In the last thread, there was someone who wanted potential libelous content removed. The content in question is on the Troubled Production/Fan Works page. While I'm not sure it meets the legal definition of libel, it reads a lot like airing a lot of dirty laundry that I heavily doubt is in our best interest to keep or serves our wiki's purpose in any meaningful way.
I proposed to the concerned party that we could simply delete the page (it was the only entry) and then hide the revisions on the source page that reference the contentious content. This is easily done by deleting the page and then undeleting only the latest edit. This would not harm our required content and would fulfill the aims of removing the content, and if it is libelous, would fulfill the purpose of not showing it publicly.
I made no promises to our petitioner except to give the above proposed solution a favorable endorsement; any actions must be done via collegial consensus, and I will abide by the decision of the majority of my fellow administrators.
Below is a copy of our relevant email exchanges:
I proposed to the concerned party that we could simply delete the page (it was the only entry) and then hide the revisions on the source page that reference the contentious content. This is easily done by deleting the page and then undeleting only the latest edit. This would not harm our required content and would fulfill the aims of removing the content, and if it is libelous, would fulfill the purpose of not showing it publicly.
I made no promises to our petitioner except to give the above proposed solution a favorable endorsement; any actions must be done via collegial consensus, and I will abide by the decision of the majority of my fellow administrators.
Below is a copy of our relevant email exchanges:
Quote:Geth N7
8:14 PM (6 minutes ago)
to videokillah@aim.com
I will convey this to my fellow administrators and get back to you when there is a response. All I can promise in the meantime is that I will give the proposed plan of action a favorable endorsement.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 7:17 PM videokillah@aim.com <videokillah@aim.com> wrote:
It would help, yes.
Sent from AOL on Android
On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 21:11, Geth N7
<infiltrator7n@gmail.com> wrote:
Certainly. As it stands, I would be willing to endorse to my fellow administrators we simply just delete the page for now, and, to the extent possible, hide revisions on the page it was split off from to prevent older revisions with the content showing up in searches. I believe that would resolve the issue on your end, insofar as we are concerned.
Again, I must stress if we do this, we cannot control if it is mirrored offsite. You would have to deal with that with whoever did so. But as far as we are concerned, I believe the above solution would be fairest to the both of us. Let me know what you think and we'll go from there.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 5:56 PM videokillah@aim.com <videokillah@aim.com> wrote:
I apologize for being quiet for a few weeks, I had real life business to attend to and expected a response since robkelk passed the buck onto you.
Can we discuss this, Geth?