Well, I might consider reporting the accusation of sluttery if (a) there was
a vast amount of evidence that the person was behaving in a way that could
generally be construed as sluttish; and (b) if the person came onto our
mailing list, proved themselves a slut, and insisted we not call them that.
Not likely.
However, alleged sluts have, apparently, more discretion and common sense
then alleged kooks.
On 5/6/05, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/6/05, Josh Gordon <joshua.p.gordon(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think it's us who the bullies are
here. The alleged kook has
been
bullying people on usenet for many years; his
legal threats are an
example
of that. If we had an article [[Abusive usenet
contributors]], he'd be
pretty close to the top of the list.
Josh, we're not supposed to use Usenet as a source except for material
about itself. This is like using Stormfront as a source for an article
about itself (which we can do), then mentioning that they give out an
award for Jewish Supremacist of the Year, and adding the real name of
this year's winner - a private individual, who's been given the award
because he's been harassing Stormfront. And when that person writes to
us and asks that we remove his name from the Stormfront article, and
explains that he was only given the award because he's been making a
nuisance of himself with Stormfront, we ridicule him, we protect the
article so he can't remove his name, and then we threaten to ban him!
The bottom line is that Usenet can only be used as a source of
information *about itself* because it does not count as a reputable,
credible, or authoritative source, and while the Kook of the Year
reference is about Usenet, the name of the complainant is not. He is a
private, non-notable individual, except in Usenet terms, where he has
achieved notability, but we are *not allowed to use Usenet as a source
for the claim of notability*, because in so doing, we're using Usenet
as a secondary source, which is not allowed under [[Wikipedia:No
original research]]. So we have admins violating core policy here in
order to keep this non-notable man's name in a silly article about a
silly subject, even though he's asked us to remove it and has said it
could harm his business.
Mperel made a good point about this elsewhere: "So does this mean you
would support listing the name of high school girls awarded the name
"slut" by their male peers under the respective high school articles,
since it would simply be reporting the verifiable fact that boys at
high school xyz have called girl abc a "slut"?" --MPerel
Sarah