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

Removal of personal information.

I am Fritter's mate and upon request he has asked me removal all personal information due to issues outside of the fandom. He has no access to the internet and thus is asking this through me. I removed name, birth date, location, etc. myself. I removed all the material in question via request of Fritter. If you have any issues with these edits, please contact me via my e-mail.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skittle (talkcontribs) .

This request has not been made by the person featured in this article. More over, the person featured in this article, upon pleading guilty or being found guilty, will be proven to a threat to minors within the furry fandom. To attempt to hide this information from the fandom by deleting it from wikifur, would be a disservice to the fandom and increase the risk to minors in the fandom who may not otherwise be able find this information. Finally, precedent exists on Wikifur for sex offenders to not have their names or crimes hidden for the very reasons in my previous sentence. AshleyAshes 21:06, 8 April 2011 (CEST)
He has not been found guilty and thus, until he is, information will continually be removed upon request by the user. If this information is continue to be replaced, his lawyer will be contacted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skittle (talkcontribs) .
I have modified your post for better formatting. Please use correct formatting when using the talk page. Agian, you are not Fritter, you do not legally represent Fritter and there are no means to varify that your claims are accurate. Simply put, Fritter has not made the request to Wikifur. However, if you are announcing your intention to start an 'edit war' until you get your own way, I will recommend that this page be placed under protection in order to protect it from a needless series of edits. AshleyAshes 00:13, 9 April 2011 (CEST)
Fritter has no access to the internet to make the request himself thus, is working through me. I have taken caps of the page and will take caps of the multiple requests to have personal information removed as via wikifur policy if requested. These edits are not needless. They go against your policy of privacy protection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skittle (talkcontribs) .
You threatened to contact Fritter's lawer, having someone who legally represents Fritter would be a reasonable person to use to forward the information to Wikifur. However, please keep in mind the 'No Legal Threats' policy of Wikifur, however in this case, simply using a lawyer to forward a request when one does not have access to the internet for legal reasons seems quite reasonable to me. Further more, I submit that the information on Fritter is in no way private. His name and accused actions have been the subject of news articles in international media and in at least two different languages, even Carleton University has published an article on Fritter and uses quotations from your own Facebook page. I fail to see how this page violates his privacy when it only features publicly available information in the media. AshleyAshes 00:31, 9 April 2011 (CEST)
The everyone else is doing it does not count as a viable source. When I contact him next, this will be forwarded to his lawyer. Just because it is public knowledge it is STILL against your privacy policy if requested to be removed by the user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skittle (talkcontribs) .
You are continuing to revert his page to suit your demands, despite polite attempts to get you to work within Wikifur's rules and it's precedent on featured Furries with criminal pasts. In the interest of keeping this civil and not simply wasting time, I will not revert your edit as you have announced your full intention to engage in an edit war. I will contact an administrator for them to weigh in on this issue. I'm sorry that you are unwilling to let this go any other way. AshleyAshes 00:43, 9 April 2011 (CEST)
"WikiFur allows privacy of personal information such as exact location, real name (if not the primary name used within the fandom), phone numbers, e-mail addresses, birthdays, instant messenger accounts and similar contact details. Such information can simply be removed without asking for full exclusion." "In particular, sometimes a person may ask for valid information about them to be removed from WikiFur (unattributed opinion or libel should automatically be removed). As WikiFur is here to help members of the community, not harm them, it is usually appropriate to honour this request." If this continues there will be a request for the page to be deleted in its entirety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skittle (talkcontribs) .
Requests for exclusion for furries with posted criminal histories are usually refused, as the page remaining serves the greater good of the fandom. More over, I would like you to clearly read what you quoted. 'It is usually appropriate to honor this request', there are circumstances where it is appropriate to not honor this request, and this circumstance can be seen on other pages. More over you have not submitted any evidence that Fritter made this request and expect everyone to simply take your word for it. If Fritter does have a lawyer, and that lawyer can act on his behalf to make the request, then sit and wait. In the meanwhile, as you are unwilling to accept any compromise or even exercise any patients and see starting an edit war as a solution, I've made the request for an admin to come in to assist with this dispute. AshleyAshes 01:20, 9 April 2011 (CEST)
It looks like you both want my opinion, though I'd welcome hearing those of others . . .
I feel when a person has been charged with a crime that has potential relevance to the fandom (and many do), the public interest concerns should block exclusion at least until the charge is cleared or - if convicted - the crime is expunged. It doesn't necessarily meant all elements of their real life are exposed, but it can "break the veil" between that life and their fandom identity. This seems consistent with our past coverage of convicted criminals, and also of substantiated accusations of fraud within the fandom. Of course, allegations should be presented as such unless and until a conviction is made, and the subject's plea and statements should also be mentioned. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:46, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
So I'm gonna throw my two cents into this: I feel that the article--and the information--should stay; one of the main reasons I go to this site is to read up on furries I meet online (since it's pointless to come here to read about anthropomorphic characters) and if I met a furry with a criminal record, I'd like to know about it; it would seriously affect the relationship I have with said individual. And, since his name and DOB are mentioned in the reference about the crime, it's pointless to remove it, though I wouldn't be against it. --Equivamp 12:14, 11 May 2011 (EDT)


We have a claim that the charges mentioned above have been withdrawn. If this can be shown to be true, how do editors here feel about removing the topic from this article, and archiving this talk page? This would be consistent with our actions in a similar situation. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

I think that would depend on the nature of the dismissal of the charges, there are a lot of reasons that the charges could be dismissed. A lot of false information has already been presented, such as the initial edit yesterday saying that Fritter had been 'found innocent' and 'the charge against him dropped' and both of these can not be true, only one. Charges being dropped and being found innocent are mutually exclusive and both being true is a legal impossibility. This means that attempts have been made to put blatently false information of one kind or another in this article already. Details on the dismissal of the charges would be needed, namely, why the charges were dismissed. AshleyAshes 21:59, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Withdrawn or dropped?, is it based on no evidence, or is he actually innocent?. Either way, it would enter the area of "allegation", and leaving the "Controversy section" up would be damaging. If the evidence/charges were dropped, then the "tip" was false to begin with (no victim, no CP media), so more points towards eliminating the section. Waiting too about the legal briefs - Spirou 22:16, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
One angle would be to keep information on WikiFur to similar or less than retention of police records in the jurisdiction. In the context of a criminal record check, looks like "The possible existence of criminal convictions and outstanding charges, as well as incidents of all negative police contacts for at least the previous five years will be considered for release." by the Ottawa Police. Also Questions and Answers about the Policy for the Retention and Destruction of Non-Conviction Information – Adults -- Sine 01:54, 15 September 2011 (EDT)


How long should we wait for the information on these charges to be given? Fitter is clearly aware that the page states 'Citation Needed' but seems to have no motivation to actually cite anything. What's the point of marking something with 'Citation Needed' if all the effort to put the line there is being made, but zero effort is being made to give it a citation? Without any effort in giving a citaton, this just becomes a scheme to manipulate information. 19:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

That's the caveat of "citation" requests - Spirou 19:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Not the proper way to deal with this situation

"Removing uncited information as the requested citation has still not been provided". No, it's actually proving the point with a reference link (valid) or being superseded by a valid contrary statement ("was found guilty of charges",...etc). If we had to eliminate all "citation needed" paragraphs because somebody has yet to provide one, hundreds of articles would have present information/data obliterated. That the problem about "facts" tags: unproven/dubious until proven or countered - Spirou 19:55, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

I think there's a difference being a citation not being provided, and a citation being specifically withheld (Assuming there's there's something to actually cite). One could easily vandalize Wikifur up and down if the simple justification 'There's no proof that what I said isn't true' was all that's needed. AshleyAshes 20:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
That's a personal opinion, not a a valid linked reference. Have any of you guys googled if he was ultimately innocent/guilty?. If he (Fritter) knows his outcome of guilt/innocence, he is not forced to publish/edit that data anywhere - Spirou 20:09, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Have you asked him? - Spirou 20:10, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
He's been trying to edit this page, there's no point in asking him, if he was going to attempt anything beyond an edit war, he'd have already provided the information. He knows that the page states 'Citation Needed' because he made that citation necessray but he's obviously not interested in citing anything. AshleyAshes
Not the source for a citation, then, unless compelled (not likely). That leaves Google, I can make a quick sweep =/ - Spirou 20:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
While we're at this, why is the line "Police seized a laptop they allege contained images and videos of child pornography." maked with Citation Needed? I removed this and you restored this. Citation #4 clearly cites this and infact that sentance is copied verbatim from the news article. So why is further citation needed? AshleyAshes 20:52, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Hmm?. A duplicate one, no problem, down it goes - Spirou 21:31, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Net search results

The Ottawa County Municipal Court lists nothing, and the Ottawa Police Service's records requires a mailable (and paid) request, the Canadian National Sex Offender Registry is NOT open to the public, and he is NOT listed (being a US citizen) in the U.S. Department of Justice Sex Offender Public Website (Which would have an entry about him if found guilty in Canada and returned to the States).

So unless somebody wishes to pay for the court case data, or Google delivers in the future, or he informs the public, the [citation needed] tag stays until then - Spirou 21:31, 2 October 2011 (EDT)