Talk:Paul Kidd/Archive1

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Why the inclusion of this Court matter?. It's controversy, yes, but we normally just add this type of information in if it involves Furry Fandom in any way.

He's not a felon, or a troublemaker, so it can not be used to show "Bad Character." This is a civil case, involving personal matter by the looks of it, and, by google it in, seems to be used mainly as harassment material against this individual by third parties. Rereading it again, it still brings no historical, anecdotal, or contributing value to the entry. 02:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Going back through the article's "History" just answered my own personal question of "Why is this even here?"... Gentleman # is the principal "motivator" for the use of this civil information as just harassment material. 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I rewrote it, so I should explain why.
I believe the matter does involve the furry fandom, at least in part:
  • Paul is a noted (and I believe respected) individual of the fandom
  • Part of the material concerned was apparently of a furry nature - if not the stuff they found on the computer (which was probably anime from the description), then certainly other material that they would have considered in their investigation
  • The matter was discussed at length on - and, as you say, used as ammunition in a personal battle by the original contributor against someone who wasn't even there. I think this reflects more on the person concerned than anything else.
Whether it involves the fandom enough to keep it is another matter. I wrote the section partly out of fairness to the other member of the fandom who has had a similar writeup (Sibe). If the general opinion is that it does not belong here, I will not challenge anyone who decides to remove it.
(I would note that at least the first of Sibe's court cases was actually less related to the fandom than this one. If we drop this one, it might be appropriate to drop that one as well, which occurred nearly four years ago now. I would urge reconsideration of any rule that applies only to people who have "bad character".) --GreenReaper(talk) 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Good points (And I was thinking the same dilemma that would involve the Sibe angle,) so I will see how others admins and contributors feel about this matter, but, in the mean time, I would like to make the change to rename the section to "Controversy," as we have done before in the past to contain such information under. 04:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you didn't wait for my reply. As I say to others, be bold! :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 06:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh?,... No, no, actually I opened both pages at the same time (I was going to change the heading anyways to "Controversy",)...Just clicked them almost at the same time. Article won. 07:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Exclusion request[edit]

The subject of this article has requested exclusion, claiming that this article is "skewed" and "inaccurate", and is hurting his career. I have asked him to contribute to its improvement and/or to give more detailed reasons to exclude, but I would also like to know what people's thoughts are on this matter, given the similar situations we have had to deal with in the past.

Things to consider:

  • We have refused exclusion to known criminals, and to those who it was felt posed a danger to the community.
  • Our only real source for this is newsgroup posts. (That said, there are several people corroborating those posts.)
  • The conviction was reportedly suspended on appeal. The suspension period has now passed.
  • The conviction was not for any violent act, or indeed for any act against a particular person. The subject otherwise has a good name in the fandom.
  • If we do decide to remove this information, should we remove just this section, or require complete exclusion?

--GreenReaper(talk) 23:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Can a good argument be made that it is in the interest of furry fandom that the information remain public? Offhand, I don't think so, and as such I don't see a problem with removing the section in question. He's a well-known enough author that I'd hate to see the whole article excluded if it can be avoided. --mwalimu 04:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
He has since replied to me and made it clear that he does not intend to take part in this discussion and would prefer that there be no information here, positive or negative. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I've skimmed through the linked threads and my impression is of second-hand information at nearest, and I don't see a connection to furry... I certainly don't see a need to retain that section in the article here. -- Sine 04:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have an objection to exclusion, but I hope all can come to some agreement on which direction the article should take besides full exclusion. --Rat 04:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I have made it clear that this would be preferable. The decision here appears to be generally in favour that the information should not preclude exclusion - and, in fact, should not be included at all. Given this, denying his request seems unreasonable, so I have excluded the article. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
After further discussion, we've come to an agreement that complete exclusion is not actually required. I have restored the article. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)