Name removal while being a criminal suspect
Info was restored as it pertains to an ongoing public criminal investigation. Request of data removal is null and void as the information is needed for user searches. Removal of personal data, and the controversy section, can be removed if the user is found not guilty - Spirou (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2017 (EST)
- Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "needed for user searches?" Needed by whom? And for what purpose - one that outweighs the prevention of criminal death threats? I don't see any exceptions in the policies with that kind of wording or with regard to an ongoing public investigations. Is your justification arbitrary or is this a rule that was previously agreed on? Thank you. skippyfox (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (EST)
- By people both within and without the fandom who want to know who they are, the crimes they are alleged to have committed, and their activities within furry fandom? We're a public resource. It is not our purpose to protect furry fans or furry fandom from criticism, nor to prevent others from acting in a criminal manner - that is the job of the police. Our job is to tell the truth. To be frank, if the subject is concerned for their well-being and wants round-the-clock police protection, he need only ask the judge concerned to revoke bail. As for precedent for suspending exclusion of information given a current controversy, here's a good example - and note, this is for a far less serious crime. There are others, some linked there. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:52, 2 February 2017 (EST)
- Separately, I have to dispute your decision to revert Protocollie's request, as it in no way relevant to the investigation. skippyfox (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2017 (EST)
- From a personal perspective, I think it'd be fine (and perhaps more informative) to specify a date of activity rather than the person the event was handed to. Of course the information in question should stay on the article about the event, as it is a public action within the fandom. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:14, 2 February 2017 (EST)
Objecting to removal of legal name
Removing the subject's legal name from the article seems worthless to me. For starters, the legal name is still in the citations used to source the "Controversy" section. In a different scenario, since the verdict was returned "not guilty", I would advocate removal of the section in its entirety (and therefore the legal name), but because it is vital to the 2016/2017 child abuse arrests (the article for which also contains the subject's full legal name), and because removing references to the subject of this article from the other would be incredibly damaging to this encyclopedia's coverage of the events and the understanding of readers, I can't reasonably suggest that's a good idea. Therefore I think that the legal name should be reinstated and remain; it wasn't "LupineFox" who was arrested, charged, and found innocent, it was Fenske. --Equivamp - talk 19:54, 12 August 2018 (EDT)
- Done. I had an argument against reinstating names on users not found guilty in their articles, but it is been one of those long days, so his name has been reinstated on the first paragraph just so. I don't know if you also wish to restore the prior irl name instances across the whole article, or Lupinefox will do just fine, let me know. - Spirou (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2018 (EDT)
- Can you please remove the name and the controversy section? On this discussion page on Feb 2 2017 you promised "personal data, and the controversy section, can be removed if the user is found not guilty." Additionally, the action to keep this information in place goes against WikiFur's stated intention of not hurting anyone, as it is directly damaging to Lupine's personal and professional life. These were traumatic life-changing events that have left him struggling with PTSD and severe depression, which he has attested to personally and publicly on Facebook. It is in large part due to personal threats and the loss of friends both inside and outside of the furry fandom, and he will never fully recover from this damage. Lupine's right to privacy should take precedence over Equivamp's personal preference. Yes, people who really want to know can still dig up the information without trying very hard, but obscuring it here is NOT worthless. A little support and compassion goes a very long way, and all Wikifur is being asked to do is keep its word. Thank you. skippyfox (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2018 (EDT)
- I am in agreement with Skippyfox's statements above. SkippyFox mentioned the discussion of Feb 2, 2017, and the promise that "personal data, and the controversy section can be removed if the user is found not guilty", which has now happened. Given the "not guilty" verdict, I would ask that Lupinefox's real name be removed from this article as it impedes his ability to rebuild a normal life, earn an income, and to pursue happiness. It is also both Lupinefox's and my preferred course of action to remove the "Controversy" section entirely, as well as any links or references to it. somacat (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2018 (EDT)
- While I personally don't mind it either way, I do think that we should be preserving the policies that we already have in place. WikiFur does respect privacy in various ways, and you paste a couple guidelines in support of that. However, the guidelines you just pasted actually do mention cases similar to this. In the personal information guideline: When curators are not sure that the community would agree, they will open it to public debate. This is particularly likely in the situation where an person active in the furry fandom appears to be trying to avoid a bad reputation that some would consider deserved by their public actions, particularly if they have physically or monetarily harmed others, and/or committed crimes. In this case, users have in the past felt that the public interest is better-served by keeping the article, as long as it presents information in a neutral fashion.
- And under the "not hurting anyone" section: This also means that we may grant people some measure of control over personal information posted about them, although it should be noted that this is up to the discretion of the curators, and is generally restricted to information generally considered private (such as age, location, and real name), not your public actions (forum posts, historical web pages) or the actions of others (e.g. pages with apparently factual statements that are not to your credit). If you really have done something particularly bad, or worked up a documented history of misdemeanors, you're going to have to live with that.
- While those guidelines don't explicitly cover someone being found not guilty, simply being found not guilty doesn't rewrite history and doesn't automatically mean that suddenly that section of the article is invalid, it's still factual history that they were charged, and WikiFur guidelines allow for it so long as it's written neutral. Just as a test, I just Google'd the real name of LF, and the first thing that came up was a news article which mentioned not guilty, but included the main history of the charges... And of course past the WikiFur article at pos2, there's a whole slew of articles. Also, typing in "LupineFox" in Google also generated various sources that included real name and mentions of the arrests. Basically, I don't feel that in this case removing the controversy from the WikiFur article does anything at all (because Googling both LF and the real name will still generate results), and actually removes one of the few sources that says they are not guilty... which seems counter intuitive to me. --FrostTheFox (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2018 (EDT)
- On private discussions that occurred after last year's (February 2017) statement, the point of removing real life name information (not AKAs) was affirmed, but that the controversy section should indeed remain as A) being public knowledge data, here and elsewhere, and that B) it's the only information that is available that clears the party of any wrongdoing (not being guilty). In short, removal would actually infer that the party in question is guilty, instead of the controversy section actually clearing their name of any wrongdoing. This reversal on just controversy should have been updated after Greenreaper's point on the February statement/discussion but was an oversight not to update this page with that change of stated opinion. - Spirou (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2018 (EDT)
Inclusion of the legal name is important for custodial reasons of the wiki (establishing that the individual in the linked citations is the same as the subject of the article). However I think that the controversy section can be trimmed down to something along the lines of "Fenske was arrested as part of the series of arrests of furries for sexual abuse in 2016/2017, but was found not guilty on January 12, 2018." With the link that people wishing to learn more can click the linked article to read the entire timeline for appropriate context. --Equivamp - talk 21:01, 17 August 2018 (EDT)