The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Politics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Green PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Green PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Green PoliticsGreen Politics articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Since the article is locked, let me propose a small but important change here instead, concerning this sentence:
This led to allegations that Reddit was removing all mention of Knight and banning users who mentioned her.
I would add the following to the end:
This led to allegations that Reddit was removing all mention of Knight and banning users who mentioned her, which was later confirmed by an administrator for the website to be true.
The relevant citation for that last part, being "verge2021-03" ("Reddit activated standard processes to protect the employee from such harassment, including initiating an automated moderation rule to prevent personal information from being shared..." and subsequent text).
This is an important distinction to make because the text currently reads more as "these are unfounded allegations" rather than "this is true and confirmed by reddit itself after the site-wide protests emerged". It's a tiny change with no downside to it that shouldn't be controversial as the citation used is already in the article so if someone with edit access could make it, it would objectively improve accuracy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F0:B1C0:4503:8C6B:C35A:6C01:3C01 (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, because this was confirmed to have occurred the phrasing here implies that the allegations were unfounded, which is somewhat contradicted (although not enough since it still leaves this open to interpretation) by the later sentence "Huffman also stated that Reddit would review its relevant internal processes and attributed user suspensions to over-indexing on anti-harassment measures". Tsumugii (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
The Verge does not saying that all mention of Knight was removed on Reddit, or that all users who mentioned her were banned, in the quote you have given. Therefore, I oppose the change. I do not agree that the text of the article takes any sort of position on whether the allegations were "unfounded". We simply don't comment on it. — Bilorv (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support, but not for your reasoning... You realize "knight" is a much more common word than "challenor", right? The 2 million results isn't representative of this topic. Anyway, searching in quotes and searching both google and the news, I can't really tell which one is more popular. The number of articles that mention each are close, and the Knight articles seem newer on the whole, but only slightly. Per WP:NAMECHANGES we should change, since reliable sources are routinely using the new name and there is a strong preference to prefer the new name if the old one is not provably more common. WPscattert/c06:40, 9 June 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.
Latest comment: 4 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Hello, I would like to point out possible WP:POV violations by User:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist.
Said user has been 1RR restricted from WP:GENSEX pages for POV violations in the past since November 2023. Said user is attempting to skew the POV of the article using citations that do not match the conclusion taken in said user's edits, as well as falsely claiming that Knight had zero connections to CSA, despite the fact that Knight had a father who had sexually abused children and Knight themself had fantasies of CSA.
This may be badly structured but my point is simple: YFNS is POV pushing on a contentious topic, and has been restricted from GENSEX topics in the past.
Here are some citations used by YFNS to push false conclusions:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/24/22348255/reddit-moderator-blackout-protest-aimee-knight-uk-green-partyhttps://www.thepinknews.com/2021/03/25/reddit-aimee-knight-challenor-admin-subreddit-blackout-protest-backlash-transphobia/
The only "transphobia/doxing/harassment allegations" are by reddit themselves, demonstrated by quotes in said articles, which explicitly stated that reddit had faulty filters and failed to check Knight's background.
Thank you. Please excuse me for some mistakes, I am new to WP. 74.142.15.155 (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here are some citations regarding Knight's father:
Please focus on the article content. If you have a conduct complaint about another editor, take it to their user talk page. I'm not sure whether to respond to your conduct concerns or your article content concerns. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
To start, I hope you realize you've been reverting to a version of the page that was midway through my fixes removing unsourced statements...
In terms of adding statements unsupported by references, detail specific ones here. I'll note that you keep re-adding in a sister the source doesn't actually mention. In terms of POV violations, you keep removing statements from the Verita report sympathetic to her. Finally, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY - in the lead we summarize the entire body, the shortened lead doesn't do that.
Knight themself had fantasies of CSA. - this is a very serious accusation that not a single source supports. What I'm assuming you're referring to is tweets by her husband, or possibly if doubtfully a hacker, but not her.
Those sources are considered reliable, the ones you have provided are not, apart from the telegraph which is already in the article.
