Talk:Foxler Nightfire

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

Exclusion request[edit]

The subject of this article has requested personal exclusion. They'd prefer that the entire article be removed, and gave the following reasons for doing so (somewhat translated by me):

  • The information may present a safety risk to themselves and others associated with them, potentially leading to violence within the community.
  • Some information has been presented out of context (in a way which they believe is derogatory to them).
  • The presence of the article leads to perpetuation of political behaviour in furry fandom, which they believe may destroy the fandom.
  • As the subject has no criminal record, they are not a risk to the safety of the community, and so it is unjustified to refuse exclusion, or to share personal information about them in general.

If you wish to object to this request, please do so within 24 hours, giving your reasons for doing so. --GreenReaper(talk) 08:44, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Object.
  • The personally identifying information that is usually considered sensitive (name, city) was made publicly available by the subject himself in interviews with mainstream news sources, such as Vice and Rolling Stone magazine.
  • If the information is out of context, the subject can remedy this by specifying what is out of context, adding the context to the article himself, or work with editors to ensure it is added.
  • The Burned Furs believing sexual perversion/lifestylers/etc. were overrunning or would ruin the fandom would not be reason to exclude articles about Lifestylers, furry porn, vore, etc. WikiFur is not a news source (anymore). And WikiFur shouldn't promote any behavior or action from readers.
  • I disagree with the need for a criminal conviction when things such as kissing dogs, viewing dogs sexually, and cybering with a 13 year old is all information provided by the subject himself; the danger is still there to furries who may have or be children or have dogs.
--Equivamp - talk 14:17, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
Object.
  • As mentioned by Equivamp, the subject has already made plenty of sensitive information publicly available. At the most, the sensitive information should be removed rather than full exclusion.
  • If the article is presented in such a way that is perceived to be derogatory, the article can be edited in order to be neutral.
  • n/c.
  • In my opinion admitting to crimes, especially as nonchalantly as he has done, shows that they are just as much of a risk to the community as somebody who has been convicted of a crime.

--V. CA (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Object.
  • On out of context information that is defamatory regarding past history with in legal terms. Subject regarding child grooming with past relationship http://starfoxacefox.livejournal.com/9871.html Post dated back 2005 both parties x & y were both minors (underage) at the time of the statement. Dose not meet the criteria of "Grooming" with in state of Colorado Rev. Statute 18-3-306
  • On out of context information that is defamatory regarding past history with in legal terms. Subject regarding violating the age of consent with past relationship http://imgur.com/w5NHZRS & http://imgur.com/rxt2l1Y Post dated back 2011 both parties x & y subject was within the age of consent at the time of the statement. Dose not meet the criteria of "violating the age of consent" with in state of North Carolina § 14?27.7A
  • On out of context information that is defamatory regarding past history with in terms. Subject regarding bestiality claims, which has no evidence that determines this definition of bestiality. Statement should be change to Zoophilia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia
--starfoxACEFOX - talk 3:50, 25 April 2017 (MST)
Mr. Miller, if I were you, I would edit your own comment to remove the word "Object", because that means that you're objecting to the exclusion of this article from WikiFur, which is only being discussed because you personally requested it. Unless you changed your mind about it being excluded.
As for the claim that the article uses legal terms: I have changed the reference to the 2011 allegation from "underage" to "16-year-old". However, "child grooming" is not a legal term (the statute you cite says "luring of a child") and you were 18 years old by your own admission and the age you would have been at the time based on your birth date. Even if you had been 17 years of age, the statute you cite says the victim must be under age 15 and the perpetrator must be at least four years older than the victim, which at 17 you would have been.
The word bestiality was used because the reference attached to the statement, as the statement says, specifically accuses you of having sexual contact with your dogs.
--Equivamp - talk 12:45, 25 April 2017 (EDT)
Object.
  • Since Foxler has been seeking media airtime, information about him is important to allow others to gain perspective not biased by his own hype.
  • Can't imagine how "derogatory" information about bestiality, sourced from Foxler himself, could be somehow contextualized to be more positive. Don't accept dodging.
  • "perpetuation of political behaviour in furry fandom, which they believe may destroy the fandom" is itself a "political" statement of opinion which should not get in the way of providing perspective to his own hype. If he is truly worried about "destroying" anything perhaps he should generate a little less of the attention he thrives on.
  • The "criminal record" remark is also a dodge; last I checked, bestiality is a crime in many places, and no crime need exist to have civil penalties against him for egregious troll behavior, or simply warn others that he has no respect for private group rules. It's part of simple presentation of info like his fondness for nazi symbolism.
--RandomSparkleDog - talk 27 April 2017