WikiFur talk:Policies and guidelines/2006

What do people think of administrators deleting vandalism from page history? There are many pages that have been perfectly peaceful, but have nasty stuff in the history because of vandalbot attacks. I'm not thinking of deleting revisions from well-meaning but misguided newbies, just the clearcut vandals. Right now, it could be done by deleting the page, then undeleting all revisions except the vandalism. There is also talk of special functions for deleting revisions, but I don't know if that's implemented on WikiFur yet. --Rat 09:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally would like to see the history kept untouched so that vandal attacks can be recorded. Unless there's a diskspace issue on the server perhaps? --Douglas Muth 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't affect disk space. the "deleted" revisions would still be recorded, they would just be hidden to all but administrators. Administrators would be able to click the "view deleted edits" link in the history be page to be able to see them again. --Rat 18:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Douglas . . . it does tend to bulk up the history a bit, but at least you can see what happened - and how fast it was reverted. WikiFur is all about not hiding things, after all. If Wikipedia can deal with it, we should be able to. Not that it matters, but as far as I know there is no disk space limit upon us at this time (and if there were, it would certainly affect Uncyclopedia before us, which has far more in the way of deleted articles and the like). --GreenReaper^(talk) 14:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Exclusion of information: Sexuality

Discussing an individual's sexuality or sexual fantasies, whether it is truth or libel, would seem to constitute sexual harrassment if it is against the individual's will. Wikifur shouldn't be a place to stamp sexuality on articles about furs, especially when it is or could be used as ad hominem attacks to dissuade from a wikifurrian's edits or talk page discussion points, encourage harrassment, or merely serve to degrade, denigrate or humiliate a private fur.

There is a wide variety of sexual preferences in the fandom, from asexuality to zoophilia, and I find it highly inappopriate to publish claims of an individual's sexuality (unless they have been convicted of rape) without their explicit consent. It is no more valid to include such information against a user's consent than it is to put a private fur's real name and address. Sexuality and real life contact information (for private furs that have no felonious criminal record) are both areas of information; both are private; and neither should be forced onto a private fur. Doing so is, itself, a violation of sexual consent and could legally constitute sexual harrassment, even if difficult to prosecute. Wikifur should not be a haven for it. --Chibiabos 03:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look up the actual definition of sexual harassment. It doesn't mean what you think it means, or you're trying to imply it means. However, I agree with you on one thing: speculation about someone's sexuality shouldn't be allowed. That said, if someone wrote a lengthy essay about the joys of bestiality (Sarah Wheeler, aka ManaWolf), or is known for vigorously defending a particular point of view on public forums, or has been open about their sexuality in the past, that information should be fair game. 66.88.135.150

Your laws may vary, but the sort of harrassment that's going around wikifur would qualify as grounds for sexual harrassment in the U.S. Sexual harrassment is simple here -- any unwanted sexual advances or remarks, period. --Chibiabos 00:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, that statement is way over the line now. A) There's no "sexual harassment" in progress in any of the articles and/or talk pages in Wikifur, and If it were to be such behavior occurring anywhere in this Wiki, such person(s) would be warned and/or banned, and, B) What you seem to be mistakenly misconstrue as "sexual harassment" is both people throwing your beliefs back in your face, and, just pushing all the right buttons to get a rise out of you.

In other words, you are being baited, and responding to the bait, and being baited again, transforming Wikifur into what is not, a forum for this kind of infighting. I suggest, again, to take this kind of discussions off to personal email Spirou 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

People are discussing rumors about my sexual partners and treating it as important points to put and keep in wikifur. This constitutes "sexual harrassment" in any office I've ever worked in. I do not grant you nor anyone my consent. I do not get to choose, however. I asked the harrassers many times over to cease and desist, including private e-mail, but they keep forcing their libel and sexual harrassment on wikifur, and I keep getting rebutted in my efforts to clean it up, out and off.

Could I publish your sexual history? How about if I invented one, and you were rebutted in any effort you made to keep it off wikifur?

The only value in such is to harrass, demean and discredit. There is no positive value to Wikifur for this filth, aside from entertaining bullies. --Chibiabos 02:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

One, this is a Wiki, not an office, Two, it's not "sexual harassment," they are just carefully worded posts designed to set you off.

You were asked to take it to email when the first confrontations occurred, but you continued to rebut their posts here nevertheless. Now they are here in masse, and you complain because that is so. If you respond to the "filth," it doesn't go away. Concentrate on the Wiki, ignore the taunts Spirou 04:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If one can call this a discussion.. of sorts, this is my personal thoughts on the matter. For the larger part and normally for all people, the sexual partners someone has had is private information and should always be treated as such. One could argue that as 'WikiFur only reproduces publically known information', if the person was to post a list of furs they claim to of had sex with, on a public post on their LiveJournal or website, that would consitute a public broadcast. However, sex is something between two (or more) people and unless the other person also publically at the same time announces that yes, they did, you can't treat the information as 'the truth' and therefor it couldn't even begin to be considered for inclusion on the wiki.

Slightly different I would say is sexual preference or kinks. If someone posts regularly and publicly in 'forum.ilovehumpingplushies.com' it would be safe to list them as a plushophile. Likewise if someone has 'come out' mentioning they are gay in an entry could not ever be considered liable and shouldn't ever be allowed to be deleted as part of a personal data removal request when following the link from the article to their LJ links you to a giant rainbow banner. However, if WikiFur admins and contributors can find no out-right statement of sexual preference, the information can not be included.

Further thoughts? --Nidonocu - talk 04:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This contradicts Wikifur's otherwise established policies. For instance, in the Wounded Paws article, I was prohibited from voluntarily naming myself as a member, even though that is public information. It seems the wikifur policy is only to allow or force a label on someone if there is a consensus that person deserves to by lynched because enough people do not like them. --Chibiabos 11:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, I have no problem with your proposed guideline, Nidonocu. Second, in the case that you mention, by posting names to an abuse survivors group is a bad idea, and posting even one name of someone (even if voluntary) sets a precedent. Remember, that future editors are not telepathic and do not know that the name was entered voluntarily (or may not have the wikiskillz to look at the edit history) and will just assume that it's OK to add names as they choose. That aside...what the heck does that have to do with sexual orientation or preference? ----DuncanDaHusky^(talk) 12:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I even mentioned in the talk page that it was my choice, and it has everything to do with forcing unverifiable and unreferenceable bits of information whose inclusion is only meant as an attack, not informative. It is inconsistent and hypocritical to state one page on a very biased site harrassing people against their will is acceptable as "public" information proving that site's members' claim (they wrote a page on it, so it must be true .... that does not fly with me) an unpopular claim for the primary purpose of smearing a private fur.

I repeat, an individual's sex life does not belong on wikifur without their consent, epsecially when it is meant as an attack. That's what CYD does, leave their hatemongering, ranting and fear-instilling filth on their site, it shouldn't be forced as attacks on private furs on wikifur. We don't need wikifur to become an anti-furry site nor a parrot for one. --Chibiabos 12:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, to answer Duncan, the orignal post touched on mentioning sexuality so I thought I would answer on that point also. I also have to mention I aggree with Chibi and Duncan on the second point. It should be a right for people to write about themselves in what ever way they wish as long as its the truth, but stopping accidental precedents is also important. I would suggest using invisible 'editors comments' in the articles near information like say the members list to indicate that only the subjects themselves may add their name to the list or paragraph. You double this up with a post of the talk page. This I believe has worked in previous situations that required article management due to unverifiability to privacy.

Additonally, I had a little trouble following the first paragraph of Chibi's reply to Duncan there.. however, obviously I think we all agree on the point in the second one. WikiFur does not suffer and I personally would not see it suffer from the 'face-less majority rules' that sometimes plauges wikipedia when groups get together to force-swing votes. Ultimately, most of our rules come down to trying to find a moral middle ground and pointing out shameful things in someone's private life is not moral. --Nidonocu - talk 00:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)