Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sanctioned Suicide/1

Sanctioned Suicide

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reopen this as I find that the article is:

too sympathetic to the viewpoints of Galante and Small, especially as regards their “retirement”, giving the site to an anonymous account seems ridiculous—who pays the bills?
is not clear enough on how access is being blocked in certain countries, by what legal authority, by which ISPs, et cetera;
lacks historical context. Suicide discussion forums did not start in 2018 or with Reddit. The concept indeed goes back to Usenet, as noted, but then thirty years of history are condensed in a sentence. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also includes potential WP:CITOGENESIS; see Talk:Sanctioned Suicide § Potential citogenesis incident. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto Here are my responses to your comments:

1. That's what the NYTimes article states. We also state that that's what they wrote, not that that's what happened.

After the article was published, on Dec. 9, Marquis announced on the site that he was resigning as an administrator, permanently deleting his account and turning over operation of the site to someone using the online name RainAndSadness.

Mr. Small and Mr. Galante also resigned as administrators of several websites they operated for involuntary celibates, or incels, men who believe women will never have sex with them because of their looks and social status. [1]

2. That's because the sources aren't specific enough on this. However, even if they were, that would not disqualify this article from the "broad overview" that the GA criteria requires.

3. That's unnecessary to the article. If reliable sources on the subject aren't giving thirty years of history when talking about SS, then I see no need for this article to do so.

4. The article does not include citogenesis. My comment was that the source should not be cited because they copied from us. :3 F4U (they /it) 13:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto It should also be noted that the page is very unstable at the moment. I completed the GA on July 27th, since then this page has had over 100 edits and it appears a vandal that is sympathetic to Galante and Small has taken an interest in this page. While I don't think we're quite to the point of needing page protection, the rather abrupt shift should be noted. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 14:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus A lot of those edits were at my request, as the article has also been nominated at DYK since the first GA review was completed. Edge3 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Edge3 Thanks for the clarification. There does appear to be a vandalism stint that's going on but at least it's not as bad as I thought. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus I'd like to add on that all of the edits of the specific "vandal" you're talking about have been reverted. It's a sockpuppet of a WMF-banned editor and I was just waiting on the SPI to be closed before reverting the edits. The specific IP range is now blocked for a month (and the editor in question was the opposite of sympathetic towards the site). :3 F4U (they /it) 20:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same IP here? Willwill0415 have universally been against the existence of the site and its owners Trade (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.