Debate:Are we inconsiderate pricks?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by signed users.
And if not should we be? Currently the proposal is on rocky ground as only two editors have embraced their prickhood.


Some proof that this fellow is Conservapedia's DeanS? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

check out the "about him" info, he lives in the same places, likes to collect rocks, check out his e-mail address "" compare that to his blog "" and there is other information that can't be released at this time. Fifth Horseman 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I said "proof," not circumstantial evidence. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Beyond reasonable doubt, it's him. Nice find! Neveruse513 17:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Proof is for alcohol and math. Fifth Horseman 17:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, as it would happen, lawsuits for libel and disclosure. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Both in the army, both married, both enjoy rocks and minerals, both named Dean S, both conservative... Maybe it's not him...and maybe Odin is watching over us... Neveruse513 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, "proof" in a legal sense is often built on circumstantial evidence and criteria such as "reasonable doubt." And truth always beats a libel case, and this Dean Slade is CP's Deans. Fifth Horseman 17:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Truth is not a defense against disclosure charges. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
By all means cite the relevant violation that would create a wrongful disclosure charge that could stand up in court. Fifth Horseman 17:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Disclosure is "publishing non-newsworthy private facts that would be offensive to a reasonable person." [1] DeanS's real name is not newsworthy, and it is private since he has not disclosed it to the Conservapedia community. We consider the disclosure of one's name and place of work, when not deliberately revealed by the person concerned, to be an invasion of privacy. I seem to recall that TheoryOfPractice locked up the database in his eagerness to wipe out a similar disclosure concerning Karajou. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
News worthy is debatable, "offensive to a reasonable person" come on! All of which doesn't matter in the least since the information is not private and has been made publicly available by Dean. Wrongful disclosure is for things like doctors letting medical information slip, or HR reps posting tax information on the bathroom wall. Fifth Horseman 17:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Neveruse513 18:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I've also found this conclusive proof... Neveruse513 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not following. Fifth Horseman 18:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I found a compelling DeanS of CP - Dean Slade of Xocai link. Neveruse513 18:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
(EC2) If such information is not offensive to a reasonable person, perhaps someone could tell me why we do not have "checkuser" here, and why we complain about Terry Koeckritz inserting IP-address information into the Conservapedia block-log? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Because we think that's information we hadn't already made publicly available? Neveruse513 18:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
DeanS, the Conservapedia sysop, has not acknowledged that he is Dean S., the chocolate-salesman. Many of us probably have web-pages under our real names, but it is policy that, if found, they are not to be linked to unless the user in question reveals his/her identity. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If that's the policy, then that's the policy and I would gladly see it taken down. But it's not because of fake legal reasons or misconceptions about information made publicly available. Neveruse513 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So it's definitely him...[edit]

Aside from armchair lawyerin', do we have reasons not to post this information?

Is it (now?) RW policy not to reveal the names of CP editors? Vote? CUR? Suggestions? Neveruse513 18:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is any kind of slippery slope to publish information that is made public by the respective individuals. It is different from using third party sources such as google maps to publish information someone never opted to make public. Fifth Horseman 18:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's long been standard that we try not to out people (aside from  K e n  D o l l , who made it obvious) who haven't made their names public first. --Kels 18:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think, it's creepy, we shouldn't post the pic. If the pic came from an article on CP, I would be ok with it. larronsicut fur in nocte 18:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, because you guys have never published material on specific CP personas that was not all ready published by them at CP right? This is information that was made publicly available BY Dean. Fifth Horseman 18:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
See above, specifically the points on TOP's locking up the database and RationalWiki editors' personal web-pages. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the you don't want other people to get a hold of it, then don't post it one the freakin' internet camp. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I know nothing what this locking database issue, whatever, let's see the policy your citing and see a) how/if it applies and b) if it is reasonable. And let us see this policy applied consistently across the site. Fifth Horseman 18:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
And if it's a de facto policy, we need to vote/codify. Neveruse513 18:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, I have had previous finds that I have put on this site removed, I chose not to battle it out and move on. But this needs to be hammered out better than it is now that is for sure. Fifth Horseman 18:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Read this. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
In pursuing RationalWiki's missions, we often comment on the activities of individuals at other websites, but similar caution should be taken in respecting their privacy. Personal information regarding a living person should be limited to information which they themselves have released into the public domain, either through their personal website or a website they are associated with, or other formal publications. No information gained through personal research should be presented. No information divulging the names of family members (that are not themselves figures of interest) or "real world" contact details should be posted. If you are unsure, don't post such information.

Seems this more than fits the standards as currently codified. Fifth Horseman 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 18:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This falls under the category of real-world contact details. Where has DeanS, the Conservapedia sysop, speaking as such, released this information into the public domain? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Your moving the goalpost, the policy does not say that it must be published by the individual speaking from his role at CP. Fifth Horseman 18:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I submit that it is highly hypocritical of you to complain that I am "moving the goalpost," when concurrently you are creating an article with your definition of the term after you wikilink to it here. I submit further that you have considerably less knowledge of RationalWiki precedent in this area than is necessary for you to speak of what constitutes "moving the goalpost." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I created the article and hyper linked it because one did not exist. You know building the site. I submit that there is very little precedent that has been put forward to the community for me to care about. And frankly, I don't care about "precedent" if it hasn't been properly codified and argued. Fifth Horseman 18:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so I think it could be argued that this complies with the policy (Dean released information into public domain, "personal research" could be argued many different ways) I think we need to address users' concerns that they do not want policies that allow for such disclosures. Neveruse513 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The only evidence we have that DeanS is the chocolate-salesman is circumstantial. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If you still want to keep lawyering, it's all circumstantial...We're on the freaking internet. Direct evidence doesn't exist here. Neveruse513 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
See here for an example of direct evidence in this area: Kels provided, on her user page, a link to her webpage with her name on it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Remember, you're trying to be a lawyer. Did you see her type it? No?'s circumstantial. Neveruse513 18:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I could be pretending to be the real Kels and linked to her website for nefarious reasons of my own. It's all so very mysterious. --Kels 18:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Reminds me of Dave Chappelle's R Kelly jury selection skit. "For all I know, that piss could have been digital..." Neveruse513 18:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Y'all do as ye see fit[edit]

I'll do the same. What I see as "fit" (and maybe even meet) is to paraphrase the commercial, "What happens on the intertubes stays on the intertubes. To demonize same poor schmuck out here is fine, to do so with malice aforethought to maybe ruin his business, then that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish heads. 18:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC) CЯacke®

Human and I wrote the relevant section of the community guidelines back in the discussion in January. Whilst this does not give us exclusive say over what this means, the intent at least from me, was to keep their internet life separate from their personal life. Whilst posting links to  K e n D o l l ' s  various blog postings is allowed; unless he put a link on his CP page, we would not link to say his work page. I think what the Fifth Horseman is proposing is well outside what, I at least, intended. - π 23:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Can someone that knows better what they are doing move the non-Dean related to debate to an actual debate page? So it is clear what is going on and others can chime in. Fifth Horseman 18:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)