Talk:AD

From RationalWikiWiki

Yeah, yeah, I'm crap at writing and this is a little CP-centric but its better than nothing. FernoKlump 20:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey I have a page here! Vegetarian is misspelled, though. --AD

[edit] Delete, please

I would like this information about me removed, thanks. I'd do it myself but I see there's a policy against that. Also, please stop collecting such information in the future. Thank you.--AD 09:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mr. About the Same Age As Me... your argument against RWW is that it invades people's privacy... you may have a point, but in the case of your article, the only personal information it seems to have is your age... The photo of you is hardly a problem when it's on your own RW page. The rest of the page is just a summary of your activities on RW, which would seem to be fair game... (and your vegetarianism would fall under that, given your public advocacy for it...) So what's the point, beyond proving a point? Maratrean 09:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it. I would like it removed. Would you please do that, Maratrean?--AD 09:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it is not a good enough reason. -- Nx / talk 09:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well - I can't find the relevant rules anywhere, so please tell me what would suffice.--AD 11:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think RWW has a policy on that, except for the vague "RWW is not an attack site" thing. There's also the RationalWikiWiki:Privacy policy. This article isn't an attack piece, so I don't see a reason to delete it. It doesn't even contain a lot of stalkerish details, except maybe your age, which you only mentioned in a comment. My article's worse, because Ty got the age from another wiki I linked to and I'm a bit uncomfortable with that, but the privacy policy allows that too. Not to mention he went through all my talk page archives scouring it for stuff to write about. -- Nx / talk 12:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If there's no policy, then can't you comply with my request - regardless of whether you personally happen to agree with it? The privacy policy seems to dictate what is acceptable to add, but in the absence of any rules about what is allowed to be deleted then it seems reasonable to do so based on my direct and stated request.--AD 12:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't comply with your request because I think it would set a bad precedent. While I agree that some of the stuff going on around here lately has gone too far, deleting articles would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We might as well just close up shop then. See also my comment below: what would you do if a CP sysop requested that we delete their article on RW? -- Nx / talk 16:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and taking it into consideration, I would ask that you do the same thing I would do in that situation: delete all the personal information, and leave only things that are on-mission. Unfortunately, I'm not sure of what the mission here is. If it's to chronicle RW, then my personal information is not on-mission and you can delete it. Hopefully the mission is not to gather as much info as possible about RWians, because that would be unfortunate and weird.--AD 21:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I have the technical ability to delete your page, I will not personally be doing so. Regardless of whether I agree with you or not, what you are asking for is contested, and I don't think I have the social/political authority here to be taking action in such circumstances. Maratrean 10:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I would take the matter up directly with Goonie, and ignore the stalkers like Ty and Manatrean. If RWW is indeed not an attack site, then thy should be amenable to removing articles on RW members who don't want them there. After all, it's all supposed to be a bit of innocent fun, right? Likewise, if you can prove that editors like Ty are moving away from RW to stalk editors, then that should not only be solid grounds for the information to be removed, but also for the editor to be punished, as that has gone way beyond the remit of the site, into creepy cyber-stalking. RWW should not want itself associated with people like that.

However, at the end of the day it comes down to the integrity of the people running the site - is it a bit of fun and they won't object to removing profiles of RW members who don't want to be associated with the site, or is it creepy stalker central? Time will tell. 69.195.136.106 13:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Before I depart I would like to point out that compared to the articles on Conservapedia Administrators found on RationalWIki, these articles seem pretty tame. That being said, I suggest that the site's owner contact Ty, and tell him to cease his actions. If he does not comply, he should be banned. John Childermass 13:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And what would happen if, say, Ed Poor came to RW and asked that we delete the article on him? -- Nx / talk 16:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the valid accusations of stalking made above, and the already creepy nature of calling an infobox a "stalkbox", it's also telling to note that the original cheery "It's a joke!" has been removed, leaving the heading "Stalk this user" - something that users like Ty seem to be taking to heart. 69.195.136.106 14:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey everyone, lay off Ty. Ty is a good guy. And the "stalking" is just a joke (joke disclaimer or no). Collecting random public trivia about people is not stalking, especially when in many cases you don't know their real names... nor where they live, nor what their actual occupations are (I mean their workplaces/employers, as opposed to merely analytical chemist or lawyer). Start posting real name, date of birth, home address, social security number, driver's license, passport, detailed family tree, fingerprints, etc., etc., etc., and you would have a case for stalking. But this is just a storm in a teacup. Maratrean 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

an excellent point.--Brxbrx 20:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to the original topic at hand, I would like to know what information, specifically, AD thinks is too personal for this article? If it's some of the information like, for example, his initals or age, I see no particular reaons to fight to leave it in as it isn't particularly important. Punky McPunkersen 22:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like basically the whole article gone, but I will settle for just what is in the infobox - the personal information about me. I would like no more personal information about me collected into this profile about me, likewise.--AD 01:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Um... Mara... Ty posted a purported date of birth for Nx... We're talking about this, because he's overstepped a line that you even seem to admit is "creepy". --Eira 00:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned with this [1] though it apparently wasn't Ty that time. John Childermass 01:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want people to think that you're a sock, stop repeating behaviors of specific editors... you know, like creepily searching through edit histories. --Eira 07:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As for AD's complaint about this page, I am certainly interested to hear what the specific complaints about breach of privacy are. I think I can safely say that the article itself will not be deleted, but if there is something in the article that is particularly offensive or wrong, I am sure we can work something out. --Pinetree 00:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

About people posting people's date of birth... if those individuals whose date of birth has been posted come forward and complain about it, we can delete that. But, if the individuals in question don't mind sharing their date of birth, then it is a non-issue. How do we even know the "date of birth" provided is real anyway? I could tell you I was born on 3rd September, you have no way of knowing if that is true or not. "Maratrean was born on the 3rd September 1982, and his real name is Zachary Martin". What can you do with that information? How do you even know whether that is true or not? I don't see a major privacy issue here. As to AD's complaints, I see we have removed (1) the claim his user name is based on the initials of his real name (which for all we know is just a random guess) (2) a photo of himself he posted on his RW userpage, and is still there (although, ignoring privacy, there are copyright reasons why it can't be on this site) (3) his age. I don't really care, if he wants that gone, let it be gone... but I still think his objections are more "I just don't agree with the idea of this site" than "I actually don't want people to know the specific information you've posted about me". Hey, if you are worried about this site accumulating too much information about the real you... just make some stuff up and make sure it gets it's way into the article :) Nothing keeps a secret better than disinformation. Maratrean 07:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Or just, you know, don't post it publicly in the first place. -- Nx / talk 07:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

People should be able to mention things in casual conversation without it being permanently installed in a reference database of information about them, in my opinion. But it's just that, I guess: my opinion. Others disagree.--AD 07:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if you post things publicly, how does anyone know they are true? Maybe my home address is "137 York Ave, Ivanhoe East VIC 3079". Or maybe it is "52 Ascot Vale Rd, Flemington VIC 3031". Or "62 Victoria St, Coburg VIC 3058". Or maybe none of these, and these are all just houses in Melbourne, Australia which I've picked at random off Google Maps? Maybe I am not even in Melbourne, Australia? Maybe I am in another state, or another country even?.... hmm, yes, I think I am... Oh, and my phone number (when you write it out in full E.164 format) happens to be a prime number (what a coincidence! not really)... Maratrean 07:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of us were under the illusion that RW was made up of a bunch of like-minded, friendly and close knit individuals. Hence when someone (like myself - can't speak for AD but I back his request here) felt, for whatever reason, that they needed or wanted to withdraw from both RW and RWW that their community of friends would tone down their RWW article if asked out of respect and friendship, understanding that they may not feel comfortable with it anymore. But running into Nx, who seems to be doing his damnedest to ruin any convivial relationships here, was not expected and I can only see his rerasoning as deliberately obtuse and purposely obstructive under the guise of "obeying the rules". It is quite depressing. Ace McWicked 07:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Nx really feels personally about this, at least not in the sense that he has any especial dislike of me. He is just like a lot of Rationalwikians in that he possesses a trait that is both a strength and a weakness: idealism. I don't want that to seem patronizing; I'm not saying he's naive or a fanatic or anything. He just recognizes that a decision like this has to be made on principles that need to be consistent. I recognize that too. I just think those principles should be different than he does, I suppose. I think that if someone on RW asks for their personal information to be removed from RWW, they should be complied with. And I think that if someone on CP asks for their personal information to be removed from RW, the same thing is true. But just because we differ doesn't mean that I think Nx is being mean.

I do appreciate the support though, Ace. Maybe we can provoke some kind of decision on this matter.--AD 07:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We do actually need to decide something. RWW is run on an ad hoc basis, and most things start off because they seemed like a good idea. My personal feeling is that people should have the right to have information removed if they want, but i still feel a brief stub should remain (if only to avoid squidillions of redlinks). Perhaps we should have a boilerplate saying "this user has requested this article is removed. Please do not add information to this page." Is that a good compromise? Rrose Selavy 08:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be okay with a stub article, sure. That's a great compromise, and a good idea for a new template.--AD 08:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Ace Mc and AD. They both make great points about info posted on RW. I really think that if someone wants personal info removed from their article, it should be. A quick stub article stating political viewpoint of the person or other info they choose to share should be enough, I'd even support a shorter "roll call" list of names and RW join dates rather than a lot of individual articles. I was thinking about other alternatives - such as, could RWW be incorporated into RW? Refugee 19:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] CP related stuff

Is this controversial? Is there a reason to remove it? -- Nx / talk 08:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like it removed, yes. I'm glad that it was.--AD 08:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

But why? There's no personal information there and nothing really controversial. I don't think it's irrelevant either because it was on CP, if it were WP or another wiki I'd agree, but CP and RW were intertwined back then. And this would set up a precedent of removing anything a RWian asks to be removed, in essence allowing an RWian to whitewash their article. -- Nx / talk 08:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and I concede it. I withdraw my objection to that stuff.--AD 09:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

But it's not a whitewash... it's not removing details critical of AD. --Eira 09:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed it not because I felt that it was entirely CP-related. Even if CP and RW were intertwined, there are still wholly-CP events that have no bearing on later RW activity. The info here was of that nature. There was nothing that related to RW. Rrose Selavy 09:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

But why not include it? The current version is much more interesting and informative than "After the inevitable ban, he joined RationalWiki and was welcomed wholeheartedly." And besides, if this was AD's reason to join RW, isn't that related to RW? -- Nx / talk 09:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it makes sense not to allow requests for deletion of CP and RW information. I actually am not a fan of that whole deal, but since I can't very well ask for that without pretty much eliminating most of the raison d'etre for RWW, I want to be reasonable.--AD 09:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)