Re: Not missing
Sorry, Green. It took me awhile to put the article back up while trying to verify the allegation on the article page. There's no concrete proof but two vague allegations, a personal opinion and one based on assumption. The time frame is there, a validation is not.
- I thought it was quite fair. Weasyl staff said that a moderator account was involved, and that the account had been removed from staff. They were the only person to have been removed in that time frame, as verified from WikiFur's own article on the site. Moreover, the article did not allege that Wag was the one to compromise the logs. It says he was removed after the logs were compromised - which is correct. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:06, 12 December 2014 (EST)
- "It says he was removed after the logs were compromised - which is correct." Yes, which anybody reading it would assume "ergo, he leaked them". Yes, time wise and statements makes it to be a "it could be", but there's no concrete, damming proof. There's too many people that hound Wikifur to be (really) accurate, and unless he pulls a Zidonuke and admits it was indeed he, I wouldn't dangle Wikifur rep on a "maybe", just my 2 cents. But the edit is reversible, if ask to/called for. - Spirou (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2014 (EST)
- "Wag was a moderator for the art gallery Weasyl"... "His departure coincided with the leaking of staff logs",... Sorry, but imho, let's make it obvious: Either lets infer he did it, or not include the insinuating statement. case in point: I worked on a media feature where a friend had a dispute with one of the department directors; he left his position that day, which coincided with the catastrophic loss of some cinematics his former team was working at the same time. Now he is blamed for it forever not even when I can attest that he was flying with me and some other friends to San Francisco that day hours before the server went down. Yes, his timing sucked, and so does Wags. Positive proof a la Beiro?; all for it. Here?, just voicing my (op)position on it. - Spirou (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2014 (EST)
- Making a direct assertion that cannot be fully backed up by the facts is just the sort of thing that could get WikiFur in trouble. If we let the reader infer, by providing all the relevant facts which are not in dispute (as well as any significant disputes), we can give the reader a good idea of the issue without making potentially defamatory statements or coming down firmly on one side or another.
- In the example you mention, we would include your attestation, which might lead to readers coming to a different conclusion. (A suspicious person like myself might think it would be trivial to set a timed deletion of material and set you up as an alibi . . .)
- In this case, the subject's attestation is that he left Weasyl "due to the poor handling of a situation on this site by administration". So we can say that. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:09, 12 December 2014 (EST)
- I have made it clear what is being claimed - a coincidence, which in the circumstances is highly suspicious and may reasonably lead the reader to suspect something. It is not a bad thing if our articles lead the reader to a reasonable conclusion, especially when that is the conclusion that others in the fandom have come to. They can tell that we don't have outright proof or we would have said it directly. An issue would arise if an editor had come to that conclusion and written their opinion as fact; or if we were excluding information that might lead the reader to a different conclusion (such as a public statement of innocence, which is in this case absent). --GreenReaper(talk) 16:41, 12 December 2014 (EST)