User talk:Person

Your edits

Hey, I understand you have been working on Hax's case for a while now, but there are several things I have to point out in your edits.

• First, there's an option on the wiki to show a preview of the edit so that users won't have to make multiple edits at a time. Please use that feature, since your edits have been crowding up both recent changes and Hax's page's edit history.
• Second, there's some blatant original research you have added in Hax's case that should not be there. The entire point of controversy sections is to report what is going on, not to tell people how to think about a situation, because SmashWiki keeps a neutral point of view. An example of this this edit I reverted, where the entire paragraph was just filled with your analysis of the above statements. Not only is none of this cited, but the phrase "the above statements shows" makes it look like your own analysis rather than the actual facts (especially when there have been people who interpreted those Tweets a different way), and that should not be included in a controversy section.
• Finally, though somewhat unrelated to Hax's case, there is a difference between "unreliable sources" and simply reporting the timeline of events. In the case of Leffen's page, you removed Technicals's and ZeRo's statements for being "unreliable". In this case, whether it's unreliable or not is irrelevant, since their counterarguments to Leffen's statements is still a crucial event in Leffen's case.

I should also specifically mention that I do not stand on any side on Hax's case, nor do I think ZeRo is completely innocent/Leffen is completely at fault, so in no way are my reversions out of bias towards them. However, there are rules on the wiki to mitigate heavily opinionated controversy sections that can show off some unnecessary bias, and your edits have not really been following them, so when you make further edits, just pay attention to whether you are adding is opinionated rather than factual. CookiesCreme 09:01, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

Firstly, I should thank you for giving the Hax page a second pair of eyes, I have personally been concerned about the page being too one-sided towards my view on the feud discussed. However, I must ratify CnC's statements. I think a lot of these edits you've made ended up adding a lot of bloat to the page and shook its neutrality by quite a bit. It was already a bit shaky, considering extensive use of Hax$ himself as a primary source. I would further recommend grammar-checking your edits, as there's lots of really basic stuff missed (eg. Capitalising the first letter of a sentence) among other things. Make sure to read your sources, cross-reference them with what's written, and see if existing content can be added to first. Sometimes, a reference may just need to be added to an existing statement without any text body added to the page, for example. We've been considering flattening much of the page given how long the feud's section has been getting compared to the rest of the page. As a controversy section gets longer, the finer details should be removed in favour of a more definitive statement on that side of the situation. Finally, don't remove commentary from notable community figures on situations - as controversial as individuals like ZeRo and Technicals are, their input is still valued in situations like this one, especially in the latter's case given their notoriety and tendency to conduct decent research. Hope this advice finds you well. - Plague von Karma 12:05, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

Thank you for the feedback. I went overboard, especially yesterday not being as neutral as it should be. If you wish to reword it to be more neutral while containing the same information then I encourage you to do so. I also should not have deleted that irrelevant to my views. The reason I started working on this is because the amount of misinformation being spread on the Hax was discouraging. Even this page before I started working on it implied that Hax was still indefinitely banned instead of perma banned. Misinformation surrounding all this is so bad even basic information about the case Hax supporters don't know about. This page is the first result for the Hax situation on Google, it should be a place where the full story is laid bare.

Its pretty obvious with just a small amount of research that this isn't an ugly feud between two prominent players, in fact Hax has gone after way more people than just Leffen, but more a one-sided mental health crisis that was then exploited by dramatubers for views and attention. When bad faith people get needlessly promoted it spreads misinformation. This should not be a place to spread misinformation unchallenged. I understand its somewhat hard to find counterarguments as the only people still talking about, really since the original ban, are bad faith people deliberately spreading misinformation for personal gain. I'm going to be blunt here, while I should not have deleted the statements on leffen's article, to say Zero and Technicals are notable community figures, is an insult to the community. Zero has confessed to grooming minors, even to cases he was not even accused about, and legal case did not absolve him either, he has not been competitively relevant since the beginning of Ultimate's release, Zero has also embraced his hatred of the smash community. Technical is also someone who has only been on the fringes of this community, who openly speaks his hatred of the community. He is so extremely disingenuous in his arguments so much that he once stopped on of his videos to argue he should have no blame for any harassment because his videos don't actually influence people. He one of the highest promoters of the smash hatedom community, which are also the people sending death threats and harassment. What I'm saying here is there is reason to not take their words at face value, that there should be some scrutiny in how it should be presented.

Finally, I do want to say the controversy section should not be decimated. As there is no other place on the internet to get the full story of the multi year Hax saga. Again the amount of blatant misinformation spread on this story is absurd. perhaps it would be a good idea to create a separate page for all of it if there needs to be a change. Though honestly, Hax is more known for his controversies than anything, so it would be appropriate with how much is spent on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Person (talk • contribs) 21:06, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

"I'm going to be blunt here, while I should not have deleted the statements on leffen's article, to say Zero and Technicals are notable community figures, is an insult to the community."

I do understand not liking ZeRo and Technicals, especially since I don't like them either, but this is one of the instances where you do have to curb your bias towards them. While ZeRo is irrelevant and his case is certainly still unresolved, it does not get rid of the fact that he has made several statements since July 2020 that have challenged his allegations, nor does it get rid of the fact that there is evidence against what Jisu and Leffen had said, and it is still important to write down the timeline of events when it happens in order to not seem biased. In addition, while Technicals is very controversial in the community, the point remains that he has made some legitimate criticisms of how the community deals with things, even if others interpret it was out of hate for the community. I'm not going to change your opinions on them, nor do I want to, but I'm trying to say that a broken clock can still be right and controversies as big as ZeRo's or even Hax's aren't always black-and-white, and you need to try your best to keep your bias in check because of your strong biases against ZeRo and Technicals.

"What I'm saying here is there is reason to not take their words at face value, that there should be some scrutiny in how it should be presented."

While I agree with this, this also should apply to any statement that goes around on the internet, especially regarding Smasher controversies. There have been cases where people have deliberately tried spreading misinformation under the guise that they were the victim, and there have been cases where awful people in the community have made legitimate points. This is exactly why it is best to keep a neutral point of view, since at the end of the day we are trying to state what is happening, not interpreting what will come out of it. If there are people who genuinely think a view is flawed, there will be people speaking up on it (for example, the Discord screenshot that led many to accuse ZeRo and Technicals of purposefully manipulating the narrative) so there is no need to add "original" scrutiny to it.

This does bring up a related point: controversy sections should not be edited as events are going on. There are going to be many facets of a controversy that will pop up as it goes, and updating the page immediately after a comment will likely lead the page to become outdated almost immediately, and as it would require frequent updating, it could eventually lead to misinformation if no one gets to the section. In addition, it is much easier to look at the whole picture once it is all over, especially since it can also curb some biased wording that will be written in the heat of the moment.

"Finally, I do want to say the controversy section should not be decimated"

Controversy sections are never removed if a case is serious enough to report on the wiki (as in, has great effects on their competitive careers) so the section will not be removed. It just needs to be cleaned up and summarized more rather than being a real-time report. That being said, controversy sections never get their own page either, unless it's something that affects the entire Smash community (like TBH 10 Online cancellation or the June 2020 allegations). CookiesCreme 10:49, September 5, 2024 (EDT)

We are all united in the interests of thwarting misinformation, that goes without saying. Our concern before was your neutrality and improper use of sources. You have continued to show a lack of neutrality (eg. The use of snarl words and loaded language like "DramaTubers", appeal to a consensus without significant sourcing, etc), which does not abide by SW:NPOV. It isn't our place to try and psychoanalyse Hax$ beyond reporting personal statements and public diagnoses - in fact, doing more than that is arguably dangerous. There are many times you go beyond what's written and insert your PoV (eg. Giving an unqualified psychoanalytic statement), which again, isn't our wheelhouse. These are our concerns. You continue to appeal to this "hatedom" community - where? Or is it perhaps many unrelated individuals who came to their own conclusion? This is why people are concerned with your bias.

Responding to a simple statement that controversial figures can also be public figures, in reference to Technicals and ZeRo, with indignation, does not change that fact. Again, SW:NPOV. They are provably public figures - they have ample followings on multiple platforms and have contributed in various ways. That's the metric. Or is Elon Musk not a public figure because he's been the hated man of the year?

Hax is almost certainly not known more for his controversies than his works. He's done significant amounts of work for the community over the past 15+ years. Controller legislation, numerous cultural memes, the B0XX, so much. That is why I proposed flattening the controversy section: On the basis of reflecting that fact, as well as being more encyclopedic in reflecting the time. It is bloated, no disputing that. This does not mean decimating it. It merely means telling the same story in less words. - Plague von Karma 12:57, September 6, 2024 (EDT)

Alright. I think we are on the same page now Cookies and Creme. Again I apologize for any issues I caused. I do want to note Hax was the one who used the term "dramatubers" that is why I put it there. Perhaps it should be put with "in Hax's words "dramatubers"? Also I don't think the timeline will get any bigger then from now, unless something truly crazy happens. I put the recent twitter stuff because they were directly referenced with Hax's video and a rebuttal to the stalking allegation I think is notable enough. I'm really am just trying to make the article better and more accurate. Thank you for your advice.

Plague von Karma I mean no hate or offenses to you. You were like the only person maintaining the article, good job with that. I have a few words though. Hax was the one who used the term "dramatuber". I don't understand why you claim people are not harassed and it's not centralized around certain individuals. That is what a hatedome community is. I hope that is not what you meant. Again Hax was the one who used the "snarl words and loaded language" when saying dramatuber. Its Hax's words, not mine. Hax does not want to be associated with them anymore. Hax is in fact known for his controversies, that he is banned and he keeps trying to get unbanned more than anything. Most of the people who look up Hax's wiki page are doing so to look up his controversies, that's just the reality. I mean it's such a big deal that apparently every notable person in the smash community had to make a public statement on it. To remove sources would be actively malicious and go against the goal of allowing people to form their own opinions from the facts. People really do care about the minutia of the events.

I don't agree I'm using improper use of sources. The people I sourced are notable figures, people directly involved, and from Hax himself. If anything is not accurate to the source or a specific reference is not notable enough then let's discuss it. I'm fine with making the article more condensed and it should be made more neutral. I do want to say removing references would be actively malicious and should not be done. Again, the reality is the facts are biased against Hax. I'm strongly opposed to the argument that facts that don't make Hax look good should be removed because "he did so much for the community" would be excessively malicious. I don't know if that's what you're really trying to say, but it would show extreme bias, so I hope that is not what you're trying to say.

For the rest of what you're saying I'm actually not making that argument. My statement on Technicals and Zero was a personal one to you. All I'm going to say is, that you're not immune to propaganda.

I don't disagree with what you guys are saying. I went too far in some of my writings when I shouldn't have. It should be made more neutral and be condensed in a proper way. The only real issue I would have is the removal of sources or condensing of words to not be accurate to the source. Again I apologize for any issues I caused, I worked on improving that article when it really needed to be improved. It was missing some foundational info like ban statements and the like. Making the article better is all I care about here, and that includes making it neutral so people can come to their own conclusions from the facts. Thank you.

Person (talk 10:42, September 13, 2024 (EDT)