Talk:Sanctioned Suicide/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sanctioned Suicide Home Page Screenshot.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Preventing an edit war...

@Kevinsanc I removed your edit including Sartori's Master's thesis because it does not fall under reliable sources of information under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy explicitly states that Master's theses and dissertations are only reliable if they are shown to have had a "significant scholarly influence." You responded by arguing that "it would be considered significant, as it is the only academic source at this time directly referring to the website." This argument has no basis. The thesis' reliability is not determined by it being the only 'academic' source on the topic nor is it determined by its subjective 'significance.' Freedom4U (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, thank you. Kevinsanc (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Lamarcus didn't leave in 2021 like he said he did

Just a 2 second search of publicly available records shows the whois is Vokl LLC, which Lamarcus signed as the owner in an annual 2022 report 108.44.212.160 (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, do you have any verifiable secondary sources confirming this? Freedom4U (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It's in every DNS record site I found, including this one explicitly listing Vokl https://archive.ph/khkIx (if you scroll down to Jan 23rd 2023)

The Vokl LLC 2022 annual report with Lamarcus' name as the owner is publicly available on a gvmt website, https://wyobiz.wyo.gov/Business/FilingDetails.aspx?eFNum=072074130022034055090138218147218123043175085164, (clicking History, then 2022 annual report lists his full name)

Not aware of any secondary sources updating on this, maybe they're sitting on it thinking it'll be some big reveal if something happens to the site later on. But I don't think finding this info even approaches research, given a whois is like a website's doorstep. If they put their company name on it, as Lamarcus did, that's not really attempting anonymity, despite him apparently wanting to claim anonymity whenever his site gets criticism, like after the Tantacrul video. As of the last few weeks the whois still lists Vokl but redacts the company name only leaving it's NM PO Box. 108.44.212.160 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Re-reading the article and the source, I've realized this doesn't matter as neither the article nor the New York Times article say that ownership was ever transferred. The two simply resigned as administrators, that doesn't necessarily mean ownership was ever transferred, it just means they aren't acting as administrators on the site anymore.

I understand why you want to put that information in the article, but you need secondary sources to include it in the article. Wikipedia policy on original research is already strict, but it is incredibly strict when it comes to material that relates to biographies of living persons. See WP:BLPPRIMARY:

"Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Freedom4U (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Not advocating you put anything in the article, just suggesting taking the "resigned" part away as it'd interfere with potentially active investigations in an obfuscating way. Lamarcus didn't likely resign as a forum administrator in 2021 either as he was posting private and/or deleted SS posts on Kiwifarms just in the last few weeks. With a "verified" badge and everything. And he "rejoined" his incel site as head forum administrator just months after NYTimes said he "resigned" as head forum administrator. Under any circumstance, the WBUR audio report most likely inaccurately said they resigned generally, given the site is still registered under his name. It's not a big deal either way, I'm just giving a heads up 108.44.212.160 (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

There's also no specification in the article between forum administrator and server administrator, which would matter in the unlikely case was not a forum administrator the last couple years. 108.44.212.160 (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Also of note is Small is claiming total resignation since 2021 (server, company everything), despite the whois, which makes no sense. If you don't want your name tied to something, the first thing one would change is the whois. Obviously he wants it there to provide investigations with something other than his home address, but needs to keep it there to keep the registrar and ICANN from seizing it if he put something fraudulent (the registrar and ICANN would try to verify the full identity of who claims the domain if it's disputed, including mailing to a home address). Putting a false name there would also not be good for him if he got hit with DMCA claims, and responded fraudulently. 108.44.212.160 (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

There's no secondary source on any of this so we can't include any of it unfortunately. Kevinsanc (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You're clearly someone from SS or KiwiFarms. I'll leave with this as I'm not signing up for WP or emailing all the relevant journos for the first time because I refuse to spend another day thinking about this topic. Also journalists want stories, and constantly reporting on the join/leave/join/leave antics is both a bad story and also just giving into the SS owner manipulation. Lamarcus Small is registered as the owner of the website. Registered as the owner. Now. Non-anonymously for months with his full real name listed in the public company annual. Anyone reading the current phrase "turning the site over" would come off with the impression he is no longer involved in it. When you own something you get to decide how it is run. No one cares or knows anything about "RainAndSadness" because after years of watching this unfold it's clear at most they're yet another elaborate alias for Lamarcus and at the least they are some scapegoat second in command. The rules on Wikipedia are guidances, and retaining clear obfuscation about this because of some play pretend website rules is not cool 108.44.212.160 (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, we can't rely on original research, and we have to cite sources for inclusion of this information into the article. Kevinsanc (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems a Wikipedian removed Freedom4U's publishing of their names in one section but not another by implying Freedom4U is RoundandRounder. The article still implies they left, then names them later on. I think WP should work out this issue on its own. An AFD of this article may be warranted considering Freedom4U seems to be the only person wanting to work on the topic on WP 16:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.212.160 (talk)

No article is better than one which obfucates obvious facts. Lamarcus clearly disliked Freedom4U's writing as he was putting on twitter (@incelsco, his well known main account) that Wikipedia a George Soros conspiracy a few days after this article. Thing is no one should appreciate an article which obfuscates obvious facts. Tens (hundreds?) of millions of people read the initial reports, including the front page NYTimes article and further RS, so don't see why people are running interference on Wikipedia. Freedom4U made the lede about the names and founders. That's no a coincidence, that's because that's how the reporters chose to report the subject. If WP doesn't know what to do with what's in RS then it doesn't need a page. 108.44.212.160 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

so true Freedom4U (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyway its ur job to defend the publishing of the names here as you are the one who did so here. I think you have more than enough to go on. As it stands this article obfuscates the topic 5x more than GorillaWarfare's recent publishings, given the new editors and the retention of the statement that they left. There's also no good evidence RS will stop putting in the full names, so WP can run interference or not, it's up to WP, but it will almost certainly be noticeable if it does. The way WP handles this topic is part of the broader subject if it runs interference 108.44.212.160 (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Pro-SS and Wikipedia vs https://twitter.com/mega2e and likely dozens of journalists on the importance of the owners of the cult who will win (She's pinned her initial story for 2+ years, an MRA trying to cancel her as a transphobe on her page is also amusing 108.44.212.160 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep the talk page related to the article at hand please. And Twohey has spread misinformation regarding the effectiveness of puberty blockers for trans youth. Freedom4U (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You're telling me to keep the subject at hand by making half your post not about the subject when only a fraction of mine wasn't. I was not happy with the initial version of the page, and neither was Lamarcus. Right now, the article says nothing other than people died by suicide on a suicide site, and its controversial because of encoragement. The sources are about much more than that should you choose to expand the article. I will publish the names myself later probably like you and GorillaWarfare did. 108.44.212.160 (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Usernames vs. real names

Both owners are known online exclusively through their user names. Prominently featuring them by their full name and exclusively referring to them as such adds no value other than harming their privacy and encouraging real-life harassment. This is a scenario where WP:BLPNAME over over the non-existent benefit there is to include their full name. Trade (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I would argue against the idea that they're known online exclusively through their usernames. Their full names are mentioned heavily in both of the New York Times articles (One, Two), the Washington Post article (link), the WBUR article (link), and on Lori Trahan's press release (link). Freedom4U (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, they've mostly gone by their usernames and WP:BLPNAME does state this: "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value"

I don't believe that disclosing these people's names adds value to the article, considering that they resigned afterwards and don't really have a presence outside of this subject. Regardless of the citations from news sources, I don't believe that is alone enough to mention their full names. I concur with Trade that this would encourage real-life harassment and this article wouldn't lose value by just referring to them by their usernames. Their names are already out there, but there's really not a need to prominently feature them in this article. Kevinsanc (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI, there's an ongoing discussion regarding this here, where the points mentioned have been expanded upon Freedom4U (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There needs to be a consensus reached here. Kevinsanc (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As of right now, a sockpuppet has already contributed and there's a guy with a bunch of unsourced information and gossip posting all over the discussion at this point and they're essentially spamming. Kevinsanc (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI on domain order

Interesting new content being written on article, but the order for a good half an hour there was confusing to even me. It went

• sanctionedsuicide.net (without dash, first domain, 2018) ->
• sanctionedsuicide.com (2019-2021, let go of by Epik registrar) ->
• sanctioned-suicide.org (2021-? domain, intermittent outages) ->
• sanctioned-suicide.net (with dash, current domain as you know)

I know that may not be all in sources but its all in webarchive archive.is (some in archive.org) and helps to navigate sources 108.44.212.160 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, we can't put this in without any sources. We can't simply take your word for it. Kevinsanc (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I never said to include that in the article, you are trying to position yourself as a Wikipedia regular and get me to say things that would break Wikipedia rules. Stop, please. Your sources you wanted included were shot down. I'm fine with every source currently in the article. Most of which countersignal your proposed changes. 108.44.212.160 (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

If everything you wanted changed were included, it'd ignore 7 of the 18 sources in the article which published the names, and virually all of the sources, all of which state there is suicide encouragement, including naming individual children that died on the site, who were reported to have died due to encouragement on the site 108.44.212.160 (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyway while you or your acquaintance is spreading false conspiracies about George Soros and Wikipedia due to fear about how their name appears in Google due to Wikipedia, keep in mind if it goes away it'd just be replaced by that WBUR article and thousands of other existing ones. I don't see how one is better or worse than the other for you. So maybe find a new hobby. I just like things to be accurate about things I am familiar with 108.44.212.160 (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You're spamming up the talk page with a bunch of stuff that can't be added to the article, and it isn't sourced. The talk page is not a forum for discussion of the subject, but the editing of the article itself and the information that can sourced for the article. You're already doing a good job in posting a bunch of irrelevant information that we can't use and now you're here arguing with us about Wikipedia policy.

All we ask is that you keep the talk page relevant to things that can actually be added to the article instead of posting your original research that we can't use. Kevinsanc (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The only source you posted, the thesis, cannot be used and was shot down. I am advocating using all the sources in the article, you are advocating ignoring half of them on one topic and all of them on another. Good night 108.44.212.160 (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

"Alleged"

@Kevinsanc

Three of the sources cited outright state that there is encouragement of suicide by members on the site and provide multiple unique instances where this has happened. To argue that these claims are alleged (meaning, to argue something without proof) is completely WP:UNDUE.

From CCDH: "Despite forum rules which state that “NO ONE on this site will advise you on how to end your life”, an investigation by the New York Times found one user who joined the site and was “encouraged” to end his life by using a lethal chemical."

From the NYT: "'My son committed suicide at 17 two weeks ago,' Ms. Luft tweeted in January, calling out the site. 'They told him how to, encouraged him after he took the mix.'...In the site’s written rules, assisting and encouraging suicide were prohibited, while providing 'factual information' and 'emotional support' was not. In practice, some members urged others on, whether with gentle reassurance or with more force...When a woman with bipolar disorder from Brighton, England, explained that she had twice attempted suicide and didn’t want to further distress her two sons, another member messaged her, 'I’m sorry your sons got traumatized but you know you need to kill yourself.'"

Quoting the judge as quoted from STV: "You got in contact with the victim, engaged in conversation with her and by messaging her. You encouraged her to come to your home to practice suicide. You derived sexual gratification from this. This is very serious crime."

I believe adding an "Although assisting and encouraging suicide are prohibited in the site's rules, [something about the prolific encouragement of suicide on the site]" could be fit, if someone could edit that in.

@Round and rounder thanks for reverting, I was typing this out before it happened. Freedom4U (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I still don't think so, and the CCDH is not a reliable source anyways. It doesn't comply with the reliable sources so that shouldn't be considered. By to stop conflict, I will just leave it as is. Kevinsanc (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Every single source says encouragement, even a casual browsing of old archives shows encouragement of a self-identified 14 year old girl https://archive.is/3Jxs5 108.44.212.160 (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure linking to discussion threads itself is considered original research Trade (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is, there are more than enough secondary sources that establish that this is both notable and verifiable. No need for any original research. Freedom4U (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected status

Thanks @Panyd for protecting, I was gonna request it a while ago but didn't know how to go about doing it. Just an FYI that a link to the article has been spread on the site, which explains the disruptive edits. Freedom4U (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

What happened? I have no idea what's even going on in this talk page anymore Trade (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Just several IPs/new accounts adding disruptive edits-- changing around the accents, removing a comma from some numbers, swapping the order of words, etc. Freedom4U (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

"taken down in compliance with German law"

The site is freely accessible in Germany. Google is listing the site on the bottom of the first page of results. Other search engines are still listing the site as a top result (Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo search, Ecosia). Furthermore I cannot find any German source about this takedown. 2A02:908:612:55A0:B473:9941:FC5B:7512 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

article is updated now, it was my mistake i misinterpreted what the nytimes article said Freedom4U (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The current URL wasn't the one that was up when that article was written saying it was taken down. Likely an iteration of .org got delisted which is not the current URL you are referring to. They fixed a separate concern involving how close to German law the removal could have been, as that hasn't been explicitly stated in the relevant Times article2600:4040:4030:5000:F559:C9F:7FD9:F308 (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Australia, Germany and Italy succeeded in restricting access to the site within their borders

https://archive.is/PUGSo#selection-773.2-773.95

§ 217 Facilitating suicide as recurring pursuit (1) Whoever, with the intention of assisting another person to commit suicide, provides, procures or arranges the opportunity for that person to do so and whose actions are intended as a recurring pursuit incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/assisted-suicide-in-germany-the-landmark-ruling-of-the-german-federal-constitutional-court-of-february-26-2020/0AB22BBA24C55FC240BB34434677BB40

“If you’re preparing your departure, please contact a mod so we can help with preparations,” Serge wrote, directing members to moderators. [...] He also said they would begin closing the accounts of those who had posted goodbye threads, a step that kept loved ones and law enforcement from gaining access to them later.

https://archive.is/PUGSo#selection-3045.2-3045.141

It clearly went down in compliance with German law though, the entire site is illegal as fuck pretty much anywhere that's ever deliberated on this topic, an had the will to follow up on deliberation. only thing that could save it is safe harbour law, but that seems iffy. There's other suicide sites that manage to stay above board legally, but not this one 2600:4040:4030:5000:F559:C9F:7FD9:F308 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The article specifically said that the restrictions that went into place in Germany were the 'removal' from online search results:

In March 2020, after the site was removed from online search results in Germany, the company hosting the site threatened to take it down over its “violation of German law.” Once again, the site was moved.

Freedom4U (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That's all they can do, restrict access. I contacted a separate country about another probably illegal site, and they just thank me, then pass the complaint to the Law enforcement of the home country 2600:4040:4030:5000:F559:C9F:7FD9:F308 (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Huntsville police (as well as the city of Huntsville as a legal entity) defended one of their own cops who shot a dude just for being suicidal. The cop got life (for murder) but the department is still going. Doubt huntsville is gonna follow up on anything the moms of dead kids of another suicide facilitation network tweet at them or whatever (which at least one of them was doing). Huntsville police did switch to a new chief however a few months ago, so there's that which is nice. 2600:4040:4030:5000:9904:CC24:A780:A4E (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

maybe don't have the url here?????

so, the site access is restricted in Germany, so the only way I could find the url is through Wikipedia. now imagine i was a kid looking to commit suicide looking for this forum. Wikipedia should not be the reason they find this site, wtf. i don't know about Wikipedia rules around this stuff but in my opinion it is extremely dangerous and unsafe to have the actual url in the article. just makes it super easy to find :/ 93.224.214.90 (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

What are your thoughts @Freedom4U Kevinsanc (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. For example, Wikipedia articles for pornography sites and other potentially objectionable or offensive sites also have links to sites. In addition, if someone was trying to look for this forum, talking the link out of the Wikipedia article certainly wouldn't stop them. Deciding what is and isn't objectionable is not Wikipedia's job, and goes against WP:NPOV. Freedom4U (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The incel site URL has been censored on the incel page for years and was even censored here. I don't care whether SS URL is named or not, but Wikipedia is clearly censored. Considering SS is and/or has been under multiple criminal investigations and the incel site isn't publicly known to be, what is the reasoning for censoring SS and not the incel one? After all, one has 50+ deaths and the other 0, but the 0 one is cenored. Probably best to censor both or not censor both, I don't care either way 108.44.212.160 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna be honest that article needed/needs quite a bit of cleanup, but the inclusion of a link to the incel forum on the Wikipedia articles on incels isn't necessary (and would more than likely go against Wikipedia policy on promotion), in the same way how a link to the Sanctioned Suicide forum isn't included on Controversial Reddit communities#SanctionedSuicide. If enough secondary sources can be found on the incel forum(s) for them to be worthy of their own article, then the url to the site should be included as it would be important to readers and covered under WP:ELOFFICIAL. Do you see the difference I'm pointing out? Freedom4U (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I see, makes sense. The incel site I'm referring to, which I guess you know of as well is incels.me -> incels.co -> incels.is, which are just different names for the same forum. I think there's many more WP-approved sources on it than SS, including dozens of news articles and hundreds of academic ones. Much, or most of the incel and Jack Richard Peterson WP pages are written as narratives of the larger incels.me topic. Conflating them to those pages seems to obfuscate the topic. I'm just thinking out loud, but I don't think WP having an article on them would recruit for them at this point. The emperor has no clothes at this point 108.44.212.160 (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I definitely think some cursory research will find enough secondary sources to write an article about the incel forum, and I encourage you to make a draft (shame Wikipedia got rid of page creation rights for non-account editors) if you'd like to. Freedom4U (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should do it? Trade (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I could but I'm not really up for committing my time to reading about an incel forum. I think like a lot of editors, I edit Wikipedia because I want to document stuff I'm interested in. Freedom4U (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. You could probably get away with just using the references from the Incel wiki article. Trade (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I may do it, I do have some interest in subcultures and there's enough sources out there to do an article. Kevinsanc (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure go ahead. Sounds like it would be notable Trade (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a very strong case to be made for removing the URL. It was removed in the KiwiFarms article after an RFC, due to concerns that KF caused real-world harm and resulted in several deaths. This SS website resulted in at least an order of magnitude more deaths. Removing the link is a no-brainer. DFlhb (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Reading through the decision to remove, the arguments for removal with regards to KiwiFarms make sense and feel sound. However, it does appear that the crux of the argument there is that kiwifarms is a website dedicated to harassment and doxxing of private individuals. However, I do think that a case could be made against including the URL for the incel forum, under the same grounds, because unlike SS, they are websites routinely involved in the harassment and doxxing of private individuals. Pinging @Trade as they also included the link to the incel forum onto the article. Freedom4U (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not added any URLs to this article. Incels.is is literally the name of the website. Trade (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

A URL is an address not a hyperlink, you added the incels forum URL (incels.is) on the article 2600:4040:4030:5000:AC9A:FFC8:EEC6:114B (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Trade you actually added 3 incel site URLs on the article, and they were the only edits to the article you made, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctioned_Suicide&diff=1139810508&oldid=1139804764 2600:4040:4030:5000:AC9A:FFC8:EEC6:114B (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Why did you decided to switch IP, 108.44.212.160? Trade (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently you also don't understand how IPs work. IPV6 and IPV4 are usually dual-assigned on computers. You should also have both. When your browser calls the connect() C function, it grabs either your IPV4 or IPV6 to use on a website, and without manual intervention. 2600:4040:4030:5000:AC9A:FFC8:EEC6:114B (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Surely just a coincidence Trade (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup, it is, I'm using mobile and so maybe it favors ipv6 assigned to my router. You're dodging why you want to censor one thing but not another. My original comment was that Wikipedia is either censored or it isn't. 2600:4040:4030:5000:AC9A:FFC8:EEC6:114B (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyway Trade the fact that you joined this article only 1) to censor the incel founder names, 2) non-censor the incel site names, and that's the only thing you came here for shows a potential COI. 2600:4040:4030:5000:AC9A:FFC8:EEC6:114B (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Going through your edit history, while it's mostly bots and manually editing school shooter articles, your recent edits Trade were asking the incel article steward to include the logo for Naama Kates' obscure podcast as the main photo for incel. Naama is reported on the incel article to be actively involved in running interference for misogynistic incels specifically. From that article "[Naama] is no longer just reporting on incels' misogyny, but justifying and sharing it with the world". 2600:4040:4030:5000:AC9A:FFC8:EEC6:114B (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Trade you also said in that diff that you potentially had a connection that could re-license the photo from the (copyrighted) misogynistic incel podcast branding. It also appears someone (perhaps a different person) from Naama and Costello's circle has also been gaming mainspace edits for a while now, having tried over and over again to include a specific whitewashing thesis on incels into the article until people gave up. This was also the last, and recent, edit war on incel article mainspace. The thesis was authored by Costello, a frequent guest on Naama's podcast and who shares the same social circle. Given how they have been promoting misogynistic incel forums since 2019 (and from 2019-2021, almost daily), Naama's social circle is personally and regularly in touch with the incel and SS site owners, including writing about SS in Unheard magazine from the perspective of incels.is only. Not saying you are Naama or Costello, but I refuse to believe you have no COI Trade. The URL issue is non-important to me, but you are, on Wikipedia, recently invested in advertising misogynistic incel forums and associated media2600:4040:4030:5000:AC9A:FFC8:EEC6:114B (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Disclosure: Trade left a comment about this discussion on my talk page here

Some comments: If you think someone has a conflict of interest, you should follow the steps outlined at WP:COI, the first step generally being to politely raise it on the their talk page. That being said, I'm not seeing clear evidence of a conflict of interest here, Trade's actions on this article (adding the site names and raising whether we should include the names) are individually fairly reasonable things to do (whether they're right or wrong I won't comment on), and this article is falls within the kinds of topics Trade has edited on the past (controversial online communities). Trade also isn't saying they had a connection there, getting an image under a creative commons license doesn't mean you have a connection. These are some pretty serious accusations to make given the context and you should be very careful about making them (they could potentially fall under policies like WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS). You should seriously consider striking or removing some of your comments that could be considered to fall under those policies

In regards to the IP addresses - that's how IP addresses can work (I think, not very knowledgeable about it) Tristario (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The names were already on Wikipedia for a year because of WA Post, NYTimes etc, and them having an issue with that but wanting the full incel forum URLs made me skeptical. I can't even find a news article mentioning their latest URL (which they wrote), so it's also unsourced. I don't care about beaucrachy at wikipedia at all, just putting out what I saw in their contribs relating to this topic, which was wanting to heavily advertize an obscure blackpill incel podcast which has been regularly writing about SS in media from the perspective of incels.is. Trade's non-bot edits are few. 2600:4040:4030:5000:FC56:6EAD:BB45:90A8 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

They also did not deny a COI, they just didn't like my tone, saying it was uncivil in the talk page comment. I also cannot find them manually touching mainspace pages on internet communities like you said, it's mostly just school shootings. They touch the talk pages of KF, incel etc. I wouldn't mind if they had a COI and were just using the talk page, but they're touching mainspace on the topic as well. Not going to bring this to a COI board just yet, but I'm sure I'm not the only one keeping a lookout. 2600:4040:4030:5000:FC56:6EAD:BB45:90A8 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It is common practice to revert edits made by users blocked for abusing multiple sock accounts when such edits are made without any consensus. The named were removed because the user deemed it unecessary so i dont know why you say the names were censored away.

My comment on the KW talk page was about removing the links to the site from Wikidata due to their history of harassment and asking other users if they would come with their input Trade (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Freedom4U, the main writer of the article, was the first person to publish the full names in this article, as well as the last person to publish them. I don't know anything about roundandrounder, or your attempts to obscure the aforementioned facts. I'm moving on from the subject of potential mainspace COI, as I've already said everything 2600:4040:4030:5000:F475:9E45:F00E:D932 (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

"incels.is" is unsourced, incels.co is sort of sourced

Also a note that including the incels.is URL is unsourced, as only one source on SS mentions an incel site URL, and it's one of the other ones. While .is/.co/me have all at some point pointed to the same database, I think that we should be looking at reliable sources. That one source is the NYTimes Daily podcast which quotes Diego as saying "I run incels.co [...] the largest incel forum". If it's important to put incel site URLs in this article, I would keep the incels.co URL but remove the incels.is URL to stay in line with the reliable sources in the article (or anywhere). Think most media refers to it as "incels.me" but not in reference to the SS topic, only "incels.co" for that. 2600:4040:4030:5000:EEF2:869C:547F:8E1F (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think importantly, the incel forum frequently changes its domain name. I think if we do name it, referring to it as the incels forum as a noun would aid in understanding and if an article is ever made about it, it may be wise to name it incels (forum). Also, incels.co is just a redirect, saying that incels.co and incels.is are the same website is beneath the standard for "original research" from what I can see. Freedom4U (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Academic articles draw a line btw all three gTLDs (no original research needed to draw line in separate article), because incels.co was a previous URL, not just a redirect. But the only URL in the SS reliable sources is incels.co. For a new article, I'm partial to "incels.me", as that is what most media use to refer to it as afaik 2600:4040:4030:5000:6ED:D73C:9F06:AE63 (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

incels (forum) also isn't a bad idea for a separate article, or for replacement of the URLs present in SS article, as you just said 2600:4040:4030:5000:6ED:D73C:9F06:AE63 (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the issues is they didn't give themselves a name, like, incels can also refer to incels.net (dead) or r/incels, the latter of which is on wikipedia 2600:4040:4030:5000:6ED:D73C:9F06:AE63 (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source comparing two forums named incel that are separate

Today, Incels.co and Incels.net are the primary gathering points. On those forums, users are quick to argue that there is no incel movement or ideology, often when discussing their alleged culpability in acts of violence. Yet reading through the thousands of posts belies a common set of grievances—and a common set of solutions.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/02/incels-toronto-attack-terrorism-ideological-violence/ 2600:4040:4030:5000:6ED:D73C:9F06:AE63 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure how to understand your last sentence Trade (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Incels.net and incels.co/is/me are separate forums as reported by Foreign Policy Magazine. They are both also referred to as primary gathering points at the time of publication. This is in reference to Freedom4U's tentative suggestion that Small's incel forums be all named incels. 2600:4040:4030:5000:6ED:D73C:9F06:AE63 (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, on second thought makes sense that other incel forums would also use the domain name incels my bad Freedom4U (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about the comment Freedom4U (talk) made on 01:14, 26 Trade (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLUE, there's no need to cite that incels.is and incels.co are the same site when incels.co is just a redirect to incels.is Freedom4U (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The main issue is that there are no sources for incels.is URL for this article. Incels.co refers to a forum at a point in time, the point in time at which Diego said that. 2600:4040:4030:5000:F475:9E45:F00E:D932 (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I cited WP:BLUE for a previous section and was shot down as "original research", but directing random readers to a URL where staff publicly instruct their users to rape women seems a higher bar than obvious ownership concerns. Probably best to just report that forum to law enforcement. Naming criminal site URLs generates RFCs and such, like in the case of naming KF 2600:4040:4030:5000:F475:9E45:F00E:D932 (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a good compromise is simply naming what it is in the sources, ie incels.co, but it's up to you, it's your article 2600:4040:4030:5000:F475:9E45:F00E:D932 (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The mention of .co being a redirect to .is have not been part of the article for some time now. Not sure why you are bringing it up now Trade (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Because it's been the consensus on Wikipedia talk for 5-6 years not to directly publicize the current URL of that forum, you can see that in the incel talk page archives. For all the reasons I brought up, made by established veterans and at least one WP administrator. Bringing it up now, because you've broken tradition on that not just with one URL, but with another that isn't sourced 2600:4040:4030:5000:F559:C9F:7FD9:F308 (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If you're interested in that whole forum space, which it seems you are, naming all the websites, including SS, would be easiest on a page named incels.me or something like that, as that is the topic you'd most likely find sources both naming all the URLs, as well as making a linear progression on them through time 2600:4040:4030:5000:F559:C9F:7FD9:F308 (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

All the relevant WP veterans, including GorillaWarfare who didn't want the incels URL published have been completely absent on the SS topic, even when it was brought to them by multiple people years ago, and only cared when an article was made. It seems too many editing decisions and whims get made based on the social network effect of internal wiki politics than rules, reliable sources, justice, consensus, value-to-readers, or harm reduction. If I didn't offer a rule-conforming compromise, I'd be arguing just calling it incels.me, as that one doesn't redirect to anywhere. It names the forum, was the original name, and also doesn't direct traffic. 2600:4040:4030:5000:F559:C9F:7FD9:F308 (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked in the FAQ on the talk page of Incels. Nowhere was it mentioned that it was against the rules to mention "incels.is" anywhere. Considering there are 10 archived discussions there's no way most would likely be unaware of any agreement not to mention the name.

Few people are going to read this discussion. If you want a rule against naming the website to be enforced you need to take it up on Wikipedia:Village pump Trade (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yea if you honestly responded to what I wrote, you'll only reference I was talking about a talk page consensus on incel, not an FAQ table 2600:4040:4030:5000:F559:C9F:7FD9:F308 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Try including the URL on incel and see what happens. It's been tried and failed. They are even against including dead, previous names. If they change their stonewalling there then relevant incel forum deserves it's own article finally, instead of a disjointed mess of renaming some subculture 2600:4040:4030:5000:F559:C9F:7FD9:F308 (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like the agreement not to name the site only involved few people since you call it stonewalling. Trade (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Overcategorization

Is there any logic in having the page located both in "Reddit" and "Subreddits"? And "Suicide" and "Suicide prevention"? Trade (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone really reads article categorization hence not editing the categories but there is a topic for what you just brought up above. 2600:4040:4030:5000:3367:6585:CF1F:252C (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Deleted suicide prevention category to join DFlhb and potentially yourself on this topic. I don't think the sources reflect that category but was just trying to avoid unecessary argument before 2600:4040:4030:5000:3367:6585:CF1F:252C (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Edits made by blocked IP users

It seems that there may need to be another vandalism block on the article, as it seems that banned users have inserted bad information into the article (which I am in the process of fixing) and it seems to be getting off subject of the forum and way too focused on what the founders did outside of the forum. Kevinsanc (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I checked the sources and those are indeed in the sources. The one you've been most eager to contest is the longest source, but you are not reading it honestly or reading it at all. Your talk page also says you have tried to enter false info into this page before 85.250.232.42 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The ones that were added by the person that was shortly banned afterwards for ban evading are irrelevant to the article. As of now, the article is more about the owners than the actual forum, which it shouldn't be, which is why the edits were removed. Kevinsanc (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Theres too much of a focus on the Founders and their affiliations

i believe we should be focusing on this forum in particular, as it feels like there's too much information regarding the founders here. There's other parts of the article that are too wordy as well. Kevinsanc (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"suicide prevention" category

Marquis (the founder) noted that people who registered only to use the [SanctionedSuicide] recovery forum “will be denied most likely.”

"The suicide site facilitates both [encouragement and methods]"

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/09/us/where-the-despairing-log-on.html From a reliable source ^ 108.44.212.160 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion into the suicide prevention category should not be based on whether or not the site itself is effective at suicide prevention or whether the site is about suicide prevention. Rather it should be whether or not the site is related to the general topic of suicide prevention, which I think it absolutely is. See the article for alt.suicide.holiday for another example of this. Freedom4U (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks 108.44.212.160 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's related to the topic of suicide prevention. It's related to the topic of suicide encouragement, and categories need to be backed by reliable sources, see WP:CATV. Unless someone can show a source that directly links SS to suicide prevention, the category should be removed. DFlhb (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Multiple sources in the article state its relevance with regards to suicide prevention, both the founders arguing that the site reduces/has a negligible effect on suicides and opponents stating that restricting the site would reduce suicides. Both of these things make it perfectly reasonable to include it in the category. Freedom4U (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

What the founders say is irrelevant to our categorisation, under both WP:CATV and WP:CATPOV. And opponents of the site (and reliable sources) indeed say it encourages and has caused suicides, so it seems a little sardonic to categorise it as "Suicide prevention". See for example WP:CATDEF: categories are meant to categorise articles by their defining characteristics, not to link articles to related topics (that belongs in the "See also" section). The category is only justifiable is Sanctioned Suicide is itself a suicide prevention website, according to reliable sources (not its founders). See also WP:NONDEFINING. DFlhb (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Changed my mind given you've clearly defined what I was thinking before, with only Freedom4U defending it. Deleted the category given now potentially 3 people have issue with the category, but the decision seems not that important 2600:4040:4030:5000:3367:6585:CF1F:252C (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that the inclusion of a 'Suicide prevention' category here is not appropriate, given the nature of the site, which is most prominently about successfully achieving suicide. Sylvester Krakow (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Suicide encouragement

Can authors of the "Deaths" section provide any evidences that members of this site actually encouraged these people to commit suicide. If there are no any, than I suggest you to edit article in order to remain neutral. Euler-Maskerony (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe those edits were made by IPs that are now blocked. I went through that section and removing and editing claims that aren't sourced and editing the wording to reflect a NPOV. Kevinsanc (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent dishonest edits

Almost half the edits recently made by Kevinsanc have dishonest edit summaries, one of which says Daniel Del Canto isn't in the two NYTimes sources. That 16 year old death, and the encouragement of him to via sodium nitrite, was a huge part of both stories. Another dishonest edit says a quote by Galante isn't in the source, which it is. I don't expect Kevinsanc to reply to this honestly, but is there anyone actually reading the source and watching his edits? 85.250.232.42 (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent dishonest edits

Almost half the edits recently made by Kevinsanc have dishonest edit summaries, one of which says Daniel Del Canto isn't in the two NYTimes sources. That 16 year old death, and the encouragement of him to via sodium nitrite, was a huge part of both stories. Another dishonest edit says a quote by Galante isn't in the source, which it is. I don't expect Kevinsanc to reply to this honestly, but is there anyone actually reading the source and watching his edits? 85.250.232.42 (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find much on that in the stories, at least not to the depth of which it was described in the story (and I spent at least a hour looking). I invite you to make the edits yourself since you believe that I made them in bad faith. Kevinsanc (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

On Registration

Registration is not needed to view the site, but I remember reading that it is required to view certain parts of the site (as well as to post, react, and do other things of course). Would be helpful if someone could update the infobox with the correct information. The Reddit and Wikipedia pages have examples of this in action. Freedom4U (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The site reduces the visibility of its most controversial material whenever it is subject to media scrutiny. These are the threads where users discuss methods for how they want to kill themselves and where they (obliquely) discuss where they can purchase poisons, like Sodium Nitrite.

They recently hid this information for a brief period after a widely viewed YouTube video (Encouraging the Young to Die - The Most Toxic Site I've Ever Seen - Tantacrul) was released about their activities. The video was critical of Sanctioned Suicide.

Recently, site reopened all controversial information for public view again, so at present it is accurate to say that users do not require a registration to view instructions on how to kill yourself, as well as goodbye threads and the 'Partners' section. Sylvester Krakow (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. Kevinsanc (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Diego Investigation Claim

The NYT investigation states this about this subject:

"In Uruguay, where assisting suicide is a crime, the Montevideo police have begun an inquiry in collaboration with a local prosecutor’s office in response to The Times’s investigation, said Javier Benech, a communications director for the office."

WBUR states that he is under investigation, but an inquiry is much different than a full-blown criminal investigation. I am not sure that we should be including this at this time. Kevinsanc (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Nor does the NYT specifically mention that it is it the Founder that is being investigated. Very confusing stuff. Kevinsanc (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixed this. Kevinsanc (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

There were a series of edits made about a few weeks ago that added content didn't match what the sources say. I think the first sentence is as neutral as we can get, and there's really no need to say that people are "incited" into committing suicide, especially since most of the sources do not describe it in that way.

I think just because a subject matter is contentious and morally reprehensive doesn't mean that we should ignore NPOV either. I'm very against saying that a website did something, especially if the source doesn't support or say that. There will likely more vandalism made by other IPs once the article becomes opened to editing again by non-confirmed users, and we should try our best to maintain neutrality here. Kevinsanc (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

My edit was today. The sources do support my edit, and potential future vandalism is not a factor in our content decisions.

It isn't NPOV to use Wikivoice to repeat claims that were only made by primary sources, as you did in this edit. pro-choice is only claimed by the site. Choice quotes from Marquis, quoted by Vice:

• We help and support those that are looking for information to end their life
• We ultimately believe that a person does have a right to die as much as they have a right to live. Our community supports either choice. "supports"!
• we don't want people trying to 'save' people either

In the same article, Vice cites several experts that call out the "pro-choice" framing for being dangerous bullshit, including clinical psychologist Bart Andrews, who says: Those folks are actively encouraging, supporting, people ending their life. Vice's own description is clear: pro-suicide sites like [Sanctioned Suicide]. Vice mentions how users "often" use code words to euphemize suicide, like "catching the bus", and that users are dissuaded from being "pro-life", i.e. encouraging other users not to kill themselves.

NYTimes says Participants routinely nudge one another along, calling each other "brave", "a legend", and "a hero" for going through with suicide. That according to Marquis, people who registered only to use the recovery forum “will be denied most likely.”. The NYT says the Recovery section only accounts for 5% of the websites posts. They mention that users encouraged one another to keep their suicidal intentions hidden from relatives and medical professionals. That despite the site's stated rules, some members urged others on, whether with gentle reassurance or with more force (into killing themselves).

Both articles mention cases of young people being terrified and hesitant with their choice, but following through due to encouragement and peer pressure on the site.

That's not just two sources. ABC describes it as pro-suicide, and quotes a government regulator that says the forum incites suicide. Scottish news describes one of the forum's users, who was convicted for encouraging women to kill themselves. The BBC describes it as a site which encourage users to take their own lives. Public broadcaster WBUR says members encourage others to die — often when they are most vulnerable. DFlhb (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Kevinsanc seems predominantly preoccupied with the topic of this article. Are we dealing with a possbile WP:COI? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I joined because I am fascinated with the topic of suicide. I have no COIs and I am well aware of the COI policy, but I also don't think some of the edits here reflect a NPOV, even when looking at the sources. Kevinsanc (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: the "pro-choice" framing – I agree that we should not use that term in wikivoice in this context. "Pro-choice" usually means "in favor of abortion rights", and it's confusing at best to use it unqualified in this article. We can of course mention that the website uses the term "pro-choice", like in the edit you linked. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, the first sentence that was there before was good.

"Sanctioned Suicide (SS) is an internet forum where members are often suicidal and discuss information on various suicide methods.

"

Is the one that was there before it was changed.

Kevinsanc (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kevinsanc: While we're here, I'd like to point out that some of your edits seem to have misleading edit summaries, like Special:Diff/1142815329 and Special:Diff/1142716655. These edits are claimed to remove unsourced content, yet the content they remove appears to be supported by the citations. I agree with your stance against saying that a website did something, especially if the source doesn't support or say that, but I find it difficult to trust your judgment on what a source does or does not support. In the future, would you be more careful with your removal of sourced content? Shells-shells (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but at the same time, we should be extremely cautious about adding anything or any statement that isn't mentioned by a source and I think we should remove anything that isn't well-sourced due to contentiousness of this article. Kevinsanc (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Am I missing something, or do some of the sources in the lead not mention the forum?

Doug Weller talk 09:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, the VICE article conceals the name of the forum. Kevinsanc (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Also Buzzfeed News by the looks of it. Endwise (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

You're correct. The NYTimes article is one of the few articles that don't censor the forum out of fear that mentioning it by name would increase traffic to the forum. :3 F4U (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote

Moving to subsection, as this is a separate discussion.

• Comment regardless of this outcome, should we also consider a hatnote like at Suicide methods per Talk:Suicide methods/Archive 6#RFC: Hatnote at top and Suicide per Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#Proposal to add suicidal disclaimer at Suicide ? Nil Einne (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  I've been bold and added it. :3 F4U (they/it) 16:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, regardless of its contents, the topic of this article is a website first and foremost. An article on the topic of suicide methods can point to prevention or intervention. But again, this is about a website. Adding a link to Suicide prevention goes against WP:HATNOTERULES. The hatnote is incorrect by the way, suicide prevention and suicide intervention are two separate topics. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I took a closer look at those discussions after my edit was reverted and it appears that consensus then was quite contentious and

I would stress that exceptions to well-established guidelines should be rare, and the outcome of this RFC should not be taken as creating a precedent for future discussions of this nature.

:3 F4U (they/it) 07:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It is worth noting however, that quote comes from the closer of the RFC, and is (as far as I can tell) not something that was explicitly agreed upon in the RFC itself. While the closer has a say, it should not be taken as law - as they are no judge. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It comes from the closer, however, the reason the closer states that is because WP:HAT is an editing guideline, and therefore the rules there, by definition, cannot be bypassed except in "exceptional circumstances." :3 F4U (they/it) 14:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind guidelines aren't as stringent as policies; personally, I like the hatnote. DFlhb (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I suport its inclusion as well, but we'd need to gather consensus here for its inclusion. I'm aware guidelines aren't as stringent, that was the point of my reply. If it were a Wikipedia policy, then there would be no exceptions allowed unless broad community consensus was reached. :3 F4U (they/it) 14:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If it were a Wikipedia policy, then there would be no exceptions allowed unless broad community consensus was reached that's phrasing it quite a bit more strictly than necessary. The only things that are truly binding are ArbCom and WMF Office decisions. WP:IAR is policy too, and there's strong precedent that consensus (whether local on a single talk page, or community-wide) takes priority over our policies and guidelines, in order to allow collaborativeness and the judgment of contributors to be the cornerstone of Wikipedia, rather than bureaucratic rule-obedience.

I suppose 3 vs 1 isn't that strong a consensus, but that's about the only argument I can find that supports keeping it out for now. DFlhb (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I support having the hat note. There's a reason why responsible media always have information on suicide prevention on any material that includes mention of suicide. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, we're not "responsible media", whatever that is. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 00:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply that Wikipedia falls under that heading. Merely that there are good reasons for doing it and that it is the responsible thing to do. I apologise for giving the impression that I was accusing Wikipedia or its users of being responsible. I would never do such an unconscionable thing. Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Possible BLP and OR issues

Just leaving a note about this, I'm probably not going to do any sigificant editing on this article right now at least. This article largely refers to the founders by their real names, even though the sources often are actually using their pseudonyms. I think, as well as being misleading, because it's giving the impression things are being said and done under their real names rather than their pseudonyms, it also presents issues with WP:OR and WP:BLP - generally speaking we need sources to make the specific connection rather than inferring it ourselves, and we need to be especially careful about this in the case of living people and contentious material.

I think this should be fixed - if a source refers to the pseudonym, we should refer to the pseudonym. This may mean that perhaps the article should be using the pseudonyms for the most part. Tristario (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Just regarding OR, surely if a source explicitly says this real person goes by this pseudonym, then it's fine to treat their pseudonym and their real name as referring to the same person (even in other sources)? For example, it's not an issue if we see that a source that says "patients with Lou Gehrig's disease experience...", and write in ALS that "patients with ALS experience..." -- we know from other sources that ALS and Lou Gehrig's disease are the same thing. I don't think there's an OR problem there. Endwise (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a bit of an edge case. But given that on top of the possible original research and BLP issues, it's also misleading, I don't think there's much argument for using their real names if the source is using their pseudonyms. I don't think we should be treating someone's pseudonym as equivalent to their real name in sources, if we extended that general principle that could lead to a great deal of WP:BLP issues. Eg. If someone gets outed in a reliable source, is someone then free to dig up everything under that pseudonym and add it to their biography? I don't think we would allow that. Tristario (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Again to not comment on whether there are any BLP issues with identifying them, I could see why it could in theory be misleading if we don't make obvious that they were acting pseudonymously, but I think it is made clear enough at Sanctioned Suicide#The New York Times investigation (and in the lead). Endwise (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It's only really clear if someone specifically reads the New York Times investigation section and then also thinks it through on top of that (just having a pseudonym doesn't necessarily mean someone is doing everything under a pseudonym). So I don't think it's that clear. There was a bit of confusion about this in the discussion at WP:BLPN so I'm not just talking about this being theoretically misleading Tristario (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

There was already a BLP discussion on this on both the BLP board and the COI board. Both ended with a weak consensus to keep the names. The first New York Times article publishing their full names was a front page story. The rest of the pieces publishing their full names are over a third of of the sources present in the article, all high quality, reliable sources. Barshay11 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock--Tristario (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I'm pointing out here, I'm not (right now) arguing we should exclude their names entirely. I'm pointing out that some of the sources in this article say things about their pseudonyms, but in the article we're using their real names for the things the sources are saying about their pseudonyms. I think that's problematic, for the reasons above Tristario (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Also not aware of any reliable sources preferring any one of their (many) pseudonyms, over their real names, after the Dec 9th front page New York Times article. If there are any, it'd be a strong minority. 2600:4040:4030:5000:FB46:53AF:370E:8304 (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock--Tristario (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sanctioned Suicide Home Page Screenshot.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC on linking to the forum

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to remove the external link to the forum. voorts 04:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the article include an external link to the Sanctioned Suicide forum, as it currently does in the infobox? ––FormalDude (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, it appears to be precedent to include links to sites. I have only seen one or 2 circumstances where the link for a website hasn't been included outside of the site being defunct or seized. But I agree with @Freedom4U when they said that it is not really up to us to decide what is objectionable or not due to WP:NPOV. Kevinsanc (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Remove. Linking to these types of sites may be slightly useful to academics and researchers, but they're not our only audience; kids browse Wikipedia too, and they're highly vulnerable to having any suicidal ideas reinforced. This NYT report documents several cases of teens that were hesitant, and may not have gone through if they hadn't found the site. We already removed links to KiwiFarms because its harassment has led to one death; the NYT says this site has led to at least 50 deaths. Looking at policy: WP:PROBLEMLINKS refers to harassment, which doesn't apply to Sanctioned Suicide. But Wikipedia tends to treat treats to life quite strictly, even more strictly than it deals with harassment, and I'd argue Sanctioned Suicide fits within PROBLEMLINKS's spirit. I'm very sensitive to arguments that we should avoid a slippery slope in removing official links, since that would be strongly detrimental to the encyclopaedia, but I think "has this forum directly led to deaths as a result of its primary purpose?" is a stringent enough guiding light here (and, I argue, is a more stringent standard than the one advanced at the KiwiFarms RfC; though I don't oppose the latter's result). DFlhb (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Official links are generally always included, and are exempt from the reasons we would normally avoid links. See WP:ELYES/WP:ELOFFICIAL. The only exception I've seen for this, which I still don't agree begets a blanket rule, is WP:PROBLEMLINKS (cited in the Kiwi Farms RfC), which as DFlhb mentioned pertains to harassment. The reason to want to avoid linking to the sanctioned suicide forum is more one of obscenity: it has graphic depictions of suicide and suicide methods and a general philosophy very permissive of the right to die, which of course means that many of its members have killed themselves. This has a lot to do with what is mentioned at WP:NOTCENSORED, and extremely little to do with what is mentioned at WP:HARASSMENT/WP:OWH, which is what PROBLEMLINKS is based off. Endwise (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The main sources of the article, the two New York Times articles, and other source here describes in depth that minors were encouraged to kill themselves. Not chose, they were encouraged. They were reportedly encouraged to kill themselves with a meat preservative, eg Daniel. There are also descriptions of taunting members to kill themselves. This goes beyond harassment and is not the same as the right to die. The sentences detailing encouragement was scrubbed from the article by KevinSanc over the last couple days. Striking sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE :3 F4U (they/it) 00:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC) Reminiscon (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  I read through all of the source material and there was very little talk of explicit encouragement in the NYT investigation outside of the 4 times it was mentioned.

  One time was a quote and there was also a mention of there being no laws against encouragement. Yet, it appears that the word appeared 8 times in this very article. The only source that I have read that mentions encouragement explicitly is the WBUR article and that is in the context of the goodbye threads.

  The sentences I removed had very poor sourcing and calling it "encourgement" when the source doesn't say that is dishonest in itself.

  You have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, and this is a very contentious topic, which means that Wikipedia standards when editing this article is stricter than it would be on most other articles on this site. Kevinsanc (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• remove. this is a site that actively encourages people to suicide. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sanction Suicide's forum member's view on life and suicide is going to be shocking and offensive to the morality of the great majority of Wikipedia's readers and editors. What is meant by encouraging here is something of the form "Alice: I want to die. Should I kill myself? Bob: Yeah, I think so". But, as WP:NOTCENSORED states: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Basically, obscenity is not a valid reason to remove an official external link. Endwise (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Does abiding this rule in this instance improve or maintain the encyclopedia though? ––FormalDude (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think any article about a website will be woefully uninformative if it doesn't even tell you its URL. The only way to see the actual website is to visit its URL. To me it really is like writing an article about a movie but not telling you its name, for fear someone might go and actually watch it. If the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia which informs and educates its readers, then inclusion greatly serves that purpose. Wikipedia also has recipes for making both illegal methamphetamine (History and culture of substituted amphetamines#Illegal synthesis) and military-grade incendiary devices (Molotov cocktail#Design) in your home with relatively easily obtainable materials. Does a guide on how to make meth agree with the average reader's morality? Probably not. Does a guide on how to make meth inform Wikipedia's readers? Greatly. Endwise (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is arguably quite different than any of those scenarios you mentioned because including the website could, according to reliable sources, lead to self-harm by distressed readers. None of the situations you mention have the same immediate risk as this.

  A Google search for name of the article pulls up the website as the second result, so I really don't see how you can possibly construe not including the link as "woefully uninformative". ––FormalDude (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  IMO, I think teaching people how to make meth can also lead to real world harm as well. I think there's a lot of factual information, including on Wikipedia, that can lead to real world harm. I think that's kind of just how it is.

  Usually I would think we treat Wikipedia articles as their own product. Like if we changed climate change to the one sentence: "Britannica's article on climate change is pretty good, go read that", we would in the same sense as you mean be informing our readers about climate change. But anyway if we do assume that the readers are all going to just google search it anyway (not sure that's true?), then why would anyone care if we mention it? The readers all know the URL already; we're not doing any harm telling anyone something they already know. Endwise (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  i think teaching people how to make meth can also lead to real world harm as well. as far as i can tell, wikipedia doesn't tell people how to make meth. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does have a Suicide methods article, though. Kevinsanc (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  it's not encouraging suicide. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  Suicide by hanging#Process teaches readers that partial suspension hanging involving compression of the cartoid artery or jugular veins is going to be significantly less painful than one involving compression of the airways, and that a drop hanging of at least between 1.56 and 2.75 metres long is likely to be even less painful. I'm not entirely sure, but I imagine that equipping readers with the knowledge of how to make their suicide attempt more pleasant would probably make them more likely to attempt it. Endwise (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

  The section I linked describes various different methods at a higher level, and links to sources which provide more in depth step-by-step guides. See e.g. the last paragraph for an easy method utilising over-the-counter pseudoephedrine tablets. Since what we are discussing for this article is a link, here is the text from the second source (Erowid) linked in that section:

  A mixture of 40 g (0.3 mole) phenylacetone, 200 ml ethanol, 200 ml 25% ammonia, 40g (1.5 mole) Al-grit and 0.3 g (1 mmol) HgCl2 is warmed with vigorous stirring until reaction takes place, after which warming is stopped immediately. Cooling should be applied if the reaction becomes too violent. When the violence of the reaction has diminished, the mixture is refluxed with vigorous stirring for about 2 hr, concentrated in vacuo to 200 ml and poured into ice water, alkalinized with 120 g KOH, and extracted with ether. The extractions are treated with 20% HCl, the resulting water layer alkalinized and extracted with 150 ml ether. The organic layer is dried over Na2SO4, the ether evaporated, and the residue distilled in vacuo. Yield: 12.5 g (30%). Preparation of amphetamine sulfate yielded 96-98% product with a purity of 99.2-99.8% (USP grade).

  Endwise (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Leaving discussions on Wikipedia policy aside, I'm wondering if by providing a link that Wikipedia (and more specifically the editor who placed it) could be in legal trouble for facilitating a suicide(which is illegal in most places). 331dot (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  @331dot We need to find out. I'll ask T&S. Doug Weller talk 10:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  I removed the link Freedom4U added as it is not appropriate and the consensus here is to remove it 71.171.90.218 (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  If The Peaceful Pill Handbook is protected speech in the US i cannot imagine how linking to a site with suicide instructions would not be protected as well Trade (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  There's NOFREESPEECH on Wikipedia. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Irrelevant to this subthread which just about whether there's a legal risk in us linking to the forum Nil Einne (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne They've replied that they can't give legal advice to volunteers for ethical reasons. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  That makes absolutely no sense. Addressing questions regarding the legality of content on Wikipedia is the one of the main reasons the legal department exists Trade (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Yes – WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:ELOFFICIAL; in an article about a website, we should always include a link to that website if possible, even if the website is abhorrent and harmful. The URL is an essential part of informing readers about the website. For comparison, our Stormfront (website) article links to the corresponding website per this RfC from a couple of years ago.

As a side note, to those making a "think of the children" argument – removing the link would not make the website materially harder for children to find. When I search for "sanctioned suicide" on Google, the website is the third result. When I search on Startpage, it's the second result. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not about making it hard to find, it's about whether Wikipedia should be the one aiding them in directly accessing the website due to ethical (and potentially legal) consequences. And if removing the link doesn't prevent people from accessing it, how can you possibly try to use WP:NOTCENSORED as justification? ––FormalDude (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

And if removing the link doesn't prevent people from accessing it, how can you possibly try to use WP:NOTCENSORED as justification? I'm not sure what you mean by this. My point in linking WP:NOTCENSORED was to point out that the awfulness of the website is not grounds for removing the URL from this article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Linking WP:NOTCENSORED implies something is being censored, yet you admit removing the link does little to prevent people from accessing it. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If something is censored in one place, it may still be found elsewhere. But let's not get hung up on the word "censored". Just read the actual text of WP:NOTCENSORED (which doesn't use the word "censored" outside the heading). In particular: Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Concerns here are not about the offensiveness of the link, they're about the evidence that linking to the forum could cause real-life harm. We are well within our rights to use editorial discretion here and remove the link if a consensus develops to do so. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment I haven't heard back from T&S yet, I'll email again tomorrow. But I thought that a comment from someone dying of cancer might be useful. I don't know how long I have - if the chemo doesn't work, a few months, if it does (only 30% chance) maybe sometime next year. I've always considered suicide a form of cowardice, but this has changed my view. I know I can go to Zurich, Oregon etc but I want to keep going as long as I can, and those all require a form of giving up. What I and my wife want more than anything else is for me to be able to choose the time and place. I don't think that's possible though as I doubt there is a safe way or one that wouldn't implicate my wife. Would it help people like me to have an easy link? Doug Weller talk 12:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I thought about you while writing my comment above. It's certainly inhumane for countries not to have proper end-of-life legislation. What still inched me towards "remove" was the survey showing half its users are below 25, and the apparent degree of overlap with the blackpill crowd. Hope I'm not being insensitive. It's certainly a complicated issue. DFlhb (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you are going through all that. Must be rough --Trade (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Trade@DFlhb Thanks. Not good but it's not keeping me awake and I'm still busy here though cutting my watchlist to write. The youth issue is a problem I agree. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

T&S has my email. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes The link has encyclopedic merit, doesn't go against any existing Wikipolicy, and inclusion of the link is consistent with previous discussions of similar websites. I find the "think of the children" argument unconvincing per previous arguments and against WP:NOTCENSORED. :3 F4U (talk) 11:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Retracted per new statement below — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom4U (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the arguments against not including the link aren't strong enough. I know there's precedence with sites like Kiwifarms in regard to harassment campaigns, but I just don't see that same argument being used here. Something simply being shocking and disturbing hasn't stopped a website URL from being listed, such as in the case of Bestgore.com even though its defunct now.

I don't think mentioning the link here makes a difference on how accessible the site is, either, and I don't think that's a good basis to go off of when determining whether sites should be linked or not, and we should include links to websites unless there's a very good and compelling reason not to, and I don't think we should be lead astray by reporting on the subject which can sometimes be sensational and exaggerated to make these kinds of decisions, either. Kevinsanc (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude direct link. I feel there's enough risk of direct harm to troubled individuals who are better served by getting help elsewhere in up linking to the website that this is one of the cases we should use our editorial discretion not to link. While I acknowledge most people who come to this page and end up visiting the website and are negatively affected are not going be affected whether we link to the website and there's even a small chance some who are negatively affected may end up visiting just because we exclude they link on the whole while I have no real evidence, I think what little evidence there is, suggests there may be more harm in us linking to the website. The inconvenience to those who won't be negatively affected but still wish to explore the website is IMO too minor. I'm the case fir exclusion is significantly weaker than for KiwiFarms since in that case the people being harmed are random often non-notable living persons who are not choosing to website and have instead been subjected to targeted harassment. But it's stronger than for Storm Front where the risk of harm from its linking is very unclear. Note I'm only supporting excluding a direct link. It's oppose excluding RS just because they do have a link or even censoring the name of the website in titles etc. Nil Einne (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
• Remove per Nil Einne. Wikipedia is not censored, but it does have compassion. This is a case where we improve Wikipedia by exercising our editorial discretion. I would even go so far as to say we can therefore invoke WP:Ignore All Rules Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is a case where we improve Wikipedia by exercising our editorial discretion -- Does concealing (objectionable) information from our readers really make for a better encyclopedia? Endwise (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

  While obviously better encyclopedia is subjective, yes I would say the compassionate protection of our readers makes a better encyclopedia, as (if I dare extrapolate) do the others supporting it's removal. Additionally, I think you may have missed that the key motivator in removing the link is not that it is objectionable but that it is harmful.

  Further I would say this is similar to the judgement made by many of the articles in this source, in their choice not to publish the sites name. And to preempt "but they aren't encyclopedias", I'm well aware of this but:

  A) The general logic of reader protection stands - Wikipedia is unique in many ways, including our policies, but this does not mean we cannot learn, or take inspiration from anyone else.

  B) That is why I am not suggesting we remove the name, or delete the article, but merely remove the link. It balances our 'informational purpose' with editorial discretion - both concepts well established in the realm of encyclopedias.

  Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Doing some more policy reading I came across the following relevant sections of Wikipolicy:

• From WP:NOCONSENSUS, External links. In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
• From Wikipedia:External links, Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

This could be very important for whoever closes the RFC.Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude URL - First, the argument that this somehow doesn't violate WP:PROBLEMLINKS relies on distinguishing "harassment" from "encouraging people to commit suicide", which is a distinction without a difference. Second, WP:NOTCENSORED is not meant to be used as an affirmative argument for inclusion; see WP:GRATUITOUS. Hatman31 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Hatman31 I think the distinction between "harassment" and "encouragement of suicide" in this situation is that harassment is based on unwanted contact, while the encouragement of suicide present on the site does not cross that line. The encouragement being discussed in the sources has to do with passively condoning hopeless suicidal thoughts and providing very specific information on suicide methods. (for example, the BBC report states "They were nearly encouraging each other saying: 'We're sorry this is how far you've come but we wish you luck on your journey.'") :3 F4U (they/it) 20:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone here is using WP:NOTCENSORED as an affirmative argument for inclusion. The clear affirmative argument for inclusion is WP:ELYES (and WP:ELOFFICIAL). Some have argued that this article should be an exception to ELYES because the website is so objectionable, but I cited NOTCENSORED as a counterargument. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Again, a reminder that the exclude arguments' key motivator in removing the link is not that it is objectionable but that it is harmful. NOTCENSORED is about objectionable material not harmful material. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think to create a more productive discussion, we should first answer the question Does inclusion of the link cause demonstrable real-life harm? A consensus on that will make any discussion on inclusion or exclusion much easier to facilitate. :3 F4U (they/it) 03:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I do agree. It seems like the discussion is too focused on removing the link because of encouragement. I do believe that linking the website does cause demonstrable real-life harm, going off the sources about methods and encouragement, going off the sources, but it is hard to determine if linking to the website here on Wikipedia comes to that level.

  There are good arguments for and against linking the website, but I do agree with someone here that this is an encyclopedia at the end of the day, and that it is meant to be informative to the reader. I don't see a reason for removing the link due to "harmful content" considering that some of said "harmful content" could arguably be found on this website, specifically Suicide Methods. Kevinsanc (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Include as plaintext I've retracted my previous statement. Let me first state some preliminary remarks:

1. Whereas Wikipedia guidelines are global and cannot be overturned by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
2. Whereas Wikipedia policies are global and cannot be overturned by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and leave no room for exceptions
3. Whereas content guideline WP:ELOFFICIAL finds that official links of notable subjects are inherently encyclopedically notable information.
4. Whereas content guideline WP:ELOFFICIAL also finds that the only exemption to this guideline is WP:ELNEVER, which only cites copyright disputes and technical reasons as reasons not to include a link
5. Whereas Wikipedia content policy WP:NOTCENSORED finds that obscenity (such as instructions on suicide) cannot be the justification for removal of encyclopedically notable material.
6. Whereas behavioral guideline WP:PROBLEMLINKS finds that Wikipedia strongly discourages any links to web sites that routinely harass, due to potential of the material on the site, taken as a whole, to cause distress.
7. Whereas harassment is defined by the meta:Universal Code of Conduct to include encouraging someone else to commit self-harm or suicide as well as encouraging someone to conduct violent attacks on a third party. I still think there is a distinction to be made between unsolicited, unwanted encouragement and the site. From what the sources state on the subject, the site seems closer to Exit International than harassment as described at WP:HARASSMENT.
8. Whereas the fact that the site encourages people to commit suicide is not in dispute.

And since behavioral guideline WP:PROBLEMLINKS states that Where an especially problematic link is encyclopedic content (e.g. in an article on someone whose notability includes harassing others), putting the link in plain text, e.g. <nowiki>http://www.unpleasant.example/</nowiki>, (rather than as a live link), or even just the domain name, e.g. unpleasant.example, is sometimes used as a workable compromise, the link should be included in plaintext.

I find this to be a satisfactory outcome. The article would still provide, what previous consensus has determined to be encyclopedically notable information, while at the same time minimizing risk of real-life harm. :3 F4U (they/it) 04:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is the best possible solution for this situation, considering the Wikipedia policies. Kevinsanc (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Remove/Exclude per WP:IAR, fundamentally. While you can nit pick at policy to find ways this link is technically permissible, I think the potential for harm outweighs the encyclopedic value of having the link in the infobox, and constitutes a (abnormal) exception to WP:ELOFFICIAL's note that "these links are normally exempt" (emphasis mine) from WP:ELNO. Conversely, I don't feel there is much lost encyclopedically by not having the link in the Ibox. Also per Nil Einne above. And on a personal note, as someone who was quite recently suicidal, I can confirm that this potential for harm is not just theoretical, at least for me, and the presence or absence of the link is a noticeable difference. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude. This is a clear instance for IAR, because none of our policies or guidelines were written with the intent of applying to questions like "will inclusion of this link lead to deaths?" and "will inclusion of this link prevent significant harms?" Policies, guidelines and precedent are not handed down by God, but made by us and changed by us. So, I visited the website and vote my conscience.
  The website is easily accessible and I think there is an argument to be made that if we delete the link then by the same logic we should delete our article per IAR. Removing the link, then, could only introduce one more tiny barrier to somebody who thinks they want to accessing the website. Thinking about several people I have known who attempted suicide, impulsiveness can be a factor in both the action and the planning stage. It seems to me that something so small as providing a link could make a significant difference in impulsive actions. The most effective treatments for self-harm that I am aware of involve "counting to 10 slowly", "say: I am going to stop myself for just 5 minutes, and if I still want to then I will". On the other hand, many suicide attempts follow lengthy periods of suicide ideation and for many kinds of mental health issue, a few seconds of research will be no impediment. But there our decision may be irrelevant either way.
  I am both limited in my perspective by and inordinately grateful that nobody close to me has died by suicide. But I feel that non-inclusion of the link is correct. — Bilorv (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Related COI Discussion

In the interests of full information parity I feel I should note here that there is a COI Discussion occurring relating to the article that may also be relevant to this RFC, and involves some of the same editors.See: [1]. I just thought it was worth editors knowing this, as I had not seen this when I first interacted with the RFC. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede

Thread made by blocked sock :3 F4U (they/it) 00:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

again, the insistence the forum is non-moderated or unrestricted is refuted by every source. WP was dragging their feet on the entire topic for 3 years, and just barely admits it is notable after F4U created the article. Either AFD the article or be accurate about it 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock --Tristario (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The lead was fine as it is. Stop changing it. You've been warned repeatedly. We won't delete the article because you don't like the looks of it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with almost all of the article, as a descriptive encyclopedic article because I wrote half of it. What the kevinsancs of the world did was to capitalize of the first sentence to depart from the sources. Please direct me to where in those sources it says that the forum is not moderated or is unrestricted in terms of moderation 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm with @Soetermans here. What sets this site apart from other places, and what makes it unique is that it is a place for uninhibited discussion of suicide and suicide methods.

• Suicide Solution differs from other well-known online suicide forums, like Take This Life, Suicide Forum, or Reddit’s Suicide Watch, in one immediately obvious way. The moderators aren’t as strict about limiting discussions about the methods one might use to end their life, though users often use abbreviations or code words. Vice
• The New York Times describes the website in one line as: ...a website that provides detailed instructions about suicide

I also don't think its important to include that it has a wiki prominently (very few sources mention it...and the NYTimes expose says that its been taken down) :3 F4U (they/it) 16:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It was taken down once in 2021 yea. It's been taken down a few times since then. I don't see a reason to exclude it in the past tense if it's in one good source, but I guess it makes sense to exclude it in the present tense for now, as hopefully they will not bring it back up. Most of your recent edit appears accurate and improving the article. However, the New York Times, PBS, most sources, myself, DFinbh and apparently perhaps Soeterman publicly disagree with the notion the forum is unrestricted, given it has active moderation that restrict suicide discussion to facilitation. The Usenet forum (which this article is not about and there is a separate article), was indeed unrestricted, because to my knowledge, it had no actual administrator, and hence nothing to prevent people from talking users out of suicide, and no moderators/adminitrators facilitating suicide. However, this is a different forum as you know. 72.86.42.248 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Would also like to mention that although you are clearly not involved with the site, nor are you overall promoting it, which is good, you have once written a lede that was speaking in wikivoice about the forum using their own self-promotion, which was removed, the 'pro-choice' line. The 'free speech' 'unrestricted' line is another of their self-promotion lines as you sort of acknowledge in the article. The presence of active moderation refutes that on both the suicide forum and their incel forum. On their incel forum, they say they are free speech, even some sources do, but if you post anything supportive of feminism it gets removed in two seconds lol. Also the quote I posted about earlier, which you haven't really responded to below in the context of this dicussion, is about the suicide forum this article is about and a direct quote of the NYTimes: 72.86.42.248 (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

At this point I've written enough paragraphs about this, and will leave it up to the rest of the editors to decide. This is just a wiki, there is no reason for me to want to have everything my way all the time. At the same time, please continue to be overall ethical about this forum, cheers 72.86.42.248 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The two took other precautions. Serge warned members they would crack down on anyone publicly sharing personal contact information. He also said they would begin closing the accounts of those who had posted goodbye threads, a step that kept loved ones and law enforcement from gaining access to them later.

If you’re preparing your departure, please contact a mod so we can help with preparations,” Serge wrote, directing members to moderators.

https://archive.vn/ZTV82

Please explain how the above, from the first NYTimes source, is "unrestricted moderation". My edits were in line with the sources in that sentence. 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead is the summation of the article. We do not need to bring up 'goodbye threads' and meat preservatives right away, this article is about Sanctioned Suicide as a whole. Please understand that, and why re-adding your own revision again and again is not the way we do things. I'll try to incorporate your suggestions to the lead. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also from DFlhb' summary of the Vice article above

• "We help and support those that are looking for information to end their life"
• "We ultimately believe that a person does have a right to die as much as they have a right to live. Our community supports either choice". "supports"!
• "we don't want people trying to 'save' people either""We help and support those that are looking for information to end their life"

"We ultimately believe that a person does have a right to die as much as they have a right to live. Our community supports either choice". "supports"! "we don't want people trying to 'save' people either"

All of that combined is not "unrestricted moderation", that is a specific goal of suicide facilitation 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm as pro-euthanasia as the next person on WP, but this forum is both illegal and way out of bounds. Their suicide method is unhinged, painful, unethical, and has a 70% survival rate. They are reported to have hid activity from law enforcement and it is not a generic suicide forum, and the sources, and even this article spell out exactly how that is 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I am personally going to drop this as I know most editors like DFlhb on this talk page agree with me. But as per now, the first sentence looks as ridiculous as the NXVIM article did for years 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, Soeterman's fixed it. Thank you and sorry for not articulating on talk page earlier to good faith editor such as yourself 72.86.42.248 (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Removing user count

I'll be removing the usercount since it was previously cited to the website and the RfC found a consensus not to link to the site. :3 F4U (they/it) 04:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The RfC was about "an external link ... in the infobox", not references. I understand the rationale for not putting the site's address in the infobox, at the top of the page, but I don't think the same rationale automatically applies to references. I've added an approximate user/member count, from an existing reference, but I think the more accurate figure, with the citation, would be better. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The RfC was about having an external link at all, such as in the infobox. The citations themselves were removed by these edits citing the RfC (although the IP does appear to be a sockpuppet). This is like Kiwi Farms, which following their RfC, does not include a link to the site in the citations either. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

Responses to a now deleted GA review (reviewer was a sock)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Kate the mochii Since you passed my GAN without a response from myself, I'll write a few comments here: I've addressed your point about the monospace font. It wasn't added by myself, but it would be consistent with the usage of "Serge" and "Marquis" in the lede. I disagree that those are "scare quotes" as they are quoting what is stated in the sources. The article does not mention "sodium nitrite", however it does describe of a substance "commonly used in the food industry" and the New York Times source names the substance as sodium nitrite and states that it is a "a preservative used for curing meat". There has been a consensus made to name the site owners, see previous talk page discussions. I seriously don't think the site overview section is "unnecessary detail", this is a necessary description of how the site works to someone who has never seen it before? Similar to how Reddit has a site overview section, for example. Regarding the site logo, the logo does not meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright and is therefore in the public domain. :3 F4U (they/it) 01:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC) this is a necessary description of how the site works to someone who has never seen it before Why would people need to know that? Kate the mochii (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC) @Kate the mochii Because its an encyclopedic article on the site? You need to describe what the actual thing your article is about. :3 F4U (they/it) 01:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)