of left field for a niche outlet to report on the bad behavior in their industry. In fact, I think it speaks highly of them because when Polygon covers negative aspects about companies or people, they risk that in the future these companies will block them out from receiving info on upcoming products or events that their media competitors will receive. But as journalists, they're doing their job as the fourth estate for this industry. 6) Above, Morbidthoughts found an Italian article & we should vet that outlet. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Polygon is part of Vox Media" As I've said before, I find that fact totally irrelevant. And, in your argument focusing only on Polygon and ignoring every argument about the other sources used, you've now essentially conceded that these claims are sourced only to Polygon, that every other source is not RS, including the anonymously authored popcultureuncovered.com - a blog with no physical address and whose authors don't use their surnames. In no other situation would we include claims of a BLP committing felonious sex crimes if it's mentioned only in one "RS" and that "RS" has no conventionally-trained journalists on staff and is best own for articles like ""Polygon staff members draw their favorite Pokémon with human teeth". There are so many policies - WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:UNDUE, etc. - this violates it's not even funny. Chetsford (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• 1)Uniform editorial standards across media properties with shared ownership directly relates to the question of reliability. 2)I've never commented on popcultureuncovered.com - if you scroll back to my comments in May 2020, you'll find a list of sources I looked at. It makes more sense to me for us to go source by source so I've mostly been posting why I think Polygon is RS but given that has now been punted over to the reliable sources noticeboard, we should probably move on and discuss other sources. There was a new source from www.player.it. I don't know anything about this outlet but I'll do some research tomorrow & reply with my thoughts on it then. Sariel Xilo (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Have revised proposed language, taking into consideration the comments above. Without getting too much into the weeds, this way the article reports on his loss of video gaming endorsements and the reason given, which is all Polygon should be used for as a source.  JGHowes  ^talk 11:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I support JGHowes's latest version, with the bit about the charges struck. I do not think a slew of blogs or whatever those are need be cited: the Polygon thing by itself is enough. In a nutshell, Polygon strikes me as reliable enough to verify that the Wizards statement is worth including. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support revised version (previous Oppose struck) based on emerging consensus at RSN that Polygon can be used to source BLPs when re-reporting other sources making statements about themselves. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support with the additions recommended by Sariel, they've covered in the source and relevant to Smith's career. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I don't know if identifying Polygon as a video game website is helpful, because the thing that makes us use it here is their tabletop coverage, not their video game coverage. Generally, that sort of reductionist explanation of a source is only helpful when it makes it clear why and how the source is being used. For example, if we had a sentence like "Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, says that the fight to eradicate malaria is progressing, but warns about complacency." Bill Gates is a relevant source for that quote, but the aside clarifying who he is is unhelpful and even confusing for people who are not aware that he also directs a foundation that combats malaria. I would either strike "a video game website" or change it to something that includes Polygon's tabletop coverage. I also agree that Sariel's additions could be included, especially the Gen Con statement, as that is the probably the most important trade show and convention in tabletop gaming. We might be able to source that to Gen Con under WP:ABOUTSELF as long as we limit it to Gen Con's actions and not any claims about Smith.157.131.93.55 (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support In this case I find neutral text more appropriate AUSfrostbite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed language - Career Section

Hobit, JGHowes, Cameronmurtagh, Tibbs1891, Morbidthoughts, Chetsford, Drmies, NekoKatsun, AUSfrostbite Based on above, there was consensus to move the paragraph on the allegations into the career section. I've also slightly edited JGHowes version above based on comments. Please review the language below. I've tagged editors who participated in the above section, but if I've missed someone please tag them. Thanks!

Zak Smith is best known for his work on role-playing game books such as Vornheim: The Complete City Kit (2011) and Frostbitten & Mutilated (2018) for the Old School Revival system Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

Public collections containing Smith's art include the Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Walker Art Center and Saatchi Gallery. Some of his works are shown on Artsy. Zak Smith is represented by Fredericks & Freiser Gallery in New York City. Some of his works are shown on Artsy. Zak Smith is represented by Fredericks & Freiser Gallery in New York City.

Apart from his work as role-playing game author and artist, Smith is also known as a hardcore porn actor.

In February 2019, Polygon reported that Wizards of the Coast was removing all references to Smith in its print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition as a result of allegations of abuse by Smith's ex-girlfriend Morbid and other woman. OneBookShelf announced it would no longer work with Smith and would donate revenue generated from existing titles with Smith to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Gen Con also announced that they banned Smith. Smith denied the accusations and filed a defamation lawsuit against Morbid.

vs (using same sources as above)

Smith started as an artist with a focus on painting and mixed media. Public collections containing Smith's art include the Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney Museum of American Art, the Walker Art Center and Saatchi Gallery. Some of his works are shown on Artsy. Smith is represented by Fredericks & Freiser Gallery in New York City.

He then became known as a hardcore porn actor.

Apart from his work as an artist and porn actor, Smith is best known for his work on role-playing game books such as Vornheim: The Complete City Kit (2011) and Frostbitten & Mutilated (2018) for the Old School Revival system Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

In February 2019, Polygon reported that Wizards of the Coast was removing all references to Smith in its print and digital editions of Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition as a result of allegations of abuse by Smith's ex-girlfriend Morbid and other woman. OneBookShelf announced it would no longer work with Smith and would donate revenue generated from existing titles with Smith to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Gen Con also announced that they banned Smith. Smith denied the accusations and filed a defamation lawsuit against Morbid.

It's either "ex-girlfriend Morbid and another woman." or it's "ex-girlfriend Morbid and other women." (Not sure if there was more than 1 additional claim past Morbid, so I'm not stating which is correct, just doing some grammar stuff...) --Ishmayl (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to see that with cites first and I'd prefer to remove "hardcore" as I don't know that it has much meaning or relevance here. Otherwise I'm fine with the text. Hobit (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed. —  JGHowes  ^talk 16:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Updated with sources. I found the sources for paragraph 1, copied the sources from the article for paragraphs 2 & 3, and then paragraph 4 cites Polygon. We could also use the Player.it article as source for paragraph 4. I don't have any preferences on paragraphs 2 & 3 - I copied them as is. The only change I made was flipping the order. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• I wonder if we shouldn't organize it as RPG work -> RPG bans -> art -> porn? It fells to me like that's a more logical flow to the information. Other than that, this sounds good to me, though there're a couple of bits in there twice that I've take the liberty of striking through. Hope that's ok! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks! Must have missed that when I did the copy/paste. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Chronologically, according to the sources, it should be his art, then porn, and then RPG. There are sources out there that discuss how this artist became involved in porn and then transitioned to RPG. There have been complaints about balance due to the lack of this info in the article once the flowery description of his art was removed, and I was disinterested in reviewing and reinstating his non-RPG career due to the edit warring that has been going on for the past 2 years. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• That's fine with me, too; mostly I feel that the RPG work and RPG bans should be presented together since they're each pertinent to the other. I agree that the edit warring is exhausting and sincerely hope that we can actually get the whole thing put to bed someday (I'm an optimist, what can I say). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• I added a second version where the paragraphs are reordered with slightly different transitions. Thoughts? Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks good but I would expound on the Lamentation of the Flame Princess impact [26][27] since it is explicitly listed as a credit. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Other sources

Player.it Here's what I could find: the outlet was established in 2017, is owned by the Frezza Network, it has an ethical code, and it has followed Italian law by registering in the Press Register at the Court of Teramo. The press register dates back to a 1981 Italian law which requires transparency on press ownership & financial statements reported to the government annually. Given how broad the name of the outlet is and my lack of familiarity with Italian search terms that would help narrow it down, I haven't been able to figure out how well received the outlet is (ie. is it the Italian equivalent of a Polygon/IGN or is it more like a ScreenRant?). But they're legally registered as an online newspaper with their government, so I would say it is a media outlet and not a blog. The article starts with Smith's history in the industry, then covers Morbid's post & the allegations, before going into Smith being removed from WoTC & OneBookShelf. It also highlights the close relationship between Smith and Mike Mearls and the fallout from that. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to restore text as discussed in Proposed language - Career Section

Just looking to restore this section of text, currently it read a bit disjointed "Zak Smith is best known for his work on role-playing game books such as Vornheim: The Complete City Kit (2011) and Frostbitten & Mutilated (2018) for the Old School Revival system Lamentations of the Flame Princess.[1][2][3][4]" Cite notes to be updated obviously. I'm uncertain why this dropped off. It seems fairly non-controversial. Will cone back and edit it in two weeks after discussion TimeLord2345 (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is pretty non-controversial, although I do wonder if at this point "best" is a bit over the top. I have no objections to restoring this sentence. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 01:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)