Talk:CA Suleiman

Wikipedia policy
It is expressly the policy of Wikipedia that accusations are considered false until and unless proven in a court of law. Saying so on this page is both factually accurate and within site policy and practice. Deadhouses (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Deadhouses is right. That is site policy. Also, at the very top of this talk page is a notice reminding everyone that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." Given this rule, I think the entire Controversies section is problematic and should likely be removed, but if it's going to stay at all, it seems like the proper choice is to revert to the edit that clarifies the nature of the claims, especially if the living subject of the page says the claims are false.Vishtarra (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Which policies? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The policies linked to at the top of this talk page. From those policies: "Editors must seriously consider not including material — in any article — that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." That language is pretty unequivocal. Vishtarra (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

From those same policies: "Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person." Similarly unequivocal in its language. Jbone81 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The items described in this article do not constitute crimes, so the items you quoted are not applicable here. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That is inaccurate. The accuser accused Suleiman of touching their leg once at a bar. By statute, that person would have cause to pursue a charge of possible criminal assault, if the accusation had any merit. Suleiman was accused of a crime, whether charges were filed or not, and since that accusation stands at the center of the thing, it's clearly central to any discussion of the incident. Beyond that, others have already noted that it's against Wikipedia policy to edit in contentious material about living persons, especially if that material is potentially libelous. This is the bio page for a living person and the Controversies section is both indisputably contentious and potentially libelous. The option of leaving the original wording in place is therefore a non-starter. By policy and common sense, either that section reverts to the edit that clarifies the false nature of the claims or it gets removed entirely, in keeping with site policy. Penderghast (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say anything more than "improper behavior", which is not a crime. 208.47.202.254 (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That has no bearing on the fact that it is clearly contentious, thus a clear violation of the policies of the site. It needs to be removed outright or edited to be in compliance with the site policy. Jbone81 (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How is it contentious? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:99A6:F4A5:E203:6D5F (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that is quite the desperate reach, Mr./Ms. Anonymous. The improper behavior in question was a possible crime, indisputably, and calling it something else doesn't change that fact. And it's contentious because the subject of this living bio page disputes the claims and because reference to those claims doesn't belong on his Wikipedia page, period. This very discussion and the edit war that gave rise to it is proof positive that it's contentious, and all this anonymous Whataboutism is only further driving that home. Either the section is removed outright or it gets edited to be in compliance with established and posted site policy. This isn't rocket science. Penderghast (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Penderghast has nailed it. Deadhouses (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the subject disputes the claims and thinks it should be removed from the article, then they should contact the WP:OTRS team to have a look into the situation. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or, better yet, they should see Biographies of living persons/Help as suggested at the top of this talk page. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you may wish to re-read that section, the use of the noticeboard for such things is only when it is repeatedly done. An Administrator has locked the page from edits twice in the last few days, yet has not joined this conversation, perhaps they would care to comment? Talk exists to create a dialogue and encourage collaboration, which is that the controversies section is a blatant violation of the site policies and should be removed or edited to be in line with such policies. Jbone81 (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there are other noticeboards if you wish to try those. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not how our process works. As per site rules, the one who introduced the contentious and potentially libelous edit is the one who needs to make the case with the Wikipedia team for reverting to that contentious and potentially libelous edit, not the other way around. Also, commenting anonymously and then logging in as admin just to lock a page is another violation of site policy, and will be reported as such. Penderghast (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

ban from StokerCon, etc.
The 2019 discussion, recorded above, doesn't fit either the word or the spirit of WP:BLP, and contains a good deal of WP:OR and WIKILAWYERING. It also seems to have been pursued by multiple WP:SPAs. As a result, I don't believe it produced any consensus regarding the StokerCon material. Before brigading (and legal threads) resume, please note that Wikipedia is only responsible for article content that reflects accurately what is published in reliable sources; wr are not responsible for things that sources may also report, but which we do not include in articles. So BLPCRIME, for example, only applies if our article discusses alleged crimes, which this the passage in question here goes out of its way not to do. Also, WP:VANDALISM has a specific meaning on Wikipedia and does not apply to content disputes. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The immediate problem with the ban is WP:RS. The text that was in the article was sourced only to a blog, and blogs, with few exceptions, fail WP:RS. Accordingly, and as required by WP:BLP, I have removed that sentence, but I've left the following one, which appears to be sourced to a better source. —C.Fred (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote was specific to the SPS, yes, so it was appropriate to remove the quote unless another source is found. But the first part of the sentence you cut, that the Horror Writers Association permanently banned Suleiman from its events, is equally supported by the tabletopgaming source. (The content of the quote is available from HWA's own social media, but I'm not keen to get into the question of DUE at this point - I'd rather make sure the solid content stays in, and that the Pittsburgh-area IP address stops edit-warring.) Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For the sake of transparency, do you want to put some proposed revised text, based on the tabletopgaming source, in a reply here for us to look at? —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would propose something like, "In late 2017, the Horror Writers Association banned Suleiman from its events in response to accusations of sexual harassment; Green Ronin, publisher of The Lost Citadel fiction anthology and role-playing game, then distanced itself from Suleiman over the same allegations. " I am proposing the semicolon, rather than two shorter sentences, to avoid template-bombing of the first phrase (or the necessity of including the same citation twice in consecutive sentences). Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a living bio page. The subject of the page does not consent to this libelous language. That should be the end of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:151:4502:CEE0:8492:5FDB:EE13:BD14 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy is not based on what "the subject of the page" does or not consent to. On the other hand, it would be good to know whether or not you are "the subject of the page, or perhaps represent them in some way? Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To the IP: If the subject feels the text is libelous, they need to take that up with tabletopgaming. We're just presenting what they have reported. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

From the BLP protocols: "Avoid victimization: Biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.  Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate... social... disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all."

Guys, the subject of this living person's page is a victim, and not just a victim, but specifically a victim of the very events that you seem inclined to allow bad actors to come rub in his family's face over and over, after years of silence. The fact is that an innocent man was targeted here, and in this case, nearly killed by a racist fanatic (among other serious harm). The subject of this page is of Palestinian descent; he couldn't be more vulnerable in the U.S.

For all the reasons, the contentious content clearly doesn't belong here, randomly sandwiched in between things that are actually pertinent to the page and to its usefulness as a credible resource. Previous admins ruled accordingly, and that content did not appear on this page for years. Suddenly, now, it's something that simply must be left to stand? Against all fairness, safety, decency, site policy, and the express wishes of the subject of the page and his family?

Forcing this content upon this living actual human being's page is violating four of the main protocols of not merely BLP, but of the site, generally: prolonging the victimization of a victim, allowing rivals to use Wikipedia as a forum for off-wiki disputes, turning Wikipedia into a tabloid, and abdicating editorial neutrality. It unequivocally does not belong here.

This man and his family have been put through the wringer. With all our problems these days, is it really the best use of your time to advocate for bad actors who can't leave an innocent person alone? Leaving this content here is inviting violent and deranged individuals to harm an innocent minority. That is not okay. Please, let this one go. There are far more worthy causes. Vishtarra (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no reasons in WP policy, including WP:BLP, why the current consensus text - based on independent, reliable sources - should be included in the article. What you are doing here is casting ASPERSIONS and impugning the motives of other living people (rivals? Really?) for no good reason. Please note the last sentence of the passage you quoted, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful (emphasis added). It may be your belief that an innocent man was targeted here, but we don't have sources for that, and your desire to WP:GRW by excluding a documented and impactful episode from this subject's career does not, in fact, promote the goals of the encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)