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

Exclusion request[edit]

The subject of this article has requested personal exclusion. If you wish to object to this request, please do so within 24 hours. --GreenReaper(talk) 13:44, 29 May 2013 (EDT)

Note: The subject of the article used to be a Moderator on Yerf. This simple fact may be of interest to anyone looking into Yerf's premature demise and the people whom were once involved in the project. Other than this, there is unlikely to be anything else on the article that users will miss. This is not an objection, however. Leon Hunter 14:49, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
This topic should probably be covered on History of Yerf, although it already references this post. Mentions of public site positions is fine even if the subject is excluded, as long as no personal information is included on that page beyond their nickname. --GreenReaper(talk) 15:31, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
I would vote no as for the high notability of the person and her contributions to the fandom and arts. But it's her prerogative as an user article - Spirou 20:09, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
"The subject of the article used to be a Moderator on Yerf." Yerf (gallery) or Yerf (newsgroups)? (article data) - Spirou 21:03, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
The gallery, judging by the link. I don't know if the newsgroups had moderators. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:00, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
The newsgroup had their own mod team, but I don't have the data in front of me of exactly who, so it was a quick query wondering in which team she was part off - Spirou 23:43, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
Well, it's not so much votes, as do we think this is the right thing to do in this situation . . . our policies can always change, but where do you want to draw the line? What information do you think is sufficiently notable that the subject can't remove it - and does it need to be on this page, or is a solution such as linking to "what links here" in the exclusion notice better and more general? If information is here, do we still de-index? Is the goal respecting subjects' wishes for personal privacy, or the wish not to have an article about them on the Internet which they don't control? (I don't personally support the latter, but it is the motivation for many.) 23:00, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
Unless relevant to the fandom regarding certain issues that could affect people in and/or around it (Sibe, Mitch Beiro, Mozdoc), total personal exclusion for privacy reasons should (almost)(*) always come first, imho ([*] ...but subject to discussion, if needed.) - Spirou 23:43, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
Any other comments? If not, I'm inclined to perform the exclusion, though we should probably take up the general issue of addressing the exclusion of notable (but not infamous) subjects elsewhere. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:02, 30 May 2013 (EDT)
It seems a pity to have to exclude someone who has been involved in numerous notable projects, and been invited to a convention as a guest of honour. But, that said, I can't see a reason to refuse their request.--Higgs Raccoon 19:06, 30 May 2013 (EDT)