Talk:Alec Holowka/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not a conflict of interest

Just a fan, and hope he sees it. - Access (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

References

First time I've used references, I used to write on Wiki when they were encouraged but werent as mandatory, how else do I need to clear them up, I thought I did pretty good. Cheers. - Access (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Aquaria-screenshot-veil.png

The image File:Aquaria-screenshot-veil.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Imok.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Marian status

If you search out this game through Google, what appears to be an official Facebook page turns up for it (Marian and the Fantastic World of Dreams). The issue is, its last update appears to be in 2013 and it would seem (though the site used for the news post apparently no longer exists) that the game is no longer in active development. 2602:306:3BA6:F330:7189:8A40:D53E:A7E3 (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Gameography is Out of Sequence, poorly written

The games should really be in chronological order and they all need to mention their year of release. In the cases of Aquaria and Night in the Woods, readers should also probably get the dates of Night in the Wood's Kickstarter launch, and Aquaria's role in the original Humble Indie Bundle, respectively. Without info such as this, it's incredibly difficult to understand the relative significance of each Holowka project. If you're coming in cold and want to understand anything at all, you're going to have to click through each individual thing. 74.110.163.194 (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alec Holowka. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081105021416/http://www.4colorrebellion.com/archives/2006/02/16/4cr-interview-thompsonsoft/ to http://www.4colorrebellion.com/archives/2006/02/16/4cr-interview-thompsonsoft
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216014130/http://www.igf.com/2007finalistswinners.html to http://www.igf.com/2007finalistswinners.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's not

restore BLP violating content here>-- Deepfriedokra 15:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So discussion of whether to merely mention in the article that allegations exist, which have been reported in mainstream publications such as Newsweek is somehow against BLP and all mention even on the talk page must be removed? Is that the position you're taking? 216.154.35.29 (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The material removed was only substantiated by linking to a tweet, not by Newsweek nor any other publication, mainstream or otherwise. That, and your unsubstantiated suggestion of bias on the part of another editor. You will likely get better results if you assume good faith on the part of other editors even if you disagree with your edits. 65.183.99.20 (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that, according to Newsweek, the tweet refers to "a past experience of sexual abuse from a previous partner" rather than Holowka and the only other sexual abuse alleged in the Newsweek article is in reference to Jeremy Soule. Allegations of sexual abuse by Holowka fail WP:GRAPEVINE. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The Twitter allegation has now been covered by two secondary sources: https://www.newsweek.com/culture and https://www.theverge.com/entertainment. Neither one strikes me as a particularly great source. I think the Newsweek piece might count as a "news blog" (WP:NEWSBLOG says blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process). As for The Verge, WP:RSP says its a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles but an accusation against a living person doesn't fit into any of those categories. In any case neither source seems to have done any original reporting, they're just noting what was said on Twitter. I'd lean slightly towards waiting for more/better sources before publishing anything. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Update: The Verge has actually run two pieces about the controversy. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the Culture section of Newsweek counting as news blog, given how Newsweek describes the section as "Opinion and Analysis about Culture, Style, Fashion ..." –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• A correction: it's been covered by more than two sources at this point: http://www.Salon.com http://TheDailyDot.com, http://Vice.com/games, and several gaming sites: http://Eurogamer.net, http://Gamesindustry.biz, http://IGN.com, http://GameSpot.com, http://PCGamesN.com, and others.

So, coverage is increasing, but a note that Salon and Vice have "no consensus on reliability" per WP:RSP and The Daily Dot is only considered reliable for "internet culture" (and the gaming sites aren't listed on WP:RSP).

See also WP:BLPCRIME which says For relatively unknown people, 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. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I first made a section on the allegations, but I've come around to the "wait and see" camp. As expected, this page saw an increase in visitors, with about 40k views in the last couple of days and we want to serve the viewers as best as we can. However, they came because they saw the same tweet and articles as we are debating to use as sources. Therefore, we are not serving up new information to anyone. At worst, we are creating a false sense of confirmation by echoing what they just read. I expect that this case will evolve with e.g quotable statements from people in the industry and factual consequences of the allegations which can eventually be used in the article, but right now we don't have enough material to work with. EverGreg (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Kudos to those who recently edited in a sourced statement about "Night in the Woods" dropping collaboration with Holowka. This is factual, in line with WP-guidelines AFAIK and much much better than my own misguided attempt to "cover the case". EverGreg (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder: Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper "Wikipedia does not report on everything going on in the world today." You will have plenty of time to update this once the news settles. HSukePup (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Death

Alec Holowka has passed away on August 31, 2019. A quick sweep of her Twitter profile confirms its legitimacy, although no news sites have reported on it yet. For obvious reasons, I can't edit the page due to vandalism. 50.71.158.221 (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

IGN did. [1] --Masem (t) 22:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

References

I'm wondering if/when the cause of death can be stated definitively. I wonder if a coroner or another authority will post a report?

I know Russia Today (RT) posted an op-ed by Igor Ogorodnev https://www.rt.com/op-ed/467831-zoe-quinn-gamergate-alec-holowka-suicide/ where he uses this case to argue against public shaming on Twitter. Op-eds are generally NOT reliable for facts, so I would only use the op-ed to report on Ognorodnev's position/opinion, and not use it to source anything about the death itdelf. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue an op-ed like this should only be included if the author is notable, and even then with some hesitation. Sam Walton (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I can check if the author has an article on RUwiki WhisperToMe (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The high quality sources still aren't calling this a suicide. As for using the opinions in the op-ed: the author spends the back half of the column rehashing Gamergate nonsense about Quinn. This is in line with his other work (QAnon: not so bad?, Faith Goldy: maybe not a Nazi?), so i'd say it would be WP:UNDUE to include such a fringe-y source even for the viewpoints of author. Nblund ^talk 14:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Are the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, etc having editorials on these? If not, RT seems to be the most prominent publication with an editorial with this, as far as I know. (I am aware of its Russian, right-wing-supporting bias, which is why I always specify the full name). Remember that a designation of "fringe" depends on the sum of sources reporting on that particular topic (although for hard sciences obviously only proper science publications are counted). Other publications have plenty of info on Faith Goldy and QAnon so RT can be dismissed in those topics. Without other editorials "competing" with thos one, the RT source, with its pro-Gamergate opinion, wouldn't really be fringe here.

As for the cause of death, https://www.pcgamer.com/night-in-the-woods-developer-alec-holowka-has-died/ PC Gamer stated "She did not specify the cause of death, but alluded to suicide, saying that Holowka had recently been supported by crisis services." - So far it doesn't say it definitively, but that suicide is hinted at. It might help to find other publications also saying it was hinted at.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... I can't seen to find Ogorodnev (apparently Игорь Огороднев?) on RUwiki. He seems to have been with RT for a long time, but I would think the Russians would know him better compared to Americans (who hardly ever watch RT). CNN and Fox News commentators like Anderson Cooper, Christiane Amanpour, LZ Granderson, Shep Smith, etc. have articles, but this guy doesn't seem to yet. I wonder if RUwiki people know whether Ogorodnev would be eligible for an article over there... WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

By that logic, we would have to treat every nonsense idea as plausible unless it was debunked by the mainstream press. We're not grading on a curve here. The author's main argument - that Holowka killed himself because the world was cruel to him - is a dangerous speculation that is not consistent with contemporary understandings of suicide. There's no time limit here. Presumably, we'll have reliable sources that can confirm a cause of death at some point in the future. We don't need to resort to spreading gossip. Nblund ^talk 15:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

1. I personally wouldn't even include "Ogorodnev said that Holowka killed himself because the world was cruel to him", I would simply say something like "Ogorodnev argued that people should be careful before joining shaming campaigns on Twitter" (the end, no comment on Ogorodnev's internal analysis of the case itself).

2. We need the mainstream press because that's how a viewpoint/opinion is identified as fringe. Without such guidance, Wikipedians strictly speaking can't tell whether it's fringe. Jimbo Wales wrote how to identify whether a source is fringe here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight

• "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" (hence, mainstream media)
• "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"
• "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

With hard sciences we can limit the "counted" sources as only people qualified in the subject, so flat earth, intelligent design, etc are easily dismissed. With social sciences and humanities it gets more complicated: it's all about the weight/numbers of overall adherents.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

His argument doesn't really make sense without the assumption about the reasons for the suicide. No part of that guideline would suggest that we should go ahead and cite a single editorial from a source that is not considered reliable for controversial topics, solely because it's the only one we can find. At best, what you're saying is "we have no evidence to make a determination". Given the sensitivity of the topic, we should err in favor of leaving it out. Nblund ^talk 15:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

While I do understand your point of view, I think it is disinformation to leave out the very likely cause of death for mr. Holowka. Coming from both the news article referenced at footnotes of the page and the sister who said, I quote "We tried our best to support Alec, but in the end he felt he had lost too much." [2], it is likely they meant to say he took his own life, not only that but at the time he was being shamed online by a lynch mob, fired from his job, possibly even lost some of his friends. That is proven it can affect someone's mental stability [3] and as we know Alec was already mentally unstable and had to go seek for Psychiatric help. All of this considered, it is highly suggestive he died from suicide, he did not suddenly have a heart attack in the middle of the night is what I mean, you get the idea. My suggestion is that since there were no mentions of suicide in neither the article nor the tweet provided, but it is instead implicit, then the article could be edited to reflect that, instead of "Alec Holowka killed himself/hanged himself", we could write "It is implied Alec Holowka took his own life". Also, I didn't check on Zoe Quinn's talk page to see if someone made the same statement I wrote right here, so I apologize if I repeated something someone said elsewhere Epicgamerbro97 (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

We can't make that claim based on a tweet. Nblund ^talk 19:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Alec's sister confirmed the cause of death a suicide here ' ' [4]. I'd also like to clarify that on my footnote I cited source 14 instead of 15 (which was the link I gave above). XNanoWarriorx (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Grave/Portico

What happened to his work on Portico (formerly Grave)? [5] czar 04:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019

Add date of birth, 30th October 1983. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynw4DYg_w48&t=40 UnfortunateKitty (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. YouTube is not a reliable source. — MRD2014 (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I want to clarify that if a video is officially published on YouTube by a respectable organization, it is reliable, but if it is self-published in YouTube, it is not reliable (and if someone else other than the copyright holder posted it, it's a COPYVIO and should not be linked). It's easier to say "YouTube is not reliable" because much of the general public doesn't get the nuance. :(

In regards to self-published content about oneself, the rules at WP:BLP apply for people having sources about themselves published.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done The link is a video of the subject so he's reliable for basic details about himself. Ҥ (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The protection mentions "to promote compliance with the policy on biographies of living people", this is quite poor taste for someone that just died and has a grieving family. Please change it asap to a more appropriate tag. TridentMkII (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

While BLP technically still applies here, I agree and have changed the lock from -blp to simply pp-semi. Sam Walton (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

More recent free photos

The article is still using his 2007 IGF photo that I originally uploaded. Here are some more recent free images taken by the GDC (I'm too busy to upload/edit them myself) -

• Holowka and Scott Benson presenting the 2019 IGF GOTY award (to Lucas Pope)
  • https://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/33560758828/
  • https://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/33560758718/
  • https://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/33560758578/
  • https://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/33560758528/
  • https://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/46713345354/
  • https://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/46713345104/
  • https://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/32494582377/
  • https://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/32494581867/
  • https://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/32494581427/
  • https://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/32494581597/

• NITW wins the 2018 IGF Narrative and GOTY awards
  • commons:Category:Independent_Games_Festival_2018
  • https://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/40063993225/
  • https://www.flickr.com/photos/officialgdc/40057095705/

• hahnchen 19:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I cropped one of the 2019 photos to make File:Alec_Holowka_2019_IGF.jpg and put it in the infobox. starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Cause of death

Everyone knows what it was, I think, but we still need a WP:RS saying so specifically before we can describe it that way in the article ourselves. PCGamer says (talking about his sister) that she did not specify the cause of death, but alluded to suicide, saying that Holowka had recently been supported by crisis services, which probably isn't enough by itself (though I guess we could quote that part if we really had to.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I would be OK with quoting it if nothing else comes forward. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Vice is saying that his death was suicide. GamerPro64 04:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Vice's article says 'it was revealed' and provides a self-referential link. It is written by Patrick Klepek, who covers video games, and "secretly wishes he was writing about horror movies every day.​" Not reliable for a BLP. Elizium23 (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I would also suggest that this article may be covered by Gamergate general sanctions and we should all be extremely cautious about the lurid coverage spewing forth in social media and gamer communities. Elizium23 (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree on the GG stuff. Wired has also stated that Holowka killed himself, but I also don't see any harm in waiting for maybe one more RS to confirm that. Nblund ^talk 16:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously due to bias the RT and anything criticising Quinn is inadmissabile, and on that basis I totally agree as should everyone, so therefore Quinn shouldn't be investigated as there is no crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrspaceowl (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: the allegations section

It sort of feels like inviting harassment to cite Zoe specifically and not anyone else--I'm not a skilled enough editor to address this personally (don't even have an account obviously), but is there any way someone could link to additional remarks from former co-workers or partners? There were certainly a bunch on Twitter and I imagine giving the sudden, shocking nature of this some RS would've covered more than just the clickbaitiest bits. 161.11.160.44 (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, we'd have to find those sources first, Vice does say: In the days that followed, others, including people who worked with him, came forward to corroborate Quinn’s claims, while Kotaku goes into a bit more detail on Benson's reaction, saying On Wednesday, fellow Night in the Woods developer Scott Benson said he and his wife Bethany Hockenberry were cutting ties with Holowka, noting in an update to Kickstarter backers that there was much more to the story than just one accusation (actually, the latter is already in the article.) I know Benson went into even more detail on a Medium post, but we can't really touch on it unless it's covered by reliable sources, and we'd need to rely on those to know how to turn it into a one-sentence summary anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Vice and Kotaku are not reliable sources2800:810:548:3B6:FDD6:5169:E7A7:A3D1 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources states regarding Vice "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice magazine or Vice Media websites, including Motherboard and Vice News. It is generally regarded as more reliable for arts and entertainment than for politics." Kotaku is not listed on this page. The reality is that there is scant coverage of the suicide, limiting what we can say in this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding citation 11...

Hey, no ill intent assumed - but regarding the statement "affirmed that other corroborating evidence related to the accusations had been presented to them", the source provided does not appear to substantiate this statement. 207.98.237.182 (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

So Kotaku said that Benson and Hockenberry just noted that there was much more to the story, but Polygon quotes the statement directly and says "the Night in the Woods team announced it had cut ties with the developer based off 'allegations [that] are extremely plausible and just about all of it we’ve corroborated with other sources.' I've added the Polygon source to the end of that sentence. Nblund ^talk 14:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I was only concerned with what appeared to be either a missing or incorrect citation, the correction is appreciated. 207.98.237.182 (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Abuse accusations and death

Just FYI: The accusations against Holowka aren’t about sexual abuse, but about supposedly acting abusive in a relationship.

This is clear not just from reading Zoe Quinn’s tweet, but also from the sources linked to in the article.

I wanted to change the article to reflect this, but it was locked.

I’d suggest a change from:

“In August 2019, Scott Benson announced that the Night in the Woods development team had cut ties with Holowka after sexual and physical abuse allegations were made against him by Zoe Quinn.”

To:

“In August 2019, Scott Benson announced that the Night in the Woods development team had cut ties with Holowka after allegations about a past abusive relationship were made against him by Zoe Quinn.”

Since that is what the sources reflect, and since the article is factually incorrect as it stands. Thoughts?

Another issue is the way he died. According to all the sources used in the article, Holowka committed suicide. I haven’t changed that yet, but shouldn’t the article reflect this? Any arguments against? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.107.12.99 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Polygon reports that the accusations included sexual assault. It doesn't sound like the suicide stuff has been confirmed by any reliable source. This should wait. Nblund ^talk 01:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Polygon is relying on the same tweet which Newsweek says refers to alleged sexual abuse by Jeremy Soule (against Nathalie Lawhead) and an unnamed "previous partner" of Quinn's, not Holowka. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Quinn did say that Holowka would regularly be mean and violent...during sex. And in addition to Polygon, IGN and Ars Technica also characterized the tweet as a sexual assault allegation against Holowka. But it's true that Quinn did not, in her statement, describe Holowka's actions as sexual abuse or sexual assault. (For someone just skimming the statement, it may seem like she did: she does use the term "sexual assault" three times...but she actually only uses the term in reference to another unnamed person who assaulted her.)

Anyway, I guess if it were up to me I'd keep it as it is for now: Holowka was accused of physical and emotional abuse by Zoë Quinn. WanderingWanda (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be balanced by mentioning that there are problem with Zoe's claims, e.g. https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/09/13/private-messages-reveal-dc-comics-writer-zoe-quinns-abusive-behavior-during-relationship-with-alec-holowka/ and https://www.thepostmillennial.com/exclusive-zoe-quinns-allegations-are-falling-apart/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.248.124.117 (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Those sources aren't reliable enough to pass the high WP:RS standard for a WP:BLP - that is to say, they lack a well-established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Russia Today and The Post Millennial

Regarding this edit: Russia Today is listed at WP:RSP as "generally unreliable for controversial topics". The Post Millennial is too new to have an entry, but considering that they plagiarized their own editorial guidelines, I'd say its a safe bet that they are also not suitable for a BLP.Nblund ^talk 16:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Post Millennial has also been cited as hiring editors with histories in Russian sourced misinformation. It is not a legitimate source at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.3.148 (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Why the Zoe mention?

This is in the page (March 11 2020):

She also stated that Holowka "said he wished the best for Zoë and everyone else".

I'm not going to wade into the hows and whys of the controversy surrounding his death being wiped from his page. But I do question why Zoe of all people gets mention, as if she was a special someone he wanted to reach out to just before his death, rather than a probable cause of his suicide. If Zoe's name is worth keeping, then so is the controversy. Keeping her name in makes the page appear compromised by politics, as if Team Zoe has control over his Wikipedia page. One sentence explaining the accusation and the controversy should suffice. Or else, remove Zoe's name. 203.109.108.32 (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A paragraph beginning with "In August 2019, Holowka was accused of physical and emotional abuse by Zoë Quinn." is already in the article. Maybe you missed it? - MrOllie (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation Issues

Sources 1 and 14 are identical, and the Wired Op-Ed they both link to provides no sources to corroborate the claim that cause of death is known to be suicide. I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia's editing rules in regards to articles where sanctions have been imposed; a talk page section regarding potential article problems seems a more prudent first approach than silent editing. InkTide (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The source says Holowka took his own life as fact. It is an op-ed, but news sources are not required to divulge their sources and this one seems reliable and true to me. However, I do see that this is quite a sensitive issue so I can see that this is a valid cause for concern, and more opinions would be good. For now I've just merged the two instances of the same source and made no other changes. — Bilorv (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Issue

This article has no mention that the rape claims to him from Zoe Quin are False.--2600:1004:B098:98FB:81FE:F476:B973:EC8D (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Could anyone explain why it’s not in the article.--2600:1004:B098:98FB:81FE:F476:B973:EC8D (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Please present reliable sources supporting your suggested change. — Bilorv (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Opening, Newsweek reliability

Hi, I think it's very weird not mentioning the suicide in the opening. I think the way I described it was fair, neutral, and entirely based on what's in various sources. I don't think it's WP:SYNTH to mention the sexual accusations in connection with the suicide as basically every single news report on his suicide mentions it happened after the accusations of sexual assault levied against him. We could remove the name of the person making the accusations from the intro if people would be more comfortable with that, but I also kind of feel that'd feel like an attempt to protect the accuser from more hate, which might be laudable on the one hand, but doesn't feel "encyclopedic" on the other. Also, is Newsweek really considered "generally unreliable"? Is this a policy/guideline or just personal opinion? It certainly doesn't have to be in the article if that's how Wikipedia feels about it - and there's nothing in there not reported in other sources. Thisisarealusername (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I will answer my question about Newsweek myself: this RfC from 2019 [6] says "there is clear consensus that Newsweek is not generally reliable post–2013." The article is post-2013, but doesn't contain any information that's disputed as I understand it, so I'm not sure there's any point in removing it, but I will not object if anybody else decides there is.Thisisarealusername (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The sentence in question is plainly BLP-sensitive (it implicitly blames his death on a living person), so it definitely cannot be cited to Newsweek. If we have BLP-quality sources we can use those, but if so then there's no reason to leave Newsweek there. --Aquillion (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that the sentence construction implies a simple cause-and-effect, blaming Quinn (and only Quinn) for Holowka's suicide, but also inviting the question of whether the accusations were true or not. Those are implications that the sources don't make. The body is nuanced and includes more details: that the other developers cut ties with him, that the publisher postponed physical copies of the game, that there was corroborating evidence, that Holowka had been battling disorders, and that he seemed to bear no ill-will towards Quinn or anyone else. I'm not opposed to something in the lead, but the lead section is supposed to summarize the body and "suicide because of accusations" doesn't do that. Woodroar (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thisisarealusername, regarding your edit summary here, I don't see why Quinn should be singled out. Multiple sources (for example, Kotaku and Wired) say that others made accusations as well. (Wired even named one.) And multiple sources repeatedly mention co-developers Scott Benson and Bethany Hockenberry. There's Finji chief exec Rebekah Saltsman, too. It would very likely be UNDUE to name them all—this is the lead of the article on Alec Holowka, after all—and NPOV/BLP violations to single out Quinn, especially in a way that implies they were solely to blame. Woodroar (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason Zoe Quinn should be "singled out" is, I think, obvious - because she is the one who first made an accusation, and it was this accusation that was reported on the most widely and in most detail. The others seem like footnotes in comparison - they all followed as reactions to Zoe Quinn's initial accusations. I'm not going to re-add her name in the opening because the one thing I don't want to do on Wikipedia is get stuck in endless arguments over contentious issues that don't really affect me, but I think it's weird to say that mentioning she accused him is saying "she's to blame," that he committed suicide doesn't mean he wasn't guilty of what he was accused of doing. I might be misunderstanding your intent but to me it seems like what you're doing is attempting to protect Zoe Quinn from more hate, which might seem like a laudable thing to do, but I don't think that kind is outside of the scope of things that should be considered when editing an encyclopedia. (the question quickly becomes "who deserves to be protected from hate?" and that seems like opening a can of worms.) Thisisarealusername (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

My concern is making sure that the article complies with our BLP, NPOV, and other policies and guidelines. Phrasing it as "suicide after accusations" implies some kind of sole cause and effect when our sources mention so many other factors. Breaking down the sources we use for Holowka's death:

• Ars Technica leads with an update from Holowka's sister and the "mood and personality disorders" quotation, and in the original article it quoted Benson in the second paragraph and then mentioned Quinn in the third.
• The BBC also leads with "mood and personality disorders", and later mentions Benson and Hockenberry but not Quinn.
• Kotaku leads with "multiple people accused him of abusive behavior" in the first paragraph and the "mood and personality disorders" quote in the second. It only mentions Quinn in the fourth paragraph, along with Benson and Hockenberry.
• Wired mentions Quinn and another accuser in the second paragraph and Benson in the third.
• PC Gamer mentions "mood and personality disorders" in the second paragraph, and Quinn is only referenced obliquely through the "he wished the best for Zoë and everyone else" quote near the end.
• IGN leads with the tweet from Holowka's sister and also only references Quinn via the "best for Zoe" quote.

It seems to me that if any one factor deserves to be emphasized, it's Holowka's mental health. But I'm reluctant to suggest that because those claims ultimately come from his sister, even if they are widely covered in reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Suicide in the lead

I get this is contentious, but - shouldn't the allegations and the suicide be mentioned in the lead? The whole "brouhaha" surrounding it has been referred to as the "the video game industry's #metoo". Thisisarealusername (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Benadryl?

Did he really die to a Benadryl OD? I checked the sourced article and couldn't find a reference to it. Gamerman2360 (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing that was vandalism. I changed it to Suicide, which is as much as the source says. Woodroar (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

wonder how many projects he worked on that aren't listed here?

Found him listed as the musician in the end credits for a flash game called The Drunken Assassin I found on Flashpoint. it was a really nice musical score, went online to see if they created a album for it so I wouldn't have to scrap the files and learned about Alec's discography and unfortunate fate. 142.189.39.246 (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't mention that the allegations were false

Hey Mr. Ollie,

I noticed that you've reverted my addition to the article regarding the status of the allegations related to Zoe Quinn. I respect your intention to maintain the quality of Wikipedia's content, but I would like to offer a counter-argument and explain my rationale for including those references.

Verifiability (WP:V): The information I added is backed by references, namely from The Post Millennial and Niche Gamer. The latter, in particular, focuses on niche areas of the gaming world and has been cited in various Wikipedia articles in the past. If we're going to question the credibility of every single source, then we need to have a clear basis and reasoning. You provided no such clear basis and didn't use the talk page.

Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV): The addition does not skew the information in any particular direction but rather states the alleged development on the matter. It provides balance to the article by showcasing different viewpoints available on the subject. No Original Research (WP:NOR): The information added is not based on personal opinions or interpretations but directly cited from the aforementioned sources.

Bringing New Reliable Sources (WP:RS): In the ever-evolving world of digital journalism, new media sources come up and gain traction. While older, more established sources have their place, newer sources can also offer valuable insights and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Avoiding Edit Warring (WP:EW): I would like to remind both of us of Wikipedia's three-revert rule. Continuously reverting the page without discussing the merits might lead us to breach this principle. I'm keen on a productive discussion and arriving at a consensus.

Talk Page (WP:TALK): Before further reversions, I would suggest we take this matter to the article's talk page and see if other editors can weigh in, giving us a broader consensus.

If you have concerns about the reliability or the neutrality of the sources, I'm more than happy to discuss this in detail on the talk page. Let's collaboratively work to enhance the article while respecting the guidelines and principles that Wikipedia stands for. 100DashSix (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The Post Millennial and Niche Gamer are fringe blogs, not reliable sources. Even if they were, they do not actually support the changes you are making to the page. The Post Millenial has been dismissed at WP:RSN several times, and Niche Gamer is more Gamergater garbage. Much of your talk page post is irrelevant or wrong. Did you have ChatGPT write it maybe? - MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with the content doesn't mean they're unreliable sources. Your talk page is riddled with complaints about your inability to WP:NPOV. Your conduct thus far in starting WP:EW without engaging in good faith on the talk page first is a continuation of this. As such, the edit will remain but you can discuss it in good faith, which you should've done from the beginning. You're also not the owner of this page and are violating WP:OWN. Also criticizing the effort I'm going to to try and communicate with you clearly is a dick move. 100DashSix (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

My talk page is riddled with complaints from linkspammers. I'm rather proud of it. I also note that you didn't answer the question. MrOllie (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You can either engage in the conversation or cede the point and wait for a third party unrelated to you (and unsummoned by you) to actually engage in a discussion. 100DashSix (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I have many options aside from those two, for example reporting this to a relevant noticeboard, which I'm currently leaning toward. MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"The 'big deal' is your failure to follow basic Wikipedia policy...That means it is time to walk away and find something else to do." Who is it that said that? Wikipedia is quite clear that you shouldn't have don't what you did, and you have a tendency of acting in bad faith. The sources I linked show that the allegations in question were false and improve the NPOV of the article. Removing them harms it. 100DashSix (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

If I'm so horrible, you'll find WP:ANI is the place to report it. In the meanwhile you should knock off the personal attacks, they're not going to make anyone think your sources are reliable or actually support the changes you're making to the article. MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I already made my comment regarding that clear on your talk page, that you accuse others of that but consider your own words WP:NPA against yourself. I'm sure you're aware you need to assume good faith and not engage in personal attacks yourself, like calling me a link-spammer and violating WP:AGF. I don't care about WP:ANI, I'm more likely to care about WP:DRN, if you've given up on trying to discuss this. Why did you ignore the talk page in the first place? 100DashSix (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

My talk page is the place to talk to me, not to make vague complaints. No one will see them there. MrOllie (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd take it more seriously, but you're insulting me there, and here. Regardless I stand behind the edit and I welcome discussing it. The central point is that the timeline claimed by Quinn is disproven by screenshots and her own Tweets and thus the claims as-stated are false. This is incredibly pertinent in the section where Alec Holowka killed himself over the allegations. The citations are reliable and the content as shown is as accurate as the other citations on the page. 100DashSix (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be pertinent if there were reliable sources that made the claim, but there aren't - just the usual unreliable gamergate affiliated sites attacking Quinn as they so often do. Out of context screenshots and tone policing the victim don't prove anything, which is why reliable sources didn't pick it up. MrOllie (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with MrOllie that any claims would need to be supported by reliable, secondary sources—and that we would need to summarize what the sources actually say. Woodroar (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)