Talk:AutoAdmit

Too much nonsense

The stuff about Milbank is not notable. In fact, the board isn't very notable, so most of its information should be kept down to prominent stuff that's been written about by others (e.g. law professors and newspapers).Exeunt 07:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The milbank part is notable. Almost all the articles which talk about harassment note it in passing to demostrate that even the purportedly on topic discussions are usually wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.133.203 (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Contains harassing material

Mentioning by name the women who believe they are targetted by AutoAdmit is a type of harassment and should be avoided. The women were never named by the Washington Post article, and so the identities of the women described can only be speculated. Since the information is speculative and highly contentious, citing the women by name violates wikipedia's NPOV. On Autoadmit, Wikipedia has been listed as a way of further harassing these women in this thread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heburd (talk • contribs) 02:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

The information on the women's identities is far from speculative. Although the names are not used in the original mass media articles, the identities can be easily determined by looking at the primary sources in question. If you contact the women in question at Yale Law School and ask politely, I'm sure they would confirm the same. The thread you cited only discusses whether these persons should have a Wikipedia entry. There is certainly information about them available that is not speculative; for example, certain details about one of the women is public record as a result of her father's trial and conviction. As I noted in the thread, I am not personally interested in the matter enough to post it on Wikipedia. I simply note that such an article could be neutral, factual, and notable as per Wikipedia's guidelines. HazelrahWiki 16:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Note from the Wikipedia rules: all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view and must include only verifiable information, and no original research. The fact that a bunch of internet posters decided that something must be true and now are using Wikipedia to continue their persecution of a private individual, who has not been named in any reputible news source, does not Wikipedia-quality entry make. Read even on this page. "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." No identification of this woman or any others can be attributed to a reliable source. Anonymous internet postings and word-of-mouth do not meet Wikipedia standards. --JoelleJ 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking the Washington Post article is sufficient to describe the controversy, without performing original research, adding personal attacks to the Wikipedia, or performing original research. There should be zero tolerance for those who want to use Wikipedia to further their personal harassment campaign.

It should be clear by the username of the person who keeps putting the names back in ("Saveheide"), and who has no other Wiki edit experience, that he/she is intentionally trying to harass. That, to me, is proof enough that this page is being used for harassment. If it keeps going back in, lock it? Slapshot24 10:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The material that requires original research is being re-inserted. This discussion seems to have closed the issue. Removed. Hotjobs1980 08:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Heide Iravani's name is important. She was a big reason the controversy happened in the first place. Given the fact that her first name is revealed in the cited recording, her name is very relevant. Who are Shark Attack or Hotjobs to say otherwise? They obviously have agendas as most people in this article do. Her full name isn't even listed in the article, just "Heide," which is what was uttered by Fertik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusaderoftruth (talk • contribs) 00:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Accuracy

The women are not cited in either or the articles mentioned, in fact they spoke under the condition of anonymity. Naming them is pure conjecture. Although it is very probable that the names cited are the women described in the article since these women have been harassed by AutoAdmit, no one knows for sure since the women were never identified in either article. Furthermore, it should be noted that the AutoAdmit posters who have been harassing these women have been trying to increase the google page rank of their harassment by having the threads that mock and ridiculue them linked by wikipedia (having the thread linked by wikipedia makes it come up much higher than it would othewise). The person who originally added in their names is a regular poster on AutoAdmit (or at least someone with the same username as a regular poster on AutoAdmit who participated in the harassment), and could very well be one of the alleged anonymous posters targeting these women. Finally, the linking of a harassing thread is irrelevant, and it only further implicates that the anonymous women in the articles are the two described in the article, when that can not be verified through the cited sources. Heburd 15:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in the Google pagerank of the discussion threads or in participating in their harassment. I thought it would be of interest to Wikipedia readers to see the actual threads that inspired the controversy, so that they could determine the extent of the alleged harassment themselves rather than rely on a secondhand source. If the Wikipedia community believes this is neither helpful nor relevant information, then I have no pressing desire to see it removed. However, other Wikipedia editors should consider whether we should be limited to parroting information that has been published by major newspapers, even when the primary sources are readily available to us. HazelrahWiki 16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not just add "rel=nofollow" to the links? But isn't it a POV act on Heburd's account to want to deny googlelove to a relevant link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.78.68 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cotninued Harassment, Improper Edits (4/10/07)

It appears that Crusaderfortruth is repeatedly trying to insert the name of one of the victims of AutoAdmit's harassment. I see several problems with his campaign. First, he is making direct attacks on the motivations of other editors in his comment history (eg, "If the Heide lovers allowed to make entries about people's empty speculations about Ciolli's ethics and bar prospects, this belongs, too", and "Why remove the last two sentences other than the fact that you're Heide Iravani or Michael Fertik's buddy?"). Regardless of whether the other edits are proper, to suggest that one non-NPOV act begets another violates Wikipedia principles and civil commentary. Second, the information he is attempting to add is controversial biographical information about a living person, in violation of Wikipedia principles. Third, the information does not meet the higher stanards for attribution for material concerning living persons. If, as he alleges, the first name of a woman is mentioned in a several-hour recording available online, that does not qualify as suitable attribution to not be original research. The recording, even if it counts as "published" and "reliable", does not support his full claim without further inference. He would like to make the statement that a certain woman was part of a larger controvery; a first-name mention requires impermissible inference and original research. Fifth, the community has previously spoken, below, on this topic and reached a consensus against the information being included. Sixth, the information is irrelevant to the main point of the article; it is about the community, not about the victims of its harassment. Seventh, the proper place for a discussion is the talk page, not the edit comments. If Crusaderfortruth continues to abusively use the edit system I would ask that s/he be blocked from editing this page. Hotjobs1980 02:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How can the original threads that are still up on AutoAdmit and identified by name in the complaint be considered "original research"? They are evidence in a lawsuit.71.50.90.238 10:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WGWAG

Nowhere near enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.206.231 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary

I removed a reference to econjobrumors. A site that has no wiki page and a site has no affiliation with autoadmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.64.4.51 (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AutoAdmit. 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/20080203103848/http://www.yaledailynews.com:80/articles/view/23231 to http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/23231

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up

This article will probably be getting more attention as a result of today's news that one of a prominent conservative show's top writers resigned after being linked to extremely objectionable posts on the forum, https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/media/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff/index.html I'm going to try to write a NPOV section on that, because I think this passes WP:NOTABILITY, and with the news today, people will be looking for it in the story. SirFozzie (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This article has major neutrality problems

I am not even sure this article should be on this site, let alone the best way to go about making it more of a neutral description of what AutoAdmit actually is as opposed to a very transparent attempt to define the AutoAdmit site as something it does not appear to be.

I am strongly compelled to add the POV template for the following reasons:

• There is no evidence that the forum is for prospective law students and lawyers

  There is nothing in the article that makes clear that it ever was intended for or had such individuals, and it certainly does not appear to be now. There is a brief note in the lead that it once had sections for students and cryptocurrency with nothing to support this. If you take a look at the discussions in the forum, it is almost pure trolling. There is little serious discussion about writing or interpreting laws. It is almost exclusively threads meant to shame others, the links for which are typically to removed images and tweets, and many conversations are obsessed with negative portrayals of black people.

• The subject's only notability is controversy

  Take note of how small the history section is and how the Criticism and Controversy section is the only substantial content. If this is the only source of this subject's history, then yes there is an extreme neutrality problem.

• You need not look hard to find very offensive material on the forum

  It is strange how the "Trolling" section mentions a single critic and an odd rebuttal from AutoAdmit, when a quick review of the forum content makes very clear the nature of the community. If the forum's material is not so offensive and Leiter was being selective, why not show this or a similar image of the homepage?

  Note the "sticky" thread for the "CharlesXII (Blake Neff) Defense Fund"

It just seems like this article is destined to be a hotbed for controversy as much as the article subject. I do see some effort to combat very clear bias, but I think it would be quite a challenge to make this article truly neutral. Ender and Peter 16:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

date format

Why does this article use the dmy date format? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)