Talk:Crusader Cat/Archive1

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Crusader Cat is editing his own WikiFur page to obfuscate the fact that he has admitted to sexual abuse of animals. He has written his article to hide the fact that the reason furries are angry with him is not because he is a Christian, but rather that he is using his religious beliefs to project his crimes onto others not guilty of his sin of animal rape.-- 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversial claims must not only be well sourced, but when it is about a person, there must be a good argument why the information should be made public. Just because something is true doesn't necessarily mean it belongs here. If you wish to continue your efforts to include the information in the article, please register an account to do so. --mwalimu 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely! Unfortunately, Crusader Cat has deleted the Adobe Acrobat PDF file from his FurAffinity account where he describes, in graphic detail, of sexually abusing his pets. Before Crusader Cat deleted his PDF file confessing animal sexual abuse from FurAffinity, I saved it to my computer. I would be happy to expose all supporting documents of Crusader Cat's confession of sexually abusing his pets if you would kindly link to me a document describing how I might upload these documents directly to WikiFur.
I not only have that PDF file saved to my computer as evidence of his crime, but the video I sourced in Crusader Cat's article, that you deleted, shows Crusader Cat confessing to molesting his pets. Anyone reading this, interested in watching Crusader Cat admit to sexually abusing his pets, can go through the history of the Crusader Cat article and find the video sourced in a previous version of the article of Crusader Cat confessing to sexually abusing his animals.
The integrity of WikiFur is at stake when people guilty of serious crimes can produce false articles depicting themselves as clean, moral, and decent people. A false "Crusader" who is actually more guilty of the crime of animal sexual abuse than most all furries should never be tolerated to hide his past. How would you like it if a criminal donned the title "crusader" and then came to your social group commanding you and your friends to repent of a crime none of you had committed -- but he had? That is what is happening here, and Crusader Cat is exploiting WikiFur as the source of documentation of the furry fandom to whitewash his past. Crusader Cat pretends like those who disagree with him hate him for being a Christian when the reality is that he is hated because he sexually molested his pets and then approached furries as a saint offering forgiveness when he is the one who needs forgiveness for his detestable crime of animal rape.
No one should be allowed to use WikiFur as a platform to produce a sparkling clean article about themselves when reality is quite different. No one should be allowed to drum up support for a cause, when they themselves are in gross violation of the cause they purport to represent without exposure of the facts of their past crimes. No one guilty of serious crimes should use WikiFur to falsely portray themselves as a pious angel of religious indemnity while feigning innocence and condemning others. The truth is that those people Crusader Cat claims are "haters of Christianity" are, in actuality, angry of Crusader Cat's sexual abuse of animals followed by falsely accusing others guilty of his crime while pretentiously wrapping himself up in a cloak of holiness.
Again, I would be happy to expose all supporting documents of Crusader Cat's confession of sexually abusing his pets if you would kindly link to me a document describing how I might upload these documents directly to WikiFur. Why should a animal molestor, such as Crusader Cat, be allowed to make himself a sparkling clean article of himself as a Crusader against sexual abuse without exposing his own past as a animal abuser? Seems to me, Crusader Cat is more guilty of the crime of animal sex abuse than most of the furries he condemns. -- 20:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just tell me, who are you on FA? Assuming of course your a furry and not a troll. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crusader Cat (talkcontribs) 07:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC).

I support including this information here.

Crusader Cat has written this article in order to show himself in the best possible light. This is human nature and is to be expected. However, WikiFur should not be used for whitewashing one’s past. CC is disliked by many due to his sexual abuse of animals, and while CC claims that he is disliked for being Christian, the real reason for many peoples dislike should be shown.

To, please create an account here and start the process of formally adding this information. I did not save CC's PDF file. 11:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally: I would like to point out that CC has responded to on FA. I can only assume he presumes FA a better venue for the discussion.
"Stop wasting your time, the admin there are not retarded and aren't going to fall for your tricks. What you are doing is illegal, immoral, and cowardly. People have tried this to me before and their IP's got banned, Yours will too soon and all hope of doing anything there will be gone for good." 11:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am hated because I am a Christian, much of the hate mail I received was from people who had no knowledge of what I have done. Check the link and you will see that there is no recorded message of someone getting angry with me because of mistakes I made. I wrote this article to portray myself in the most neutral possible light. This article was altered to portray myself in the worst possible light. the Admins knew this and that's why they called him out on it. It is well within my right to respond to the other guy through other mediums (assuming he's on FA) and is not the busness of the admins here. Thus, this new information is just as useless as the previous information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crusader Cat (talkcontribs) 11:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC).

We at Wikifur make an effort to be good neighbors in the furry community. A part of that deals with how we handle derogatory or controversial information about people. Most if not all of us have done things in that past that are less than admirable; we are not about digging up dirt on people. Our policy on such information is that in order for it to be allowable on the site, first, we hold it to a higher standard of verifiability than most other information on the site, and second, that a good case can be made that it is in the public interest of furry fandom that this information be made public.
The claim has been made that Crusader Cat has sexually abused animals in the past. I have not reviewed the evidence enough to form an opinion of whether that's true, but even if it is, I'm not convinced it belongs here. I will review the available information later on (I can't do it right now because I'm at work and my employer blocks access to a couple of the websites where the information resides). If this appears to be something that he is currently practicing and advocating, I might be convinced to change my mind, but if it's only past transgressions or questionable accusations we're talking about here, I probably won't. (Disclaimer: This is one admin's opinion; other admins may have differing views on how best to handle this situation.)
By the way, I'm a furry Christian and I've never received any hate mail because of it. --mwalimu 17:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The reason I believe the information should be included is CC's desire to claim persecution solely for being Christian. Whereas many dislike him for what he's done in the past (and claiming other furries do). Thank you for your professionalism, by the way, not every 'Christian' is willing to listen to reason in situations where an evangelical is arguing against others. -- 23:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
While the claim itself is true, the recent edit by this person was created in such a way to create a mental slant against me. When you have the time, check out the youtube video or the essay on furtopia. I myself have admitted here on Wikifur that I have had struggles with bestiality, that's all anyone coming here needs to know, they don't need to know the nasty details of what I have done, if they can then they can easily check the links provided. Nor do the people coming here need to know the ins and outs of what I have said in the essay (i.e. telling exactly what segments of the video in witch I am making a claim) Also, the claim that many people hate me for what I have done is inaccurate. Very few people got angry because of this, and this person is obviously one of them. Once again, check the link and see that there is no evidence that I have documented which makes mention of zoophile bashing hate messages. While I am currently struggling with bestiality, I am not practicing, and I am most definitely not advocating it (as you will see by reading the essay). I am glad to find that you also are a Christian, and envy you for the peace you have experienced among the fandom. Presumably, God has called you as a witness to someone else other than furries so you are not actively involved in trying to bring more furrs to Christ. That being said, it is understandable if no other furrs have persecuted you, I hope your association with me will not bring any undeserved hatred on you. I trust and pray that you and the other admins will make a wise decision. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crusader Cat (talkcontribs) 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC).
I have a question, Crusader Cat. If you have nothing to hide about your criminal past as you claim, why have you attempted to blank the mere discussion of your user article (the page you are reading right now) multiple times? Check the history ( ) of this page ( Talk:Crusader Cat ) for proof of your attempts to blank this page four times. -- 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've had a chance to review both YouTube videos on my own time, I stand by what I said earlier. Referring to Crusader Cat's past acts as a "criminal past" is questionable at best and putting a pejorative spin on it at the minimum. I could say a lot more but there are better places for it than a Wikifur talk page. At this time I see no reason to include any more negative statements about CC than what he has included on his own. --mwalimu 03:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that this needed to remain up for historical reasons. After seeing it re uploaded several times, I was told by one of the other admins here that It had to stay up, now that this drama is basically over I might be deleted again (unless the admins say other wise). what you posted here is no different from the other times people come here to harass me, thus I did not feel it belonged here. But since it apparently does, it can be a record of your bias and hatred toward someone who is just doing what his God asked of him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crusader Cat (talkcontribs) 05:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC).
CC, please remember to indent responses and sign them. Four tilde's will do it. Also, it is generally considered bad form to clear discussions, especially considering as this discussion has been civil, despite what you claim. Leaving this discussion will show that the issue has been brought up and discussed. 12:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to indent. This discussing has been anything but civil from your end. Civil people don't do the sick things you have done to get revenge on me. You still didn't tell me who you were on FA, assuming you have an account there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crusader Cat (talkcontribs) 05:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC).
You never asked me, I found this from your own page. /My/ FA user name is Irbisgreif. I don't know who is. Perhaps if you noted styles this would have been obvious, as I have made no effort to hide who I am. 21:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Use colons to indent. You should know that I, 16:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC), am different from There are at least two people on this page other than you and the moderator. Know that I consider you very lucky -- and sheltered -- for an animal molester who has openly admitted to trying to get your kittens to "lick" your genitals and many other bad things you did to your kittens that, you admit, made them decide to scratch you for (I still have that PDF file, remember).
It's not that fact that you are a Christian that makes me angry. I know many Christians who are decent people. I like them.
The fact that you molested animals makes me very angry, but that alone is not enough to make me want to chase you to the ends of the Earth, since you have found Jesus and are no longer molesting animals. If religion keeps you from sexually abusing animals, I'm very grateful for Christianity's existence, indeed. However, the fact that you are projecting your animal abuse onto other people who haven't done things that you have done, just makes me want to hate-kill you.
Here's how the argument went over at Furaffinity:
Crusader Cat: I was abusing animals before I found furotica. Furotica makes me happy in my pants, and furotica makes me want to abuse animals. I have abused animals, and I like furotica (and I associate the shame I feel when I abuse my pets with furotica), but Jesus has set me free, so all you furries should repent before you end up like me!
Furries: Hey, idiot! We don't find real animals arousing in the same way we don't find retarded people arousing. We haven't molested animals like you have done, nor are we compelled to. Stop projecting your sins onto others.
Crusader Cat: Stop hating me because I'm a Christian! I'm going to go make a WikiFur article about myself how I told the furries to repent of their heathen animal molesting ways and then how they attacked me because I'm a Christian. Oh, AND I'll leave out all the details about how I molested my pets to make myself look like a saint.
Admittedly, your article admits that you "struggle with bestiality", but that statement seems to confer that you are just resisting temptation -- not that you have actually given into your urges and have actually abused your pets, which you have done. Anyway, it's a moot point now, the mods have made their decision to let you get away with your article as it is. Just color me not impressed. -- 16:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
If molesting animals makes you angry, than give me what I deserve (Personally, I would go for Exodus 22:19) But if you don't want to do that, then at least report what I have done, since ti's illegal in America. Religion doesn't keep me from what I did, Jesus does. I am not projecting what I did on to anyone else because they didn't do what I did. I am saying don't do what I did, and people get angry for it for no reason at all. If you met someone who was a drug addict and he beat the habit, and went around speaking to encourage others not to make his mistake, would you get angry at him like he did to me? Or would you get angry at someone who called him a junky and make fun of him for his past? The Vast majority of the hate messages I received were either from people who had no idea of what I did, or didn't care. If someone calls me a filthy cat fucker, then I don't nearly mind it as much as other comments I received, because I know they have a good reason to call me that. The only honest part of that discussion is the first line (written in the wrong format, but that's just the play write in me) No one thought I was stupid for making connections like that, they were either pissed that I was asking them to come to Jesus or discussed at what I had done. This is a very pathetic staw man and is the latest in the train of lies against me. I wrote this article after I came back from Anthrocon last year, it contained no mention of what I did because I didn't admit it publicly yet. I wrote it so if someone asked about me and I didn't have time, I could just tell them to check me out here. There was nothing wrong with the way I wrote it (except for a few spelling errors) It was from an unbiased POV which is what it's supposed to be, if it was written to make me look like Billy Graham, then the Admis would have taken care of it. I left the nasty details because I wanted it to be G rated. They don't need to find the nick nacks here, if they want them then they can just as easily look up the video I provided. When I say I struggle, I mean that I'm fighting the urge, Most of the time I win, but in some cases, I lose. That's what struggle is. If I was simply resisting, then It wouldn't be a struggle. The hole drama surrounding this article was that details about what happened here placed here without any other purpose than presenting me in a negative light instead of a neutral light. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crusader Cat (talkcontribs) 23:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC).
"Bla Bla Bla Bla" LISTEN! You are rejected, not because you are a Christian, but because you are an animal molester using religion to condemn others innocent of your criminal activity. Even furries into furotica are not going to sexually violate their pets. Adult human beings can give consent for sexual intercourse regardless of how kinky their sex lives are. Most adult furries -- even furries into furotica -- have sex with humans. We human beings prefer sex with other human beings. The furries who have sex with beasts are ostracised by the furry community.
Unfortunately, Crusader Cat, furotica is going to attract people who want to sexually violate animals into furry fandom. Read: ANIMAL MOLESTERS LIKE YOU. Animal molesters, like you Crusader Cat, are an evil minority that, unfortunately, exists in the furry community -- as long as they don't identify themselves to other furries. As soon as animal molesters identify themselves, they get tossed out on their ass. It is noteworthy fact that if you, Crusader Cat, hadn't used the "God bandaid" to excuse your animal molestation -- "Oh, I believe in Jesus now, so it's okay" -- you would have found yourself thrown out of the furry community with the rest of the trash.
Crusader Cat, because you have sexually abused your animals, you are more of a sick bastard than 99.99% of the Furry community, and have no more credibility than a child molester going down to the nearest public shopping mall and telling everyone there to repent of pedophilia. You are detested by even those who are only tempted to sexually abuse animals, because you took your sick fantasy into reality and molested actual animals -- multiple times.
Yes, yes, all us furries are glad that you have found Jesus and are no longer molesting your pets. Please take your exuberance elsewhere. You need to acknowledge that you are a sick bastard who has sexually abused your pets and that most people, even most furries -- even most furries into furotica -- have no interest in sexually violating their pets. The only furries who sexually abuse their pets are furries like you, Crusader Cat, and the rest of us human beings detest furries like you. -- 15:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Enough! If you want to conduct a discussion on the content of this or any other article on Wikifur, you are expected to do it in a civil and diplomatic manner. Your comments are way over the line into name-calling and harassment. --mwalimu 16:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm just trying to understand the disagreement here. Since the video is still up on Youtube, I'm assuming you don't mind your fetishes being public, just that the IPs aren't putting it into the right context or they are doing editorializing of their own? --Rat 22:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I can help. Crusader Cat is a penitent (remorseful) animal molester who has found Jesus and is out to "cleanse" the fandom of all the furotica, which he believes, leads people to molest their pets like he did. The conflict with Crusader Cat is that his WikiFur article claims that people "hate" him for being a Christian, rather than for what he really is -- an animal molester in a public shopping mall telling everyone to repent of bestiality. -- 16:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to be objective about this...

Okay, after following the discussion and debate about the content of this article for several days, and reviewing the content of the article, I'm trying to be objective about what is appropriate. First, consider that the article is in the main article space and as such is subject to editing by any user of the site so long as it's done in good faith and in compliance with standards that apply across the site. Second, I think some of the current content might be more appropriate for Crusader Cat's user page rather than the article about him, since he can say pretty much whatever he wants to about himself on his user page whereas the article about him needs to comply with sitewide guidelines on articles about people. The section about receiving hate mail is probably in the latter category. While it doesn't quite say that the mail is due to his Christian beliefs, it also doesn't give what is apparently the real reason for at least some of the hate mail. Thus I think it best to simply remove the section in its entirety. Crusader Cat is welcome to put it in his user page if he wishes. Third, I think Rat has a valid point in asking why Crusader Cat is opposed to including something here that he's publicly admitted to in other venues. It looks to me like those trying to include the information are doing so in a manner to put a negative spin on it. As I've said before, Wikifur's policy is to respect the wishes of anyone with regard to what gets excluded from the article about them unless a good case can be made why the information should be made public. --mwalimu 17:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, because the reasons to make the fact that Crusader Cat has sexually molested his pets public to me are very self-evident. You admit the point made in asking why Crusader Cat is, "opposed to including something here that he's publicly [emphasis added] admitted to in other venues". Then you query for a "good case" to make the information public. Pardon me, but how can we make public information that is already public? If the information is public elsewhere, why not make it public here?
Why is the fact that Crusader Cat has sexually violated his pets not newsworthy enough to add to his article if Crusader Cat is broadcasting such information both on Furtopia and YouTube? I submit that the reason Crusader Cat is opposed to having the fact that he sexually molested his pets revealed on his WikiFur article is because he does not want even a neutral point of view to reveal the facts. The reason Crusader Cat is opposed to revealing his past activity on WikiFur is because on his websites on both Furtopia and YouTube, Crusader Cat is enabled to present himself in the best possible light because he controls the content on his accounts on those venues.
An article on WikiFur would have to present factual information in a neutral point of view. Crusader Cat would lose the ability to present his sexually abusive activity in a positively biased fashion -- "Jesus makes molesting kittens all better. Repent heathens before you rape your pets!".
Instead, a neutral point of view would factually state that he has admitted to sexually violating his pets, that he claims he found Jesus and is remorseful for his activity, that he claims that he no longer engages in sexually abusive activity since finding Christianity, and, factually stated, that he attacks furry porn because he believes that furotica leads people to molest their pets like he did.
I don't know any good reason why Crusader Cat would be opposed to including such factual information on his WikiFur article, especially since he is certainly not opposed to publicly presenting this information in a crusader-like fashion elsewhere. -- 16:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why does it seem this is quite generically another case of biting a hand (or fist) thrown in someone's face? I'm pretty sure that someone so militant about any belief so much so as to throw it at a person is going to get pretty hardcore ridiculed and put down, much less to be so about such a topic as spirituality, or bestiality whether it be percieved or actual. As for me, I hold Christian beliefs (bear with me and READ ON) but do not claim myself to be a Christian, I know better. More importantly perhaps, I don't force these thoughts and intimations at others, but will happily discuss them if the topic comes up and to me.

Everything in its' place and a place for everything, right? I guess it's fine to make everything about yourself a place for one certain thing, but name one thing that it's a healthy idea to do that with. How about working out, doing nothing but lifting weights can become addictive or even harmful, whether or not you idolize yourself because of it. Eating, obvious. Socializing, you become an unbalanced and unhealthy person even if only mentally.

Life is about moderation and reasonability, a person so unbalanced is obviously not practicing this, and is going to be deficient somewhere. Just as there's only twenty-four hours in a day is there only so much oomph in a person, and if they expend all of it in one direction something is going to suffer. Excluding specific attentions, for instance your only hobby can be collecting figurines, but if your hobby is acceptable in proportion to the rest of your life, it's fine. But even if you balance several hobbies which would otherwise be in healthy doses, except that you ONLY live for these hobbies (due to having so many, etc) there is a problem.

In the same respect I believe a person's spirituality needs to be balanced not AGAINST a person's identity but WITH it. You can slant ideas about yourself in any direction, but you still need ideas about yourself and not stemming out of something else. Saying "I have hair like a wookie" as a Star Wars nutter is fine, but recognizing to yourself that you have hair independent of what a wookie looks like is what's important. I guess boiled down, you need to have self-awareness that does not rely on anything other than yourself.

The overwhelming trend I see in anything from Crusader Cat is that everything about himself seems to be based on something biblical, rather than described in that sense. I personally think I am a good person. I also personally think I am a "godly" person in most descriptions of the sense! I have my failings and misgivings, but what matters to me is that I'm a good person independant of what "being godly" means. CC seems to go the other way around with this and it's unhealthy.

Be you, then change you to be like what you want to be... but don't think of yourself purely in perspective from where you want to be. That will only lead to self-loathing for failures, which will lead to self-hatred, which will lead to the Dark Side.

(And no I am not a Star Wars fanboi)

  • EDIT* Also err crap forgot to sign. Kobura 12:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here is a little back story for those who lived through the 1980s. In 1980, Michelle Remembers by Lawrence Pazder was published, documenting a patient of his who was involved in satanic cults, witchcraft, and repressed memories. Many conservative Christians jumped on this, and soon after, the Satanic Ritual Abuse moral panic began to sweep the country. This, along with the writings of Rebeca Brown became the basis of many sermons about the evil conspiracy of children being sacrificed and moonlight orgies, and summoning of demons, along with the evil of Ouija boards and Dungeons and Dragons. The talk show circuit was full of programs about these conspiracies and the evils of such supposed groups. People who claimed that they were seduced by Satanic groups were coming out of the woodwork - usually conservative Christians, claiming they converted after leaving (escaping) such groups. People were put in trial based on these allegations. The McMartin preschool trial was a prime example of this. However these Satanic groups never existed, or were simply misrepresented non-christian religions (some conservative Christians view most, if not all non-christian religions as Satanic) in which the claimants had never participated. By the 1990s, independent investigations finally began to debunk Lawrence Pazder, Rebeka Brown, and the other proponents of Satanic Ritual claims. The reason I bring up SRA, is to call into question Crusader Cat's claims of what he did in the past. I've not read the PDF file in question, but I'm not convinced that any of this is true. He may merely be using this story of his fall into sin and debauchery, his finding Jesus Christ, and the struggle to overcome this. I believe he's using this issue to create a wedge-issue in furry as a way of causing as much disruption within furry, as he can. He has made statements equating sexual anthropomorphism art to bestiality and trying to extend said definitions as part of his anti-yiff campaign. It's very likely he wrote his PDF to make a point, likely a religious point, not as something merely autobiographical. --Lutriawolfe 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I assure you, what happened is accurate, do not make alogations like this until you can proove it. --Crusader Cat 20:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I just find this kinda far fetched unless your penis is the size of a nipple. You seem to be the kind who would go into a spiraling wave of guilt because you pitched a tent while petting your cats, then cry bestiality ("It's the thought that counts in God's eyes"). I'd say the burden of proof is on you. --Lutriawolfe 21:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually most of the problems he was having with people on FA prior to his being banned, was actually due to disparaging remarks he made about homosexuality. He would quote bible verses such as Leviticus 20:13, and link to the following Christian homophobic web site to support his homophobia. Of course he'd receive a backlash in the comments, then delete his journal and post a new one claiming that people hate him because he's Christian. I guess this eventually came to a head, where he began to attack the FA administrators for supposed discrimination, before ultimately being banned.--Lutriawolfe 20:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks (i.e. "Homophobia") Plese also refrain from lying, I did not remove the journals because I was trying to hide something, I did it because me and my friends were getting a lot of harassment. All I did was say what the Bible says about gays, and provided factal evidence to support my claims. This is what Christians do, make a claim and back it up, this is why I'm persecuted for my faith, because I make a claim and back it up. --Crusader Cat 20:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
First of all "homophobia" isn't a personal attack. Stop trying to make yourself look like the victim here. Lutriawolfe did not accuse you of removing the journals because you were hiding something - in fact, she AGREED with you that the reason you removed them was because you were harassed. Are you even reading things before you post? And please, don't tell me you think you can post anti-homosexual material on a website that has a large majority of homosexual and bisexual members and think you won't get harassed for it. You're asking for it by posting journals like that, and you know it. You aren't the victim here. BaronVonYiffington 23:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is, it is a derogatory term to demonise those who do not homosexuality sacred. I am the victum here, I NEVER posted anything anti gay on FA unless someone asked me. "then delete his journal and post a new one claiming that people hate him because he's Christian." That's what you wrote, impling that I have something to hide. If you agreed with me, then you wouldn't have even mentioned that. I never broke any of the rules on FA, I never spammed or harassed anyone. I never showed any one anythign offensive unless the specifically asked me. Stop lying, your not good at it. --Crusader Cat 20:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you go into a mosque or synagogue to try to "spread the word" there? Would you go onto someone else's places of worship and tell them to their faces that their practices and beliefs are wrong? That would be seen as provocative and get you physically kicked out, or worse. Preaching homophobia on FA could be seen as the same thing. And by the way, just because it's in the bible doesn't make it right. The rules for owning, buying and selling of slaves is in the bible, and that's not something seen as right, these days. And there are things far worse that makes most Christians cringe before quietly ignoring them. --Lutriawolfe 21:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You've also advocated the execution of gays in a Livejournal post, as well as linked to fundamentalist Christian homophobic web sites. --Lutriawolfe 02:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
No, no it isn't, and nobody is being demonized. You really need to read comments before replying to them - I never once said that. That was Lutriawolfe, not me. I am BaronVonYiffington. And yeah, totally. You never broke any rules on FA - you got banned for nothing. Right, that's believable. However, I didn't accuse you of spamming or harassing anyone, so please don't put words in my mouth. Why you think these comments are coming from me, I have no idea, but you come across extremely hostile. I have not accused you of anything. However, you are a bad liar. "Never showed anyone anything offensive?" Let's see, you yourself said, in the comment two above this one:
"All I did was say what the Bible says about gays, and provided factal evidence to support my claims."
That is offensive to gays, because it is anti-homosexual. I'm probably right in assuming your little magic space-man worship book is negative towards gays, meaning it IS offensive. --BaronVonYiffington 20:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally think from an entirely objective viewpoint, there is no point blanking this article, people become intrigued as to why, and then go onto the discussion page, and peice together the information themselves. Sadly, the amount of discussion also makes this appear as a sub result on google, meaning that to a non-fur who inadvertently googles wikifur (either hearing about it from a furry friend, or just doing research on the fandom etc) will most likely click on this sub-result and then do exactly the same thing. Now. Regardless of wether the bestiality rumours are true non-furs possibly will either a) peice together the information wrongly and assume that all furries (or a high percentage) are zoophiles B) go with an emotional over-reaction upon seeing the word 'bestialist' (or a similiar term) and assume the same thing. This reflects badly on the fandom as a whole, and brings more negative attention to it, at a time when it's image is fairly vulnerable (the chewfox incident was still fairly recent), in any case this will inevitably cause the fandom to lose credit. So this leaves only three possible solutions a) ask google to remove the article as a sub - result b) remove the page entirely (to the same effect) c) un-blank the page (once again to the same effect). A decision needs to be made fairly soon as it's google ranking will cause it to increase in notoriety both inside and outside of the fandom rapidly, and this will not be a good thing regardless. I personally do not know enough about the issue to form an opinion and to save argument I am not going to state one. Do not bother replying either as I am probably not going to check this again later.

== No more white knighting ==

For anyone tired of Crusadercat editing his own page to white knight and clear his own slate, I have begun an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica about him. Wikifur does not allow linking to ED, so you will have to go to ED and search for "Crusadercat" on your own. If anyone has information that is relevant to what he has done, but does not want to post it here due to fear of any sort, add it to the ED article. I realize that ED isn't exactly the best place to have a civil discussion, but at least we can put information there without having CC blank it. BaronVonYiffington 06:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

for the record, i do not knowing crusader cat. my interest was to cleaning article up and make more factual and less speculation, and practice english grammar in process.
--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 09:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
LOL, the banana thing is very funny, when Christians fundamentalists use the banana as a proof of God's creation and being an atheist's nightmare, because of how perfect it is. Obviously those people have not seen a REAL banana. Here is a picture of a real banana as nature has intended. Wild bananas are sad little masses of husk and seeds that would not win any culinary awards. However, they are correct, our bananas didn't evolve, they were created, though their creator is humans. Thousands of years of selective breeding have given us the curved yellow seedless delight. --Lutriawolfe 20:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Checking through the history of the talk page, I see that Crusader Cat tried to delete the entire "No more white knighting" category. Why is that? Something on there you want hidden, on a site where you can't put spin on it? --BaronVonYiffington 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Double Standards

Hey CrusaderCat, may I ask why you reported several dozen pieces for "hate speech" and "anti-christianity", which led to your banning on FA, but have several anti-atheist pieces in your gallery? I refer of course to things such as: , where you say being an atheist makes you lack common sense, , where you say Atheists don't exist and therefor cannot be soldiers, or where you say bananas give Atheists nightmares. Why is it okay for you to report anyone with anti-christian art for "hate speech" when you have anti-atheist hate speech in your own gallery? --BaronVonYiffington 03:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If people can post anti-Christian crap and get away with it, then I can post anti-atheist stuff and get away with it. --Crusader Cat 20:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Really, is that what they teach Christians now a days? Eye for an eye? Two wrongs don't make a right... that's something Jesus would say, right? Just because you can get away with it, doesn't mean you should do it. That is VERY un-Christian-like. --BaronVonYiffington 20:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
is it possible to keep on topic and not degenerate to a religion bashing festival?
thank you.
--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 22:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This is on topic and is relating to his banning from FurAffinity. I want to know why he thinks it is okay for him to bash Atheists, but NOT okay for others to bash Christians. It is a legitimate question that pertains to the reports he filed on FurAffinity, which led to his ban. I have said nothing to bash a religion. --BaronVonYiffington 22:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
But it has nothing to do with WikiFur. Please take your discussions on the merits of criticism elsewhere. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It pertains to the article, which mentions his banning. But white knighting is cool too. --BaronVonYiffington 22:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Wait a sec, what's this? You want this guy to take his argument elsewhere because it has "nothing to do with WikiFur"? Hm. For the benefit of those of us who continue to be perplexed by WikiFur's apparently mercurial and contradictory standards, can you explain why it's not okay for some people to use WikiFur as their own personal battleground, but okay for others? What happened to covering "all sides of the argument" (even if that argument has nothing to do with what WikiFur is about)? I'm honestly curious, as the precedent you've set for what is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia of furry fandom continues to baffle me. —Xydexx 23:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll admit I haven't followed both the Crusader Cat and Popping debates, maybe there's a perfectly logical distinction that can be distilled out of this. I just wanted to point out that we're not always bound by precedent. Sometimes the admin team has to decide if the end result of any debate would likely result in a benefit to the encyclopedia. --Rat 03:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
For the record: I think the inclusion of arguments which a) have no evidence to support them, b) have been written off as trolling attempts by administrators of the message boards they originally appeared on, and c) have nothing to do with furry fandom and anthropomorphic animals, do not belong on WikiFur. Ultimately, there's not much I can do about it, as I'm not an Admin, and the general response I've gotten from Admins when requesting assistance is that I should assume good faith and debate endlessly in order to reach consensus rather than the Admins just dealing with it. So. One would assume, judging by the glacial pace that the Admins have dealt (read: failed to deal) with the issue thus far, is that importing poorly-sourced arguments which have nothing to do with what WikiFur is about is okay here, and at the risk of stuffing beans up my nose, indicates to me that anyone can insert whatever patent lunacy they like into WikiFur and it will be acceptable under the misguided notion that WikiFur has a duty to tell "all sides" of the story—even though it isn't appropriate for WikiFur in the first place. —Xydexx 06:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I seem to remember telling another couple of people to take their personal arguments elsewhere. Don't act surprised when I do the same for others. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Right. I also remember telling people to take their personal arguments elsewhere, so you can drop the holier-than-thou routine. So what's with the inconsistency, then? That's the surprising part. Do arguments that have nothing to do with WikiFur belong here or not? You've yet to clarify this after, what, four months now? And if you're unwilling to take a stand one way or another, don't act surprised when people call you on your inconsistency. If WikiFur needs to cover "all sides of the argument" (as you seem to believe it does WRT Popping), then why the opposition to covering a similar controversy between Christianity and Atheism? —Xydexx 06:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
xydexx - my interpretation of the situation and what i have seen.
greenreaper has answer the question. tl;dr wikifur does each issue on a case by case basis. they know they can not provide a blanket rule for all possible situation. there will all ways be exception and will all time be loop hole. same as there will all time be abuse of the decision that have make. both of decision and of people who make.
also, and this is personal view not wikifur staff view (i am not staff here), what you are doing is not discuss or debate. you are make personal and offensive attack against other person and/or persons faith and hide it with term of question and debate. this issue is not, and never has being about christianity or atheism. it is about a person and their personal interpretation of a faith.
no fight christianity and atheism. this is not a place for that. no try to hide what is obvious and call what is not. it is offensive action and any objective person can see such. his action are his. his choice are his. your action are your. your choice are your. both need to take responsibility and stop try force on other.
--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 18:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you're misinterpreting my comments; they are not an attack on anyone's faith, but a question of whether WikiFur is an appropriate forum to hash out arguments which have nothing to do with what WikiFur is about. —Xydexx 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
...And another three of the many things that Wikifur is not is creation of fake/hoax articles, vandal/non-serious edits of articles (Forum:Popping (Under revision)), and harassment/disrespect of users/editors/Sysops (User talk:Wolfkid23) Spirou 20:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and think it would be really nice if you finally start taking ongoing attempts at vandalism of the Popping article more seriously. There is no reason why any of this needs to drag on for five months due to you neglecting your Admin duties. —Xydexx 14:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Exclusion request

Crusader Cat has submitted a request for personal exclusion from Wikifur. Such requests are generally granted unless a good case can be made that it is in the interest of furry fandom that some of the information be publicized. Given the amount of controversy that this article has attracted, we believe the request merits discussion here before a decision is made. Does anyone reading this believe there is sufficient cause that the exclusion request should not be allowed? --mwalimu 15:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Where should I start? For starters, he wants to bury his past and play victim. Let's not give him this benefit of an attempt to wipe his severely unstable past history and personal beliefs from a site with the purpose of having information on other furs.
The wiki page doesn't include his name, which I believe the article would benefit. He claims people are threatening his his, which is false. I've personally seen on FA discussions where he claims people are threatening him, which they are not. The conversation goes in reference how homosexuals should be hit, killed, or struck, then some person stated,(summary)"Does this mean I can start to punch Christians?" He claims these statements are threats.
Crusader Cat was given many chances to correct his own actions, which he did not listen. Instead of dropping it he insisted on enforcing his current behavior. This is what eventually lead to his ban at FA.
I should add, his request is timely with his being on front page of Encyclopedia Dramatica. He removed his youtube, dA, and other materials from accounts on the web. IF, and thats a BIG IF, he is quitting the fandom, the page would be okay to remove. However I'd doubt he would be quitting the fandom, from his past behavior I've seen this to be the "bury my past" and not "I'm leaving the fandom." He simply wants to play victim, which is the result of his own dastardly behavior.
When you do not removed his page, he will send you a legal threat, I guarantee it.
There is not a reason in the world why his page should be removed. --Insane Kangaroo 16:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't listed to Insane Kangaroo, he is one of the people on FA who would harass me by making porn of my fursona (which was removed) and was giving out my privet information on Live journal (which was also removed) People have in fact threatened my life, one person on FA who did this a lot is Fuzzy_Wolfy. She said I "Should be shot in the face". Because of these threats, I have to keep my real name secret to protect my family. I never advocated the harassment or murder of homosexuals, the following people on FA are friends of mine that happen to be gay or bi: Mercifur, lilfurbal, Yiffdakat, FurryWriter. I am still getting harassed on FA by Insane Kangaroo (check the shouts on my page). I have done nothing to warrant this kind of behavior from furries or trolls (then again, not many of us do) I would like this article to be removed for sake of the administrators, I don't want you to go through Hell to protect my honor. This page has become nothing more than a battle ground to destroy my reputation, I will not have defamation on this site. Also, the information on my page in inaccurate, I did not upload a video saying "Being gay is NOT ok" I don't even have an account on that video site. --Crusader Cat 16:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Crusader, the video is newsworthy and it's being used to in critique. If you try to have it removed, I guarantee someone will post the video along with your real name, fur name, along with other information. Your real name is already on Encyclopedia Dramatica, along with your real picture. Good luck on getting a job with a large employer, especially when they google your name.
I only drew a picture to mock the whole situation, it is your own fault you started to cry wolf and take it farther than you should have taken. Look on FA, Chewfox did not have any issues after she came back. Do you really think people treated you any differently? No. You blew it WAY out of proportion, making it big by yourself.
I haven't harassed you at all, especially on your shouts page. I'm simply keeping the community up to date in regards to what drama you're causing. My point is verified with your post. You are trying to "bury history" over dastardly acts which you've committed in the past.
"Should be shot" is not a threat, sorry. Such a statement is freedom of speech of one's own mind. There is not legally a muster of intent on the part of Fuzzy_Wolfy's statement. Any officer will tell you this, especially when making a police report.
By your own standards Crusader Cat, your preach hate speech which is 'illegal' even though not by today's legal standards. You preach intolerance against homosexuals, which is very impolite and cowardly.
My satire drawings may have been removed from FA, but I hosted them elsewhere. My drawing appears to have been uploaded to Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Insane Kangaroo 16:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Your a lier, your kind is not welcome on this site. You drew a pic of me having anal sex with a dinosaur, that is harassment, if you were making fun of the situation, You would not have drawn me. Plus, you wouldn't know so much about the stuff on ED unless you frequent that site. You are a troll, and your trying to bring your undesirable lies here. I'm not trying to bury my history, I'm trying to protect those close to me. "Should be shot is a threat, I have gotten others involving crucifixion (just check ED). I don't nor have I ever preached hate or intolerance against gay people. Saying being gay is wrong is not hate speech. Talk to all my gay friends and they will prove you wrong. That drawing was not satyr, it is harassment, you use that as an excuse to avoid copyright laws, now that is cowardly. Stop posting here, and stop harassing me. You didn't get away with this on FA, you didn't get away with this on LJ, and you won't here. The administrators here are not idiots, they know what their doing. --Crusader Cat 20:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that drawing ISN'T a satyr. goat legs. In fact, it kind of looks like an anthro cat with a bad haircut. Perhaps you meant "satire"? But, I'm sure it was an honest mistake, considering you don't even know what satire means. Kodak Disposable 06:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, LJ doesn't have an issue with either the images or the entry, they just requested I leave out any identifying information. They allowed me to initialize your name instead. Why don't you google your real name, you'll see I moved the article to my own server. After I get some time, I'll be objective and more neutral, listing out in detail the trouble you have caused. From the homophobic statements to the legal threats, information will not be buried just because you don't like the reactions received from others.
Every bit of information I've written was information you displayed for everyone. There are no lies, there are no half truths, there are only the acts, facts, and statements of Crusader Cat. --Insane Kangaroo 06:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Crusader Cat just tried to vandalize his page by blanking most of the content. --Insane Kangaroo 17:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Without even addressing the question of whether Crusader Cat actually made the statements, or whether they are being misrepresented or taken out of context, I would ask whether that matters. Being disagreeable or undiplomatic, expressing controversial opinions, or being difficult to work with, are not in themselves reasons to deny a personal exclusion request (and I'm speaking in general terms here, not taking sides on where CC falls on that spectrum). They would have to represent a credible threat to cause physical, emotional, financial or material harm to others, or evidence of having actually done so in the past, to merit denial.

On Wikifur we generally have a more relaxed sourcing policy than on Wikipedia. However, when it comes to controversial statements or any information that may reflect negatively on a person, the standards for sourcing go way up. Any "negative" statements about CC WILL require external references to back them up. You can argue at length about what CC did or did not say or what he meant, but the official admin response is going to be, "show us the refs".

Here's one more acid test on whether to deny personal exclusion: If there were currently no article on Wikifur about CC, do you believe there is enough public "need to know" that you would have cause to create one for that purpose? --mwalimu 18:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with your points. If Crusader Cat did not exist after all this drama, would it be created? He treaded and continues to tread dangerous waters. Would the removal of Alan T. Panda be granted if luring a child was not unlawful and he requested removal? We're talking about the topic of taboo and sex.
My only reason I believe Crusader Cat should be denied removal equates to him trying to bury his past. I realize he isn't going to be able to bury his past since there are several sources already on the web which happen to be the first hit in google for both his fur name and real name. However, people use wikifur as a means to quickly look up information about a person. Showing through references how crusader cat has treated others is very important for those who may not wish to be subjected to such behavior/statements.
People who are curious in regards to the Fur Affinity ban can also look up information on his page. While people may go to ED for the information, many would rather go to a source which is more credible, has references, and is semi-neutral.--Insane Kangaroo 18:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, I see on your page,, where Crusader Cat made the request. "A flame war of the epic variety has started up. I would like you to remove my page, I don't want you guys getting swamped with trolling. Sorry for any trouble I caused you." is his exact request. His request appears to be regarding vandalism, though I still believe he is using the incident to bury history.
From the aspect of vandalism. Pages shouldn't be removed simply because a person ends up on the front page of ED. It will pass, and something else will be on the front page. This is manageable and many are already +watch'ing his entry to revert vandalism.--Insane Kangaroo 18:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed most of the stuff on my page because there was no evidence to back any of it up. My real name and my face is being distributed by people who want to harass me (Insane Kangaroo is one of them) and this could cause harm to my family. Please remove this page for protection of my family. Do not trust Insane Kangaroo, he has harassed me on FA and LJ and in both cases, was reprimanded by the administrators, and now he's trying to harass me here. Linking to and ED article about me on my user page after I was banned is NOT keeping anything up to date, especially since you admit that ED is unreliable yourself. it is harassment. I'm not trying to hide my past, I'm trying to protect my loved ones (this includes the admins here. There is not enough info on the web to write an article about me, nothing more than a message on my FA page, which is no ones business anyway. --Crusader Cat 20:18 and 20:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
How is there no evidence? People have already downloaded the materials you posted to the web, including PDFs, videos, logs, etc of what YOU have made public.
In regards to harassing you, it's public information. It's not harassment where I live, where you live, nor where wikifur is located in regards to posting public information made available by yourself. If you don't like what people have to say, you shouldn't have posted the information in the first place. "burying your history" is really, by Internet standards, impossible.
No, you're not trying to protect your loved ones. You're trying to prevent your loved ones to discover the dishonor you have caused. You are also trying to bury history so people can't find as to why others don't like you, or if you're a liability. Future employers may see you as a lawsuit liability if they find out your public history. Again, YOU made the information public, and YOU caused the drama.
If the admins feel like there is not enough citation, I can upload the materials Crusader Cat posted to the net which are otherwise available elsewhere.
I also add, much of the originating information on Crusader Cat's page is written by Crusader Cat himself. Edits were made by one of other editors in regards to Crusader having relationships due to a mental disability from has to claims. Citation is required from Crusader Cat if he is going to claim his abilities are neutered by a mental disorder. --Insane Kangaroo 20:40 and 20:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
If Crusader Cat is worried about protecting himself and his future employment prospects, this article posted here is relatively harmless, for there is no real identifying information other than his fursona name. Encyclopedia Dramatica is where the real problems are. He's just going after Wikifur because he knows it would be a lot easier, even though if his exclusion request is granted, any effects on his person would be negligible at best, maybe just a symbolic measure. Encyclopedia Dramatica, on the other paw, has some of his IRL information, but he knows that trying to get that page removed would be a lot harder and expose him to much jeering. In fact, they'd probably use any removal request of his as a source of endless amusement, and result in that page receiving even more hurtful edits. --Lutriawolfe 21:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Having caught this on ED and made my way here I know I don't have much power in my opinion, but my thought is that CrusaderCat's request should be granted. I may be wrong, but it seems Wikifur is meant to be unbiased. The nature of the wiki would suggest that the drama Crusadercat has caused is not necessary to the community. The ED page exists and it's not going anywhere any time soon. As long as it's unprotected, the ED article will ensure a constant battle to keep this page neutral from both sides (Crusadercat's positive bias and ED trolls' negative slant). What it really boils down to for me is this: No part of Crusadercat's information/past is directly harmful to another person - that is, if Crusadercat had a history or was part of an incident that was necessary to warn other people about, it would be public service to post that information (for example, if he was known for not paying commissions or had assaulted another fur.) As it is, his only crime was of disclosure. Regardless of how I personally feel about his alleged bestiality (ew) I have to admit that neither it nor his alleged proselytizing (nor the resultant persecution he alleges) are of importance to the community at large. From this point of view, the request for blanking should be granted, as there's no real reason NOT to, aside from a concerted effort by those who want to do him harm. 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
On an unrelated note: Crusadercat, if you read this, I would very much like to talk to you about your religious journey and the path you've chosen to take - you may reach me at anotherduck /at/ gmail /dott/ com. I couldn't find private-message contact information for you, though I didn't look very hard. 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You appear to not realize how his past information has been used by Crusader Cat. He was(still is?) using his lewd acts to further his own agenda in the furry community. While I'm all one for getting rid of information regarding information which doesn't/won't/ and will not affect the furry community, he has proven many times to use said acts in conversation casually.
I shall direct you to the video of Thou Shall Not Yiff and the PDF, both I believe are available on the ED page. The information listed was created by Crusader Cat. Of which he has also stated his hate against homosexual relations. While he constantly states he has gay friends, I'm not certain if those "gay friends" are part of the group which are gay but abstain from all sexual intercourse.
Again, you should look at evidence provided. Nobody is "out to get crusader cat", but many would like him to stop using his own mental illnesses as a reason to 1) join the fandom and 2) "find Jesus". He has stated, by his own words look at the page history, he joined the fandom to deal with his sexual behavior. This alone is a red flag to the community, without looking at the religious side. Also the fact he molested his cats, then creates 1) a video about it, 2) a PDF about it, and 3) preaches to everyone else about the lewd act upset quite a few people. The knee jerk reactions didn't start though until he wanted to "spread the word." Though this is not the first time, and probably not the last time he will draw major attention to himself. He alone stated to me on my shout page, "This is the second time I've been on that site[]" in reference to the journal about "spreading the word." --Insane Kangaroo 02:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess what mean is, if Crusadercat is as obviously horrible as you say, wouldn't that become evident with a few minutes of talking to him? A wiki article, no matter how poive or negative, is not going to persuade a person. If there is no immediate harm to come from people not knowing his past, I'm not sure why Wikifur would need to host that information. If someone would rather plug his name into the searchbox than speak to him, there's very little chance they're planning to have anything to do with him. I've made my point as clearly as I can, but I apologize if I haven't suceeded. I'm not looking to convince or "white knight" - just saying that people should have a limited right to control their own information when that withholding doesn't harm others, regardless of whether they stupidly put it in the public domain or not. 02:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, many would rather research a person, before or after, knowing. Unfortuantely I've seen chat logs from a couple people in regards to chatting through IM. Indeed you are also correct in the sense people understand what type of person when they talk to him. I don't know if I've the whole conversation, but apparently he starts to belittle people when he talks about Jesus Christ. Telling people "your not grown up" regards to spirituality, then clearly brings out the sexist points in the bible. While the New King James is indeed colorful, the way Crusader Cat speaks to people is degrading.
Those are the type of conversations I do not want to be trapped in to by anyone. They're rather depressing and only depict the bad of Christianity. Talking about such topics is like talking about how great Japan is, then conversing in a topic about the Nanjing Massacre as if it's the Holy Grail of the Japanese population.
If people wish to plug in his name, so be it. There are plenty of sources online already, but the WF article should stay. People *DO* use ED to find the "juicy" information about specific people, mostly from screenshots. In this case Crusader Cat has developed such a bad rep, the WF is "nice" compared to what people have posted on the ED page.
In regards to people Googling another's name to find out more information about them, this is no different than any other fur. Some furs are in support of Bestiality, which I've clearly read the thread on FA. If those people, some which post their full legal name publicly post information on the Internet, then they have the responsibility of releasing said information.
Openly posting information on the Internet guarantees one will have diminished/no rights to privacy in regards to what they have posted.--Insane Kangaroo 02:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I usually lean towards granting exclusion unless there is a need to know, like protecting the fandom against a dangerous person. I don't see it here, so I vote exclusion. --Rat 04:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Allow exclusion:

  • Pros:
    • The subject is non-common, furry lore wise.
    • Non-warez trader (Sibe).
    • No criminal accounts or incidents (past or present) that affects the fandom (TORA).
    • Not a source of constant, possible, physical threats (Mozdoc).
    • No appearances on TV/radio/print that proclaim his views as Furry's set standards.
    • No in-furry pedophile incidents.
  • Con
    • A dislike of "furry porn" after a period of animal molestation by the user. Double standards.
    • A dislike for any religion but Christianity. Using same as an excuse to whitewash his own faults.
    • A (publicly displayed) dislike for Homosexuality.

These last three do not affect, or make an impression in, the fandom, and denial on the basis of being an irritant on certain members within furry is not a logical suggestion. It's exclusion would not subs-tract valuable data from Wikifur, and, as stated from other people, it's already well covered by third parties elsewhere - Spirou 06:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me add two other cons so it can't be said we didn't look at both sides. I still came to the decision to exclude after considering them.
    • Crazy accusations against people: Is there a need to provide an idea of the personality behind the accusations? There are other sources of information available, and most of the accusations have been taken down.
    • Legal threats: So far this is only threats, but if there were a case, and the legal system were brought in, it would be prudent to report on it.

Again, I considered both before coming to the decision to support exclusion, just mentioning for completenes. --Rat 07:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Another con for exclusion could have also been that he represents an extreme viewpoint within furry. Of course he's unable to defend his viewpoints on an intellectual level, and in the end he breaks down into the "oppressed christian" mode and whines about feeling oppressed or discriminated against. --Lutriawolfe 23:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It's okay. Once his parents in Mt Laurel, NJ or Saint Andrews Presbyterian College finds out he will get a good firm talk on not being an absolute zealot in regards to religion. Crusader is ranking right up there with Pastor Anderson right now, except Crusader is now attempting to hide. --Insane Kangaroo 23:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't have a double standard I hated molesting animals as well. It's a mistake I'm not proud of. Unfortunately Rat, you have fallen victim to the lies about me.
  • So what if I dislike religion? Everyone dislikes the other belief systems they don't hold. And what does this "whitewashing" mean? I not trying to justify my own mistakes (speaking specifically of bestiality here), once again Rat, you have fallen victim to the lies about me. This is why this page should be removed, false information is creeping in, and we can't let the honesty of this site die.
  • So what if I don't like homosexuality? I am well within my rights to say what I believe, just as you are within your rights to say "being gay is ok". I don't even see how this is relevant to the situation. My views on homosexuality has not effected my relationship with my friends who are gay or bi, so it is completely unrelated.
  • There is nothing Crazy about the accusations I made, Everything I said was true, and you have no reason to disbelieve me.
  • The "threat" was over when the issue was taken care of with another FA admin.

I tried real hard to keep my private info off the internet, but somehow, people like Insane Kangaroo have swiped it, and most likely gave it to the ED guys. I was chatting with someone online, and he was able to find my address, and the names of my family members based on the information that Insane somehow found, and is now on ED. They need to be protected, if not here, then the only other option I can see would be legally changing my name. --Crusader Cat 17:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

When you use your own flaws and use it to "spread the word", you're trying to use your own issues to spread an agenda. Rat isn't following any lies, just the evidence presented.
You don't like homosexuality, then you start quoting the colorful new KJ. Are you going to start preaching how homosexuals should be stoned? How about that Pastor Anderson, are you in agreeance with him?
There is nothing factual about your insane accusations, you don't get your way so you start bashing on people.
I only posted information which YOU released to the public. Remember your original wiki page? You don't? Click history. Oh wait you can't. Anyone who has a backup copy of wikifur can show you posted your own information name, and original photos of yourself with the two cats.
It really doesn't matter if you change your name or not. Legally by law you must report your previous name, people will still find out you're 1) a liability to the work place over threats, 2) a liability over insulting another coworker over religion, 3) damaged goods since you've a past in bestiality which you haven't gone for behavioral modification treatment, instead you reinforce said behavior by "joining the fandom".--Insane Kangaroo 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
i was plan not involve any more this, but too many internet legal expert with no true knowledge of situation. with wife family of lawyers, and close friend who is county superior court clerk, i have some advice give.
law on name change does vary by state. if desire name change, go to local superior court and speak with county court clerk, ask for papers need and process require. they can direct you. process does take time, and is not cheap, and i am told may be contested.
in 'most' situation, if you are not direct by a legal authority to reveal previous name, which most time will not since will be on file, you will not need to reveal previous name. what insane kangaroo is speak about is alias, not legal name change.
you will still need, after such, to file with social security and local dmv that name change. also will needing contact vital records where was born and file change with birth certificate. some county i am told do not allow that step.
if any confusion, speak with actual attorney. do not assume any person on line does have any true knowledge of any thing legal. most are misinform, make it up, or lie.
--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 16:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)