Talk:RaceFail '09

I added the big five posts (as I see it) from the central story of Racefail '09 to this page. I put them in in-line citation style. I believe that the story flows better that way, and that readers can more easily read original sources. If this page gets long, which it should to tell the full story, I don't want readers not reading original sources because they are tired of popping down to the footnotes to click a link. I used (sometimes long) quotes from these sources to let people's words speak for them. I am not comfortable at all paraphrasing or filtering the words of others regarding this issue.

Please, this sort of writing is not my strong suit, fix the grammar/style if it is required. facetofcathy May 15, 2009

I feel like the page ought to have some mention of the involvement of PNH and TNH from Tor, and of the outing of a fan by Will Shetterly. And I wonder whether it's worth mentioning things like Chromatic Realities Press, which was founded partially in response to RaceFail. Thoughts? Kass 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think all these things should be mentioned. TNH especially, since there's a mention of it on her page already and I would appreciate it if that would be put into context here. Will Shetterly and the outing should be included as well, imho, and what about an outing page, since this isn't the first time it happened. What I am wondering about at the moment: Is Mammothfail still a part of RaceFail '09 or should it have its own page? --Rodo 14:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To my mind, MammothFail is related but is its own thing -- I'd give it its own entry. But I'm open to other interpretations if others disagree... Kass 22:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The biggest challenge, to my mind, is trying to keep a narrative structure that's intelligible to a reader with no idea what this is about. There is the original discussion about cultural appropriation and then there are all the offshoot conversations. I think emphasis on the behaviour of people in EB's journal, the outing, the formation of verb noire, etc. all need to be covered along with a lot of other topics, but MammothFail likely could be covered seperately. I wonder, can we build a structure that leads to content being filled in later and encourage contributions? The next challenge is dealing with edited and deleted source material. I already had that problem in that it looks like Cease Fire was posted after sees fire, because EB deleted and re-posted or flocked and re-posted--something. --facetofcathy 22:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Which was being done whilst I wrote that! --facetofcathy 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

related to facetofcathy's question: I linked and referenced the capture of TNH's original inflammatory, and now locked, Jan 26th 2009 post. (here). What's our policy on that? If material was once public, it's okay to capture and link? or do we have a strict policy about respecting f-lock even after the fact? I'd disagree quite vehemently with the latter, since I think there's a huge difference between the two, and the claim to a "right to retroactive privacy" is often used harmfully/malevolently (e.g. for disclaiming responsibility.) It places the burden of proof on second-hand-quoters and, since those were usually the 'adversaries' in this debate, makes this proof v. vulnerable to attacks & doubts. --lian 10:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Committee response: After discussion, the committee has adopted the position that if something was initially public, then screencaps of that material are fine to include as long as nothing in the screencap otherwise violates policy. The key here is the expectation of privacy at the time the initial post was made/commented on -- if the post was originally open, there was no such expectation, and a retroactive friends-lock/removal doesn't change that. Care should be taken, as always, to present as many points of view on the issue/controversy as possible. Thus, if the screencap no longer represents the current position of the person represented, please take care to note their changed stance as well. - Melina 18:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick solution! --lian 15:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Stub?

I think this doesn't count as "stub" anymore. Even if it is not fully comprehensive, I think it is enough to count as article.--Ratcreature 19:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite may not support the statement

This new sentence: "Coffeeandink's posts on her Livejournal using her legal name have been deleted, edited, replaced and generally obfuscated on her site and elsewhere, at her request.

may need to be tweaked. In the single cite used to support the above sentence, Coffeeandink seems to state the she was *not* going to remove her legal name from her posts nor was she requesting that people do so in their own posts. In the past, before the issue of outing became a bigger topic, Coffeeandink said her response was to ask people using her legal name to change their posts to avoid outing. For future posts she would be asking that people not use her legal name. So we seem to have a different past/present/future approach to handling the issue which can be confusing.

So perhaps the section could read:

"In contrast, Coffeeandink announced that at present she was not planning on editing or removing her legal name from her LJ posts or elsewhere. In the past when people used her legal name she had asked that they edit their posts to avoid outing her, so she would be reserving that as a possible method, along with Google bombing, to lowering her profile in the future."

I suspect there are nuances that are beyond my simple glance through the single citation, so there may be better cites that could support the new sentence. --Morgandawn 01:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

May we make a motion to have Tsudnim banned? The user has been trying to malicious edit this page since August, most specifically trying to encourage others to out coffeeandink. --wistfuljane 02:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I almost asked this last time, but there's a positive aspect to seeing the proof that we (all of Fanlore's editors) will never not correct the false statements this person (whatever name they chose to use) places on this page in their quest to mold reality to suit their personal agenda. I also love the delicious irony of the fact that they are illustrating with their witty little name and their behaviour that anonymity and pseudonymity are not the same thing and that pseudonymity and sock puppetry are also not the same thing. However, I'm not going to protest if banning is decided upon by whomever decides that sort of thing. --facetofcathy 20:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I admit I feel the same glee, but I feel that it's more harmful in the longer term. What I find most harmful are not Tsudnim's false statements, though it is harmful, but his positive linking to racefail blog posts (which is basically hate speech and an example of white supremacy at its most outrageous, but subtle and dangerous manifestation) and trying to encourage others to out coffeeandink. The latter was not corrected or brought to attention until almost two months from his original edits and the former, one link still remains. I didn't and still don't know on what grounds I would be considered justified to ask for it to be removed or to remove it from the point of view of Fanlore or its committee. tl;dr I think it's long past time to request Tsudnim to be banned. --wistfuljane 21:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with you. Plus one on the call for banning. What this individual is doing is a massive derail of this page away from it's purpose as a record of these events from a fannish perspective. No amount of ironic enjoyment is worth that. --facetofcathy 03:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that Tsudnim keeps adding the same text over and over again without making any attempt to engage in discussion - and in last edit removed any and all citation support for his/her changes...and that this has been going on for months...I would support either a warning or, if the Wiki Committee feels is has handle on the events, a banning. --Morgandawn 03:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I left a warning note on his talk page. The issue is on our radar.--æþel 03:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Who has been trying to out Coffeeandink? What I've added is simply true: she used her name on her LJ for years. Some evidence is still at the Wayback Machine; if you would like a link to it in this entry, I can provide it for you. As for Shetterly's blog having been moved, he says he moved it to help Coffeeandink become pseudonymous because a page with her name on it would not disappear from Google's cache. Do you have any evidence that this is not true? If so, please add it to the entry.--User:Tsudnim 04:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, a screen grab of her use of her name would be legitimate, based on "After discussion, the committee has adopted the position that if something was initially public, then screencaps of that material are fine to include as long as nothing in the screencap otherwise violates policy." After all, it was on her own LJ. But I won't add that until Fanlore's PTB make a decision.--User:Tsudnim 04:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

as long as nothing in the screencap otherwise violates policy. It sounds like the screencap would violate the Fanlore:Identity Protection policy.--æþel 04:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The question is whether Cramer and Shetterly outed her. She admits that made changes to her blog to hide her name at http://tablesaw.livejournal.com/404850.html?thread=1182578#t1182578 ("I have locked down or edited some posts with identifying information in them. They all were posted long before RaceFail09") Does it violate Fanlore's policy to show material that the original poster posted? If so, no screen grabs of deleted material should be allowed here.--User:Tsudnim 07:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

When a fan takes good faith steps to hide previously unsecure RL information and/or decouple their fan identity from their RL identity, Fanlore has a policy of protecting their identity. If you post coffeeandink's legal name here or link to it or upload it as a screencap, you will be banned.--æþel 07:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you are using cites that don't *actually* support your assertions. In the comment that you link, coffeeandink does not "admit that she made changes to her blog to hide her name," as you assert. She "locked down or edited some posts with identifying information in them" which would "make it easy to reconstruct my name". (emphasis mine.) Having bits and pieces of information about yourself on your blog which could lead to someone *possibly* finding out your name if they tried, is completely different than making a point of connecting somebody's *full name* with their pseud, on purpose, which is why it was outing when WS did it. This is a really key point that your edits have repeatedly glossed over and/or tried to confuse, which is why I, for one, have reverted them when I've seen them. -- Liviapenn 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A screencap or a link to the Wayback Machine would establish that Coffeeandink was in the habit of using her legal name on her LJ. Her comment about "identifying information" explains why her legal name is no longer in public posts on her LJ. It seems to be true that she has not publically, explicitly admitted that she stopped using her name in public posts. But the proof is still at the Wayback Machine. Should I put a link here so you may see that's so? --User:Tsudnim 21:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A mod just told you that you would be banned for linking or posting the legal name of a fan, so... no. Look, I get what you're arguing. Your opinion is that even one slip in pseudonymity means you are fair game to be deliberately outed as publicly and loudly as possible. That's not how it works, and it's not a point of view that's going to get any traction here. The fact that WS deliberately outed Coffeeandink is not in dispute, not even by him. So please, stop adding misleading edits to this article. -- Liviapenn 06:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

She used her legal name in public posts for three years. That's hardly "one slip." Accusing Shetterly and Cramer of changing their blogs in response, but hiding the fact that Coffeeandink changed hers, seems extremely misleading. Should the paragraph about Shetterly changing his blog be deleted? --User:Tsudnim 16:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The sentence as written -- Most of Will Shetterly's posts, both on his LiveJournal and blog, regarding this outing has been deleted, edited, replaced and generally obfuscated, but outlines of his and Kramer's actions are still preserved in other bloggers' posts. doesn't explicitly criticize the action of deleting blog posts. The relevant issue is that the deletions do leave gaps in the evidence for the incident itself, whereas any deletions or edits coffeeandink might have made to old posts, etc., do not have the same impact. I think the additional sentence about motive -- to help protect Coffeeandink's identity -- does provide a positive explanation for the deletions. If one of the citations for that sentence includes discussion of why the deletions on WS and Cramer's part might not have been benign, maybe it would be good to summarize that argument in the footnote. But we really don't want to go overboard elaborating on this incident in the main text.--æþel 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Coffeeandink was out, or was outed by WS, is not in question. WS himself has said that he deliberately outed her. Second, what Aethel said about "accusing Shetterly and Cramer of changing their blogs in response".... as she said, that's not an accusation. In WS and Cramer's own words, that is what they did, and that is why they did it, and the article ascribes a positive motivation to them for doing so. In conclusion, I have no interest in discussing anything further, because I don't believe you are arguing (or editing) in good faith. You have demonstrated no interest in contributing constructively to this wiki except to repeatedly engage in edit wars on this one tiny aspect of this single page. In future, I will be making better use of my time, maybe editing the article on Teddy Bears, and if you make further malicious/unsupportable edits, they will be reverted, just like any others. -- Liviapenn 06:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of PPOV, I added a sentence to briefly summarize Shetterly's view. Is it acceptable? My edit is not an official response from the committee.--æþel 05:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the way that sentence flows into the rest of the page as it stands now. However, much more emphasis on this page on this sideshow, and the real point of the page is lost. And, I think that needs a cite as well.--facetofcathy 17:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

MammothFail

MammothFail currently redirects to RaceFail. I'd prefer to "break" that redirect and create a page specifically for MammothFail. There's certainly overlap but I think it warrants a separate page, even if it's a less detailed one...Does anyone else have thoughts? (This was previously discussed on this page, but it doesn't look like a separate page was created.) - Fandomgeographies (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I've added a number of "citations needed" notes - mostly on spots in the page where other editors had noted in brackets/parentheses that additional information or citations were needed. If anyone's inclined, please feel to work on finding cites for those - or discuss here if you have any thoughts. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

WisCon

I copied over a bunch of links to posts about WisCon in 2009 and 2010, because a previous editor had mentioned wanting to include more information...it seems like it'd be good to expand on this in the page, but I'm hoping someone who's more familiar with the incident (or even just this con?) might want to take this on. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Dead Links

I checked all external links (or at least, I tried to/think I did!) and added the dead link template where needed. I think that we can hopefully find archive links for many of these, and simply remove the others (some of which are not really needed, like the links to individuals' LJ accounts that don't go to specific posts). But that's going to be a fairly big task, so before I(/anyone else who wants to help!) start, I wanted to flag this here - any thoughts? - Fandomgeographies (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Found archive links for all but 5 of the dead links. Not sure if we should leave some/all the dead links for archival purposes, or remove them? - Fandomgeographies (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Awesome work. We leave the dead links for archival purposes but add (offline, link not archived). MeeDee (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, cool! I've sorted that out. Thanks! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

2021 Featured Article Nomination - Edit Suggestions

1. Citations needed, and citation needed flags were added during previous nomination in 2018 needs to be addressed
2. In the How it began section, the intro may need a rewrite
3. It is a sensitive topic which may upset people (IMO I do think this is more of an issue for Fanlore's social media when they're promoting the featured article - but we may want to add more detail to the intro to forewarn folks)

Late Response to facetofcathy

> I don't want readers not reading original sources because they are tired of popping down to the footnotes to click a link.

Especially since until they fix it, you can't pop down to the footnotes/references just by clicking on the numbers, you have to scroll down which can get tedious. --KTJ (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)