Talk:ASL19

Remove Name of Director and possibly the entire Controversy section

As per WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

That by itself is enough to completely remove the controversy section, at least until someone rewrites it unbiased.

I removed, but User:SunDawn keeps reverting.

Note that the allegations are from 2017. I have personally seen the judge order from July 2018, where it says "not guilty nf all charges". Yet that has not been reported anywhere, so I cannot reference it.

—behdad (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello behdad, I think I could agree to remove Bangi from the article, but what ASL19 is doing, such as settling with a female employee on 2014, how they cut ties with Bangi after the allegation, how they find Coda Societies after the debacle, how they lose their partnership, should stay.

I propose the section to be changed into:

An investigative reportage by The Verge and an open letter from anonymous former female employees who alleged workplace abuse and harassment. A freedom of information request from Ontario courts showed that allegations of abuse and sexual assault has occurred within the workplace, while ASL19 managing staffs were often complicit in covering up the alleged abuse. In one case the organisation sought out a non-disclosure agreement as early as 2015 to cover up allegations of sexual assault and harassment in the workplace. Digital rights organisation Access Now terminated their partnership with ASL19 for their RightsCon summit series in December 2017. Access Now stated they will only reengage with ASL19 once they "feel confident that any reports of misconduct have been investigated and there has been an appropriate response." The Rights Con code of conduct team has yet to change this policy.

The change removed all references to Bangi. SunDawntalk 04:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you SunDawn. Here's my edited version of yours:

An investigative reportage by The Verge and an open letter from anonymous former female employees alleged workplace abuse and harassment existed within the organization. A freedom of information request from Ontario human rights tribunal demonstrated that an allegation of abuse and sexual assault has occurred within the workplace, while ASL19 managing staffs were allegedly complicit in covering up the alleged abuse. In the one reported case the organisation sought out a non-disclosure agreement. Digital rights organisation Access Now terminated their partnership with ASL19 for their RightsCon summit series in December 2017. Access Now stated they will only reengage with ASL19 once they "feel confident that any reports of misconduct have been investigated and there has been an appropriate response." The organization has yet to change this policy.

—behdad (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree to this change. Would you please do the change? Thanks. SunDawntalk 00:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I actually enquired about the case at the Ontario human rights tribunal case; apparently it was about a alleged claim of discriminatory termination; it had nothing to do with alleged sexual assault or other abuse. The case was resolved and settled mutually. That's all. Any conclusion made is biased and needs to be removed as well. —behdad (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

External links

There are seven entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
• WP:ELCITE: access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)