Talk:U.S. Center for SafeSport

Infobox

Is that the right infobox for this subject? --2603:7000:2143:8500:2023:8A36:7523:6635 (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Addressed. --2603:7000:2143:8500:B9D6:1F3D:A360:6770 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

IDONTLIKEIT

An editor has just made two apparently either vandal or IDONTLIKEIT reverts of proper, and properly sourced, text. I would urge them not to do it again, to avoid sanctions. --2603:7000:2143:8500:3959:A16D:E825:EF6A (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Improper mass deletion

The recent deleted text is all properly sourced to RS refs, per WP rules. There is no requirement that it be sourced to academic sources. The drive by deletion was improper. 2600:1017:B81B:CFDA:FC40:BB5B:7D93:1970 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The reverted material is all RS-supported. Zero appropriate reason given for deletions. If you disagree, let's bring it to an admin board. Your drive-by reverts - without WP-supported reasons - are unacceptable. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:606B:FAF7:C2EF:9710 (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Various of the edit summaries did indicate clear reasons, which you might disagree with, but they were definitely not unexplained. Part of the deletions, such as the previous external links section, seem completely reasonable. MarioGom (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

IP-hopping editor does not own this article

I have decided to create an account (formerly edited as 216.146.25.74) to engage in a more efficient discussion with an IP-hopping editor who, it seems, thinks that logged-out editing from different IPs somehow shields them from responsibility. After I introduced a substantial overhaul to the article, removing bias and and balancing one-sided coverage, this IP editor immediately attacked me on my talk page, claiming I have a conflict of interest (in my opinion, that question should be asked to them, given their propensity for adding opinions of certain politicians not only to the body of the article but also to the lead). I've studied Wikipedia guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (due and undue weight, balancing aspects) and Wikipedia:Ownership of content, and have come to a conclusion that the IP-hopping editor severely violates Wikipedia policies. Providing reliable sources is not the only criteria for inclusion, and not every event related to the organization in question should be documented. I suggest the IP editor register, just as I did, and engage in a constructive conversation. Otherwise, I'll have to consider seeking admin protection for this article. Trenosky (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

See above. Your deletions are improper. You are deleting proper material, RS-sourced, without reason. Perhaps you do not understand it, but there is no "IP-hopping" afoot. Carriers such as mine, on their own and without request, routinely vary IPs. Your personal accusations are wholly unfounded. I asked if you have a conflict of interest. I have none. Let's bring this to the sysops, as I had suggested to you before, and if they deem it appropriate to block someone, let it be done. You've provided not evidence that the material that you deleted was other than appropriate, and RS-sourced, so I am reverting to its former long-term state as we discuss this with admins. Please do not edit war, by again deleting RS material of long standing in this article.--2603:7000:2101:AA00:EC9D:36C6:9ED5:B9E4 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

IP, you might want to look through WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROPORTION. Pushing quotes from politicians to the lead is the definition of undue weight and perhaps COI. And I don’t buy this “traveling” excuse. If you wanted to, you’d create an account. Instead, you keep editing from different IPs so that it is harder to trace your history. Please, stop. Otherwise, I’ll have to report your entire range. Trenosky (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I am well aware of them. There is no violation of them in what you have deleted. As to what you will not buy, that is simply a reflection it would seem of your limits of knowledge. I've told you the truth. You've continued - as with your claims of vandalism - to simply state falsehoods. As I said in the first place-you will recall, I welcome the involvement of sysops. Your edits are unwarranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5CEE:2E4E:D6CE:2CBB (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

New detailed USA Today article on SafeSport just published ..

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2023/05/22/safesport-goal-protect-athletes-abuse-criticism/70236315007/ 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5D11:CBD:BF02:4F59 (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

IP-hopping editor is back at it

The IP editor had waited for a month to once again push their agenda to the lead, hoping no one would notice. I kept some of their edits, which are reliable, while removing those that were not agreed upon here on the talk page. Just to reiterate, I am highly suspicious of their logged-out editing and IP-hopping, which I see as an attempt to make it harder to track their edits. They could have created an account, but they refused to do so on multiple occasions for undisclosed reasons, which raises further concerns. Trenosky (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I've walked into the middle of a conflict I wasn't aware of? Some of the reversions or alterations to my edits as part of this seem odd, like restoring the now-outdated WSJ citation to the ib budget line on L63, or the removal of context for the Yates Report being part of the 2021 NWSL abuse scandal on its first reference on L128 (if only one contextual link to it is necessary, the first reference seems more appropriate than the last). -Socccc (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed an outdated citation and linked the scandal to the Yates report on L128. My opposition is mainly to the IP editor's attempts to push the statements made by US politicians to the lead, which I believe contradicts Wikipedia guidelines on neutral point of view and due/undue content. There are also ownership issues here and attempts to right great wrongs. Trenosky (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The statements of the US Senators who were the main forces behind the formation and funding of Safesport certainly belong in the lede. You've not explained why that might possibly be considered NPOV. Nor undue. They are obviously just the opposite. Yet-you continue to delete it. Most recently here.

You also cloud the discussion with unfounded ad hominem assertions. As I explained to you, I am not "hopping" - my internet service changes my IP without my request or authorization. Yet you either refuse to understand, or prefer to cloud the discussion. Clearly, I'm not a vandal. Yet you continue to sling that ad hominem insult at me, despite presumably knowing it to be untrue.

Let's bring this to an admin if you cannot see that. You seem inclined to whitewash the article in the same manner a PR person might, calling the most clearly RS-supported statements by the founding Senators "NPOV" and "undue" - but clearly they are the opposite. Simply asserting an untruth does not make your statement into a truth. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:D923:1B49:4CAC:A031 (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Crossfire

How is KNKX not WP:RS, or two stories covering Wiskel and Jordan's SafeSport cases in detail, with responses from both the complainant, the accused, SafeSport, and USSF, not both WP:IS and WP:SIGCOV? This is not about a substantial line of content, only to list a notable case. -Socccc (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Separately, how is it WP:EW as suggested by this edit summary to restore a removed line with an additional relevant source — that the SafeSport cases had been re-opened, and confirmation that their coaching licenses had been suspended — that was published after the first reversion, more than 24 hours after the initial reversion? -Socccc (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

KNKX is certainly a reliable source, but that's only a small piece of what's needed. The IP's point is a good one; only one of the people in the bullet point has been determined "notable" in the Wikipedia sense (i.e., there is sufficient coverage in RS for them to have a Wikipedia bio.) From what I've seen so far (and if there's more info, please feel free to point to it) I agree with the determination that it doesn't belong in the list. An accusation is not a conviction. See especially the discussion of "public figure" at WP:BLPCRIME. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Should any of the names be in the list? The ones not under the criminal convictions subhed also have not been convicted of anything. Dames, for instance, has even had his coaching license reinstated by SafeSport. Are their SafeSport cases still notable enough to be in a list titled "Notable cases"? Should the "Notable cases" list exist at all? (Does being listed as a "notable case" even imply wrongdoing?) -Socccc (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Socccc: A reasonable question. Worth thinking over. A case that leads to a conviction does seem worth mentioning, but I'm not sure there's more than one of those. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)