From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe atheism is just has a plain association with assholes? This is like The Amazing Atheist. (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

There are good people and bad people of virtually every stripe. On the main you can't judge belief or nonbelief over a few people on youtube screaming for clicks. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

censorship and doxing[edit]

" He also criticized Steve Shives for openly conveying pro-censorship views,[8] despite the fact that he literally doxxed people.[9]" I happened to notice this obvious non-sequitur at the end of the section on Steve Shives. Anti-censorship and the practice of doxing are not really inconsistent. There should perhaps be a separate section on doxing accusations. I don't know or care enough to fix it.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleting this article[edit]

This article is clearly outdated and doesn't reflect Devon's recent turn into full race realism and white nationalist apologism. Perhaps it could work if heavily rewritten, but for now it acts as way to legitimise a radical racist by merely portraying him as a bit problematic, and I suggest it be deleted so people unfamiliar with Devon's channel aren't fooled into following his content based on this.

Well, let's see first if there's anyone willing to rewrite it. I don't feel like rewriting it myself, so I'd go for delete for now. Make sure you follow articles for deletion protocol. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree we should delete it. I'm new here, how easily can we delete the article right away?
Sign with ~~~~, quickest way to end your post. The directions that are preloaded when you put up the delete template should be easy enough to follow. Then, wait for some editors to chip in with their opinions. I suspect they would call for a rewrite rather than delete because the article is quite substantial on its own. In fact, I'm leaning now a little toward rewrite, as his history shouldn't be disregarded. But in case you persuaded people, you just have to receive maybe four votes in support and wait for a few days (especially if you quickly get support votes) to check the progress. If there's a majority in favor, then you can delete. But again, I suspect people support rewrite. The only time you'd immediately delete an article if it's a terrible stub, it's been plagiarized, or it has libelous or legally problematic information (like advocacy of pedophilia); most of the time, it's safer to create an Articles for deletion entry. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright I've nominated it formally for deletion [[User:DiabolikDownUnder|DiabolikDownUnder] (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think deleting it was wise. Could someone restore it? --Hitchensiniraq (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. the next article should include how Devon has doxxed quite a few people in the past. His twitter account was then taken down. I think his Youtube videos were too, though he created a new account. He also used to try and given copyright strikes to his opponents according to people like Creationist Cat have said it, and has a terrible overall reputation. That's why I think it's dubious that someone would delete his article unless they were acting in bad faith to censor criticism of him. --Hitchensiniraq (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)