Talk:Research Psychologist

Deletion nomination

I have nominated the page for deletion because this user was active on wikis where the creator of the page had administrative privileges, the user strongly criticized the page creator here,[1] and this information may be private. This is not a major figure in the wiki world, and WikiIndex enters perilous territory if it becomes a collection of pages like this, in pursuit of a private agenda. --Abd (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

He has a very distinctive editing style. I don't know anyone else who uses HTML markup so extensively in his wikitext and has such a strong interest in eugenics. He's definitely a one-of-a-kind guy. Anyway, this isn't the first site to link the accounts; RationalWiki did the same. But whatever; if this site is only for authorized bios, then so be it.

How is it a private agenda? It's just information. People can do with it as they wish. He criticized me, but I didn't care. He was rather amusing and was a net positive to most wikis he participated in, especially ChildWiki. His fans and others who are interested in seeing what he wrote and how people responded to him may have an interest in the material; making it all easily accessible by linking it furthers that goal. I consider myself somewhat a fan of his, although I also find his quirks and the interactions that arose from his behavior entertaining.

The fact that he didn't use the same username on every site doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't want us to link them. He just didn't want various sites to discriminate against him based on his past activities at other wikis. He's actually quite proud of his eugenic theories, I think, and doesn't feel he has anything to be ashamed of that he's done on these different sites. None of them can be linked to his real-life identity.

At the next wiki he goes to, he'll use yet another username, so it won't matter that we connected the dots here. Leucosticte (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the over-reversion, I have no idea how I managed to do that.

The issue is the purpose of WikiIndex. Is it a place to post original research on user identities? That opens a huge can of worms, if so. --Abd (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how binding this is, but it's been on that page for awhile. Why does Wikipedia ban original research and prefer tertiary to primary and secondary sources? I don't know, but in some cases it has dumb results, e.g. when they're writing articles about stuff that happened on Wikipedia and people object to their citing diffs. A diff is a pretty reliable source, in my view, and diffs are pretty much the sources that will be cited when we're talking about what people in the wikisphere have said and done. It's not like anyone cared enough to write a mainstream news article about 99% of the stuff that goes on in the wikisphere.

Why not follow the same practices as RationalWikiWiki (aside from the dumb stuff they did, like kick people off for no reason)? They could write a several-page long article about someone using mostly diffs for the references. Granted, they did a lot of editorializing too, which we should avoid here. The Research Psychologist article had no editorializing; only cited facts. Leucosticte (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So should we undelete and reinstate this article; providing it is actually related to wiki in one way or another? Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)