RationalWiki talk:Community Standards

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>

, (new)

Revision history

Please do not archive this section

For guidelines and their discussions that passed see Passed1 .

For guidelines and their discussions that did not pass see Superseded1.

For the rewrites and their discussions during January 2009, see the revamp and its talk page and archive, an early draft here, and further discussions here, plus the voting discussion.

Block?

Copied from here

Could you please block my account? --CPAdmin1 18:12, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Okay I'll leave email enabled if you ever want it reversed. Farewell and good luck with the future. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 18:14, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Tim, feel free to sock up to ask us to unblock you at any time, and I second the good luck wish.-caius (pirate) 18:17, 2 January 2009 (EST)

I have undone the block, retire if you want, but this isn't a circumstance that we "block" for. tmtoulouse 18:28, 2 January 2009 (EST)

I have reblocked him with no little boxes checked. If he wants to be blocked let him. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 18:30, 2 January 2009 (EST)

I feel pretty strongly about this, and am willing to wheel war about it, but lets try it the more productive way. RW has a long standing history of avoiding blocks as much as possible. I spent hours of my life writing an extension that allowed vandal control without the need to block. Vandals are regularly unblocked, or blocked for only a few hours. Blocks for personal reasons have always been done by the individual who wants to be blocked. Self-blocks are fine by me, as long as the person is a sysops they can unblock themselves. But a block of a non-sysops for any significant amount of time has never been done, and goes against both written and de facto policy. Why should we violate all of that for a user who doesn't even want to participate here? tmtoulouse 18:39, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Because he said please. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 18:41, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Really??? tmtoulouse 18:42, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Demote Tim and let him block himself, then. 'tis made of win. --Robledo 19:04, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Tim gets annoyed when I demote him. - $\pi$ 19:06, 2 January 2009 (EST)

It has been on the drop down list since September 2007. Before I joined and probably before everyone was sysoped on sight. -$\pi$ 19:09, 2 January 2009 (EST)

And it is always a self-block, blocking a non-sysops user for any length of time is something we have gone out of our way to avoid again and again. I think it is a horrible idea to fundamentally alter our policy for a user, even more so a user who maligns our site and doesn't want to participate. If he wants to leave, then he can leave. tmtoulouse 19:18, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Silly. If he doesn't want to edit he can just stay away. Toast 19:11, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Blocking is teh silly - perhaps the Tim brings the idea over from CP?. As the crispy muffin says, if you don't want to edit, don't. I have an unblock window open in another tab and will do so. We respect "retired" templates, etc., but why "block"? ħuman 22:52, 2 January 2009 (EST)

If he's allowed to block himself, then what's the difference between that and asking someone else to block him? This whole conversation seems a little silly. JazzMan 23:00, 2 January 2009 (EST)

That is my feelings exactly. $\pi$ 23:03, 2 January 2009 (EST)

If you block yourself you can unblock yourself, and it also makes the record very clear about who is doing what. tmtoulouse 23:07, 2 January 2009 (EST)

There's just no need to block, with the vandal thing & Tor. Toast 23:11, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Agreed though I think there is a couple parallel issues, one being vandals and blocks, and the other being what Tim seems to be asking for which is a POINT type thing. tmtoulouse 23:14, 2 January 2009 (EST)

No, it isn't to make a point, and why on earth do you care if I'm blocked? --CPAdmin1 23:42, 2 January 2009 (EST)

I think you see the block as being allegorical of your parting/struggle, it is a nice narrative, very Shakespearean and all that....and I have explained several times why I care. It is nothing to do with you but our site policy. We have standards and policy that we try to live up to, and applying it or ignoring it randomly is not a good idea. Isn't that one of the problems CP has? tmtoulouse 23:45, 2 January 2009 (EST)

No, it's to remind me not to edit. And if it is policy to not block people who want to be blocked, then it is bad policy. It doesn't help the site at all. If you don't block me, then I'll probably just end up blocking the url on my computer. --CPAdmin1 23:50, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Well that is your prerogative, of course, the purpose of this discussion is to determine if it is our policy, and if it should be changed one way or another. I have stated my thoughts, others are stating theirs. If a convincing case can be made I will change my mind. So far I haven't really seen the case made yet. tmtoulouse 23:52, 2 January 2009 (EST)

How about because the policy serves no real purpose. It doesn't help RW in any positive way. It is annoying, and I don't se a rational basis for it's existence. Does it make sense to have a rule just because it is there and you don't see why it shouldn't? --CPAdmin1 23:57, 2 January 2009 (EST)

The reason is that "blocking" is a sledgehammer approach where often a scalpel is better. That is why I spent a week creating the vandal break. The block log is the ultimate "walk the walk" statement of a wiki and how it is run. CP's block log reveals a lot about its character. The fact that our block log fits on one page says a lot about ours. We do not block users. Every block is a black mark on our record and our integrity. tmtoulouse 00:00, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Mine fits on one very long page. $\pi$ - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 00:04, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Sorry our "current blocks" :), our block log is much longer....but it is full of good will and cheer. Another example of how we are "different." tmtoulouse 00:06, 3 January 2009 (EST)

(Undent)Summary of my point: the difference is you saying "I don't want to edit here anymore" which is fine and your choice, versus us saying "well you can't edit here anymore." We don't slam the door on anyone even Fall Down.tmtoulouse 00:13, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I always though our standards and policy is to ignoring or applying things randomly. $\pi$ 23:48, 2 January 2009 (EST)

I think that is more a reflection on our tendency to do a "ask the mob" routine when there is conflict, or our fairly abstract "standards" system. tmtoulouse 23:50, 2 January 2009 (EST)

<undent> Tim, if you don't want to edit RW, just "don't". No problem. Why do we have to do some administrative thing to remind you not to edit here? That's just silly. You don't want to edit, you're "retired", that's all good. No problems, no blood, no foul. ħuman 00:20, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I don't know the background to the issue as I've been busy elsewhere. However I see no reason to ignore site policy simply because one CP sysop asks us to do so. If the user doesn't want to come to the site then nobody forces him to. If he comes here and doesn't trust himself not to comment, then that's a matter of his personal self control. All of which rather suggests that he wants us to make some sort of symbolic gesture on his behalf - and I see no compelling reason for doing so. Furthermore he had the opportunity of being made a sysop and refused it. If he had accepted the offer then he would have been able to block himself and walk away. So the matter is in his hands. He can accept sysop and block himself, or he can put a retired template on his page and walk away.--Bob^{bing up} 04:33, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I agree with the "not block just show some self-restraint" policy. We are not CP and don't permaban people just because they retire. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:46, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I can see both sides of this issue, so I haven't commented yet, but after reading the comments above I'm now tending towards the 'don't block' side. I don't think blocking a user at their own request would make us at all equivalent to CP, but it's still best to leave the door open anyway. Tim asks, "why on earth do you care if I'm blocked?", but by the same token, Tim, why on earth do you care if you're blocked, since you don't plan on editing here again? Saying it's to remind you not to edit here implies that there is still the possibility you might sometime want to visit the site, but want to restrain yourself from doing so. That's your own decision, but the rest of us have no reason to want to keep you away or prevent you from returning. Anyway, I suggest we leave things as they are now: Pi has honoured Tim's request by blocking him; Tmt & Human have chosen to unblock him. Even if he was empowered to block & unblock himself, it's still likely somebody would unblock him anyway. It's just the way RW mobocracy tends to work. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:21, 3 January 2009 (EST)

True. If Tim removes RW and CP from his bookmarks then he won't be tempted back so easily. Perhaps when he's got his feet under the table at WikiChristian or wherever he can (if I may) shake the dust from his heels and leave both sites far behind. Totnesmartin 08:09, 3 January 2009 (EST)

I don't see what the problem is here. There's a world of a difference between a disciplinary block and a voluntary one. Besides, our pretty little sysop pledge quite clearly approves of blocking users "if they ask for it", so it's within the bounds of site policy - such as it is. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:23, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, it does say that. But it doesn't say that we'll give then an infinite block though.--Bob^{bing up} 09:01, 3 January 2009 (EST)

It doesn't say that we won't, either. Essentially, the vast majority of our blocking-related rules and policies (which BTW I thought we weren't even supposed to have in the first place) relate to disciplinary blocks. This on the other hand is a voluntary, requested block, which is an entirely different specimen. You could make a case that our policies regarding the former are necessary to avoid abuse of power and such, but surely not when it's a requested block. How can there be an abuse of power when the initiative for the block comes from the blockee himself? That doesn't make any sense. If anything, I'd be more concerned about denying a perfectly reasonable request under reference to some vague notion of "site character" or "standards". --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:53, 3 January 2009 (EST)

One-Year Block on the Dropdown

If we acknowledge that particularly loathsome trolls can use TOR to create a virtually unlimited number of accounts--thus rendering us unable to enforce serious blocks, why have a long block option on the dropdown in the first place? If long blocks do nothing to protect us from committed vandals in the first place, why not place an upper limit on block lengths--say three days? TheoryOfPractice 19:45, 2 January 2009 (EST)

We are suppose to Fibonacci sequence block. Start with one day and then two, three, five, eight, thirteen and so on that way their block increase at a rate of φ. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 19:48, 2 January 2009 (EST)

In practice that hardly ever happens. The long block option has some uses - e.g. blocking users' IP at their request so they always log in. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:50, 2 January 2009 (EST)

And we stopped doing that with in the first week. We have the vandal brake to handle vandals. I am inclined to force it so blocks can only be applied on sysops. tmtoulouse 19:51, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Would that require much work? - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 19:59, 2 January 2009 (EST)

No clue. I think I could just toss an if statement in to the code that hands out the blocks but I have never explored it. tmtoulouse 20:00, 2 January 2009 (EST)

Problem, you can't vandal break IP addresses and I have found that if people use stupid fonts in their names you can't vandal break them. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 20:01, 2 January 2009 (EST)

UNDENT. Being able to vandal brake IPs would be wicked handy as opposed to long blocks. 20:22, 2 January 2009 (EST)

(EC) Putting an upper limit might be reasonable, but I'm not convinced about losing the ability to blocks non-sysops. Short-term blocking is fairly effective against major vandal attacks. Even if the vandal is on TOR, the block will mean they will have to connect to a new IP path, slowing them down a bit, & after a few times they usually get bored. If we only have the vandal break, a vandal can still have an unlimited number of accounts. They may only be able to do two edits per hour each, but using one account after another they could still do some heavy damage in a short space of time. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:24, 2 January 2009 (EST)

We do not discuss blocking policy on-wiki. For the last time, please e-mail me rather than discussing this in the open. Don't make me take this up with Mr. Schlafly.-caius (pirate) 20:34, 2 January 2009 (EST)

"Caius" (If that's your real name ((C-Anus? WTF?)), I am tempted to block you for infinitude as a sock of the infamous "AmesG" tremblepirate, but I will offer you probation: Please contribute to this project contributably and other words I made up or I will denounce you as a liberal! ħuman 23:25, 2 January 2009 (EST)

But there's a button on the vandal break that includes their IP. Phantom Hoover 06:10, 3 January 2009 (EST)

The problem is that if they don't actually register then the vandal brake (spell it right guys!) cannot be applied. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:14, 3 January 2009 (EST)

In that case, we give them an anonymous-only block, forcing them to register. The weird character issue needs to be resolved though; it's not long until some vandal finds out about it and the vandal brake (that's how I was going to spell it, but I was confused by everyone else) becomes useless. Phantom Hoover 06:19, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Proposed Science Namespace

I have been working on an article that I think is relevant to the users here. It was summarily nominated for deletion on the grounds that it does not explicitly refute or fight the "anti-science" movement. I concede that it does not. I personally plan to make contributions that do. (Oh, have I got a doozy of geocentrist writings for you!)

On the talk page for my article, the suggestion was made that a "Science" namespace be created for articles such as it. I support this idea as a means of keeping my article and to provide a place where I and others can write pro-science things that do not directly cause certain school boards to go into conniptions. I submit that all pro-science writings are good and worthy of inclusion on the grounds that they combat basic ignorance.

Discuss.

Omniwombat 17:16, 10 January 2009 (EST)

This subject has been debated about half a dozen times lately (most recently here). As usual it petered out without any kind of resolution at all. That's probably the best place to revive and carry it on, rather than the talk page of this project page which is already being overhauled. Good luck. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:29, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks Weasel. I didn't see that. I shall continue my efforts there. Omniwombat 17:45, 10 January 2009 (EST)

If this discussion is going to bring about results -And let's be honest, it's happened so many times without result it's damn well time something came of the half-headlessness of it all- then here is the best place to revive it. As a namespace, I'm for it. I wouldn't mind even taking some official responsibility for shifting any current science articles to it. ArmondikoV^moral 03:55, 11 January 2009 (EST)

I haven't been around much lately, but I think it's a good idea. It gives editors something new to do, which can't be a bad thing. Sterile^rationalize 12:48, 11 January 2009 (EST)

It'll be a good place for newbies. Remeber that harry the hamster guy last year who kept writing stuff about zebras etc? It'd help people like him, and whoever it was who did that stuff about rusty spotted cats. Also it's no more or less RWian than our many, many articles about countries and US states. Totnesmartin 04:35, 12 January 2009 (EST)

Success!

Yay! It's finally done—we have our new, revamped, updated, super-duper special awesome guidelines! : D Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:05, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Yes. I've linked to the various revamp pages & discussions at the top of this page. Please treat them as archived now. If there are further comments or suggestions, please make them on this page. Existing threads can be copied over from the other pages if we need to continue any of the earlier discussions. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:46, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Talk pages

Can we add the following to the standards?

Talk pages (including user talk as well as article talk pages) and other discussion pages, such as debates or the Saloon bar, are community property. They must not be deleted, although they can be archived periodically.

Similarly, users should not delete or change another user's comments.

Please sign all talk page comments, by typing four tildes at the end (~~~~). This will leave your signature and a timestamp.

The part about not deleting talk pages is already mentioined in passing, but I think it's worth mentioining again, & it's important to be clear that other users' comments shouldn't be deleted or modified. There's a couple of other points of guidance we could add (indenting comments, adding new sections, moving threads from one talk page to another) but maybe they should be on a Help page instead, or just left for folks to figure out for themselves. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:05, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I'd say to add it, if it's not too redundant. I edited your suggested version a bit, too. ħuman 15:48, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Added in, expanded slightly. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:57, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Suggestion I should have thought of

Smiting with Bunnies

Whenever possible, the janitors mustard jars of RationalWiki will aspire to use the least severe punishment possible to deal with violations of the Community Standards.

Just a proposition that I am thinking we could implement, and one that we seem to utilise. A discussion regarding this implementation would be appreciated. Javasca₧ GZOIoXvmGbuSezdlhjtK

Well, I think it is implicit in our block policy of "do not block longer than a few hours" and stuff. Also, please note we don't have a "staff". It's just us. I do, however, agree with the sentiment, and I like the header ;) ħuman 21:03, 4 February 2009 (EST)

And that is the update. Any further input? Javasca₧ GZOIoXvmGbuSezdlhjtK

I dunno, "admins"? How about "janitors"? Since that's what we call ourselves... ħuman 21:27, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Mustard jars? --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (EST)

It's getting better all the time... ħuman 21:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Samantha Carters? Morons? People surronded by a layer of bozone? Synapses? Zahphod Beeblebrox? Rusty-spotted ceiling cats? --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 21:39, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Possible addition

Could we add "When the box at the top of the essay says "Only comment on the talk page", it means only comment on the damn talk page"? I'm fed up with people charging headlong into essays and adding their comments. Cubic word Hoover! 15:31, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry. The urge to MST can be nigh-overwhelming sometimes. --Gulik 16:32, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Shortcut

This thing needs a shortcut. I'm only bringing it up here instead of doing it because I don't know what it should be. RW:CS? RW:STANDARD? Ideas? --  Nx/talk  03:57, 7 March 2009 (EST)

A flock of 'em? RW:CS; RW:STANDARDS;RW:COMMUNITY? _and marmite 04:00, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Hm, Trent deleted RW:CS [2], though that was a long time ago. --  Nx/talk  04:07, 7 March 2009 (EST)

No talk page, wonder why? _and marmite 04:40, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Longcuts: much as I appreciate teh HTML-fu: IT'S OVERKILL & rather silly._and marmite 05:04, 7 March 2009 (EST)

It's not HTML, it's CSS. Cubic word Hoover! 05:20, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Archiving

Something should be added about archiving of talk pages to ignore inconvenient comments. Toast has just archived her talk page because CUR posted on it, and she loves to pick on him. Cubic word Hoover! 14:54, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Quite frankly, when someone calls me an ass I feel free to remove the comment. (And fuck you too PH) _and marmite 15:11, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

I was angry. I apologise for swearing. Anyway, merely calling you an ass is no reason for archiving, and you have a large banner at the top of your talk page saying that you will archive whenever CUR comments. Admit it, it's censorship. Cubic word Hoover! 15:14, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Apology accepteed, I also apologise. For ages, now I have refrained from commenting on or communicating with, CUR. It blocked me offensively out of the blue so I desysoped him with the invitation for anyone else to unblock it. It then got offensive on User talk:Toast, so I (eventually) archived the offensive cvomment. End of. _and marmite 15:40, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

WIGO-CP

It has been noted that the quality of WIGO-CP has gone down of late but I'm not sure if we have a definitive way to deal with such instances that are just abysmally bad. Usually "bad" WIGO's are commented out (partly to preserve a record, partly to avoid screwing up the vote thingy), but we don't have (to my knowledge) a policy about when (a minus 15 perhaps?) a WIGO should go bye-bye. 14:26, 27 March 2009 (EDT) CЯacke®

I brought this up at talk WIGO. I don't think falling WIGOs should be commented out, just let them drop (or improve them?). Let them stand as a record of just how far down some things might get voted - "the worst of WIGO". Now, if they were simply, totally appalling (a half sentence with no links, like "Andy: wrong again?") I guess commenting them out as a form of editing the "article" would make some sense. Or glaring factual errors that can't be resolved. But otherwise, I think they should stand. ħuman 15:53, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Disclosure of Personal Information

(moved from Talk:Main_Page#Disclosure_of_Personal_Information) This is in reference to File_talk:Dean144k.jpg. Please keep the debate here.

We should decide/ask CUR/vote on whether or not we want to publish the names/likenesses of bloggers referred to on this site who have not explicitly released such information in relevant channels. Neveruse513 18:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

-19

Should RationalWiki publish the names/likenesses of bloggers referred to on this site who have not explicitly released such information in relevant channels? Vote up if yes, vote down if no.

Uh, I am thinking that this is probably not the best way to address this issue. I would like to know the reasons behind the vote, and who is voting, random people, established users? Fifth Horseman 18:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The mob is voting. Javasca₧ GZOIoXvmGbuSezdlhjtK 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

On what? An example might be useful. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not the best way to address the issue, but I believe it is our way of addressing the issue. You can make all the arguments you want, but at the end of the day, it's still up to the mob. Neveruse513 18:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think this is the best way to handle this. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 18:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am currently reading the archives on the community standards to get a feel for what people were thinking when they were defined. That was most assuredly not settled by an up down vote, there are PAGES of discussion. Fifth Horseman 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what are we voting / asking CUR on? Releasing the names of who and why? SuperJosh "crying into a flannel" 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Releasing the identity of a CP admin who has not done so on CP. Neveruse513 18:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Also presumably the exhortation to attack his business on the grounds that it's woo-based. --Kels 18:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we compromise on this and set up a debate page and at least have a discussion about pro/con options before doing a vote? Fifth Horseman 18:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to try and persuade the mob. Go for it. Neveruse513 18:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Voting arrows are for fun things. Serious matters require interminable discussion followed by signed voting. ħuman 18:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide a link to where the alleged enfringement took place, so that we can look at the context etc. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This should be debated in RationalWiki:Community Standards not Main Page talk. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

EZ Edit 1

• Delete. Isn't this already in the Community Standards page, under privacy? And doesn't it say that answer is no. After all that revamp, we should use what is there. ^{— Unsigned, by: Sterile / talk / contribs}
• Delete Gonna follow Sterile's lead here. Even if it is him in the pic, do we actually need it? Does it tell us something interesting? Is there lulz involved? Probably not, and it's pretty questionable from the privacy standards anyhow, as we see from the discussion. --Kels 19:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The information was made publicly available by DeanS. It's Dean's responsibility to keep Dean's privacy. Neveruse513 19:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My questions about why to keep remain unanswered, though. Sure, it's probably him, but is that sufficient? --Kels 19:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's not that I have reasons to keep it, it's that I don't see a reason to delete it. Public domain. Don't like it, don't get into it. Neveruse513 19:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Because I can" == "Then I should", then? --Kels 20:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Because I can and I want to" == "I am". Unless you can convince me otherwise. This debate is pretty moot, as I think the clear majority is against this and won't be convinced otherwise. However, feel free to continue...I'm interested. Neveruse513 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Public domain? Who says? Yes, it's "in public", but it's also copyright whoever took it/posted it/etc. ħuman 20:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about pictures in the public domain (which I believe flickr is?). Whether or not the 144k pic is in the public domain doesn't interest me. Neveruse513 20:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved." Seems pretty clear. ħuman 20:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna say, there's an awful lot of professional artists are gonna be real surprised to find their stuff is PD. --Kels 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Creative commons also seems very clear... Are we talking about the same picture? Neveruse513 20:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It would seem not. Interesting. --Kels 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm talking about the images on Flickr which provide the actual link between DeanS and Dean S. I acknowledge there may be copyright issues with the 144k image. Neveruse513 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that a cropped version of one of the shots on Flickr (under CC) would be on much firmer ground than the one FH uploaded, although I'd still argue that it's largely pointless. It would be enough just to make a link commenting that he's a woo-pusher in the form of a chocolate salesman, rather than bother with the pic at all, and leave him out of any article about the company. --Kels 20:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The bit about his work bothers me more than the picture. Xocai is no(t yet a) concern of RW. I don't know why it would be appropriate to include such personal details. Neveruse513 21:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bloody hell we haven't posted a LOCATION it is a company and the fact that it is a pseudoscience woo pushing pyramid scheme is worth exploring in terms of his own psychology. I agree an article on the company probably doesn't need info on him, but the fact that he pushes this crap as a living is as relevant as the AAPS is to Schalfly. Fifth Horseman 21:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but you don't need a photo to do that. --Kels 21:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete (EC) this is just fishing for personal info of a CPer, and doesn't help us critice CP itself. What I does do is make us look like a stalk site - are we in that business? I think not. Totnesmartin 19:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, good thing we don't have similar information about people like John Schlafly. Double standards are ridiculous. I actually agree with the defacto policy here at RW. I am the one advocating the way things are done and should be done. These delete comments seem revisionist and a massive double standard, why avoid applying policy consistently? Particularly when it has worked well. Fifth Horseman 19:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

FH, the difference is that all the information we have on John Schlafly is publicy available. The only moral issue is about his sexual preference, but that wasn't done by us. We simply reported what someone else did. However, notice that we don't have pictures, or job information or any other trivia about John. We don't even speculate on his personal life. You find me pictures of another CP sysop and I'll accept your argument. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So your whole argument is that it is a "picture" and that is different from "other information" that has been published about Ed, Andy, Ken, etc that did not originate on CP how? And take a look at the gallery of mockery on Schlafly, a lot of those photos were obtained from outside sources. All information put up about Dean is from Dean's public site. He made it public. Fifth Horseman 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, my argument is not about the picture. The difference is that we have John Schlafly's name and which child of Phylis he is. We also have information about him being Gay. Which I feel is borderlind anyway. The difference is we're not posting pictures and personal information such as where he works. There is a line, and when you cross it you're moving into the same tactics that Abortion opponents used with the same "well we're telling anyone to do anything about it" rationale. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 21:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep clearly it falls well with in the established guidelines on this page. There are a few people bringing up privacy concerns but why is this the exception to the rule? If the same standard was applied to Ken, Andy, Ed, John Schlafly, Roger Schlafly, etc. most the material would qualify for deletion. It has nothing to do with "lulz" either. This is a "public persona" on CP, and information about him is useful to understanding his role there and CP itself. It is the same reason you guys moved around the Andrew Schlafly articles and are trumpeting up the non-lulz, dry, here are the facts (however obtained) as your main article. Fifth Horseman 19:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Except Andy, Ed, etc. released that information on CP (Conservative is the only exception). We're not even 100% sure that this DeanS is that DeanS --  Nx/talk  19:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Except they didn't. A lot of information is published about Schlafly that was dug up from third party public sources. I am all for that. Great work, good reporting. It's this conservative interpretation of our standards that would call for its deletion. Things like his application that was obtained through a FOIA are a great example. And what about people like John Schlafly who don't even have an account on CP? Fifth Horseman 20:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We're pretty damn sure. Neveruse513 20:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I was just playing devil's advocate. It just seems unnecessarily stalkerish to me. --  Nx/talk  20:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, most of what we do seems pretty stalkerish. Neveruse513 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm good with deleting most of that stuff, honestly. It doesn't really add much to the place. --Kels 20:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I ditto that hugely. Aren't we supposed to be the good guys here? Mei 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

None of you ever wondered what this fuckstick looked like? I sure have. And for him to go and put a photo of himself in the public domain...well... Neveruse513 20:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what he looks like. Also, it's not public domain, AFAIK. Andy's picture (the one used for all the shops) is ("my own picture, and I release rights to it."). --  Nx/talk  22:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This is a hard question. While I understand that Dean posted it all, we have no real purpose for it. Andy is the founder of CP and he personally put his image on CP saying I release this image into public domain. Likewise, Ed posted his image on CP for all to see. Although we do have Information on Andy from third party sources, we don't have any personal pictures we dug up by trolling Myspace. The bigger thing though is what does this do for RW? This picture and personal information have no purpose. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

you mean like File:Aschlafly.png File:More HRL stuff.PNG these? The information is important in understanding Dean and his role at CP. Just because it hasn't been expanded upon yet doesn't mean it needs to be killed. Fifth Horseman 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think you can argue that public sources like newspapers and college group photos are exactly the same thing as digging through the net to find a personal picture. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 20:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think you can argue that digging through the net is different than digging through newspapers. Neveruse513 20:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you're being intentionally difficult about this. There is an obvious difference between scanning an old newspaper clipping or a public domain photo and searching a Flikr account for pictures of someone. Furthermore, there's a big difference between posting a picture of Andy in the Harvard Law Reveiw (something he publicy talks about all the time) and posting information about where a person works. If you can't understand that difference, then how about you post your real name, photo and work information where TK can see it and deal with the response it gets from your employers when he starts personally contacting them. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 21:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that you're being intentionally dense. Searching through one medium is no different from another just because it's easier or something. Neveruse513 21:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And do keep in mind, the Flickr pictures/account reveals nothing about where he works. Neveruse513 21:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete I've seen no proof whatsoever that it's even the same person. ħuman 20:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Update, I hadn't seen the link Neveruse just posted linking Crocoite to Slade. I still don't think we should keep the picture though, on the grounds that he is ugly. ħuman 20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So Ed Poor is more your type? Fifth Horseman 20:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstain Having viewed the photograph on Flickr linked above, I am dropping my previous objections to the presence of the picture. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To the 144k picture? It's not on Flickr. I'm still not sure about it.. Neveruse513 20:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I had objected to the 144k picture on the grounds that it constituted an invasion of privacy, which looking at the new evidence does not seem to be the case. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

EZ Edit 2

To me there are more than one option here and I am confused:

1. Doing nothing.
2. Deleting this photo but including one from his Flickr photo album
3. Including no photo but allowing links to the site and information about his work
4. Removing all information about his site and the photos

What are people advocating here? Fifth Horseman 20:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for #2...but I'm a little hesitant as we would be required to give attribution, which would inadvertently reveal the identity/likeness of his spouse. Neveruse513 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I support #3. The picture isn't really necessary at all. --Kels 20:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Necessary is something else. The article is about him...a picture seems apropos. Neveruse513 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to be convinced down to #2, provided it's a cropped version of just him. --Kels 21:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What about his wife? Or would that be OK since we're not posting her picture or referring to her in the article? Neveruse513 21:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth would it be appropriate to include his wife? Like I said, take one of the Flickr photos, crop it down so it's just him, and use that with attribution. That way, I still wouldn't think there was a point, but I'd be fine with it otherwise. If she's not in any pic hosted here, and not referred to here, then I don't see a problem. --Kels 21:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I never meant to infer it would be appropriate to include pictures of his wife. I was wondering if it was questionable to basically include a link revealing her identity/likeness (which we would be required to do). Neveruse513 21:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Presumably he's done that over at Flickr by connecting his name and his wife's with the name Crocoite. I don't think that would affect our end much, since all we'd be doing is a simple attribution link that most people won't bother following. --Kels 21:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm out for the day. I expect to see this issue neatly wrapped up with a nice little bow on top when I return. Neveruse513 21:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is at least a fifth option: Ask him. Yes, ask him it that is the same DeanS, and if it is, ask if he'll allow us to use his pic for deceitful liberal mockery. If he refuses we do not have the right to steal his property for our own nefarious purposes. ħuman 23:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Human. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Steal? Are you being a tad melodramatic? Flickr uses Creative Commons. Neveruse513 13:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect he meant the original, copyrighted, photo. --Kels 13:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is where this topic was discussed back during the rewrite. Unless he put on his CP user page "come look at my ugly mug here", I don't think we should post an actual photo of him. A parody picture is always so much better. - π 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

3...2... Lost interest. Neveruse513 13:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny Business

(This section is in reference to this edit. Again, try to keep the debate here.)

As per the supposed "exhortation to attack his business on the grounds that it's woo-based" it has nothing to do with destroying his business or anything to do with him personally. The more I have looked into it the more horrible it sounds. It is as bad as any quack medical advise we have covered on this site. They are marketing these sugar filled sticks to diabetics because "good chocolate" won't hurt them! And that is not even touching yet on the classic pyramid scheme style of business they are running, and the shady backgrounds of the real people in charge not little Dean.Fifth Horseman 18:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably it's as bad as you say, and it's probably not his primary source of income (if it is, he's more in danger from them than us). However, the personal connection there is rather iffy on ethical grounds. --Kels 18:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate how the personal connection is on ethically questionable grounds? Neveruse513 18:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, that opens us to the grounds that we're doing it because it's DeanS, rather than because it's woo. Which, true or not, would leave the impression of a vendetta, rather than valid criticism. --Kels 19:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I thought you were talking about how the DeanS-[Real Person] connection itself was made. Neveruse513 19:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, just like our article on AAPS has NOTHING to do with the fact that they jerk Andy as a favor to his mom? Fifth Horseman 19:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Primary source of income doesn't matter...the operative phrase is "source of income". Neveruse513 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is all moot though since RationalWiki is not in a position to even remotely threaten anything with destruction. Fifth Horseman 18:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And if it's thoroughly woo-based, it could be on mission to aid in it's destruction. Neveruse513 18:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Protecting non-articles

It appears we can now protect articles which have been deleted or haven't been created yet. Should we now get rid of the anti-page-resurrection thing? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-page is more fun efficient Mei 22:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know about it, I was just attempting to copy an old WP policy. Totnesmartin 22:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Must be a new super-power since the upgrade. We definitely couldn't do it before: hence the ant-page workaround (not really very efficient). Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Protecting deleted pages is possible since MW1.13, we should use that feature now. --  Nx/talk  22:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Janitors"

It seems that sysops are now termed "Janitors" in the user rights logs. Was this decision discussed at all? (If so, where?) If we really are keeping this horrible replacement title, we need to write it into the CS somewhere. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the term is offensive to janitors. The preferred nomenclature is "offal storage technician". Jorge _{as if my opinion counts} 17:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought they were always supposed to be Janitors... anyway this change happened because MediaWiki 1.14 changed the sysop group's name to Administrator, so someone went and edited the group name in MediaWiki-space, and decided to change it to Janitor instead of Sysop. The relevant pages are MediaWiki:Group-sysop and MediaWiki:Group-sysop-member --  Nx/talk  18:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

From something like the beginning of the project sysops have been "janitors". The idea is that sysops are the servants, not the masters, of the community.--Bob^{bing up} 20:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it as an actual title on the rights log. It looks like it's been copied over from RWW (not a good thing), + it's quite an Americentric term (& barely exists in the UK, for example). Either way, we need our standards & help pages to match the word used in the rights log. My suggestion is to either change it back to sysops, or come up with something original, agree/vote on it, then change the help pages accordingly. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's very confusing. Let's just change it to "Sysop" rather than have to edit a few thousand pages. ħuman 21:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed mustard jars, anyone? ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ Give a man a face, and he will say what you want to hear. Give him a mask, and he will say what he wants 21:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Standard

Is there a preference for US or British spelling here? I've seen both used so I'm guessing that liberal deceit has infiltrated, and we're allowed to show blatant hatred for America by using the letter 'u' but I thought I'd better check. Rpeh 10:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No preference except for some consistency (same throughout article). USian topics should use US spelling and Commonwealth stuff get the u's, anything else rolls with however it started off. ħuman 21:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I guessed as much but I wanted to be sure. I do try to follow policies! :p Rpeh 22:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Privacy Paragraph Rewrite

In the light of this discussion, it has become clear that the privacy policy standard does not adequately constrain the type of links or content that may be posted. I suggest that paragraph two of the section called "Privacy" be amended as follows:

In pursuing RationalWiki's missions, we often comment on the activities of individuals at other websites, but similar caution should be taken in respecting their privacy. Personal information regarding a living person should be limited to information which that they themselves have personally released into the public domain, either through their personal website, or a website with which they are associated with, or other formal publications. Information from other sources should be included only if it relates directly to their role in opposing RationalWiki's mission. No information gained through personal research should be presented. No information divulging the names of family members (that are not themselves figures of interest) or "real world" contact details should be posted. If you are unsure, don't post such information.

I'm not 100% happy with the "RationalWiki's Mission" bit as it smacks a bit of Star Trek but it needs to ensure people don't think it's just about CP.

The line about "personal research" is what has caused most of the problems. By saying it's forbidden, it directly contradicts the earlier sentence that "we often comment on the activities of individuals at other websites". I've removed the prohibition but strengthened the definition of what is allowable.

As a side debate, how do people feel this should relate to examples of hypocrisy? For instance, X rails against drunkenness then X is found drunk in a gutter, or Y continually preaches about the sanctity of marriage then Y is found in bed with an intern.

Please let me know what you think. Rpeh 21:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as the TK of RW, redacting a comment supported by "TWITTER ME: @Jay_pe. 1000+ Followers" on his user page (Jpatt), makes me wonder what it would have to say in order for everyone to understand it. ħuman 00:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just asking, but aren't you making yourself a public person when you Twitter? I'd say Twitter, at least the political/racist stuff, is every bit as fair game as anything on CP, AiG, CMI or wherever. --Kels 01:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a problem as Jpatt drew attention to his twitter anyway. - π 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That was my point. And Rpeh "redacted" it. Do you need diff (it was on talk:wigocp)? ħuman 02:16, 20 June 2009 (

JFC, does no one know about plural and singular no more: they > he or she, etc. Sterile verb 02:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I did look on his user page but somehow missed the very thing I was looking for. I was a bit tired and emotional at the time, so sorry about that. Rpeh 07:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(unident)"No personal research" was basically saying don't google stalk them as a way of finding out information on them. Even if it is in the "public domain" so to speck, unless they have said come look here, don't link to it. This was written just after the Karajou incident, when the address of his house and photos of the inside were posted. It was in the public domain as his house was for sale, but it was a clearly something we don't want people posting. - π 02:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to clear up what "personal research" means. My problem with the new definition is that there's nothing in this prohibiting Googling someone, finding their address, going there and stalking them and posting your findings here, so long as you only post that they make creationist speeches at their local church. Cubic word Hoover! 07:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the sort of circumstance the line "no personal research" was intended to avoid. Maybe we just need to have a footnote clarifying the statement. - π 08:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What if we just say "no personal research, including information found via search engines." SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 11:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did the links on Andrew Layton Schlafly come from if not a search engine? There's massive stalking on Ken's page too. That addition would be fine but several pages would need revision to meet this revised standard. Rpeh 13:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Rpeh has a point there. The Schlafly stuff was cleared because being a shit lawyer for a quack organisation is what he does and advertises the fact on his userpage. he Ken was cleared because he is a known forum troll and tries to deny it. It is covered by "website they are associated with, or other formal publications" clause, but not in all cases the "no personal research" clause. The problem is framing the statement right, we know what is meant, but the problem with common sense is that it is neither common nor sensical (to paraphrase Pratchett). - π 13:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another problem with the no personal research; suppose there'a newspaper article on CP or its various people, which they link to. Now, some years later, it's no longer linked to, but obviously still in the public domain. Is that still fair game, even if we have to use the Google to find it? Is that personal research? Z3ro^talk 15:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the nub of the problem. Π is right about it being common sense, but the trouble is that even minor differences in interpretation can have large consequences on what does and doesn't get posted. One thing that has come up several times is past activity from Karajou and TK. Perhaps it would be helpful if a brief description of these incidents be included on that page so that there are clear examples of what shouldn't be done? Then include some examples that are acceptable. People can then see for themselves rather than having to interpret a rule? Rpeh 15:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No matter how many examples you give, there will always be room for interpreting a rule (especially by dicks who will do whatever they want anyway). The best policy I can think of is anything posted by the person or about the person is fair game. Whenver there is doubt (like posting pictures of someone's house, or their mother) we all decide (like we did). I don't see a problem; stupid people won't follow rules anyway. Z3ro^talk 15:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but that doesn't seem to be an option. Rpeh 16:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

EZ Edit 0

I think the "included only if it relates directly to their role in opposing RationalWiki's mission" part would address most personal research issues (like someone's property for sale, where they work and stuff). but then some of Andy's detail may require checking, (unless we classify CP as one of our mission through interpreting fundamentalism/authoritarianism/crank/anti-science to fit it, which would make life a lot easier), since the search page from search engine aren't exactly giving you what they are doing with resepct to RW's mission.

Here is a list of things I would like someone to help address:

• How exactly does one define "formal publications"?
• "opposing Rationalwiki's mission": is it opposing the analysis/refutation/exploration to the things we listed or supporting for the things we are refuting? (i.e. the action on the object or the object itself?)
• Dead (since "living" is specifically used) people, especially the fresh ones. Eventually some of them will lead to the condolences problems/jabs that goes on recently. Comments?
• Should the last part should be closer to "Please discuss with an admin before posting such information" than "If you are not sure, don't post the information", acting as some misinterpretation screening perhaps?

... and plurals maybe? Thank you for your time. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But this rule doesn't forbid posting information gained through stalking, so long as it is mission-relevant! Cubic word Hoover! 18:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should addresses, phone numbers or e-mails be included, IMO. Sterile verb 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Rpeh has it on the paragraph about "real world" contacts. I have no idea whether email is considered "real world" contacts. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be. In the modern context an email is no different to a phone number. It is sensitive contact information. When referring to an internet forum, basically, the "real world" is everywhere and everything else, even if it is still on the internet. So yes, this includes email. ^narchist 22:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Anonymity

Though it's not directly related, there has been recent precdent for blogging (and I assume by extension any contributor to an internet based forum) and their identities being anonimous. While I can't express enough how "stalking" like what has happened here -even in it's limited form- is totally unacceptable, this may need to be borne in mind: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/16/nightjack-blogger-horton ^narchist 18:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So are we suppose to define which set of people have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" now? Ouch. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I give up

When I suggest that because TK released information to the LA times it's in the public domain, I got flamed. When somebody else does it, that's just fine.

I've had enough. Let me say it just one more time:

Your privacy policy is self-contradictory

It's not just me saying it either - read the rest of this page. But you can work it out for yourselves because I'm fed up of being the flame hit for a group of people trying to sort it out. Rpeh 19:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what your problem is. Is it that you think the information came from this? I didn't know about that link btw, which falls into the research category, and is frowned upon, but we know he's a computer consultant from the LA Times article (and from his posts where he claims to use multiple IPs because he uses some kind of remote software on his clients' machines - someone who has been here longer may correct me on that one). -- Nx / talk 19:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Your" privacy policy? I thought it was "our"s, and that "our" includes all editors, and you are an editor here... Anyway, quit arguing by editing on the CS page, if we don't come to any sane, conclusive consensus here, we don't change. OK, saying that, yeah, I left Nx' edit - because it makes sense. ħuman 20:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

He quit. So "your" would be accurate. 74.54.138.2 21:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Rpeh got "scolded" (or whatever you want to call it) for using the publicly released information to find additional information, while Nx just repeated the publicly released info. Rpeh, if you're still around, can you explain how those two things are the same? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 21:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Rpeh is correct (although that isn't an excuse for pointy censoring of others people's comments). The security consultant thing came from google-stalking, not the LA Times article. And is Ken compatible with our privacy policy? It has his skype id ffs! -- Nx / talk 22:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just taken that down off the article, although it'll probably be in multiple revisions that will be difficult to hide. I was always under the assumption that "Ken DeMeyer" was possible not accurate as his real name... ^narchist 22:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This whole Ken thing gets me. When and where did he admit his name? was it intentional? Does the diff, if there was one, exist? does this discovery of his name justify the things that have been said about him (eg his home town etc)? There is a lot of "CP are the bad guys so anything we do to them is justified" on RW, or "TK is worse so what we do is OK", which is just as bad. End of lecture. Totnesmartin 22:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)