Talk:Rob Monster/Archive 1

Split
Why did you choose to split the already-short life and education section into two tiny sections? It seems reasonable to keep them combined since they're only two and three sentences. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I just though it made more sense to split them, but seeing as they are very short apart, I would be fine with you merging them back together. X-Editor talk 03:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll do that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Personal details
Robert Monster (William) has a page on mylife, where his dob is listed as 08/03/1967. There is lots of inaccurate information on this site (and it is clearly not an RS for WP); however, I have found it surprisingly accurate for basic bio details like dob etc. However, knowing the exact date may help other editors in any better searches for his specific personal details from a better RS. Britishfinance (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * His director details from being on the board of GLOBAL MARKET INSITE UK LIMITED are also captured on Webb-site Who's Who as August 1967. Again, not useful on WP but likely correct which may help in use in searches. Britishfinance (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Canvasing off wiki
Thought I should warn you all about a call for help [].Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Added POV tag
This article is a caricature and is bordering on libelous. Please see the BLP policy for the many rules that must be followed. kevinp2 (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific?Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Slater, can you be more specific? Without specifics this is just unhelpful driveby tagging. I am quite familiar with the BLP policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This article violates WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE


 * And the NPOV tag cannot be removed unilaterally! kevinp2 (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to be specific—which parts of this article contradict the BLP policy? I am familiar with all of those policies, but this article is not in violation of them—all statements are supported by reliable sourcing. As for him not being a public figure, how can you make that argument? Just Google his name, he is mentioned repeatedly in high profile sources including the BBC, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, etc. Also, please be careful not to rearrange other peoples' comments when you edit this talk page.


 * As for the tag, I've re-added it since you appear to be around to respond to the requests for explanation—I'd removed it because you did not explain why you'd added it, and I wasn't sure you were actively watching for replies. I'll leave it up until this conversation is settled. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The sources, tone and balance of the article combine to describe a living person as a neo-Nazi, anti-semitic white supremacist. This violates WP:BLPBALANCE which states:


 * Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.


 * The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.


 * I won't be the one paying out legal fees to defend against a libel charge. Wikipedia and you will do so.  So feel free to carry on with this page as you wish. Remember Oberlin College.  kevinp2 (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're objecting to the fact that this article represents the sources, which describe Monster in this way? WP:BLP does not say that we must whitewash biographies of people who have made statements that reflect unpleasant ideologies, or who have been widely compared to objectionable groups of people. This article quite fairly states that he has been described as making statements or having ideologies that appear white nationalist or antisemitic, and that he has denied being either of those things. That is an accurate representation of the sources, and of his own self-description. Also, what about Oberlin College? I am not very familiar with it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, implied legal threats like the one in "I won't be the one [...] and you will do so." are completely unacceptable. —  Newslinger  talk   10:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Surname
See here for some discussion of Rob Monster's surname: it is pretty clear that this name is of Dutch origin. It is held by 1370 people in the Netherlands, and may be related to the town of Monster, South Holland. Here Mr. Monster mentions that he is Dutch-American and that he is fluent in English, German, and Dutch. He mentions here that he was born in the US to Dutch parents. That might be worth mentioning in the article if that source is considered ok, since it makes his name sound less like a prank. I think it is certainly ok to at least say he is Dutch-American, cited to epik.com's management page. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article already mentions in Rob Monster that Monster is Dutch-American. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

ADL edits
Ref deleted by : Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Anti_Defamation_League_citation_advocacy Might be worth a discussion on whether due and verifiable in its own right, pending result of COI noticeboard discussion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

New source
CNN: "Epik is a refuge for the deplatformed far right. Here's why its CEO insists on doing it" GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a pretty bad article
This article really feels like it was written by somebody with a vendetta, it relies way too heavily on low quality sources like Huffington Post Politics and the SPLC. It's really not appropriate for a BLP to be presented in this way. It's a violation of WP:RS to use SPLC in the lead of an article without discussion, and Huffington Post Politics is not considered reliable. It's also poor form to use low-quality sources in the way they are - "have been described by HuffPost and the Southern Poverty Law Center as" - as a way to smuggle low-quality sources in the to lead of an article. I also read the sources linked for some of the more suspect statements and they really don't seem to even support the claims very strongly.

The real reason this is bad, besides the fact that it could be slandering a living person and BLP violation, is that I wanted to learn more about this and feel like I have come away with no idea what is being given undue weight. Right from the opening sentence - "known for providing services to websites that host far-right, neo-Nazi, and other extremist content" - is being known for something the same as being notable for _doing_ something? It makes it sounds like Epik is a host that is specifically designed for neo-Nazi content, but looking at the website, it looks just like an ordinary company. Are they just a normal web hosting company with a couple of fringe customers, or is this kind of stuff the majority of their revenue? I have absolutely no way of knowing (and I still have no idea) because low quality sources are given undue weight in the article. It's very possible this is an article which is trying to imply that an old Christian man who runs a normal web hosting company is a neo-Nazi, or it's possible that this guy is a neo-Nazi running a normal-looking web hosting company. From the article and the sources being used, it's impossible to tell which. Miserlou (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Just for context, I've never heard of this man or this company before, I'm here because claims without quality citations made it into another article I worked quite heavily on, Texas Heartbeat Act, now has some of the claims made in the Epik/Rob Monster articles in the body, without quality citations, and I do not like that these low-quality sources/claims have made it into an article which I think is very well sourced otherwise. I think it's a topic which should be treated seriously and these low quality claims besmirch the rest of the article. Miserlou (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The lede is only sourced because of complaints the accusations are not sourced. The lede is a summary of the article (and not the SPLC is not a low qaulity source). Nor are these the only two sources we use.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to one? I've been going through the sources and I think there is a lot of synthesis and undue weight going on here. If there were a good, neutral, in depth article about this somewhere I could get some good context from, that'd be very useful. Keep in mind, this is a BLP. NPOV and V are taken seriously. Miserlou (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * SPLC for one, its a green source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis." I'm saying it's inappropriate here. It's clearly not a neutral source. The title of the HP-Politics article describes him as a "bible-thumper". The source also does a very poor job supporting the claim, it says "he disagrees with Duke’s racist worldview" and “I am not in any way antisemitic" as a direct quote. It's not NPOV and not appropriate for a BLP. Miserlou (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you are quoting the guidance around the SPLC as though it has been contravened here. The portion of the guidance you are quoting is simply stating that the SPLC's classification of a group (such as classifying a group as a hate group) does not automatically merit inclusion in the lead (though note that it can, and often is, included in leads of articles about hate groups). This is not an article about a hate group, nor is the SPLC being used to classify one here.
 * The attributed SPLC description is being used in the lead, along with another source saying the same, because his support of conspiracy theories has been a noteworthy characteristic which is described in more detail in the article body. As for your statement that the HuffPost article does not support the claim that he's a conspiracy theorist, it has a section headed "Monster The Conspiracist" which goes on to say, "Monster’s embrace of Gab’s tone and tenor goes beyond cozying up to racists and anti-Semites. Like many who frequent Gab, he’s also quick to cling to disinformation and conspiracy theories."
 * As for your questions about Epik, that's described in much more detail at Epik (company), but to try to answer in brief: the sentence means exactly what it says, which is that Epik is known for providing services to such groups. I have no idea if such groups make up the majority of their clients (I doubt it), but their services to such groups when other webhosts and registrars have refused to service them is pretty much the only reason Epik is notable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm really not convinced by what you're saying at all. Before we even begin: HuffPost Politics is not a reliable source. It's certainly not a reliable source to make such a bold claim in a BLP article that a person is a white nationalist and anti-semite, especially not when the sources of the article have quotes from the person claiming the exact opposite. I mean, come on, "embrace of Gab’s tone and tenor" and "quick to cling to disinformation and conspiracy theories" is pure WP:WEASEL, of the kind that you don't find in quality neutral sources, and it's WP:SYNTHESIS to extract the claims that are made in the lead of a BLP article. It is below our standards here. W/r/t the WP:RS about SPLC and him not being a "hate group", that's clearly the intent of the text, so I think it's quite disingenuous to say otherwise. Finally, let's not forget that BLP have even higher standards for NPOV and V. If you really want to include accusations of this guy being a white nationalist in his biography, can you point to an example? Or even better, a neutral, high-quality source? The only quotes I've found from him are him denying these types of claims made against him.
 * I suspect that this guy is a coot who butters his bread by providing web hosting to unlikable groups. None of the sources I've read are strong enough for us to say he's an anti-semitic white supremacist just because his customers are, and it doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP unless there's a high-quality, neutral source saying so. This is really quite poor form, well below our editorial standards, and could potentially make Wikipedia open to legal action if it isn't remedied. If this is as notable and true as you think it is, it shouldn't be hard to find a better source and the article can be reworked to rely on that. If there isn't, then this article needs a major rework, or a reconsideration of notability. The majority of the citations in this article are about something called Gab, which is just a customer of the company this guy runs and not relevant to a BLP. The best source is the NPR profile and has quotes directly contrary to the claims made in this article. Miserlou (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP is "no consensus" at RSP, not "unreliable" as you seem to be suggesting. And it is not the only source making such statements (see Rob Monster). I'd be happy to join in an RSN discussion about the usage of this source here, though it would help a bit to understand more about your concerns with the piece—it is not clear to me if you are concerned that statements sourced to that article are being given more weight than they ought to be, or if you think they are outright false. It would also be helpful if you could clarify if you are concerned only with the inclusion of the last portion of the last sentence in the lead (starting "and some which..."), if you are saying you think any mention of white supremacy/conspiracy theories/antisemitism needs to be removed from the article, or something else.
 * As for making changes based on Monster's own statements that he doesn't hold white supremacist views, or some other views, see WP:MANDY.
 * As for your comment about the intent of the SPLC guidance: am I understanding you correctly in that you are saying that the statement that "SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis" is meant to be understood that properly-attributed statements, not pertaining to classifications of any group, sourced to the SPLC cannot be used in article leads? Because that's absurd, and not at all "clearly the intent" of that statement. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It very clearly says "the community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics." This whole entry is essentially a re-write of a Huffington Post Politics article, which I think is of very poor quality. There are 18 citations to this single article, whereas the few quality citations, which do not jump to the same conclusions, have at most two or three citations.
 * WP:Mandy is not a WP policy, it is somebody's opinion. WP:BLP, however, is an enforced policy. There is undue weight given to the perspective of that article, violating the BLP requirement of NPOV and Verifiability, which gives undue weight to the idea that this guy is a secret Nazi.
 * Through sheer coincidence, I just saw a popular outraged tweet about this very article: https://twitter.com/stevanzetti/status/1434176123479470081 - focusing on the extrapolation and weaseling which come from highlighting HPP so prominently - that I think goes to show the kind of social harm that lax Wikipedia editing and moderation can cause.
 * I don't think that the page needs to be completely whitewashed, of course, I just want the article to be NPOV, adhering to BLP, and not reliant so heavily on a single bad article and without any WP:SYNTH. The politics section is mostly okay. I think if you didn't call him a Nazi in the lead without any primary attribution and removed most of the stuff which is only sourced by heavily biased sources it would at least resemble a fair biography. Mostly, I'd like to get a clear picture of who this person actually is. I came in knowing nothing, and I still feel like I know nothing because of all of the hyperbole I've had to wade through. I feel like I've accidentally walked into a swamp. Normally I find BLP to be overly strict, so I'm amazed that an article with flaws this serious has been allowed to exist like this for so long. I guess I'm just gonna go ahead and make the changes, if you have strong objections we can keep discussing. Miserlou (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Biased sources are different from unreliable sources, though—that's why I was (and still am) trying to understand if you think the statements made in the HuffPost article are inaccurate or what your concerns there actually are. WP:BIASEDSOURCE.
 * I am not sure your hyperbole about me "calling him a Nazi" is helpful here. The article is not making such claims; it is saying that he "promoted various conspiracy theories and some which have been described by HuffPost and the Southern Poverty Law Center as espousing antisemitic or white nationalist sentiments."
 * Could you at least give some sense of the changes you're hoping to make here? I'm still not even sure what your specific content concerns are, or where you're seeing WP:SYNTH. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ...nevermind, guess you're already making changes. I understand the reasoning you've given for wanting to remove the last portion of the last sentence, though I don't agree with it, but your other changes make no sense to me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I made some small changes, I don't know. I still don't think it's very good. I don't care enough about this guy to write a better biography for him, I just think this is an obviously bad BLP, and if I an admin can't see that then I don't know, I guess we're just allowing this kind of thing now. Huffopedia. Put two opinions next to each other and blur your eyes so they become a fact. When I edited the page, I noticed this warning box at the top: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. .. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." That used to be enforced. The terrible HuffPo article doesn't even make the claim that he "espoused white nationalism" you know what I don't care. I don't care about this guy. I don't care about stupid online parapolitics. It's all nonsense. Have it. Miserlou (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why asking you to explain which bits are supposedly SYNTH or the reasoning behind your changes has caused this rudeness or the ragequit, but I'm certainly not going to force you to stay I continue to be grateful for the work you're doing at Texas Heartbeat Act, and hope if we do find ourselves working on the same articles in the future, our communication is a bit better than it was here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know why I got so salty, sorry about that. I guess I'm mad that the internet has become a place where you have to talk about Nazis now, or side with people who side with Nazis just because you want WP quality standards to be enforced. I don't want to be in that position. I don't want to go to bat for this guy. It's just all these tabloid writers and right wing grifters who both benefit from making everybody mad about nonsense. The whole thing sucks. I want it to go away. Meanwhile, in the real world.. well, there are more important things to worry about. Anyway, thanks for spending your time working on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is good for everybody. Miserlou (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Mnmh, I don't see this as being a very good lede:

I'd tone it down a bit. The word "controversial" is a good bland word for these situations. Herostratus (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree that "controversial" is a good word, because it is both bland and vague. Per WP:WEASEL, Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Bland and vague is what we want. What we want is for the reader to come away from the article (and particularly the lede) of the mind "Well, I can't tell one way or the other how the Wikipedia editors feel about this entity". I do not think the current lede fulfills this. I get the vibe that Mr Monster is a bad guy. Let the reader decide on her own whether he is or not. Terms like "neo-nazi", even if true, are inflammatory. They interfere with the cool mindset needed for that.


 * The guy is, presumably, an accomplished executive. There's no indication he came from money. There's not enough about how he did that. As to the rest, yes it's important, but, look: based on the article, I think this guy's not only a ____ but a ____. So? We drop all that when we edit. As an editor, I don't have an opinion. Maybe the stuff he hosts is going to save the Republic, maybe it's going to destroy it. I don't know. Different people have different opinions about that, I guess. That's why its ''controversial". Herostratus (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like to make the argument that articles can't use terms like "neo-Nazi" in leads, feel free to begin that discussion. There are certainly plenty of other articles that would need editing if that change was made. But we don't omit or water down accurate, well-sourced, and widely-used descriptors, and hosting neo-Nazi and other far-right content is the reason that Mr. Monster and Epik are notable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not making that argument. I mean for George Lincoln Rockwell it's OK. Is Mr Monster himself an actual neo-nazi? If not, we want to avoid giving that impression in the lede especially, and the best way to do that is not use the term.


 * This NPR interview has "MONSTER: And I looked at [the deplatforming of Gab] and said, you know what? I don't think there was a lot of due process in terms of how the decision was taken to de-platform gab.com." ALLYN: So he reached out to Gab and helped them get back online. Now sites know if they become too radioactive for support providers, Epik will be standing by with a lifeline. Epik now supports the conspiracy theory website InfoWars, embattled conservative platform Parler, the largely unregulated YouTube alternative BitChute, the gun forum ar15.com and others."


 * He says he doesn't like how right-wing (far-right if you will) voices are being silenced, it's a free-speech thing. It looks like he'll platform gun nuts, wild-west 4chan-like video sites, Parler which was an attempt to make a right-wing Facebook IIRC, and InfoWars which is hard to describe. It doesn't sound like he's particularly an admirer of Hitler or anything, or that's he's particularly going out of his was to find and host Nazi sites in particular, so why call that out specifically? To be inflammatory and lead the reader?


 * Maybe he is just a free-speech absolutist. (Granted, it looks like he personally may be conspiracy theorist or what have you, but that isn't necessarily reflected in the policies of his business.)


 * WP:BLP -- a policy not a guideline, and a core one -- has a lot to say, some contradictory, but it does say "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone..." WP:BLP certainly does allow anything reasonable that is properly sourced, but I mean the sources are like Vice and Huffpost. Vice hates his guts. Huffpost hates his guts. We cannot rely on sources like that to not be spinning, cherry-picking facts, presenting only one side, subtlely inserting opinionated language, and so forth.


 * There's no reason to be going on with "far-right, neo-Nazi, and other extremist content". "Controversial" is sufficient. "Controversial far-right" would be OK too. Cut out the Nazi stuff until it's source to Time or someone reliable enough to meet the especially high standards that BP:BLP demands.
 * As we are not commenting on him, but what on he hosts "for providing services to websites that host far-right, neo-Nazi, and other extremist content", that is both factually accurate and supported by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)