Talk:Con artist

Perhaps we should review my categories on this one.--Bob^{bing for apples} 13:10, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

So why aren't the Schlafly gang on there? --Kels 20:54, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

And what about the Scientologists? 82.198.250.69 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1) The CP gang aren't really trying to con people out of money 2) I think Scientology is in a different league altogether than mere con artists, although if anyone would care to write a decent block of text that justifies a link to them from here I wouldn't object. ^theist 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Several micronations have elements of connery (rather than being merely 'jumped up D&D hobbiests').

The Time Travel Fund falls in the category of shaggy dog story rather than con-artistry. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Con-artistry #can# blend into entertainment - you can see the flummery, but it is done amusingly enough. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete this?

After seeing Nutty's deletion of the named folks, this article doesn't have much left to recommend itself. It does fit within the mission but, with a more risk-averse editing policy (which I support), there's not much more that can be said. MarmotHead (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to discuss the content deletion a bit first. Some of the removed names weren't living people. Many were convicted in court of serious fraud related crimes. If the mere risk of having the section(i.e. new editors might come along and add libelous stuff), I understand but I want to get the exact goal clear. Ikanreed (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. I'd support some form of adding back well-documented cases, particularly those who can't claim libel (i.e. are dead). However, the name itself, "con artist", is a bit snarly, so I recommend care. MarmotHead (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This section is too tempting to the kind of editors who are getting the RMF and Trent sued. As long as RW continues to be dominated by an anything goes attitude and such pervasive failure to exercise independent judgment to perhaps oh I don't know protect the corporation that makes this site available for some of you to obsess over, it's a bad idea to make an easy dumping ground. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so no lists that represent possible places to trivially insert libel is the guidestone here? Just trying to tune my own approach. Ikanreed (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what it means to attempt to exercise independent judgment on your own? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes and people doing that has gotten the foundation in trouble, and if we're trying to protect the foundation to some standard, that standard needs to fucking exist. Ikanreed (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Don't libel people. You personally directly participated in rolling back and binning someone who very quickly sued Trent. Do you think I give a single solitary shit what your opinion is? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to have a list then it needs to be a documented list. We can't just add random names. If we were to add Andrew Wakefield, for example, an entry like Andrew Wakefield - used fraudulent evidence to push anti vaccination propaganda (and then a ref). See what I mean? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Piling on more uses of a word that causes legal problems simply because in your opinion your citations support whatever name you want to call someone, or because you're repeating someone else's claim, is unacceptable. And lest you point to existing examples of uses of words people sue over, let me suggest you Sally forth and go exercise some good judgment. Nutty Roux (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that one key phrase is "opinion". We can each state our opinion, on our own websites, that X is a con artist and, probably, not risk lawsuits, but here, on a community site that purports to be factual, we risk more than ourselves and must act accordingly. MarmotHead (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if there needs to be a deletion of any words or words that could get the RW sued...there needs to be a significant clean up. Not just for the con artists but conspiracy theorists, conservapedia admins, alternative medicine people, wingnuts, and psychics. Calling Alex Jones a raging paranoid liar that wears tin foil headgear (summary) is just a quick example pressing the "random page" button.

I am all for not getting sued. Changes happen and it makes sense people are suing now that RW is no longer one of the vast unknown layer of websites. It might be better to have that out there instead of an angry sysop deleting and calling people names as the exposure to the rule. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm in perfect agreement. If RW needs to be made suit-proof, then realistically we need to strip all snark and humor from the wiki, remove anything that might be construed as vaguely offensive to anyone, and then enforce seriousness and a refrain from criticism rigorously. Nutty would be the perfect person to come up with an iron-clad standard for that, as he is an attorney and can speak authoritatively on legal subjects. --Castaigne (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As Nutty has basically eviscerated the article into a stub and as it's clear he does not want named examples, there's no point in keeping it at all. It no longer serves a purpose. I'm nominating it for deletion. --Castaigne (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not directing this at you. What's difficult about this? Don't defame people. Don't accuse them of criminal misconduct unless they've been convicted and you're naming the offense exactly and with documentation. Don't accuse someone of professional imcompetence. Your own opinion that someone is a "con artist" is a big problem. Finding sources that bolster your hatred for someone doesn't "snark" make. I'm not a particularly angry person, but I have to act when the RMF is getting sued because single purpose editors aren't being supervised by the rank and file and my friend is getting personally sued because a slew of exactly who you'd expect to have been involved rolled back the plaintiff and binned his lawyer. Sure, they did't know who the "vandals" were, but the assessment that they were "whitewashing" without spending a microsecond to have a critical look at what they were editing is appalling, and disappointingly unsurprising now that I've come to see their patterns. The generally anything goes attitude here has got to stop. Getting someone else sued because you feel entitled to say whatever you feel like is an outrage. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As to what's difficult. It's the first thing. "Don't defame people." It's actually not an easy line to tread for a lot of us, particularly with people whose careers frequently involve making making misleading statements, particularly when the court systems also find serious fault with their activities. It's easy to take a hardline and just stay away from anything remotely negative, but that's not quite the same as not defaming, and a lot of us have an instinct to "call them out". I'm personally trying my best to exercise restraint, but this particular list had dead people who aren't going to sue us, and the reasons for cleaning it have to do with the future potential for defamation, not just defamation. That raises a lot of ambiguities that are difficult. Come on, you gotta understand where I'm coming from here. Ikanreed (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I can see that. The people deleted out of here were mostly convicted. It's not defimation to show someone is a convicted of that crime. They can certainly find it insulting, and certainly sue, even if it's just to intimidate because they will lose. I am 100% behind you in theory with the additional explanation but I am with Ikanreed that your definition still seems haphazard. Especially when you can hit a number of pages that still have unpleasant content as an example of how to write articles, and deleting things that aren't really defamation, and the unproductive insults. I do want to make the additional statement, not to shit on you, but to say this information is what was missing with earlier comments that helps convince me at least. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

After a short cooling-off

Alright, I still don't think my concern is settled because what I actually got for my sincere questions was blame and debate. I'm not interested in arguing. I'm not saying it should be kept, but I am going to press the issue of clearly stating why. There was no edit summary, there was no honest answer to my question. There was just pointless insults. Ikanreed (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Can't argue with a lawyer. They'll always win.

Or assholes, for that matter, but that's another conversation. --Castaigne (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm, again, not trying to argue. I'd sincerely appreciate some guidance on cases like lists. Ikanreed (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You've gotten the clearest answer there is. Don't libel people. Castaigne, you've added a lot. Thanks for your contribution. Let's just note that you came here to shit on me, again, in the context of a discussion about problematic material. Defamation isn't "snarky" — it's unlawful. Dialing RW back from being the hate site you want it to be and protecting the RMF from getting sued is a terrible "agenda". I'm so ashamed. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC)If the list is of people who are "con artists", "crackpots", or "looney-tune nutcases", it's hard to objectively say who fits and those placed on the list could easily be offended by the language (i.e. feel libeled) and be ready to dial up their lawyer. If the list is of people who are "alive", "members of churches", or "convicted of theft", there is an obvious definition and lawsuits and threats would be much less likely. MarmotHead (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in making RW a hate site, Nutty. I just thought it was fine as it was. You disagree; apparently RW is actually thousands of libel suits waiting to happen. That's fine. I'm not going to fight you. Heck, I'm agreeing with you today. I'm even telling Ikanreed that he can't win against you. I am being obedient to your dictates. Are you telling me this is not what you want? --Castaigne (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Same here, tell us what needs to be done...but clear directions are needed. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Nutty, if you are going to do this sorta shit, we need specific guidelines as to what you consider "libel". Otherwise, we can and will strawman your arguments into utter oblivion.--Madman (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Let's put it this way: Implicating someone as a con artist requires a good definition with criteria, and requires that anyone who is on that list fit that criteria. Even then, it's an argument in an academic sense, and is based on a common understand of what a con artist is with an uncontestable (?) definition. If anyone can argue the point another way, then it's not a good idea to publish it publicly. Certain a list of names is never going to do that work. It's essentially assertion. I would think on a site that professes to promote critical thinking this would be obvious, but I've learned nothing's that obvious to folks here. I certainly don't think ignorance is a good defense. Sterile (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Move of content

It looks like the content of the article was just cloned to Charlatan.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)