WikiFur talk:This week's featured article/Week 26, 2007

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

This kind of furry shouldn't have a featured article. Read the following and see the truth of what he has done to several woman. Keep in mind, many of the people who have posted are people he claims to be friends with:

"Seems one of your admins has become something of a terror to the females of the furry fandom:

If I were you, I wouldn't be letting this guy edit articles. I think a permanent ban is in place, and at the very least, revoking of his adminship."

A copy of this was sent to greenreaper. This kind of behavior shouldn't be condoned or protected. This guy is dangerous, a stalker, and there are several girls who contest to that in these posts. I know him and I have had our differences, but this has gone beyond the point of sane with him. He needs to seek professional help, and all the people in that post are agreeing on that fact.

--Sema JayHawk 19:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Sibe has been a featured article in the past, I don't think personal behavior should play a factor in the selection of this article. He wouldn't be the first drama king to be editing WikiFur and to continue to be allowed and in the little time I play with Wiki, I've never seen him be malicious, in fact, he was very nice in helping me to learn how to edit wikipages. This is too much like Siegewolf's article, which I know they want to take down. Maybe a controversy section is in order. I know you are eager to expose him, but there are other ways. -- Shadow Hito
I know that if a controversy section is made on the article, it will be removed because of his admin status here. I would be more than happy to write one, and include a list of names of girls he's hurt and lied to, but I feel it would be a waste of my time because it would just be removed (as the sentence I originally wrote was). Plus I am sure Sibe's article contained some what of the truth of him. I'm sure it wasn't all peaches and roses about how he found the furry fandom and what good he has done for it.

--Sema JayHawk 19:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sure his article contains truth about redtail too and what good he has done for it. everyone has something awful they've done, especially in the furry fandom. I think though if we wrote controversy sections on everyone, every article would have one. Furry is drama. -- Shadow Hito
That statement is a fallacy and I choose not to believe it. I know a lot of really good people who never stick their noses into this kind of crap. It is a harsh generalization that "everyone has done something awful" because a lot of the people who were hurt by him have been nothing but great people. What Ken Redtail has done is not just "drama" - it's a crime. He is stalking women who have asked him both nicely and forcefully to leave them alone. This is the kind of guy who we want representing the furry fandom? Well then, not only is that sad, but it also condones being a drama whore just because your a member of the furry fandom. It also promotes the wrongful treatment of women which I find highly inappropriate.--Sema JayHawk 20:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You are again conflating the idea of "what we want furry fandom to be" with "what we should feature as good encyclopediaic content". The two have no relation. Indeed, it would be a violation of the neutral point of view for us to do that, as it would require a judgment call on what parts of the fandom were "good". Funnily enough, I looked through the article before featuring it, and made several changes, but nowhere did I see anything about promoting wrongful treatment of women. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
How many times do I have to tell you that status on WikiFur is based on actions taken on WikiFur?
Such information *will* be taken account of when it comes to editing articles based on the topics they relate to, for the avoidance of bias. However, I am not about to start campaigning for the removal of administrative privileges from an admin or for the blocking of a user based on their actions outside of the site. People are blocked because they are causing problems for others trying to improve or maintain the site. I see no such problems here.
I will be at Anthrocon later this week. If you are, and if you wish to, you are welcome to discuss our policies with myself and other WikiFur administrators there.
As for the featured article, it was chosen because it was a well-presented article that made good use of style and formatting. It is a (mostly technical) judgment of the quality of the article. It does not imply that the subject of the article is a "good" one. We have featured articles about several other people - about half of whom could be considered at least somewhat controversial individuals. I personally prefer to feature other sorts of articles, but if they are the best ones on offer, they are featured. The feature nomination was on WikiFur:Featured article candidates for several weeks and you had ample opportunity to complain about it if you felt it was not an appropriate article. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The only reason he is an admin is because he poured over hundred dollars into this site, that and he does nothing else but edit articles people don't want him editing in the first place. The fact that this website condones sexual mistreatment of women sickens me. As I said in e-mail - I would like my article locked. Obviously Ken has painted a very vivid picture of me to his friends (you guys) and there is nothing I can say or do if he was every to vandalize my article either with his username or his several other usernames. If this site is not biased - then a controversy section is in order for this user.--Sema JayHawk 20:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Administratorship cannot be "bought" no matter how much money was donated from myself. All my money got was a pretty little patron icon because I have always been a patron of the arts and knowledge, in general. This goes for my other donations to charities and public works. This site does not condone sexual mistreatment anymore than it condones any other misaction taken by other individuals. If you take time to read through what some people have done, you'll find a really horrific picture of the furry fandom. And an encyclopedia like WikiFur is there as a third party, neither condemning or condoning any action. See User_talk:Chibiabos for example.--Kendricks Redtail
What did I say about never talking to me again? Your words mean nothing to me. All I read is "Blah Blah Blah I'm a stalker whose just trying to cover his ass right now" --Sema JayHawk 21:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Kendricks Redtail was made an administrator because he made many valuable editing contributions to WikiFur over an extended period (as I recall, over a thousand edits over a period of several months, including discussion with others on talk pages). He has continued to do so, and is currently the 4th highest contributor to the site by edit count. For comparison, the top fourteen by edit count are all administrators as well. Donations are explicitly not a criteria for administrative status. It happens that three of the six WikiFur patrons and all of the SuperSponsors are administrators, but that is because they have all made extensive editorial contributions.
I did consider the implication of his donations, and refrained from featuring this article on a previous occasion for this very reason, even though it was a reasonable candidate. I also consulted with other administrators before giving him administrative access, including one who had personal knowledge of him, and they agreed that he should be made an administrator, based on his time and effort contributed and - the most important criteria - the fact that he "seems to have what's best for WikiFur in mind." The article about him was featured this week because, while not having ringing endorsement, it had the support of two people, objections from none, and was in my own estimation the best choice available at the time.
You seem to have the idea that just because you do not want someone editing an article, they should not be allowed to do so. You are mistaken; you do not own articles, even if they are about you or an activity you are involved with. That is what a personal website is for. This is a community website, and so pages are edited by the community - including the parts of it that some do not personally like. In some cases, the editing community has allowed the locking of articles about people based on respect for a person's wishes. However, restricting editing has generally failed to lead to further improvement in the article, which is why it is rarely done. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not own articles, but I do have a right to privacy. Anything written about me could very well be seen by coworkers who, because of the field I am in, could take it the very wrong way. What is on the article now is fine. I do not want a sexual predator editing an article about me. It is my name, it's my right. --Sema JayHawk 21:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
HOw would your coworkers know where to look? Your real name isn't on the page, so no one can accidentally google it. You would have to show it. And unfortuantely, all someone has to do is start exploring the site further and then there is no right way to take any of this. so you'd be screwed anyway. I think you're realitively safe from your work finding out. - Shadow Hito

And back on topic: Having Ken Redtail as a feautured article is similar to having Osama Bin Laden as Time's "Person of the Year" in 2001. Remember how upset everyone was about that? They ended up changing it to Rudy Giuliani for good reasons. Even though Bin Laden had a huge effect on the world that year - why honor him by giving him that kind of media attention? And 2 people doesn't sound like a good enough number of people to make this kind of choice. It sounds like rethink how you pick an article like that. Perhaps you should make the nomination of feautured articles more public. Hey, how about making "Nominate a Featured Article" a featured article on WikiFur. --Sema JayHawk 21:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler was Time's Man of the Year too. So was Stalin. All that dramafest about is who has affected the world the most, for positive or negative. Oh, and Nominate a featured article is right beneath the blurb about him. Pay attention to the site. If you want privacy, just ask them for exclusion.
First of all, have to guts to post under your real name before I take anything you have to say seriously. Coward. Second, not everyone wastes their lives on this site.--Sema JayHawk 22:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Everyone wastes their life on the furry fandom. Whether by drawing, fursuiting, writing on LiveJournal, collecting artwork, paying thousands of dollars for art and fursuits or editing Wikifur. It's all wasteful. I give this site and Wikipedia about an hour and a day, otherwise I play basebal or go out to the clubs with my friends. - Shadow Hito
I think they were wrong to do that. You, like others (and quite possibly like the people themselves), are mistaking such things as an honour. The Person of the Year is the person who "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." WikiFur's featured articles "represent the best of WikiFur to date." Neither of these revolve around making a moral choice about the subject.
As for picking featured articles, the process is wide open already. There is a link right on the featured article box to suggest articles, and all of the reasons given for featuring an article are logged - even when it was just me doing it because nobody else had bothered. I fail to see how we could make it more public. You just haven't been taking part in the process - and now you want to complain after the fact? If you don't want to "waste your time" contributing here, then you should not expect your opinion to have much weight. Start helping us to prepare and choose featured articles, and you may find your opinion of their quality improves. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is, you said it yourself, only two people were behind the nomination of the article. I mean, why do we even have a featured article when no one is even voting for one? Kinda pointless, huh? I'm sure you could tell me how many people are signed up for this website - and I'm sure 2 isn't even 1% of the people here.--Sema JayHawk 22:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Because such featured articles spur the improvement and creation of other articles, as well as provide a service to the (massive majority of) people who read without editing. Over 3,000 people visit WikiFur every day. Yesterday, 800 of them looked at the front page. Ideally, they see something there that piques their interest, leads them further into their site, and encourages them to come back for more. One of those things is regularly changing featured articles. Most users don't go to too much trouble looking for new content - they prefer to have it presented to them. Featuring such content on the front page is a way to do that. The fact that there are so few people interested in helping with this important task is regrettable, but this has actually been improving in recent weeks. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Can we renominate articles? - Shadow Hito