Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 7

'Still not improvements'
Hi. In your 3rd revert of the day, you said that the edits made by me and were 'still not improvements' (that is all the edit summary said) when reverting them. I'm having difficulty understanding what you meant - your edit goes from removing a description of antisemitic commentary made by the platform to rephrasing the well-sourced (please see above sections) 'favorite of' wording being discussed to the contentious phrasing proposed by Ridiceo, as well as other, even harder to understand reverts of edits made. I note that you have only made one small comment on this talk page, which makes your unexplained reverts hard to understand. Could you please explain? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Favorite of" is not "well-sourced". It's an opinion. Just because a source says it doesn't make it true. None of the sources cited provided any studies or arguments that supported the claim that gab is a "favorite" of alt-right users. Ridiceo (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * also reverted important copyedits made by and me without adequate explanation. At this point these reverts are hard to understand to be other than out of personal liking, rather than genuine improvement of the article, especially when the reverted material are well sourced and under consensus. Explain your reasons, or do not revert in questionable faith. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So like, the several reverts you have done to both mine and his edits? I make an edit, you revert it, I discuss on the talk page, you accuse me of breaking Wikipedia guideline, rinse and repeat. Ridiceo (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I provided detailed explanation for my reverts and actively discussed and explaned my changes on this talk page, unlike the other user. You ignored 's explanation in above sections, so here I repeat for you: All three sources, The far-right’s favorite social network is facing its own censorship controversy, Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooter Spewed His Hate on Gab, the Alt-Right’s Favorite Social Network, Gab, the Alt-Right's Favorite Social Network, Gets Rejections From Apple, Twitter, they are all factual reporting, not op/eds, from reliable sources. This is especially true when startup-focused Inc identified Gab as such in 2016, long before any recent controversies. And yes, article titles too count as content that can be used to verify facts, and the articles did have in-text support for such: "Gab has marketed itself as a home for extremists", "built catering to right-wing extremists into its business model", "back-up social network for white supremacist". Outside of these sources, 61% of individuals on ADL's extremist list is also something. "Favorite of far-right" is a verified, better descriptor than mere "popular with". Twitter/Facebook/Tumblr is popular with far-right too. Facts should not be written as opinions.
 * And because you did go against Wikipedia guidelines? Your idiosyncratic interpretation of factual reporting being opinion, based on your own liking, was a clear misreading of Wikipedia guideline to your own advantage. You are shown to repeatedly push your interpretations with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree and refuse to concede when your points has been disproved or rejected by the community. Please spare the now dead beyond-all-recognition horse you have beaten. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To insist that each and every source wont have some sort of opinion is absurd. Yes, they are factual reporting. That's because what they're reporting on is verifiable as a fact. The first article you linked, it's reporting on Gab having been told by their domain registrar to remove a post. NOT whether or not gab is a "favorite" of the alt-right. Gab being a "favorite" of the alt-right is objectively their opinion. And for the 15 millionth time, the article doesn't even claim & back up the statement "far-right's favorite social network", in their article. Why? because the article is not about whether Gab is the alt-right or far-right's favorite website. Furthermore, Media bias is an actual thing that exists. It's not some phony far-right conspiracy theory. "This article says it so that must mean it's fact" isn't how Wikipedia uses sources. We discern what it's reporting on and it's actual bias by writing about it in a neutral point of view. It's why we have WP:ASSERT, and WP:YESPOV. Gab being a "favorite" of the alt-right isn't verifiable. None of the sources you cited report on Gab being a "Favorite" of the alt-right. Ridiceo (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I just told you why the articles support this particular wording. It is also a better choice than mere "popular with", as "popular with" fails to distinguish the difference in notability between Gab and Twitter/FB etc that are also widely used by extremists. And NPOV is not "No POV". Even bot writers are trained by their journalist owners' biases to some degree. It's improbable to demand some absolutely POV untainted GMO-free content. They don't readily exist, if any. If they are reliable, verified, weight and writing considered, then yes, they're in. No questions asked. The horse you've beaten is now up to eleven beyond dead, so once again, please drop the stick Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The articles do not support the particular wording. These articles are not about whether or not Gab is a "Favorite" of far-right or alt-right users. It's important to include opinions as opinions. In quotes. They don't support the claim that it is a "favorite" of far-right users. They simply say it in their title. I've explained thoroughly why that is an opinion.

I said: ""Favorite" is editorializing, and isn't supported in the sources cited, as those sources don't cite any research articles or statistics that show that Gab is a "Favorite" of the alt-right." My response from PeterTheFourth was: "In a news article, we do not pick and choose what are 'facts' and what is 'opinion' based on how much we like it. An article is generally an opinion piece e.g. op-eds/etc. or it is factual writing." This isn't a refutation of my main point. I replied to him: "Then that means any source goes. Even unreliable ones. This assertion is ridiculous. There is a very clear distinction between opinion and fact. It is an opinion BECAUSE it's not supported by anything the source has said."

Another user then replied, "I'm satisfied with the verifiability of the "favorite" language now that we have sourcing that supports it. However we now have citation overkill. Not as big a deal, but I'd suggest we remove the sources that don't verify the current language (both Washington Post articles) and one or two of the weaker other ones. I don't know the relative reliability of Inc.com, The Verge, and The Daily Beast. My hunch is that The Daily Beast is the most reliable of those three. " Which again, doesn't refute my central point. It only states that the sources support the language used, and doesn't show how this sourcing supports the language. I replied, then, saying "Sourcing doesn't support it. It's still an opinion, and the article does not cite any information showing that Gab is a "favorite" of the alt-right. " And then *gasp* as soon as I disagreed with him, now I'm suddenly against consensus. they said, "You made your "opinion" point, no need to beat it to death. The consensus is against you on that one." That's weird, I didn't know that a single user got to choose when a consensus was made. Ridiceo (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:DROPTHESTICK. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ignoring my argument doesn't make it go away, PeterTheFourth. Ridiceo (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine. The rest of us already moved on and you don't even have to agree. Concede while you can. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reaching consensus is important. However consensus isn't made just because you say it's been made. You can continue to ignore me and lie about consensus being made, however that doesn't change the core meaning of my argument. My argument is still the same. Consensus-Blacklisting another editor (aka reaching a consensus by ignoring another editor's concerns, then claiming a consensus was made, and reversing any edits that single editor made) can lead to meat-puppetry or edit-warring. Remember: Consensus doesn't prevent me from editing the article. Creating factions to abuse the consensus-making process doesn't end well. You can continue to ignore my concerns, or you can respond directly to them, instead of crying "concensus has already been made", and you may change my mind. However, blacklisting me from consensus-making isn't going to go how you think it will. Ridiceo (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Again I've removed "extreme" and "immediate intent to harm" from the lede because neither was in the cited sources. Don't restore it without a source and consensus. D.Creish (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've restored it. It's in the sources; you're being intentionally obtuse.--Jorm (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought I reviewed them all. Can you tell me which one best supports it and I'll check again? D.Creish (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC) The justification you gave in is OR. Per WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME wait for consensus before restoring. D.Creish (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Source 1 says: "Bowers' final post on Gab announced his imminent attack on the synagogue"; notes his "anti-Semitic posts about the mass killing of Jews"; "he announced his 'imminent, lawless' attack on the religious center". Source 2  quotes Bowers' post: "HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in." -- Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * --Jorm (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How's ? My objections are specifically to "immediate" (which is different from imminent) and "intent to harm" which is one way to phrase it but not one used by the sources. D.Creish (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as sourcing I'm fine with the protected version which includes Softlavender edit. Style could be improved but I don't think anyone's going to edit war over that. D.Creish (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No. You put in what I think is your fifth revert before it was locked; we'll return to the earlier text when the lock expires, I think.--Jorm (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In this context, I am not sure I see the distinction between "announced his imminent attack" and "posted an immediate intent to harm" (which seems to be the main point of contention here.) Was your revert procedural, or do you have a specific reason to prefer "announced his imminent attack?"  The "immediate / imminent" quibbling above notwithstanding, I think both are valid summaries of the sources (announcing an imminent attack is posting an immediate intent to harm; we're allowed to paraphrase to that extent), and I can understand objecting to all the reverts, but I also think the revised version is a bit more clear and at this point says essentially the same thing.  --Aquillion (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Were my objections clear? Do you agree/disagree? D.Creish (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edits were inaccurate and against consensus, in addition to being edit-warring. Softlavender (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Quotes re: "alternative of Twitter" and "champions free speech"
If those terms appear in quotation marks, they need to appear as such in the citation. The citation does not contain those words as such. PaulCHebert (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Alternative of Twitter" or similar phrasings appear in a number of sources. As for the latter, "champions free speech" is right on their homepage. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. Than cite it to one of those, not in a way that makes it appear as though a particular direct quote appears in a source where it does not. PaulCHebert (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The first three citations in history section supports the "alternative of Twitter" statement, although rereading the lead, it appears that your removal of the sentence made it more concise without damage. "champions free speech", although mentioned in sources, is not present in article body, so it isn't enough weight for lead, and we certainly don't have to respect "alternative of Twitter" promotional language. For now I am satisfied with the lead, although my opinion might change. Thanks for your copyedits. Tsumikiria (T/C) 15:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome. thanks. PaulCHebert (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Richard Spencer and Mike Cernovich
The beginning of the article includes the following line which cherry-picked ultra controversial people from a big list of the most followed profiles on Gab:

"The site's most followed users include high-profile far-right individuals such as Richard B. Spencer, Mike Cernovich, and Alex Jones."

The problem with this line is that Richard Spencer and Mike Cernovich no longer use gab. They haven't in more than a year. The definition of a "user" is someone who uses something. The online social network industry standard for a user tends to be an "active profile used within the past 30 days" which is what competing sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Whatsapp use. I tried to delete Richard Spencer and Mike Cernovich from this line and added my explanation and someone reverted my edit with no explanation.

Mike Cernovich and Richard Spencer both use Twitter significantly more, but more importantly both people have a vastly significantly larger social reach and influence on Twitter. Cernovich must reach hundreds of millions of views on his tweets. They go viral. He is a very active profile on Twitter and one of Twitters overall most popular pages especially politics-related. Can I Add Mike Cernovich to Twitter's Wikipedia page intro (with the same high profile far right individuals" tagline) if I can prove he's one of twitters most popular political pages?  We can all agree social reach activity is significantly more important than inactive follower count on an inactive website profile. I have a feeling adding Cernovich to Twitters page won't be treated fairly and to the same standard.

Megat503 (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do they still have gab accounts that they could log in to? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * is that the only criteria needed to add a controversial profile to a social networks intro on Wikipedia? Megat503 (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally, we rely on reliable sources to highlight what things are worthy of note. This is something our reliable sources discuss. However, if the accounts were closed down or they were somehow removed from Gab, we should of course update the article to note that they are former users. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I just feel like that line is incredibly wrong and misleading because they are not users of the site. Having a dormant profile does not equal being a user. Using a site makes you a user Megat503 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The source supporting the reference is a peer-reviewed journal showing Cernovich had over 27,000 followers and was a "confirmed" member of the site, and Spencer had over 5,000 followers but was not a confirmed member. However this was in a table of notable users in the journal. I don't think there's any reason to remove this information just because they are no longer active members of the site, which is in any case unverified. SportingFlyer  talk  07:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support not because of the definition of being a "user" but because the sources are only two WP:PRIMARY research papers, one of which has a confirmation bias for this information. The other isn't enough for this WP:UNDUE information for the lead, as no other lead sections on a social network article mention users with many followers, even those about social networks whose most-followed users are listed on a separate list article. Gab's most followed users are irrelevant even for the whole article, it looks like. w umbolo   ^^^  17:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way are they primary? They're peer reviewed papers. SportingFlyer  talk  18:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The references stay. They're sourced, it's clear, and supports the notion that Gab is an alt-right haven.--Jorm (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no point to remove them from the lead or the article, other than for some revisionist purposes. Both papers have lists of popular Gab users, with Mike Cernovich mentioned on both. Both names, among names of other far-right individuals appear in numerous media RS about Gab. Gab is extraordinary among social medias in that it actively panders to the far-right, which is why we follow reliable sources to place its prominent users onto the lead. Unless sources say that they left or that they're banned, this sentence and their names shall stay. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * they don’t use the site. Your entire argument seems to be “gab panders to the far right.” Do you have any specific detail to support that statement ? Supporting freedom of speech is not “pandering to the far right.” Reddit and twitter at one time supported virtual free speech for many years. Can we add that they “pandered to the far right until right around mid 2015?”Megat503 (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The content should stay. Even if Spencer and Cernovich are no longer active on the network, they still have accounts and those accounts are among the most followed. That says a lot about Gab's membership. I do think the statement should be dated to reflect when these sources performed their analyses. R2 (bleep) 21:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Y Combinator alumni network
We have the following text

The single source for the Latino claim doesn't use the word insult, doesn't indicate Torba knew he was Latino, doesn't claim the aforementioned Latino is a CEO, and doesn't indicate that specific post had any bearing on the harassment claim. It's a questionable statement about a BLP and should be removed. D.Creish (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree Ginjuice4445 (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you serious with this wikilawyering? No. --Jorm (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I say BLP claims should be sourced and you call it wikilawyering? D.Creish (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How exactly does describing the CEO as Latino (with a source) violate WP:BLP? This is a new one, even for you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoops, looks like you missed this one pal. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

JFC. Since Mr. Apologist Demands Consensus:
 * Remove D.Creish's CRYBLP tags.--Jorm (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we could reword it slightly, but the fact that he was banned for harassment and threats is pretty well-cited. Here, here, here.  I feel we should reword it to avoid saying or implying that "build the wall" was the specific insult that got him banned, since that's not quite what the sources say.  I'd just omit that and say that he was banned for harassment and threats instead. (Also, we should use these as cites - they're better than TechCrunch and Buzzfeed, certainly.) Something like Andrew Torba, the CEO of Gab.ai, was himself removed from the Y Combinator alumni network for violating its harassment policy and for "speaking in a threatening, harassing way towards other YC founders." or something to that effect.  If anything, Torba himself seems to be the only one obsessed with the "build the wall" tweet (the more detailed description gives me the sense that he was trying to force a meme with it or something?  But the "banned for threats and for violation of harassment policy" bit is the important thing for a one-sentence takeaway, not comparative trivia like that.)  Honestly, the "build the wall" part serves to minimize what happened, really (which would be why Torba is fixated on it.)  Also, if anything, the current construction of "harassment concerns" soft-sells what the sources say; eg. engaget's It's also worth noting that Torba was just kicked out of startup incubator Y Combinator for violating its harassment policy and the "speaking in a threatening, harassing way towards other YC founders" quote that most sources include is much more clear-cut than the more vague "harassment concerns" we have now. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * MJ isn't RS for BLP but I'll read the other two, I don't know Daily Dot. With the current sources I'd be fine with your proposed text, my issue was accuracy not helping or hurting. D.Creish (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters in this case, but I'll note that I strongly disagree with your assertion that MJ universally fails RS for a BLP. They are WP:BIASED, which requires some caution in a BLP context, but no moreso than, say, Fox news - along those lines, I'd be cautious about using a cite like MJ or Fox alone to establish WP:DUE weight, or for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims not backed up elsewhere, but their reputation is otherwise good and they can be used in a situation like this.  A quick look at WP:RSN seems to general support for using them this way, too.  They're certainly not a remove-on-sight level, and I'm particularly baffled that you'd imply that they're not a superior source to TechCrunch and Buzzfeed, which are patiently far more contentious (I'm one of the people who thinks Buzzfeed's news reporting is better than people say it is, and even I think MJ is obviously a better source when available.)  Like, it doesn't matter in this situation, but your comment there was so sharply divergent from what I'm familiar with when these sources come up on WP:RSN that I was a bit stunned - if you really, really think MJ is unusable in a specific context, you can bring it to WP:RSN when it comes up, but I can say with near-ironclad certainty that if you went there asking people to affirm that it is generally unusable in a BLP context, you'd be wasting your time.  (But...  worse than Buzzfeed and TechCrunch?  Really?) --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I excerpted the relevant passages:
 * Engadget
 * Daily Dot
 * D.Creish (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) D.Creish, are you ready to defend that "cuck", "f* off" and saying "build the wall" twice, first screenshot quote and second replying in the context of reading upon that the previously quoted person is a latino, isn't insult? YC publicly stated he was kicked of for harassment and you don't get to decide that isn't. Misusing {POV statement} when consensus told you your version is unacceptable isn't going to be anywhere helpful. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't understand this, sorry. D.Creish (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) D.Creish, are you ready to defend that "cuck", "f* off" and saying "build the wall" twice, first screenshot quote and second replying in the context of reading upon that the previously quoted person is a latino, isn't insult? YC publicly stated he was kicked of for harassment and you don't get to decide that isn't. Misusing {POV statement} when consensus told you your version is unacceptable isn't going to be anywhere helpful. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't understand this, sorry. D.Creish (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Biased Lead
This article is extremely biased and sources only left wing sources. It reads like an SPLC hit piece. Needs revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.suede (talk • contribs)
 * We are not only citing left wing sources and this is just some drive-by trolling. Now you're at 4RR. Stop. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think I will.  This is a biased article and needs to be marked as such.Michael.suede (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked for one month for edit-warring. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A few other edit-warriors are coming to mind...they won't be blocked, though. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 03:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You have two choices, : Either file a report, with evidence, at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, or drop the innuendo. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reported the offending party, and will refrain from slinging further accusations. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 04:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cullen! He did!  It was me!  I was fixing what the other dude was edit warring about!  Hooray!--Jorm (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, honestly I'd be in favor of him not getting banned, mainly because he was not warned, or aware he had approached the three-revert limit... AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 04:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Heh. I'm not gonna get banned, pal. You're... you did all of it wrong.--Jorm (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, I did. I was wrong...and yet I was right, lol jk ;) Hope there are no hard feelings. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 05:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

, it is amazing what can happen while I feed the dog, pour a drink, and chat with my wife for a few minutes. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
Re the recent removals of "far-right", please see WP:NPOV. This is how the sources cover Gab, so Wikipedia follows. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not support. The "far right" userbase is a consequence of the site's First Amendment moderation policy, which all of the sources reference. Balance is required; Wikipedia should reflect that right-wing users are allowed on the site primarily because Gab's moderation rules don't ban them. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Smearing Gab with sources participating in a smear campaign is not WP:NPOV. Get your facts straight, that's what you get for reading Salon.com 24/7/365! AlanSmithee1990 (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If sources are "participating in a smear campaign", then please take it up with sources. Alternatively, there's Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where such matters can be brought to the attention of the wider community. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it’s alarming that a place known for being a cesspool of Nazis and white supremacists and embraced as much is now having people throw around a “smear campaign” accusation--Fradio71 (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, uh. Welcome to Wikipedia?--Jorm (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reminded me that the "cesspool" description from reliable sources is also pertinent. Added. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Who Added the Section on "Jeffrey Clark"?
Problems are several. First the 1st sentence doesn't go anywhere. "He was arrested, blah, blah, blah, the end." Very irritating the Reader. Second given that the narrative is that he was arrested, and a Gab User, it's not noteworthy in an Article on Gab, the social media platform with tens of thousands of Users. Lots of Gab Users, Twitter Users and Facebook Users get arrested, and for a lot worse. Should we start adding mundane arrests of non-notable people to the Articles on Twitter & Facebook? Third, Clark himself isn't noteworthy. He doesn't have a Wikipedia Article. So the upshot is "Some anonymous nobody was arrested for a minor crime and oh yeah, he uses Gab. The subtext of this message (with Wikipedia's voice) is that using Gab is a crime, and only criminals use Gab.  You wouldn't want to use GAB, would you?  You'll get mentioned on Wikipedia the next time you get a traffic ticket." Fourth I did a search of the history to find out if the inclusion was discussed, and who included it, and I could find no results of a search of the last 500 entries of the keyword "Clark". My understanding of Wikipedia protocol is that some kind of note needs to be made for this express purpose, which then makes me wonder WHO entered this non-noteworthy piece of non-drama, and why they failed to include the searchable text "Clark". Also I find no evidence that it's been discussed. Tym Whittier (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. There is nothing notable about a social media site having a bad user; Twitter and Facebook's articles do not make reference to off-platform actions of individual users, and neither should this article. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple reliable sources connect Clark to Gab and he is accused of offenses far worse than a traffic ticket. Five such sources are in the article. You can search the article history to find out which editor added this content. Nobody is obligated to discuss the addition of new content, but must discuss it if it is challenged and removed, at least before restoring it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that Clark appears to be the worst type of human detritus, but there's no reason why the arrest of a common criminal and general lowlife is worthy of a long, detailed paragraph in an article about the social media he used. PaulCHebert (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Cullen328, you fail to recognize that so far they are simply accusations. Does everyone accused of grisly crimes deserve entire sections in every “social network Wikipedia page” that the said accused persons participated in or had accounts in? The Boston bomber and the recent pipe bomb mailer both had very active twitter accounts. Can I had entire sections to the Twitter Wikipedia page devoted to these accused bombing suspects? I have a feeling that Wikipedia editors would treat that differently for some odd and biased reason. Either we have uniformed decision making across all pages of all social networks, or there is slanted agenda-based bias being injected into this Gab Wikipedia article. Which one is it?Megat503 (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , of course I realize that this person has not been convicted and if you read my comment again, I have not yet expressed an opinion about whether or not this content should stay. It is worth discussing but the criminal accusation is not equivalent to a traffic ticket. Your comparison to Twitter is also wrong because Twitter is used for a vast range of things while reliable sources report that Gab is used primarily to spread racism, extremism and hate. If you are aware of reliable sources that refute that, please bring them forward here so that we can evaluate them. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not one of the reliable sources cited reports that "gab is used primarily to spread racism, extremism and hate". That word "primarily" is editorial commentary from the wiki editor, and not present in the cited document.  This defamatory claim should be removed immediately. FChE (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As administrator states, multiple reliable sources connect Clark to Gab and he is accused of serious offenses, and so far five such sources have been added to the article. It's clear to me that this is highly relevant concerning the website, and therefore relevant to this Wikipedia article. Softlavender (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The paragraph was originally added under Pittsburgh shooting subsection by me, expanded and made into a separate subsection by an IP editor, and then I trimmed it down. Numerous reliable sources connect Clark to Bowers and made detailed profiling of Clark's usage and connections on Gab. And he was widely reported due to, I believe, that his arrest that may have prevented further harm, and the general concern among sources that Gab may have enabled the radicalization of Clark and Bowers. I agree with Softlavender that the paragraph is highly relevant. It shall stay. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "It shall stay." Unless, of course, a consensus builds that it should not. Cuz that's how Wikipedia works, right? PaulCHebert (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is how it works, both ways. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  09:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Tsumikiria is not a native English speaker. It's possible that he/she meant should stay. Softlavender (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Years have passed and the nuances of English still confuse me. Yes, I used it as 'should'., thanks, and I'm comfortable being referred to by 'they'. Tsumikiria (T/C) 12:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

"The site recognizes far-right websites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars as competitors" is wrong.
This statement is 100% wrong. How on earth did this stay here for so long? It cites the Washington Post as its only source. the "Amazon Washington Post" article itself cites the Gab SEC filing. The Wikipedia admins added "Spring 2018 financial filing" as a reference. first off, the SEC filing being referenced was dated Jan 30 which is Winter 2018 and and not in Spring (so that's a basic fact check that admins like Cullen328 who oversee this page like a hawk for some reason didn't double check). Next, the SEC filing is publicly available on EDGAR for viewing and reading, so we dont need the Washington Posts incorrect misinterpretation. Here is what the SEC filing says:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1709244/000114420418004542/tv484000_partiiandiii.htm "Our Market and Industry We welcome everyone, but see a unique opportunity to carve a niche in a massively underserved and unrepresented market. We estimate that there are over 50 million conservative, libertarian, nationalist, and populist internet users from around the world who are seeking an alternative to the current social networking ecosystems. These users are also actively seeking alternative media platforms like Breitbart.com, DrudgeReport.com, Infowars.com, and others. Through November 26, 2017 alone, Breitbart.com had over 2.2 billion page views from around the world. As mainstream social networks continue to crack down on "objectionable content" and censor conservative views, we believe the need for alternative platforms will only continue to rise. We believe the trend of "cutting the cord" will continue as the popularity of streaming content over the internet increases. We believe this will also begin a fragmentation process of the social networking ecosystem into smaller niche communities with shared values and ideals."

This paragraph in the SEC filing is titled "Our Market" and is referring to the behavior and interests of potential users. Its a pretty simple concept to anyone familiar with SEC filings: Potential users of Gab like to read Infowars and BreitBart News. When Gab refers to "alternative media platforms" they're referring to behavior of potential users seeking non-mainstream news. They dont mean that Breitbart is a social media platform competing with Gab. Gab.com does not publish News so they do not compete with Breitbart and infowars. This is common sense at an elementary school reading comprehension level. The Washington Post seems to have skimmed this paragraph and Wikipedia Admins simply sided with the Post's misinterpretation without fact checking the original SEC filing? That's the apparent state of affairs we are in. Why isn't the SEC filing even linked in this article so people can see it and not some mainstream journalist's misinterpretation ?

Lastly, even if Gab were to have mispoken in a filing and referred to Breitbart as a competitor, something like that shouldn't be in the lead paragraph because everyone with common sense knows news websites and social networks don't exactly compete. On the contrary, they complement each other.. Cnn does not compete with facebook and twitter, even if facebook cites them as competition. Netflix recently stated their biggest competitor was Fortnite. That doesn't mean Netflix is directly competing against video games, nor does that fortnite comment need to be  in the lead paragraph of the Netflix Wikipedia article. Megat503 (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * A couple of notes, in approximate order to your comments.

GorillaWarfare, first of a Wikipedia administrator in a comment above in this talk page mockingly referred to free speech as "Freeze Peach" so I thought that since administrators are Leaders and role models for discussion, I would model after them. Next, why do we need a secondary interpretation of the SEC Filing? The word competition doesn't come up in that paragraph, yet the Wikipedia article brings it up because Washington Post misinterpreted it. Why does the Washington Post get to be the arbiter of facts? The New York Times editorial board member Sarah Jeong tweeted that all white people comments online are dog piss. Because she works for the New York Times, does that make it a cite-able fact on Wikipedia? Last, If your statement that "websites all compete for usage" is the criteria for naming a competitor in the lead paragraph of a Wikipedia article, why isn't every single website in existence named as a competitor for every single websites Wikipedia article? Because that is NOT a criteria, and your suggestion that it is plainly wrong. gab does not make compete for views, clicks, or usage. gab makes money from reoccurring subscription revenue. Theoretically they can have a ton of subscription revenue and no website usage. So they do not again compete for views ad you state. Megat503 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Using Trump's bombastic nickname for the Washington Post is not particularly helpful here, and it weakens your points.
 * 2) I think you are conflating Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia admins—admins are just editors with additional tools to do things like delete pages and block users, but they hold no additional sway when it comes to writing articles. The "Spring 2018 financial filing" wording was added by Philip Cross in this edit; he is not an administrator.
 * 3) I'm not very familiar with SEC filings, so I'm not certain how time ranges are classified. Is it possible that January filings are referred to as Spring because they are referring to the next quarter? Again, I'm very unfamiliar, so I could be completely wrong on that. The wording is also used in a September 2018 document, so it probably makes sense to just remove the "Spring" wording, leaving "2018", but the article is fully protected so I won't do that right now.
 * 4) Per WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to interpret the SEC filing. We must echo outside interpretations of the filing, such as the Washington Post article. If you have other reliable, independent sources saying that the SEC filing is not referring to Breitbart and InfoWars as competitors, I'd encourage you to present them.
 * 5) I completely disagree with your logic that news websites and social media do not compete. People go to places like Facebook, Twitter, and Gab to get news just as they go to places like CNN, Breitbart, and InfoWars, and it those websites all compete for usage even though their formats are different. This is a well-documented phenomenon (,, , , etc.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I tried "are rivals in its market" in this edit which resolves the issue of potential plagiarism in repeating unattributed a word from the Washington Post article by using a synonym and also better reflects what is said in the primary source without misrepresenting the secondary source. My edit was effectively reverted. Directly quoting WaPo, the October 31, 2018 article ("From Silicon Valley elite...") refers to "Gab said in financial filings this spring" rather than the January 30 in the primary source mentioned above. Philip Cross (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Tsumikiria also isn't an administrator.
 * We need a secondary interpretation of the SEC filing because it is a primary source, and to avoid synthesis. I linked both of these policy sections in my point #4 above so you can review them.
 * If the Washington Post misinterpreted a fact, please provide a reliable source that interprets it differently (or says that the WaPo misinterpreted it).
 * Re: Sarah Jeong, no, because private tweets of a person's opinion are not usable as a reliable source (except to describe that person's opinion, although that can be iffy); descriptions of SEC filings in reliable, secondary sources with editorial oversight are.
 * Theoretically people will give me a ton of money for doing no work, but that is not how the world works. Similarly, people don't tend to subscribe to websites and services they don't use. But again, this is our own personal interpretation of the SEC filing; neither my opinion nor yours is actually relevant to what this article should say, that is left to the reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Theoretically people will give me a ton of money for doing no work, but that is not how the world works. Similarly, people don't tend to subscribe to websites and services they don't use. But again, this is our own personal interpretation of the SEC filing; neither my opinion nor yours is actually relevant to what this article should say, that is left to the reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of outside canvassing (3rd time)
Andrew Torba sent yet another thread directing his followers to the page, which might explain the sudden increase in vandal traffic. Quite some attempt to save face, I guess. Archive here in case he conveniently delete any of it. Tsumikiria (T/C) 15:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you surprised? The article treats his company extremely unfairly; the company says it's a "free speech" website and so far, in this article, "free speech" is only mentioned twice, and each mention refers to Gab's choice of moderation rule - which mirrors the US First Amendment - as not a genuine commercial differentiator but rather a disingenuous "shield behind which alt-right users hide." If you treat the subject fairly perhaps he won't object. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gab/Torba could say it's a potato and not a website, that doesn't mean we'll describe it as such unless it's supported by reliable, independent sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources all make reference to the free speech policy. Including all the sources used in the first paragraph of the lede offered to support the proposition that the site's userbase is "far-right." I'm not proposing that this article turn into a puff piece, I'm only asking that the free speech aspect of this website get fair acknowledgement in the lede where it belongs. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Honest question. I can't seem to find anywhere in the talk page why "free speech" Has been purposefully put in scare quotes at the beginning of the second paragraph. There's already a lot of discussion about how slanted this page reads as the result of media coverage. Placing free speech in quotations as if to imply some sort of doubt or incredulity to their mission is both unnecessary and is a clear failure of NPOV Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.84.127.108 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Gab isn't leaned toward any particular political ideology
As much as the media and it seems most of the pseudo academics here get it wrong, it's just a free speech platform.

That means:

1) The Far Right is welcome, as long as they behave.

2) The Far Left is welcome, as long as they behave.

3) Anyone is welcome, as long as they behave.

"Behave" on Gab means something different than on other social media platforms. It means: No doxxing, nothing illegal, and that's about it. Arguing with someone about their points or trolling them wouldn't get you banned. Posting that you dislike Jews, white people, or whatever wouldn't either.

The majority of the user base isn't even "right" they're Trumpers (Trump is a centrist, always has been... leans right or left a bit on certain issues). I'd say most of the base is Libertarian-Constitutionalists if we want to get really specific.

The wiki on Gab at this site is basically a collection of tropes from people whom have not used the platform at all and the main contributors are Communists. Everything is far right to a communist. :D

Anyway, this article needs a revamp from someone that did some real research, has used the platform, and will provide a factual article not based on hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindmaster064 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed new language for second paragraph of lede
I think I may have figured out a way to square the circle of the exclusion of Gab's free speech policy from the lede. I propose leaving the first paragraph of the lede alone and making reference to the free speech policy of the company - the notability of which is extremely well-documented in the discussion above - in the second paragraph of the lede.

The second paragraph of the lede currently reads: Gab's self-promotion as a vehicle for "free speech" has been criticised by scholars as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide",[14] and "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".

The issue is that this refers to the free speech policy, but only as a cudgel to criticize the company rather than offering a fair and affirmative description of what the policy is - which is what an encyclopedia should do. Furthermore, the sources do not support the notion that Gab's adoption of a "free speech" policy is mere self-promotion - see the RfC, passim, which makes extensive reference to the site's free speech policy, supported by citations, in multiple locations. New language can achieve the objective of including the obviously notable free speech focus of the site without disrupting the first paragraph of the lede for which there is apparently no consensus to edit. I propose the following: ''Gab states that its "core mission" (cite) is promoting free speech. This has been criticised by scholars as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide" that creates "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".'' Looking forward to input. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Ginjuice4445 is topic banned for a month from editing this article and its talk page by, due to tendentious editing, disruptive editing and edit warring. Discussed and roundly thrashed and yet still warring for it. Please try to be more collegial next time. Tsumikiria/🌹🌉 05:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

SEC filing
As I said in an edit summary, "The SEC filing that the WaPo cites says that it was filed in January 30, 2018, meaning it was filed in winter 2018 and not spring 2018. Also, the filing does not say that gab's main competitors are Infowars and Breitbart News and instead says that they are alternative media platforms. Lastly, according to the filing, Gab's corporate name is Gab AI, Inc, not Gab, Inc." I'm just here to get a consensus, since my edits were reverted because I didn't get a consensus on the talk page of this article. 344917661X (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot access the Washington Post article, but if it refers to this filing, then it is indeed Winter 2018 (the article should simply say January 2018). While it identifies "conservative, libertarian, nationalist, and populist internet users " as their target audience, it identifies Brietbart et al as alternative media platforms sought by this audience, and doesn't identify them as competitors. Specifically about competition, it says "Our competition includes various social networking platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and other established communication platforms. We also face competition from alternative and new social networking platforms such as Vidme and Minds."
 * If the Washington Post has mischaracterized this filing, that isn't an excuse for Wikipedia to do so. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it make more sense to just use "2018"? I'm not sure the season is particularly relevant information anyhow. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That would make the most sense, unless these filings happen quarterly. The lead paragraph as it stands now misrepresents the filing in more ways than that, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How about changing it to say "The site recognizes alternative and new social networking platforms such as Vidme and Minds as competitors, according to a January 2018 financial filing." and using the filing itself as a source, since WaPo got the date of the filing wrong and WaPo got the sites it is competing with wrong as well. 344917661X (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The filing is a primary source, which we try to avoid. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having one primary source is in my opinion okay if there are way more secondary sources in the article. 344917661X (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, gotcha, I thought you were suggesting we replace the WaPo source with the SEC filing. I'd be fine with that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, let's have this sentence "The site recognizes alternative and new social networking platforms such as Vidme and Minds as competitors, according to a January 2018 financial filing." be backed up by both WaPo and the SEC filing. 344917661X (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I like GW's idea of just saying "2018" b/c we can source it, it's accurate (ish?), and it doesn't violate OR/SYNTH, even if we know better. A different question is how important is this information for the article.  I have no opposition to it being included; I just don't know how important it is. I can understand trying to chain the site to Brietbart, etc. in order to strengthen the "far right" label, but I don't think it's necessary. --Jorm (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a fair point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I did read the WaPo article, and they don't directly quote the SEC filing when describing Breitbart as a competitor. That makes it not necessarily a mis-reporting but possibly the WaPo interpretation of the filing. As such, if we want to include a WP:PRIMARY source describing the nature of the filing we shouldn't necessarily exclude the WaPo interpretation, though we should probably report it as an interpretation. So According to the Washington Post, the SEC filing situates Breitbart et. al. as competitors. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jorm, given the volume of secondary sources that label it as "far right" I'm not sure we need this to justifiably keep that labeling. Either removing the sentence completely, or following something akin to 344917661X's language would make sense.  I like the idea of including both the alternative platforms the target audience is seeking and its active competitors so the distinction is available for the reader.   2018 is also a preferable option unless we want get nit picky specific on filing date, effective date, announced date, blah, blah, blah. 2018 is specific enough for that specific subject matter and it isn't as if we are relying on it being summer or winter or spring to make a specific logical point.  Squatch347 (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur with GW, Jorm, and Simonm223. I'm not so confident in using first party phrase directly given that a secondary interpretation/reporting exists. Could be rewritten as "The site named itself among the 'alternative media platforms', including far right websites Breitbart News and InfoWarsin a 2018 SEC filing, which The Washington Post indicated a competition". And still reffed by the WaPo report. If really necessary, then append the SEC filing reference. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#F44283">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 14:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer my wording since it identifies Gab's competitors correctly. WaPo's interpretation is clearly wrong, because the filing does not identify Breitbart and Infowars as competitors, rather, it identifies them as alternative media platforms.344917661X (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It might not be for us to judge a source's intrepretation, unless another source contradicts it. The first party claim "alternative media platforms" must be clarified as such, not written directly as a fact as you did. The fact that they have Breitbart and InfoWars listed in their filing to investors is also quite illustrative of their purpose, and serves to the relevant context of the page. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#F44283">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, after some significant development, the current lead is lacking representation for the weight the User and content section holds. Antisemitism is a major facet of the site's content, and a explanation in lead will help the readers understand why it has a place in the Template:Antisemitism. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#F44283">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 14:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, the filing was in June 2018, which is Spring: . It's the same wording they have used in every financial filing. BY the way, WaPo doesn't say SEC filing. Softlavender (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, the article should just say it was filed in 2018. 344917661X (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Spring 2018" is accurate, so there's no reason to change it. Softlavender (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be using "Spring" per MOS:SEASON. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In 2018 is sufficiently accurate for this purpose. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Uhh no, this is a bit editorializing
I'm not going to undo this edit, but you need to understand basic things about English grammar before you accuse people of using "editorializing" language. I would love to know exactly which direction you think I'm "editorializing" and how the use of the word "but" in this context does so. PaulCHebert (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a personal preference thing to me. ", although scholars criticised this self-promotion as ..." also works. I guess filing a GOCE request would be helpful. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've resolved it by joining the sentences. "But", like WP:HOWEVER, is indeed editorializing. Softlavender (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed New Wording For Lede, Fixing Poor Writing
In my opinion the first paragraph of the lede is slightly incoherent, and written poorly. What do guys think about this rewrite:

Gab is an English-language social media website that allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 3,000 characters, called "gabs". Best known for its mainly far-right user base, the site has been described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right. It has stated that conservative, libertarian, nationalist and populist internet users were its target markets.

In any critique of this proposal, please don't bring up whether this mentions their free speech policy, or any personal objections with calling Gab an alt-right site. This proposed edit is to fix poor writing, not biased content. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 19:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that calling out the character length or functionality ("allows its users to read and write...") is too much spurious detail for the lede of any article, let alone for this one. Putting quotes around "extremist friendly" and "safe haven" is also a non-starter. --Jorm (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't put those quotes there, I grabbed the article's current wording at the time. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 20:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree this version is much more coherent. Describing the site's main feature and the origin of it's name seems far more relevant to the first sentance than commentary on it's user base. It should at least be bumped to the second sentence if not the first imo. 74.195.159.155 (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think the current first para of the lede is superior. Simonm223 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as promotional and overly self-derived. Softlavender (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Extremely weak oppose. I don't have a major issue with the new proposed wording, since it's really just reordering the existing first paragraph. However I do think that what the site is known for (its mainly far-right userbase) is more relevant than how long its messages can be. I don't see any glaring issues with the wording of the existing opening para. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lede should summarise and emphasise the most important part of the website, which is that it's a social network with a far right user base. The character count is irrelevant. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per MOS:LEADREL, the lead should reflect the necessary weight of the body, which is why we have the "known for its mainly far right user base" in first sentence, because the user section is over 50% weight of this page, and perhaps more than that in the reliable sources. It is the primary, defining part concerning the subject, per the sources. The character count is actually the least relevant part of the lead in this particular situation. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't see the rationale for putting ...allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 3,000 characters... in the first sentence; that's not what the site is most well-known for.  Honestly it barely belongs in the first paragraph of the lead at all, let alone the first sentence.  --Aquillion (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019
Please change significant parts of this article to what I've written as follows. The way the article is written currently, with lines such as "far right social base" or "haven for neo-nazis" shows extreme political bias and is also unjust and not factual. It sets a dangerous precedent for Wikipedia which should be central and factual. Here's what I suggest to change to ->

Gab is an English-language social media website, known for its focus on protecting free-speech rights.[1] The site has been described by it's founders as a social media website which unlike it's rival Twitter focuses on preserving legal political speech and protecting free speech rights. The site allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 3,000 characters, called "gabs". It's founders have stated that protecting user's freedom of speech is the main purpose of this website.

This is just one way the opening paragraph should be rewritten. There are also significant other parts of this article, such as the second paragraph.

In the second paragraph, the current author has written clear left leaning unjust and untrue comments on Gab and used citations as a means to "validate" it. These citations, throughout the paragraph are invalid as the websites you have cited have been proven to be left leaning or completely politically left. Please use news sources or websites which state aren't politically affiliated or aligned for citations.

I request to edit this article to a more centre aligned article so as to preserve Wikipedia's values of spewing truth and being unjust.

[1] https://gab.ai/ "A social network that champions free speech, individual liberty and the free flow of information online. All are welcome." Kk Rocks46 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Please also cite published, third-party sources supporting your request. See the repeated discussions on this talk page and in the archives where consensus on the current wording was reached. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 20:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC about whether Gab's free speech policy should be included in the lede
Should the lede of this article describe Gab's free speech policy? Ginjuice4445 (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC) EDIT: In response to comments, I propose the lede read as follows, with new wording in bold (and am open to suggestions to modify it): "Gab is an English-language social media website, known for its First Amendment content moderation policy and the right wing user base whose content that policy protects . The site allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 3,000 characters, called "gabs". The site's moderation rules have been criticized as "extremist friendly" or as creating a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.

Per GorillaWarfare's comments I am editing again to bring to the top of the thread the citations that support these changes. All that is needed is a clean read of sources already cited in the current lede. See e.g. NPR, which says "Gab makes the case for people to be able to post whatever they want, as long as it's legal;" Mic, which writes "in our phone and email conversations about Gab's push for a mainstream audience, Torba and Sanduja kept falling back on a familiar argument: Free speech above all else, and little, if any, censorship"; Verge, which says the "free speech is Gab’s vital selling point" of the site; and the New York Times which refers to the free speech policy as furthering "Gab’s core mission of promoting free speech." As for what "free speech" means, this means "the first amendment." This is implied by the NPR piece and set out directly in a piece from Mic dated mid-November. See also the site's own statements here and here stating that it uses the First Amendment as a moderation rule.

Ginjuice4445 (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Note, for clarification, the consensus failure on this page appears, at least to the requestor of this RfC (yours truly), to revolve around whether Gab's free speech policy is worthy of inclusion in this article. This RfC asks "Should the lede of this article describe Gab's free speech policy?" Not discuss, not laud, not condemn or criticize, but describe. The policy itself isn't currently described in the article at all; what is described are criticisms of the policy. Attempted revisions of this article to include neutral references to the free speech policy to this page are, most of the time, summarily reverted. If third parties agree that aspect of Gab's business is notable, it should not be hard to draft neutral language to describe it and this should ensure that future well-referenced mentions of the policy are not immediately reverted. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No. There is insufficient sourcing to indicate that this is the most notable thing for the subject.  This RFC is also opened in bad faith as an attempt to circumvent an unfavorable result from a previous RFC. --Jorm (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The previous RFC dealt with a completely different question, as GorillaWarfare pointed out above - it asked whether the term "right-wing" should appear in the lede. This RFC asks whether "free speech" should be added to the lede, and does not propose removal of the language "right wing." Ginjuice4445 (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI: Responding to everyone's !vote in this RFC will gain you negative goodwill towards your position. Just sayin'.--Jorm (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just trying to make an honest, good-faith contribution to this article. If that requires defending myself to point out that this RfC deals with a different issue than the prior RfC, so be it.Ginjuice4445 (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No to this apparent bad-faith RfC ; the second paragraph of the current lede already starts with "Gab's self-promotion as a vehicle for 'free speech' ..." which is an adequate summation of the reality per independent sources. That's accurate and enough for the lede, and summarizes the body copy of the article text. Softlavender (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC); edited 08:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Gab's self-promotion as..." does not describe the policy, it criticizes it and editorializes by assuming that the site's free speech motivations are disingenuous cant. This proposal seeks the addition of objective language that actually describes the policy. Furthermore, the previous RFC dealt with a completely different question - whether the term "right-wing" should appear in the lede. This RFC asks whether "free speech" should be added to the lede, and does not propose removal of the language "right wing." Ginjuice4445 (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. Gab's free speech policy is the stated purpose of the site. It describes itself as "the home of free speech online" on its landing page. The company's free speech policy features prominently in every source cited by the current lede, where it is described in some detail and provides context to much of the source articles by explaining why right-wing users are on Gab and not on other sites - chiefly, because Gab is the only website on the Internet that won't ban them, due to the free speech policy. I encourage you to review the articles that are already cited in the current lede - NPR, which says "Gab makes the case for people to be able to post whatever they want, as long as it's legal;" Mic, which writes "in our phone and email conversations about Gab's push for a mainstream audience, Torba and Sanduja kept falling back on a familiar argument: Free speech above all else, and little, if any, censorship"; Verge, which says the "free speech is Gab’s vital selling point" of the site; and the New York Times which refers to the free speech policy as furthering "Gab’s core mission of promoting free speech." Talking about Gab without discussing its free speech policy borders on nonsensical and is one-sided. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede must summarize the body text of the article; that is its function. If it's not in the body text of the article, it should definitely not be in the lede. Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a really good point! IMO any section mentioning the alt-right, hate speech content should mention the free speech policies, since that's what paves the way for it in the first place. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 07:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At the moment, the "consensus" among editors to this page is that the free speech policy is not worthy of discussion at all, and any attempt to discuss it is reverted. Indeed a longstanding paragraph describing the free speech policy was removed today by an editor as "not meriting a standalone section." If third party editors find the free speech issue notable, it will not be much trouble to ensure consequential edits can be made to the body of the piece to ensure the free speech policy is described more fully. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Consensus among experienced and knowledgeable and unbiased Wikipedia editors is that the free speech policy is not worthy of elaborating. Any organization which asserts that its main competitors are Breitbart News and InfoWars is not notable or known for "free speech" but rather for propagating alt-right viewpoints. Compare, for instance, Reddit and 4chan, etc., which are also known for their free-speech policies, but which do not assert that their main competitors are Breitbart News and InfoWars. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I put "consensus" in quotation marks because there isn't actually a consensus. There's a majority, but there's a lot of dissent, too. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a WP:CONSENSUS, among experienced and knowledgeable and unbiased Wikipedia editors. It's just not a consensus that you or your fellow Gab promoters/fans like. Softlavender (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. The only reason the alt-right has a place on Gab is because of their free speech policies. If we are going to say it's a haven for the alt-right, it's only fair to explain why. That'd like a kid complaining to his mom that his stomach hurts and refusing to disclose that he ate all his Halloween candy in one sitting...it's not the full story. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 08:07, 21 January 2019‎ (UTC)
 * Not true; see the reliable-source citations in the wiki article. Plus Gab asserts that its main competitors are Breitbart News and InfoWars; it is a site for propagating alt-right viewpoints. Compare, for instance, Reddit and 4chan, etc., which are also known for their free-speech policies, but which do not assert that their main competitors are Breitbart News and InfoWars. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Gab's alt right user base is enabled by their free speech policies, end of story. Have any sources that prove otherwise? Additionally, you saying that site is "a site for propagating alt-right viewpoints" is a grossly misleading half-truth. Gab is for propagating all viewpoints. Have they censored leftists? Your comment here seems to reek of POV pushing, or anti-Gab motives. It's one thing to say it's known for being a haven for the alt-right, that's totally fair. It's another thing to call it an alt-right propaganda machine. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 13:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you mentioning Gab being a competitor of Infowars and Breitbart is completely irrelevant and does not change what Gab is. Netflix recently said it's biggest competitor is Fortnite; that doesn't make it a video game. Nor does Infowars being a Gab competitor (or vice versa) make Gab an alt-right site. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 14:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that either of Breitbart or Infowars are "alt-right" nor that Reddit has a free speech policy (spoiler: famously, it doesn't). Nor was I aware that a site could compete with some other company with right-wing political views and not have a free speech content moderation policy that differentiates that company from its competitors - but of course, Gab does have such a differentiating policy, and the sources - the sources in the lede no less - bear this out. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You may have some new pages to "care about" (as you've said above to Drmies). Breitbart News includes "Breitbart News aligned with the alt-right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon, who declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016" in the lead, and both pages are included in Category:Alt-right and feature the Alt-right footer (which they're listed in). GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The term "alt-right" is commonly thought to be thrown around as a slur for anything marginally more conservative than a bucket of warm water. Breitbart expressly disavows that label now. I would expect an effort to explain this to the editors who placed Breitbart in that footer to be met with similar levels of obstruction as the editors of this page who insist that a free speech website isn't in fact a free speech website, but thanks for the pointer - I'll hop over there and propose some changes. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Already done Included how? The lede already discusses free speech. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per my suggestion, has reworded the RfC to actually make clear the purpose of it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This RFC asks whether the lede should describe the free speech policy. The current lede says "Gab's self-promotion as a vehicle for 'free speech' has been criticised by scholars as a shield behind which the alt-right hides." That describes a criticism of the policy. It does not describe the policy. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your RfC does not make that clear at all. I'd recommend you withdraw this, take the time to form an actually legible RfC, then start that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See my reply to GorillaWarfare below. By "describe" I literally mean "describe." So far the consensus failure is that half of the editors don't think the policy is worthy of inclusion at all. If we can get people to agree it's worthwhile to describe it, we can work to agree the language as a separate issue. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude, ATM it's not really that bad. What's there is semantically little different than, for instance, "Gab promotes itself as a vehicle for "free speech", which has been a cause of criticism by scholars as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide"". Their free speech stance is mentioned. Consider that a win, I think we're pretty close to perfection here. Props to whoever made that edit. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 08:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Correction: that was there for a while. I've been fighting about the lead while only reading the first paragraph, lol! I think the section mentioning their free speech stance should be moved to the first paragraph, for clarity's sake. That should be good enough. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 08:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Gab is an English-language social media website '''that allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 3,000 characters, called "gabs". Known mostly for its mostly far-right user base,''' the site has been described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right. It has stated that conservative, libertarian, nationalist and populist internet users were its target markets. Andrew Torba, Gab's CEO, claims Gab's core mission is "promoting free speech." AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 19:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Flawed RfC. Can you please take a minute and write out specifically what you'd like to be added to the lead? At the current moment this RfC is just asking if free speech should be mentioned in the lead, which it already is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Striking this now that Ginjuice4445 has done so; my !vote is now below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The consensus failure on this page revolves around whether Gab's free speech policy is worthy of inclusion in this article. The RfC says "Should the lede of this article describe Gab's free speech policy?" Not discuss, not laud, not condemn, but describe. The policy itself isn't currently described in the article at all; criticisms of the policy are described. If people agree that aspect of Gab's business is notable, we can hash out the language in the talk page or worst case go to another RfC if we can't get consensus on it. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See, this explanation is the kind of thing that needs to be included in the RfC proposal so people know clearly what they're supporting or opposing. Even if this RfC were to be closed in support, there would have to be an entire other discussion to work out wording, etc., which is excessive. And if it's closed in opposition, it's currently not clear if the existing mention of free speech should be removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added a note. All the users in the discussion so far are usual suspects whose opinions are known, and consensus is split 3-2, so will wait to see what new contributors have to add to the discussion.Ginjuice4445 (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realize that as the person who proposed the RFC it's not up to you to close it or to adjudicate consensus. Furthermore I'm sure I need not remind you that consensus != votes. A 3-2 split in overall opinion is irrelevant compared to how the arguments keep with current Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, as many comments here attest, this RFC is poorly formed as you still have not proposed revised text to replace the extant copy in para 2 of the lede which does the thing you're asking the article to do. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, repeatedly, the text in para 2 of the lede does not describe the policy, it criticizes the policy. This RfC asks whether it is appropriate to describe the policy the article currently criticizes. Knowing what is being criticized makes the critique meaningful, so I'm not sure why this proposal should be objectionable. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Then as per my !vote below, that is entirely WP:UNDUE. The "policy" isn't per reliable sources what's notable so much as the way in which this "policy" has been used to create a safe-haven for fascists. Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not what the sources say. As I point out above, in detail, every source cited for the opening paragraph of the lede refers to the free speech policy, and does not claim that the policy is a disingenuous shield for "fascists." The current sources, if you care to read them, amply justify reference to the free speech policy - no new sources are required. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is patently false. The statement that you seem to have taken issue with is a direct quote from a reliable academic secondary source. It's just about as good as a technology lede statement gets. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't take issue with the inclusion of that statement. I take issue with the exclusion of the statements from NPR, Mic, Verge and the NYT that Gab's bona fide mission is the promotion of free speech, and their descriptions of how the implementation of that policy has resulted in users who are banned from other sites congregating on Gab. I envision the lede eventually reading something like "Gab is known for its free speech policy, which means the site will not censor opinions that are protected by the First Amendment, and the right-wing userbase that this policy protects. This policy has been criticized as a shield behind which alt-right users hide." Or similar.Ginjuice4445 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could copy your proposed wording to the RfC proposal? Myself and others have requested you propose specific wording so it's clear what people are !voting on, and they should not have to dig through to a comment thread to find it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It would also be helpful if you could specify precisely which sources you'd include to support that statement, so myself and others opining here can evaluate if that is a fair summary of what they say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done! Ginjuice4445 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so accommodating, this should make the RfC much more productive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I find your proposed lede both too wordy and also it seems to downplay the fact that Gab is known for its alt-right content. I propose the following lede, which addresses both the content and the lede's present poor form:


 * No - Transparently a bad faith nomination from a highly disruptive, single-purpose civil POV pusher here to right great wrongs, in response to the article subject's latest recruitment effort. The canvassing posts targeted and me personally in a long term effort to draw POV editors onto this page and cast doubt on Wikipedia and fellow editors. The timing of this RfC is also interesting since a higher traffic to this page produced by the posts means better chance at meat-puppetery canvassing. One warrior has been blocked so far.
 * In terms of the content dispute, the proposer failed to provide any quotation from reliable sources that readily establish the "free speech aspect", and resorted to misleadingly construing mere passing mentions/one-liner summary descriptions on the subject's first-party claims as concrete facts to pass the Verifiability test. Our policy and guidelines on weight and original research does not allow every minority view to be displayed as equal validity as significant and/or mainstream views, as that would be false balance. So if reliable sources overwhelmingly establish doubt or treat as fig leaves to the subject's "free speech" rhetoric, giving little to no seriousness to the now-meaningless adjective, and notes its long-standing efforts to signal and align themselves with the far-right via antisemitic commentary and alt-right rhetorics, then policy require us to follow, period.
 * This isn't to say that more descriptions accurately reflecting the language and weight in RSs cannot be added. The subject recently advertised hard to purport themselves as - I quote: "Gab protects dissidents of all kinds - from Alex Jones to Jewish journalist Laura Loomer, from Islamic preacher @imamofpeace to Antifa activists - from censorship, so they will never be silenced." If reliable sources provides cover to this blatant rebranding effort, then we will added it.
 * On the other hand, this editor is rather reminiscent in their arguments and tactics, to the previous POV pusher on this page User:Ridiceo now site-banned by the comunnity, with plain denials, exhausting sealioning, and demands to others to work for them. This will certainly not be the last civil POV pusher we see here, but we're becoming adept at this. Given that the article subject will not just quit their disruptive canvassing efforts, a long-term, or indefinite semi, or even ECP protection, is long due. Tsumikiria (T/C) 08:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "The proposer failed to provide any quotation from reliable sources that readily establish the 'free speech aspect;'" - please note the most important citation in the lede, from the New York Times, refers to the company's moderation policy as furthering "Gab’s core mission of promoting free speech." "Core mission" is unambiguous language and the sentiment is reflected in practically every other article written about this company. I'm not sure how much more direct you want me to get, and how more readily one could establish the importance of free speech to this article, which is supposed to be about the company, than that. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a passing description of its mission statements. We don't do mission statements anymore here, and it's quite delusional to think that this pure advertisement is readily supported to deserves a special place. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No More than it already is  As has been mentioned above, the second para of the lede already addresses Gab's free speech claims, situating it how reliable secondary sources see it. This is perfectly sufficient and it would be WP:UNDUE to go into greater detail in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * And that's in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph. I don't see why it would need elaboration. The only change I think might be needed is to remove the question marks. Doug Weller  talk 15:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This RFC asks whether the lede should describe the free speech policy. The current lede says "Gab's self-promotion as a vehicle for 'free speech' has been criticised by scholars as a shield behind which the alt-right hides." That describes a criticism of the policy, but not the policy itself. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You've made this claim about four times... since I logged on today... and pretty clearly people don't buy it. Suggest sitting back, seeing how the RFC turns out and leaving this one alone now. You've said your piece at length. No need to WP:BLUDGEON. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Procedurally, this is not a valid RFC because it fails to propose specific changes to the article. Substantively, I oppose this notion because discussion of Gab in reliable sources overwhelmingly focuses on their user base and the extremist hate speech they engage in. Authoritarian movements always use free speech as a convenient tactic until they come to power, and then they suppress free speech ruthlessly. Gab is home to white supremacists, an ideology that led to the lynching of 5,000 Americans to suppress the free speech rights of African-Americans and other minorities. Gab is home to neo-Nazis and we know what happened to free speech under Nazi rule. Gab is home to ultra-nationalists and fascists, and whether it is Franco in Spain or the junta in Argentina or Duterte in the Philippines today, such movements suppress free speech when they come to power. Wikipedia should not parrot the disingenuous talking points of authoritarian extremists whose long term goal is to crush free speech when they come to power. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Thanks again, Ginjuice4445 for providing specific wording and sources as requested. However I do oppose your changes for a number of reasons which I'll break down below (I seem to be in a numbered list mood...):
 * 1) Gab is ... known for its First Amendment content moderation policy
 * 1a. The closest any of the sources come to supporting the site being known for its content moderation policy is the Verge article saying Gab is "known as an anything-goes haven for the far-right", and even that is more focused on the far-right. It doesn't mention the First Amendment at all. The other articles you've provided discuss Gab's content moderation policies, but do not say that Gab is known for them. Even a brief skim of the titles of the articles you've linked shows that it is Gab's far-right userbase, not its content moderation, that it is known for.
 * 1b. The "First Amendment" stuff is also quite weak. The only mentions of the First Amendment are from the site itself (the Mic article comes the closest to independently describing it as such, but it is still in the context of the site's comments on the First Amendment). It is also a bit weird to reference the First Amendment in the context of a privately-owned website, which I suspect is why the reliable sources haven't really referred to it as such. As I'm sure you know, the First Amendment refers to the government's ability to abridge freedom of speech, and has no bearing on what private websites may or may not do.
 * 1) Gab is ... known for ... the right wing user base—this is yet another attempt to soften the "far-right" wording that was already agreed upon in the recent RfC.
 * 2) The site's moderation rules have been criticized as "extremist friendly"—nope. It is not the moderation rules that have been described as such, it is the site: "On Gab, an Extremist-Friendly Site...", " Instead, the man accused of killing 11 people went to Gab, a two-year-old social network that bills itself as a “free speech” alternative to those platforms, and that has become a haven for white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other extremists."
 * 3) The site's moderation rules have been criticized as ... creating a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.—again, no, it is the site that is known for this and not its policies. "Instead, the man accused of killing 11 people went to Gab, a two-year-old social network that bills itself as a “free speech” alternative to those platforms, and that has become a haven for white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other extremists.", "Gab, a haven for white nationalists, is now trying to reach young, diverse progressives", "In a short amount of time, Gab.ai, a 7-month-old social network, has developed a notorious reputation as a magnet for the alt-right and a safe haven for banned Twitter trolls, Gamergaters, Pizzagaters and high-profile white nationalists to congregate and "shitpost" to their hearts' content." GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I would support any reliably-sourced passages which cover how the website markets itself. But please avoid mentioning the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It prevents Congress from depriving people from the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It does not prevent restrictions by private organizations. See Freedom of speech in the United States: "The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government." Dimadick (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The site states it applies the First Amendment as a moderation rule. in any case if this is the objection then would "free speech" be a suitable substitute? Ginjuice4445 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – the First Amendment does not affect private organizations, so the use of the term in the lede would be a blatant example of dog-whistle politics. Instead, we should accurately describe what the company is known for, which the current lede does fairly well. Bradv 🍁  19:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose change I don't believe 'First Amendment content moderation policy' is a fair and balanced descriptor of the corporations open arms approach to hate speech. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are many sources supporting the First Amendment wording.    . I don't have an opinion on the rest of the proposal and I don't want to read through this toxic talk page. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)  w umbolo   ^^^  21:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I've noted in a separate section, there's nothing wrong with describing its content moderation policies elsewhere in the article, but it is not what the network is primarily known for. The proposed lede also fails NPOV. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Incidentally Joe Rogan said earlier today that Gab "is 100% committed to free speech." Link. Link. How's that for, as Tsumikiria requested, a "quotation from reliable sources that readily establish the free speech aspect." Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in there did he say that Gab is known for its freedom of speech, nor did he mention the First Amendment, which is what you've proposed in this RfC. No one is disputing that Gab has very loose rules about what it will remove from its platform; the dispute is (in this RfC) whether they are known for it and (more broadly) whether that is a large enough topic in the independent coverage of Gab to be mentioned prominently in this article. I believe this has now been explained to you several times. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All I have to offer at this point is a hearty LOL. Any excuse. Joe Rogan gets 20 million downloads an episode; a single podcast of his will get more hits than most of the writers, combined, of the newspaper articles cited in the lede - which all also mention Gab's free speech policy, by the way - will get on everything they write over the course of their entire lives. Eventually common sense is going to prevail on this page. Today is not that day. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I know who Joe Rogan is, you don't have to explain that to me. If you'll re-read my comment you'll see I am not saying that Rogan is a nobody or that he and others haven't mentioned Gab's free speech policy; I was saying that his commentary does not support your proposed changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm confident that if I presented this crew of editors with a Presidential proclamation discussing Gab's free speech policy, you folks would ding it for being a primary source and point me to HuffPo as more authoritative. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably; our president is unfortunately not the most reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: Fair warning:, you have made 80 posts on this talkpage over the past 29 hours. Prior to that, three months ago you made 70 posts to this talkpage over the course of 6.2 days. All of this constitutes bludgeoning, tendentious editing, POV pushing, and being a single-purpose account – all of which adds up to disruptive editing. If you continue along this path, you will very likely be either blocked from editing – possibly indefinitely – or banned from this article and its talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This editor is likely trying to score brownie points from Andrew Torba, so that their outright abuse of process here can be painted as some sort of heroic dissent being "censored" by evil Communist editors on Gab's Twitter account. The editor is heading towards a topic ban at the very least per the standard process under this kind of situation - and this is exactly the advertising opportunity Torba wants. He's certainly quite updated on this talk page's development and may have already engaged in conversation in this page. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No. The sources cited by Ginjuice4445 support referring to free speech in the lead section, as it already does. They do not support referring to Gab's content policies, which I believe is what is being proposed. R2 (bleep) 18:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Best way of describing Andrew Torba
I am thinking about possibly creating an article on Gab co-founder Andrew Torba, but I can't think of the best way to describe him in the lead of a possible article about him. What do you guys think would be the best lead description of him with sources backing up the lead? X-Editor (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This talkpage is for discussing the improvement of this article; so this question doesn't really belong here, especially since this page gets too much clutter already. It is a question more for the WP:TEAHOUSE or for a draft submission to WP:AFC. Andrew Torba is the co-founder and CEO of Gab, which is a clear and accurate description unless there are equally important elements to add to a first sentence. Softlavender (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If I were you I'd start a draft, link to it in this thread and we can discuss it on that talk page. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 21:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is extremely improbable and AfD will be on the way. He is completely unnotable by Wikipedia standards, known only for his relationship and past comments pertaining to this WP:FRINGE website. Would easily fail "Significant coverage" and "Independent from the Subject" in WP:GNG. Unrecommendable endeavour. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses Softlavender and Tsumikiria. I guess he isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, at least not yet. Also, I'll make sure to ask questions like these at the Teahouse instead. X-Editor (talk) 05:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

New Language for Lede giving fair treatment to the "Free Speech" aspect of the site

 * The lede is painfully inaccurate; the site isn't known for far-right users, it's known for its content policies. I propose the following new language for the lede. Citations can be found in my edit that was reverted before the editors even took the time to read its content.
 * "Gab is an English-language social media website, known for permissive content moderation policies that have turned it into "one of the poles in a sharp debate over the boundaries of free speech"[6] online.
 * The site allows its users to read and write multimedia messages of up to 3,000 characters, called "gabs,"[7] and permits any content which is allowed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,[6] attracting a politically conservative user base.[11]
 * Gab's moderation rules have been criticized as "extremist friendly"[12] or creating a "safe haven"[13] for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[12] The site gained extensive public scrutiny following the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting in October 2018, as Robert Gregory Bowers, the perpetrator of the massacre, posted a message indicating an immediate intent to harm before the shooting; Bowers had a history of making extreme anti-Semitic postings on Gab.[14][12] After a backlash from hosting providers, Gab briefly went offline.[15][16] Ginjuice4445 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I absolutely object to your changes. I expect many others will as well. Gab is primarily known for being a haven for racists and other extremists. That is the primary thing; that will absolutely be in the lede; this will not be whitewashed.--Jorm (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is known among some, mainly critics of the free speech policy, for being a "haven for racists." It is known among others for being a conservative website. It is known among others for its moderation policies. The current lede reflects one viewpoint only. The modifications I have proposed explain (a) what the policy is that permits racists to speak on the site, (b) how those who support the free speech policy describe themselves, and (c) how critics describe those who support the policy. It's not "whitewashing" to present a balanced viewpoint about what the company does. The persistent editing conflicts on this page are evidence that there is considerable disagreement out there in the world with the editors camping on this page and preventing any new citations or substantive additions from being made. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouting FREEZE PEACH LOUD is actually beside the things Gab is doing, which is making antisemitic comments and other eyewinks to pander the neo-Nazi hatred. This is documented in-page. I hope this will be your last attempt at warring to whitewash the page to your POV narrative, else you might be walking toward a topic ban. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not whitewashing to explain what the site is about with well-sourced secondary sources, as I did, providing direct quotations from the third party source which explain that the site is known for adopting a controversial free speech policy. Screaming ALT-RIGHT LOUD without explaining why those users are permitted on the site, when virtually every source that discusses right-wing users also discusses the site's First Amendment policy, is also POV, albeit of a different type - you have your POV and are refusing to even consider a good faith attempt to balance your well-sourced viewpoint with other, also well-sourced viewpoints that re not inconsistent with your views, but rather clarify them. I am not proposing to add any information which isn't backed up with solid impartial source material. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I attempted to add newspaper citations in the "self-definition" section showing how the site defines itself. Tsumikiria then reverted the edit by saying "we don't honor self promotion here, and this is a borderline POV edit." The section is literally titled "self-definition;" if an edit cannot be added which explains how the company defines its own business, why does it exist? If we compare to pages like Facebook and Twitter, those all give airtime to these companies' own moderation policies without labelling the description of those policies as "self promotion." Given that any controversy about Gab relates to its First Amendment policy, it is hardly inappropriate to set out the policy in detail and support descriptions of the policy with citations. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is discussed at length before. Most sources don't treat the subject's FREEZE PEACH rhetoric seriously, and so we must follow. You just happend to find the PG source I added have a particular sentence that favors your viewpoint and used it to flip the article to your narrative. Stop. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is untrue. Most sources reference the free speech policy expressly and deal with it head-on, including the NPR piece being used as the third citation in the article to support the contention that the site is "far-right," but which also says "Gab makes the case for people to be able to post whatever they want, as long as it's legal. That means the site's user guidelines prohibit very few types of posts: illegal pornography, threats of violence or terrorism, confidential information of users without their consent."
 * Or the Mic piece (citation already in the lede): "In our phone and email conversations about Gab's push for a mainstream audience, Torba and Sanduja kept falling back on a familiar argument: Free speech above all else, and little, if any, censorship."
 * Or the Verge piece which is also cited in the lede: " Anglin reversed course and described his detail-free takedown request as 'brilliant,' since the resulting controversy proved that free speech is Gab’s vital selling point. But that hasn’t placated everyone, including users who say Torba should have immediately laid out the situation — and those who say Gab can’t deliver on its core promise if a company can order it to take down posts." (Emphasis mine.)
 * I remind you of my proposal for a new lede: "'Gab is an English-language social media website, known for permissive content moderation policies that have turned it into "one of the poles in a sharp debate over the boundaries of free speech' online." This isn't new information, it's what the current sources currently say. The sources deal with free speech issue. The article should deal with it too. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it incredibly alarming that the user reverting this edit uses the derogatory term Freeze Peach in reference to Gab's mission statement. Essentially what you are arguing is that because the outlets covering gab are of the opinion, based on their own personal politics, that Free Speech is a poor defense for Gab's style of moderation that Wikipedia by extension must uncritically cram this opinion into the Lede.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.84.127.108 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It's quite obvious at this point that Tsumikiria has biases that conflict with the neutrality of this article. Banning said user for the sake of maintaining neutrality should be up for discussion. Flash512 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That hasn't been my experience; I think their edits to the page have been reasonable and they have supported their positions on this page with links to policy and past discussion. A topic ban discussion such as the one you are proposing would need to happen somewhere like WP:AN or WP:AE, not this page, but you would need to present a strong case for it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , by all means, and WP:ANI or WP:AE would be the appropriate venue. It might still not allow some (false) balance to be finally introduced, but why would I stop you? <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's funny when an account with 170 total edits that hasn't edited in 4.5 years pops up out of nowhere with this accusation. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing suspicious here, nothing at all.--Jorm (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't live on here like most of you, so nothing funny about it. I have no desire to dedicate myself to contributing to something over the years I've found to become corrupt, but I will call out outright bias when I see it. Also Jorm feel free to delete this too. Flash512 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, well you know where to go if you want to begin a discussion about a ban for Tsumikiria. If you want to discuss something specific you think is biased in the article, feel free to do so on this page (and provide reliable, independent sources supporting a different viewpoint). I'd recommend starting a new section if you do, since you're currently commenting in a section that previously hadn't been active for more than a week, which is a bit confusing for others to follow. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"known for its mainly far-right user base"
Known by whom? Ditch the passive-voice weasel-words, and have the courage to say what it is, not what it's "known" for. "...that has a far-right user base." PaulCHebert (talk) Try again. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 00:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Also, the writing of the lede is woeful. The first three sentences don't have a coherent flow, one calls out its alt-right user base, the next describes its functionality, and the next calls it alt-right again. If you're going to call Gab names, at least do it right. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 00:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. Furthermore the sources used to back up this assertion do not state that the site is known for a far-right user base, simply that it has some far right users, and virtually all of them explain further that the reason the far right users are there is due to the site's First Amendment/free speech policies. The article should account for the free speech policy more directly in the lede. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree and clarifying, the sources not only do not say it is "known for a far-right userbase," but rather that the userbase leans conservative. See from the NPR citation: "I have encountered several people on Gab when I first started, I will be very frank, there is a very conservative thread that runs through that platform. And I think they're starting to get it that they're not there to control the conversation.... Combs and Donker both say Gab's decision to "open the floodgates" is already helping to add diversity of views to what they both assume was the original crowd of hard-line conservative Republicans. But are there any liberals? Donker laughs. "There are a few," he says, later adding: "I've never heard anybody say they support Hillary. But then again, Gab is a big place."
 * "Already helping to add diversity of views to what they both assume was the original crowd of hard-line conservative Republicans." The piece doesn't actually support the contention that it has a far-right user base, but rather that it started with a "conservative Republican" userbase, and that its userbase is currently gradually diversifying as the platform grows and user numbers increase. See also the Mic source which says the site is "trying to reach young, diverse progressives." Ginjuice4445 (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The lede should not discuss what it is "trying" to do. Is should succinctly define the platform and its base. PaulCHebert (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're right, head over to Twitter and FaceBook and define the platform and its base in the lede.
 * Disagree and clarifying Gab is known as an alt-right social network. However, this is due to an unfair caricature by the mainstream media. We have two options: 1) Properly define the Gab site in an unbiased way, without mentioning various newspapers' opinions about the site. This is the most reasonable option, but as it is also the most polarizing I will not recommend it as a way to move forward. 2) Add language that explains why the MSM call it alt-right. I added language doing so, the third sentence now reads "The site has been described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right due to its refusal to censor most hate speech."
 * Disagree with steering clear of an unbiased description for the sake of biased editors, but agree with the changes you have made, which move the needle towards objectivity. I have added language clarifying the site's rules apply to all political speech, including hate speech. I agree the writing of the lede is dreadful and think most of the content should be moved into a separate "criticism" section of the article. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are meant to reflect the significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Since much of the media describes Gab as far/alt-right, that should be reflected in the article proportionally. I understand that you may not agree with this characterization, but that does not mean the article is biased. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments above. The sources all reflect that Gab is a free speech site and, as a result of that policy, alt-right users congregate on it. The dominant editors to date have conveniently ignored the free speech part of that equation. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is perhaps partly my fault; I removed a portion of a sentence that mentioned free speech simply because of the duplication of "due to". If I instead tried to reword it, would that satisfy your concern? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The sentence currently reads The site has been described as "extremist friendly"[11] or a "safe haven"[12] for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right due to the site's policy of refusing to censor political speech,[13] including hate speech. My preference would be "Due to the site's policy of refusing to censor political speech, including hate speech, the site has been criticized as... etc." but I fear implementing the changes myself will result in an automatic revert from one of the other editors who hold more negative opinions about the subject matter of this article. I'd support that change if you made it. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Aaaaand it's gone. Tsumikiria blanked your edits, GorillaWarfare, AKA Casey Rollins' edits, and mine with this edit. This is the problem - he and Jorm have camped on the page for months and prevented anyone from making any substantive changes. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't actually disagree with their change--the NYT and Mic sources are much stronger than the CNet one, and those two don't directly link causation in that way. As for "my" edit, this is a collaborative website and I have no issues with changes I make being tweaked for good reason--the edit I made was only a grammatical fix anyhow. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the change's broader significance is that puts this article back in the position of not giving balanced treatment to Gab's free speech emphasis. Currently, the only mentions of "free speech" in the article now are quotations that criticize the "free speech" focus as a disingenuous "shield behind which alt-right users hide." This does not reflect what the sources say about the matter; the Mic source and the NPR sources in particular both refer to the site's free speech focus as being genuinely held political convictions, not "mere shields" (as does the Verge source - which I've outlined in considerable detail here) (see language: "free speech is Gab’s vital selling point"). Ginjuice4445 (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, those sources don't make a causative link between the free speech policy and the types of folks who frequent the site. They're also largely referring to how Gab (and the people who run it) describes itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They describe a relationship between the policy and the users, otherwise why would they mention it? In any case, the sources do mention the policy. This article is deficient in that it completely fails to describe the free speech policy in an objective way. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: The entire wiki article is about the website's mainly far-right userbase, and that's what 90% of the website's independent coverage has been about. So "known for its mainly far-right user base" (A) is an unbiased statement of a clear fact, and (B) summarizes the Wikipedia article, which the lead and first sentence must do. I see no reason to change the lede sentence. Softlavender (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a problem. The wiki article shouldn't be about the website's mainly far right userbase; if that's the article you want to write, then you should write a separate article about Gab's userbase, much like Reddit has a separate article from the The_Donald subreddit (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//r/The_Donald ). This article should be about the website, and if you're writing about the website you should put its main commercial differentiator - the pro-speech moderation policy which allows conservative users to speak uncensored on the platform - into the discussion. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The wiki article should be about what reliable sources say is important about the subject. The sources say this thing is notable for its users? Our article will say this thing is notable for its users. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources also say it's notable for its free speech policy. The issue is that the free speech policy is given no mentions at all - not one - except for two mentions criticizing the policy which cite one obscure academic report. Despite the fact that the free speech policy is mentioned in nearly every article written about the company. That's not a neutral point of view, it's not reality, and it's not fair to the company or Wikipedia's readers. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do they? "Free speech" isn't such an easy term to define, though, and I am sure we can spend a few million bytes arguing the various definitions of "free speech" on this here talk page, but as long as the company claims it's a vehicle for free speech, whatever that may be, those claims are a bit POV-y and shouldn't simply be inserted in the article lest the promotional value of that claim become a disservice to our readers, which is the prime concern for both of us. BTW it seems that this article is just about the only thing you've ever worked on on Wikipedia, so I wonder how far your knowledge of NPOV and our readership goes. Sorry, but I can't help but wonder if, you know, you aren't just here to "set the record straight". Drmies (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you'd read the sources, Gab's policy is clear - the multiple sources I have attempted to add, which Tsumikiria keeps deleting when I add them, make it clear that Gab follows the First Amendment in its own moderation rules. So there's no definitional problem, and no POV issue. It is what it is. As for my concern, It's the only thing I've ever cared about on Wikipedia; thank you for this warm welcome to your community of editors. I look forward to caring about other things in the future, but rest assured my motivations are pure. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What you are attempting to do is to give a WP:FALSEBALANCE to a idiosyncratic viewpoint nearly nowhere present in reliable sources, and if you believe that the subject is treated unfairly, please go yell at the sources, not at us - as an encyclopedia we are not obliged to respect promotional claims. Gab is a user-generated content website so a large protion of the article must be about its users - concurrent with the weight present in reliable sourcs, which readily establish them as mainly far right. We will not submit to your incessant sealioning texts, regardless of the number, and we're not obliged to respond to every one of them, either. Please make good use of the archives. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jorm, Softlavender, GorillaWarfare, Tsumikiria and Drmies. Reliable sources emphasize Gab's far right users, and therefore this article must do so as well. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  02:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you can think that. Reposting what I put above, most sources reference the free speech policy expressly and deal with it head-on, including the NPR piece being used as the third citation in the article to support the contention that the site is "far-right," but which also says "Gab makes the case for people to be able to post whatever they want, as long as it's legal. That means the site's user guidelines prohibit very few types of posts: illegal pornography, threats of violence or terrorism, confidential information of users without their consent."
 * Or the Mic piece (citation already in the lede): "In our phone and email conversations about Gab's push for a mainstream audience, Torba and Sanduja kept falling back on a familiar argument: Free speech above all else, and little, if any, censorship."
 * Or the Verge piece which is also cited in the lede: " Anglin reversed course and described his detail-free takedown request as 'brilliant,' since the resulting controversy proved that free speech is Gab’s vital selling point. But that hasn’t placated everyone, including users who say Torba should have immediately laid out the situation — and those who say Gab can’t deliver on its core promise if a company can order it to take down posts." (Emphasis mine.)
 * Even the New York Times piece refers to the free speech policy as "Gab’s core mission of promoting free speech."
 * As I said above, this isn't new information, it's what the current sources currently say. Gab's mission is free speech. The sources do not entitle us to cast aspersions on that mission or assume it is some disingenuous cover for more sinister motives; they tell us what they tell us. It's right there in the text of every source in the lede. It's abundantly clear that the sources deal with free speech issue. The article should deal with it too. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Either you go change the description of Democratic People's Republic of Korea into "...is a democratic, people's, republic', or you stop your POV-pushing and sea-lioning efforts. The consensus is not on your side, and it doesn't have to be unanimous. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus may not be on my side tonight, but note I'm not blanking the page, either - I'm here playing by Wikipedia's rules. I'm pointing out that, despite the fact that every source in the article refers to free speech issues, the people editing this article are choosing to ignore those issues in favor of writing an article that is unwarrantedly critical of its subject.
 * If the editors on this thread want to ignore the glaring absence of an honest treatment of Gab's free speech policy from this article, that's your prerogative, but Wikipedia is a big place and I want it down for the record that I dissent from the current text of this article. I fully expect that neutral editors from elsewhere on this website will read what I have written and agree with that dissent. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's cool cuz it's true. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 03:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I look forward to telling it again, and again, and again. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to let you know that every last person doing this sort of POV pushing at Wikipedia is eventually either topic banned or site banned by the community. One may be superficially compliant to our policies - but may still be inexcusably disruptive and incompatible with the purpose of this project, which is why they were sanctioned. Concede while you can. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it revealing that you're trying to intimidate me with the prospect of a ban rather than dealing with the substance of my critique, which is that every article you've cited in the lede in support of the proposition that Gab is "right wing" also makes direct and explicit reference to Gab's free speech policies - but this article does not. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I mean, it's not like there's a viable excuse for his actions, if there was one he/she would've provided it by now. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 03:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. And people will see that for what it is when they mosey across to this page and see the course of the discussion. Thank you for chiming in. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion really puts this entire site in a bad light. Editors like User:Jorm responding to clear POV biases with unseemly comments like "Cool story, bro" like he's trolling on Twitter rather than even trying to defend his biases. It confirms criticisms that the site is really just promoting ideological propaganda rather than an objective description of topics of interest. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 00:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Says another editor with only 20 mainspace edits, who hasn't edited in two years, and whose edits are mainly slams of SLPC. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Cool story, bro.--Jorm (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment We had an RfC on this last month, and consensus was clear. The problem with "free speech" is it's the company slogan/company POV, and its definition is vague enough to be meaningless. In favour of the status quo here. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The review was faulty. I've done a review from scratch of existing sources used in the article, detailed extensively above, and it's clear the editors have ignored a lot of content that shows Gab's free speech policy is both notable and uniformly applied, even though it also permits right-wing users to congregate on the site. In terms of POV, the company applies a precise free speech standard - the First Amendment - which is a known set of legal rules, not amorphous marketing fluff. See these recent pieces I have attempted to include in the article as citations from Mic about Gab booting a white supremacist from the site, Cnet about Coinbase deplatforming and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. If my contributions were not always immediately deleted by Tsumikiria or Jorm the relevance of the citations would be obvious. The Mic piece is particularly illustrative as Gab cited a federal court decision for the moderation call. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That was a mild reminder of what you might be walking yourself into, and I've already replied to your points: Wikipedia is not a repository of soapboxing claims. All these mentions by the media only describes a first party claim, rather than establishing as a plain fact as you have construed. If you believe that this RfC is faulty, feel free to open any numbers of new ones and escalate in any way you deem fit. And you can cherrypick sources, so can I:
 * ""To many people, Torba’s First Amendment absolutism is just a talking point. The site exists less to defend the ideals of Benjamin Franklin than those of Christopher Cantwell. It chose as its logo a creature that looks rather like Pepe, the alt-right attack frog. It courted people on the far right, and it became a haven for them. Free speech can be less a principle than a smokescreen.""
 * The problem with your sources is they fail WP:SYNTH. The CNet and Pittsburgh articles only talk about their content policy, which is less restrictive than other social media platforms. The "free speech" isn't discussed as a concept, but rather in quotes by the company, or in passing. We have to be very careful on these types of articles. Also, I disagree a unanimous RfC would be faulty but a month later. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not cherry picking sources. The "free speech is just a talking point" argument is already reflected in the article. I am not proposing that it be removed. What I am saying is that there are a lot of sources that say the site's free speech policy is more than disingenuous cant or a mere marketing point. The sources that support my assertion include every single source referenced in the lede to support the proposition that Gab is "right wing." In the paragraph immediately above I include three additional sources that show that the free speech standard Gab applies is not marketing fluff but is in fact definite.
 * I can find more, and will, if the editors of this page will concede that there is eventually a point where they have to acknowledge the legitimacy of the free speech point which I have found in sources of my own and most of the ones that are currently in the article, rather than digging in their heels when presented with evidence that doesn't conform to their narrative. Failing to include the "free speech" viewpoint when it stares you in the face in your own references does a serious disservice to Wikipedia readers. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you immediately proposed use the phrase "free speech" three times: the CNet article uses it in a quote from the company, the Pittsburgh Gazette briefly notes it in a free speech context and then quotes a post on Gab which discusses free speech. This is not enough - you have not yet presented a source I've seen which supports your viewpoint (which personally perplexes me - isn't "free speech" something which restricts the laws the U.S. government can make? I mean, if someone signs up in Australia, which doesn't have explicit "free speech," how would that affect the network? If your point is the social network does not censor its posts, that can be said without using the pointed "free speech" phrase.) SportingFlyer  T · C  06:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Which RfC are you referring to? This one? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. That review is totally cursory and didn't involve a review of the sources I've gone through above. I note Tym Whitter's comment: "also include some mention that is also known for it's opposition to censorship, aka free speech. I do not believe the encyclopedia can say the one without including the other." That is the entire point I've been trying to make this evening, which users like Tsumikiria and Jorm ave portrayed as a totally unreasonable and out-of-consensus request, despite the fact that my further analysis here has shown that "free speech" and "right wing" appear in every single source in the opening sentences of the lede. Considering this opinion is also held by AKA Casey Rollins it appears that there is not as unified consensus on this point as Tsum and Jorm would like to portray. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm asking because that RfC seems to be discussing a completely different topic from what you're hoping to achieve, unless you're also hoping to remove "known for its far-right user base" from the lead? Speaking more generally, I think Tsumikiria's advice at ANEW is wise: "you can open another RfC, escalate using dispute resolution, or just take it to WP:ANI, and finally, WP:ARBCOM, if you truly believe that people opposing you are at fault. No one is stopping you at this point." You're beginning to repeat the same arguments here and so far have not achieved consensus through talk page discussion, so it might be time to try something else. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Cut down size of lede; create new section titled "criticism"
As a general comment, the lede is too large and should be cut down. Much of the content in the lede is duplicative with content already contained elsewhere in the article, and would be more at home in a new article section titled "criticism." Ginjuice4445 (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead is actually fairly short compared to a lot of articles this size. As for the duplication, this is how it should be—leads are meant to provide a summary of the key points of the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - you're the expert here so will withdraw my objection. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, criticism sections are considered a poor way to structure articles. See WP:CSECTION for explanations as to why. --Aquillion (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)