Talk:Furnal Equinox/Archive 1

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

Furnal Equinox was not created by Danskunk, nor was it created by Ontariofurries and was put together by a committe of people who met on Ontariofurries but that was the extent of it, anything added by or about Danskunk was added by him and are falsifications and lies put into his head by his own self.

If Dan Skunk was not the founder, can you please provide online evidence of who the real founder is, so this matter can be put to rest? SilverserenC 17:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Members of the committe and con as of First Con in 2010.

Co-Chairs: Blindsight_Wolf


Committe: Scani

         Morgan(now Deceased)

There was other people who were involved in the beginning months, they either dropped out, were removed or voted out. As the committee developed and became the current group.

Registered corporate members are: Blindsight_wolf, Scani, Pakesh_de, Shane, Crassadon. These are people who are registered Directors of the convention. Legally registered on the NPO.

The list of members and concom is available at and also the original page creator is Scani, so you can also speak with him.


While the list of concom members is not available on Furnal Equinox's website, I can attest that the information Shane has provided is correct for the 2010 concom and can be sourced from our conbook for that year. To reiterate, the claims being made in the article do not reflect Furnal Equinox's stance. I'm open to any questions if desired, though. --Scani 13:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the source information was removed in 2009 as I removed the Toronto Furry Convention forum from Ontario Furries when it fell into dissuse and hadn't yet created a system to archive deleted posts.

There are a number of people that can corroborate my claim of starting Furnal Equinox, and I could cite some of the early conversations I had with people about the convention from the summer of 2008 but it will be impossible to present anything that can not be contested by Furnal Equinox.

I don't want to be associated with Furnal Equinox and I don't think they want to be associated with me, but I believe the community deserves to have an accurate history of events and that people should be credited for their contributions to the furry community.

As there is likely not going to be a consensus in this situation, the only solution I can see is that we have a section here describing controversy over certain facts and present the differing viewpoints people have on it.

--Dan Skunk 16:55, 18 July 2010

It's... very unfortunate that a dispute between Dan and FE has been brought into the public eye once again. I don't wish to bring arguments with Dan onto WikiFur, because this is not its purpose for the articles here to be a battleground for the conflicts themselves... only how they're reported, if seen as notable enough to be.
First of all, I've cleared the "Controversy" section from the article. However, in the interests of good faith, I've copied that section to the bottom of the talk page with two understandings: first, perhaps we can establish a consensus among not just Dan and FE but with the mediation of other WikiFur editors on whether it is needed. Secondly, if there is a consensus that it IS needed, then that section can be collectively edited by not just the stakeholders, but by all in a manner that is satisfactory to all. Personally, I can honestly say that we would rather not see the section there, because it brings forth conflict that, from our evaluation, people would rather just avoid. Moreover, its presence undermines the credibility of both parties.
However, in the interests of disclosure, this is my understanding of the events that have taken place between Dan and FE (perhaps from a more FE-ish perspective)
  • A Toronto Furry Convention board existed on Ontario Furries from at least late 2008. A number of the current concom members posted on this forum, where a number of ideas were discussed (though no firm decisions re: the planning of the convention as it is taking place now took place as a result - i.e. we did not enter into any contracts with any party, and as the name will suggest, the name Furnal Equinox was not yet decided at this point.)
  • After several months of discussion, a private mailing list was created with the involvement of all those who expressed an interest in serving on the convention committee; their first action was to elect Pakesh De as convention chairman and subsequent decisions such as name, date, and venue were made through here.
  • Anthropomorphic Events of Ontario (AEO) was incorporated as a Ontario corporation without share capital on June 11, 2009. Dan's name was included in the application for incorporation as an initial director.
  • At a meeting of the convention committee on July 20, 2009, Dan was dismissed from Furnal Equinox's concom by a unanimous vote. His actions were perceived as progressively more erratic and independent of the direction the remainder of concom was taking (I refer to it as "we were moving left and he was moving right"), and the consensus was that his removal was in the best interests of the convention's success. He requested to be dismissed from being a director, due to not wanting to be exposed to the convention's liability anymore. This request was granted.
  • Following his removal, Dan expressed his displeasure in a number of ways, engaging in a great deal of public criticism of the convention on Ontario Furries. These criticisms were seen as highly counterproductive, an attempt to erode public confidence in the convention, and evaporated a great deal of goodwill towards him.
  • However, in an attempted gesture of good faith, Dan was mentioned and thanked by name in the conbook for the 2010 convention for his contribution.
  • The relationship between Furnal Equinox and Ontario Furries (the community forum which Dan administrates) has been quite rocky over the past year, and has sometimes been severed altogether to be later restored. However, following the convention in April 2010, Furnal Equinox's subforum on Ontario Furries was deleted without warning. When it became clear that any sort of diplomacy or negotiations to restore the forum would not be successful, the two parties agreed to mutually sever relations.
It should be noted that I can not attest for any previous research towards the convention Dan may have accomplished. --Scani 23:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Furnal Equinox was not created by Danskunk, nor was it created by Ontariofurries and was put together by a committe of people who met on Ontariofurries but that was the extent of it, anything added by or about Danskunk was added by him and are falsifications and lies put into his head by his own self."

The committee of people that met on Ontario Furries were all members of that web site at the time of their meeting; therefore, it would not be inaccurate to say they were Ontario Furries.

Claiming that I am lieing is slanderous. You should back up that claim, or qualify it by saying it's your opinion that they are lies.

Shane became involved the the project later than everyone else and was not involved in those early discussions and has no first hand experience on the events his claims are about.

--Dan Skunk 23:38, 18 July 2010

"He requested to be dismissed from being a director, due to not wanting to be exposed to the convention's liability anymore. This request was granted."

I did not make that request. I discussed it, but decided not to make the request. Had I done so, there would be no displeasure with the decision to remove me from being a director.

Quorum was not present at that meeting, making the decisions against the articles of incorporation. Others dismissed at that meeting were Sparrow and Danruk both of whom were involved in the convention planning prior to creation of the Toronto Furry Convention Board on Ontario Furries and were working with me and supporting my involvement. They were present at the first meetings with hotels, including the one chosen for the convention and instrumental to the success of the convention. None of us were present at this meeting to defend ourselves.

"His actions were perceived as progressively more erratic and independent of the direction the remainder of concom was taking (I refer to it as "we were moving left and he was moving right"), and the consensus was that his removal was in the best interests of the convention's success."

My experience was that being deliberately left out of planning discussions, not being given information I needed to be able to contribute, and being blamed for mistakes others made as a result of this lack of communication to me. My dismissal directly followed my criticism of this behaviour and recommendation that someone else act as chair.

"These criticisms were seen as highly counterproductive, an attempt to erode public confidence in the convention, and evaporated a great deal of goodwill towards him."

This criticism was considered a gesture of goodwill towards the success of the convention, and to prove my value to the success of the convention.

My predictions of wasted and mismanaged space, time, and resources proved to be correct durring the course of the convention. Had my recomendations been acted on, the convention, and it's members, in spite of my removal, would have saved a considerable amount of money. Instead, the recomendations were met with contempt and derision from the convention's remaining organizers.

The wholesale rejection of these recommendations, to me, showed that the success of the convention and service to the community was secondary to the organizers recieving personal recognition for their efforts.

Following the convention, I made public my complaint of unprofessional behaviour and personal prejudice towards me from staff both directly and through convention security after it was dismissed by co-chair, Pakesh De, as personal issues between me and the staff members and not the responsibility of the convention. Something I considered extremely irresponsible and unprofessional.

"It should be noted that I can not attest for any previous research towards the convention Dan may have accomplished."

That research was provided in the initial public discussions for the convention, and in information submitted to the committee after it was formed.

My original desire for contributing to this article was to add the details of Ontario Furries as the location of the forum discussions mentioned and Dan Skunk as the initiator of these discussions. I was, and continue to be the owner of Ontario Furries and it was in this capacity that I created this sub forum after making research into the feasibility of the project. I believe names of contributors and locations where discussions took place to be relevant to an article on the history of the convention. It is obvious that these discussions took place *somewhere* and were started by *someone*. The original organizing committee that created Furnal Equinox was formed through discussion on the Ontario Furries forum through a series of nominations and public voting presented on the forum

If there is contention to these facts, then I assert that this contention then is a relevant part of the history of the convention and that all sides of the contention deserve equal opportunity to present their claims so long as it is made known that these are claims and who is making the claims.

"Personally, I can honestly say that we would rather not see the section there, because it brings forth conflict that, from our evaluation, people would rather just avoid. Moreover, its presence undermines the credibility of both parties."

Wikifur is an encyclopedia which means it should contain factual information presented from a neutral point of view. I believe this means that if there is a dispute over facts, the nature of the dispute should be described in a way that does not attempt to promote either side of the dispute; Wikifurs's purpose is not to promote the credibility of individuals and organizations but inform the fandom of the facts related to them. Facts should not be deliberately omitted to improve the public image of individuals and groups.

In this spirit, I suggest Scani contribute to the proposed section to elaborate on Furnal Equinox's position on the disputed facts unless consensus can be agreed upon.

--Dan Skunk 05:39, 19 July 2010

Quorum was not present at that meeting, making the decisions against the articles of incorporation.
The assertion that the vote was invalid due to lack of quorum (i.e. a majority of members of the body) is incorrect. While the events in question took place a year ago and are slightly hazy on my part, at the absolute MINIMUM the remaining four directors and/or officers of the convention were present at the time to vote on the matter (which pertained to Dan's removal from concom, as well as from any further staff role with FE. To my recollection, at least five votes were cast; this would be a majority of the concom which consisted of nine members at the time. Moreover, in Ontario, a decision to amend governance would be governed by the corporation's bylaws, not the articles of incorporation. --Scani 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
There were 8 committee members at the time. Quorum was decided to be 5 so that there would be a majority. Since there were only 4, then quorum was not reached.
There could not be 5 votes with only 4 members present.
I was never made aware of the articles of incorporation or that they were on the application for incorporation.
I was never made aware of the existence of corporate bi-laws while a director of the corporation.
I was present for an earlier meeting where it was decided by majority vote that quorum would be 5 to constitute a majority of the 8 members.
These are only some examples of the unprofessional conduct of members of the committee. While I was a registered director of the corporation, my inquiries into the financial and corporate activities of the corporation were deliberately ignored and I was not informed of decisions being made that affected business of the corporation. My criticism of decisions behind made was strongly discouraged by the chairman ordering me to stop, by insults from committee and staff members, and by being ignored. I was informed by Blindsight that he was asserting his dominance and that I would need to change my behaviour if I wanted to be in the loop.
--Dan Skunk 00:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
First of all - I said there were certainly at LEAST four votes, and recall specifically that there were at least five (considering Pak and I recall that Shiro was also present at the meeting). As Shane served in a secretarial role for concom meetings at the time, he would have the record thereof, but I am nonetheless confident that the decision represented the desires of the organization of a whole. While I can understand it being controversial if there had been dissent at the meeting, there was none. This is in line with the purpose of quorum from a moral standpoint (if not a legalistic one) where an unduly small number of people on a governing body do not control the decisions thereof.
I was never made aware of the articles of incorporation or that they were on the application for incorporation.
Your signature was required on the application document, and as far as I know, was obtained at a meeting in early June 2009. Presumably, you would have had the opportunity to review the completed application, which included first directors and "objects of the corporation" at any time while the application was in front of you.
I can not speak for these so-called "insults" from concom, but as far as I'm concerned, I did my best to interact with you in good faith, and despite my initial reservations re: your presence, you had every opportunity from me to demonstrate value to us - and I truly believed that because of the quantity of your social network you could be an asset to our operations. Obviously, this did not prove to be the case, and the concom's decision reflected that after several months of working with you.
The point I'm trying to make in all of this really has to come down to the group dynamics that worked themselves out. When we first came together, and one of the concerns was coherency. Bringing people together is one thing, but to actually develop some common goals and common purpose is another altogether. A group of people in the same room does not necessarily equal a team. And... regardless of how much work you DID accomplish in the leadup to this, it's another thing to work together, and that impression in your case just wasn't there. People weren't here to just follow your lead. Had you remained present, a lot more friction would have developed, and probably would have had a negative impact on the convention's success. As it turned out... there was a lot of friction anyway. --Scani 12:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It was my oversight for not reading through the entire application. We seemed in a hurry to get it done so I just trusted I was already told what was in it.
We had a common goal. That was not an issue.
I never expected people to follow my lead or anyone else's lead. I expected them to work together as equals. That requires that people communicate their ideas with each other, accept criticism with each other, and make decisions together as a group. Some where not willing to do that, and that's what caused problems.
Regardless, my contributions should not be deleted from this article.
--Dan Skunk 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional Info: I was a helper to Blindsight at the time and was at the meetings as secreatary and I can attest, after discussions about why to remove Danskunk, the good and bad things he has done for the convention. He was voted out, with Quaorum with a unanimous vote to remove him from the con period.

I may even still have the records as they were transcribed and sent to the list and FE forums that we have of our own.

If Danskunk demands all facts and things should be allowed, then he should freely allow all the "facts" about himself on his wikifur page that pertain to the community and fandom.

Danskunks "Research" was checked out by me and took less then 5 minutes with a quick "wikifur" search, where all his information and research was from. -Shane Nicholson(WolfMist)

I accept all facts to be included in this article; any facts that are in dispute should be clearly described as so.
My research took place over many months of travelling to Toronto to look at possible venues, through discussions with members of the community interested in helping, interviews with people who were directors at other successful conventions, some of it was collected from wikifur, but it was also re-organized to better serve our needs. I also brought observations from many years of attending conventions.
Shane was not involved in this reasearch.
--Dan Skunk 01:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's quite evident that we're not going to reach a consensus on this. Could we start working on editing the proposed section to include what information we all want to provide there?

--Dan Skunk 01:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Primarily speaking, the parties involved here are FE and you. I'd honestly be more comfortable seeking the opinions of neutral parties if possible, to objectively assess what the value of what you're proposing is - as neither of us will be able to do that. Will this controversy, namely, be important five years down the line?
Re: the section that was recently added listing 'founding members' - a few of the names asked to withdraw their involvement quite early, and they may object to their appearance here in this article. The list also fails to acknowledge individuals that came on board after founding whose contribution nonetheless played an instrumental role in the convention's success... and I honestly feel they should not be trivialized (people like Morgan, Arrowroot, etc.)
So I'm not sure if the section as it currently stands is appropriate, but if others say it should, alphabetical would be more appropriate. Perhaps the information is better classified elsewhere, but I'll comment more on that tomorrow. --Scani 03:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I've made it alphabetical. I didn't know about later joining members. Perhaps we should keep the current list, though rewrite the lead-in to say original founding members and then have a separate sentence listing those that joined in after the fact? They should certainly be recognized.
And if any of the people listed do not wish their name to be associated with Furnal Equinox, then they just have to speak with Greenreaper and he will take them off and make sure they stay off of the list. SilverserenC 03:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion would be that if needed, the relevant information be placed in a 'current' and 'former' section in the article (perhaps as a two-column table) - or at least other titles that represent those who are still working on the convention and those who have moved on to other projects. There should be no particular stigma associated with the latter. Also, ref. proposed changes below (you can always refer back to previous edits for previous versions) --Scani 11:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe a current and former section is necessary. There is already an origins section there which is appropriate to list the original organizers in, describe their contributions, and when and why they left.
I sincerly appreciate you acknowledging that the discussions began on Ontario Furries, Scani. If there is consensus on that fact, then I believe it can stand in the origins section where I originally placed it as it is most relevant to that topic. I would also like it stated that I started the conversation there. Another contributer has been contesting both though so it may only be able to stand as a contested fact, but it can be stated the we both support it.
I don't believe a description of my removal should be in an Ontario Furries section as it is not relevant to Ontario Furries, but to myself only. My criticism should also not be included there as it was my personal opinion--not that of Ontario Furries.
I think we could put it the description of my and Ontario Furries's involvement in the origins section as it is most relevant there. I don't believe either are important enough to warrant their own headlines.
I disagree with saying there was a lack of shared direction, as there was a shared direction: producing a convention, a goal which all parties made contributions critical to it's success. The only disagrement was over details of how to accomplish those goals and responsibilities of individual members. I may wish to describe what those were.
I also disagree with saying there was a conflict between me and the rest of the concom because that was not true. I had disagreements with only half of the concom. I'd also like it stated that everyone that supported my inclusion was also removed.
I'd like to add my own perception of my criticism's as I saw them quite differently.
I contest that there was no warning, as I made repeated requests of FE to change their behaviour and would like to add my own assesment of why they were removed.
I'll get to adding my revisions later.
--Dan Skunk 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Scani, as long as there is someone that feels the information to be valuable, there is no reason it can not be included. Other parties are free to contribute their knowledge to the article as well, as this is a colaborative effort but no one should be censoring other people's contributions based on their assesment of how valuable they are. Readers should be given the opportunity to have as much information as possible and decide for themselves what is or is not valuable to them.
Whether or not someone wishes to be included in the article or not is irrelevant. Deliberately presenting false information, or omitting information for the purpose of manipulating public opinion for any reason is dishonest and against the spirit of wikifur as being a place to present factual information from a neutral perspective.
Making the list alphabetical sounds good to me. Thank you.
If someone does not want to be associated with Furnal Equinox, it should be added to the article that they do not wish to be associated with it, thusly satisfying their desire for disassociating without sacrificing the integrity of facts. However, I think stating that they resigned, should be enough to indicate their lack of support.
--Dan Skunk 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with Ontario Furries (proposed)

Discussion for what became Furnal Equinox originally took place on the Ontario Furries forum, operated by Dan Skunk. Though Dan was originally involved in planning discussions, he was removed from the Furnal Equinox organizing committee and board of directors in July 2009 due to lack of shared direction and conflicts between him and the remainder of concom.

Many of Furnal Equinox's concom members have taken the stance that Dan's publicly posted and unsolicited criticisms since his removal have been disproportionately critical of the con and its staff, and negatively affected its reputation. Dan has claimed that his removal was unjustified, and that he has been subjected to negative treatment and insults by other staff members. Both claims are disputed by the other party.

The relationship between members of Furnal Equinox's convention committee and Dan has remained strained, culminating in the removal of Furnal Equinox's subforum and the banning of a number of committee members without warning in April 2010. Currently, Furnal Equinox and Ontario Furries have no formal connections.

Propose addtions to Origins instead of Relationship with Ontario Furries section.

I've been researching more details, so much of the Ontario Furries discussion is redundant.

--Dan Skunk 12:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Dan Skunk was removed from the Furnal Equinox organizing committee and board of directors in July 2009 over disagreements with some of the other committee members. M-So and Danruk were also removed on this date.

Dan Skunk contests the decision as quorum was not present at this meeting and none of the people removed were given an opportunity to be present to defend themselves. He claims the dismissals were politically motivated because he expressed a lack of confidence in Pakesh De chairship immediately prior to being removed and that the others removed were friends of his.
Scani claims Dan Skunk was removed over conflicts with other members of the concom and a lack of shared direction and that the decision represented the desires of the organization as a whole.

Relationship with Ontario Furries

Furnal Equinox, along with members of the concom, Pakesh De, Blindsight, Shane, Chris were banned from discussions on Ontario Furries in April 2010 for repeated insulting and defamitory comments.

Scani claims it was without warning.
Many of Furnal Equinox's concom members have taken the stance that Dan's publicly posted and unsolicited criticisms since his removal have been disproportionately critical of the con and its staff, and negatively affected its reputation.

Dan fails to mention, Blindsight was banned for no reason, in fact he was banned because "he is responsible for what Pakesh says" on the forums or IRC.

Request for Intervention

This situation has become absolutely ridiculous, and I'm not satisfied with it whatsoever. The changes made by Dan to the article over the past couple of years have resulted in a significant decrease in quality in the article, not to mention a significant shift away from a neutral point of view. The changes that were made can only be described as "self-aggrandizing" and disproportionate to the remainder of the article.

Is it possible for both parties to lay off editing and that another party come in to perhaps arbitrate this issue? This is the continued manifestation of a conflict between Dan and Furnal Equinox - and I really don't feel it's fair for Dan to continue to edit the article unilaterally and play up his importance (just as it wouldn't be fair for us to do likewise). --Scani 20:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been following this situation that closely but I will offer a couple of observations:
  1. If someone is posting information they claim to be true and others dispute it, then one side or the other needs to provide references to back up their claims. If neither side is able to do so, then it reverts to the level of hearsay, and we have to settle for something like "So-and-so claims X but others have disputed this." Also note that any allegedly deleted websites may in fact be preserved at sites such as The Internet Wayback Machine and those are generally as reliable as the original sites if the material still exists there.
  2. We don't need a detailed play-by-play of who said what and what happened when. The only people who care about that level of detail are the handful of people who were directly involved. A summary description is good enough for the other 99% of us, and that's all we need on Wikifur. And it's quite possible that a summary description can be written in a manner that much of the content under dispute doesn't even matter at that level of detail. Try to imagine how you'd summarize something that happened a few years ago, then do it that way.
I hope this helps. Oh, and here in the talk page, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). --mwalimu 21:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I think a few notible points in the development and who was responsible for them is reasonable.
If someone thinks they're important, and they're factual and referenced, there's no reason for them not to be included.
It's a fair look at who contributed what in the lead up to the event. If someone happens to have made a lot of contributions, they'll of course be mentioned more. I any case, it's unfair and misleading to remove all reference to someone who made contributions.
Arbitration is unnecessary, you have the opportunity to add anything that was left out.
Please refrain from personal attacks, Scani. If you have something to contest, it can be removed as a fact.
--Dan Skunk 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
That's more than a few notable points. If you were viewing the article about some other convention that's been running for several years, would you really care to see that level of detail about how it got started, to the level of quotations from the parties involved, assuming you were at most only casually acquainted online with any of the people involved? Most people wouldn't, and I don't think most people do here either. It could be argued that it should be preserved for those with enough historical interest to care, but the main article about the convention here on Wikifur is not the place to do it. (On an unrelated style note, only the first occurrence of each person mentioned in the article should be wikilinked.) --mwalimu 22:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be fine without the quotes, and just a few notes.
The name of the forum mentioned and who started the discussion does not seem to be too much to include, as it only adds five words. That's what I find most important and relevant as the section is about origins and that describes where the organization originated, and who it originated from.
That was contested and removed, so I did some research and found a reference to it, hence the quote and link backing it up. I could replace the quote with a footnote of where the reference is located.
While doing research to find that reference, I found who found the venue and who found the date. Those are at least as notible as who thought of the name, so if originator of the name is included, I think that of the venue and date should be as well.
I thought it was interesting to watch how the idea of the convention was developed from another event, and thought that would be interesting to show. I could be included in a seperate page though describing a timeline for those so interested to view it without hindering the conciseness of the main article. I could also do that without offering all the quotes, but rather references to them.
Linking only the first occurance seems reasonable as it makes the article easier to read. I don't understand signing posts with 4 tildes. What does that do? My appologies for being new to wikifur. I had stuff to contribute, especially to my own article, and am learning how to work with people here as I go. Thank you for the help.
--Dan Skunk 23:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for my brusqueness earlier - this process has been tremendously frustrating. From my own personal opinion, the edits which added comments such as "Dan Skunk... made the first visit", "Dan Skunk created a board..." and "Dan Skunk promoted having the convention..." in rapid succession, especially considering the edits were made by Dan, did come across in a very self-promotional manner and rubbed me the wrong way. A significant number of Dan's edits since this issue have had something to do with attributing foundation to Furnal Equinox to Dan and his website, Ontario Furries.
I perceive the basic issue at hand to be "how much credit should be given to Dan Skunk for the establishment of Furnal Equinox in this article". This is also not a fight about "contesting" material; the ideal solution would be an article that is acceptable to both parties, and... well, the unsolicited edits to the page certainly breached my understanding that was something that could be worked towards. Not only one that is based in fact but one that is fair, neutral, and NOT an attempt to dig up dirt. I left a message asking for arbitration because it did not seem possible to do this.
The question, too, is what proportion of recognition is appropriate. A project such as running a convention is collective, not individual. There are a lot of people who saw this work to completion, and I don't think it's appropriate to throw them in the background so that one person can come forth unilaterally and say "I did this and this." Moreover, who's to say there weren't people who looked into the feasibility of a furry convention in Toronto prior to this? (Yes, I know, citation needed.)
My proposal remains a list of current and former people involved in a concom role in the current 'Staff' section, as well as an acknowledgement that initial discussion took place on Ontario Furries. (Honestly, given an opportunity, I'd like to turn back the clock to 19 May but realize that's not likely.)
For the record, signing a message with four tildes will post your current username (or IP address if you are not logged in), as well as the current date and time. --Scani 04:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Scani. I appreciate the appology and forgive that.
I can certainly understand how the edits I made would seem self promotional, especially comming from myself. That's why I was trying to include other names in it as well. I was hoping if someone had something they though should be mentioned about them, that they should add it as well, resolving more of the one sidedness.
Unfortunately, if we are to be honest and neutral, I did contribute a lot of essential information and resources to the convention. To minimize those contributions would be not be honest and neutral.
Scani's proposal.
I think only adding that the discussion took place on Ontairo Furries would be deminishing my contribution. The discussions took place on Ontario Furries, but as is show from the email referenced, those discussions were started by me only after I had gathered the financial resources needed to start the convention.
A more accurate description would be, "After gathering the needed financial resources to start a convention, Dan Skunk, started a discussion on Ontario Furries inviting others to become involved with the project." That will remove the incorrect information that the financial resources were brought together though those discussions. It also shows who initiated the process.
You've mentioned who thought of the name, but if there's anyone, at all, that should be mentioned, it's the person that came up with the idea to start seriously working on the project.
There were others that looked into running a convention Toronto that year. I started looking at venues following the first Islington Furmeet on June 14, 2008. Pyhrra did so as well but he concluded it was not a good time to start one based on economic conditions. M-So did asked me to help him look at venues on November 19, 2008.
M-So and I concluded it was feasible and that we would work together on it.
He should probably be mentioned as founding it as well.
I would certainly prefer to come to a consensus on what to include in the article. But giving my experience with this article, I'm not certain that's possible. You've very diplomatic and professional about things, but you and me are not the only people interested in the article.
We can't turn back time, but we could certainly repair mistakes. If it's something about me, I'm very forgiving. You just need to appologize and undo whatever was wrong.
If it were up to me, I'd have turned back time to December 3, 2008, and not made a post inviting people to help with the convention untill *after* creating an npo and contracting the hotel--thusly completely avoiding this whole controversy and a lot of frustration and heartache to a lot of people.
Thanks for letting me know what the tildes do.
Dan Skunk 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings to this thread which is currently growing to become a small editorial if not soon a book with special guest stars.

The current issue is credit where credit is due. Dan claims to have been *the* original creator of the con based on his board, gathering of folks, and even finding a backer. All said and done, but the *idea* which is being missed is the real idea was well over a decade ago when folks like me, benjamin, deuce, hiker, and many other old furs of the fandom groused about a con local to Toronto which then grew to become as we all know as Feral.

Now Dan was there at the start, had done some work, and did indeed find some folks that got together to make a functional convention yes. However personal issues much less other incidents which need not , or should not, need to be bandied about made such a arrangement intolerable and sadly it was a case of *my way or the highway* and the concom voted to remove what was perceived as the greatest trouble with the least amount of gutting of the con. Now and since then the level of anger from said removed party has led to folks in large numbers banned from his board while he continues to attack the con without any feedback from us as being some of the banned folks in question to simply and repeatedly asking to have issues reopened that were voted closed.

That is fair, and all part of being a open and democratic process. The issue is if this is all being done to simply add credit where credit is due then simply what is being told as * dan, danruk, sparrow* were at the start but were voted out after issued arouse should.. note *should* be enough for most folks. Apparently this is NOT the case and thus after many attempts personally to resolve the issue and being rebuffed I had to delegate any talks about Dan to the PR head Scani. I am only posting now after seeing this topic refuses to fall back into a common thread of acceptance with repeated rebuttals of any and all information we can provide. I wish to stay civil and not fall for the supposed * slander* attempts,and btw, slander is a very easy word to misuse and with the stuff being posted on your own board dan by yourself that others are reporting to us, one should be *very* careful when tossing that word around. I accept giving dan, danruk, and sparrow credit for being at the start and getting a few things going certainly. Claiming basically * if it was not for me NONE of this would have happened* is taking credit well into the realm of tooting ones own horn.

IF this is all that is needed, i will ask that any and *all* talk of the convention is simply kept on topic and in more terms of * yes and we thank you but we had to let you go* as in terms of a employee being let go from the company rather then the slant that is being pushed out as if we all sat around in some plotting basement to overthrow folks and thus hijack the whole convention our-self. That is why we voted in concom to have a legal amount, plus the other staff that was around, voted, and revoted just to make sure the vote was open. I have told Dan this, others have told Dan this, and it refuses to simply sink in. The con did not, was not, and with all the bad blood, will not, have anything to do with Dan period. Note this can change if the lopsidedness does stop but alas many have tried and failed to get the point through.

I thank everyone for adding to the topic and folks for trying to make one side see the light. I wish to thank wikifur for letting us post the con and will hope they will be happy to have us stay. I wish to thank Scani for being PR and dealing with this topic with skill, grace, and civility. I wish to thank dan for continuing to claim credit well after the fact, and as is his right, can and will be mentioned as * a founding member* if so wanted, and IF as mentioned earlier, any and all unwarranted comments, attacks, and shenanigans on his side of the boards will cease and desist. one can hardly ask to be listened to and have demands of any sort treated fairly if only one side is playing the game above board..or one hopes it should be both sides playing fair.

Gaia bless and sorry for such a long winded reply.


ChairCritter for Furnal Equinox

I never claimed to be the first person to think of having a convention in Toronto. I even cited other people speaking of it before me to show that. It wasn't however, untill I gathered financial support and sought others to be involved that it came to fruition.
That fact should be included.
"my way or the highway"
I never once made any such demand. Please stop accusing me of it if you can't provide any evidence to support it.
"That is fair, and all part of being a open and democratic process."
That's what I actually asked for, and it was asked for, not demanded.
"...slander is a very easy word to misuse and with the stuff being posted on your own board dan by yourself that others are reporting to us, one should be *very* careful when tossing that word around."
I can support what I said there with citations. I'll do that as soon as I can for you.
"Claiming basically * if it was not for me NONE of this would have happened* is taking credit well into the realm of tooting ones own horn."
I never made that claim either.
I claimed to have got financial support together and started a discussion on Ontario Furries and supported that claim with a citation that showed nothing more than that.
If you wish to be fair, as you claim to be, then you should not have a problem with that being included.
" I wish to thank dan for continuing to claim credit well after the fact, and as is his right, can and will be mentioned as * a founding member* if so wanted, and IF as mentioned earlier, any and all unwarranted comments, attacks, and shenanigans on his side of the boards will cease and desist. one can hardly ask to be listened to and have demands of any sort treated fairly if only one side is playing the game above board..or one hopes it should be both sides playing fair."
I'm pretty sure wikifur articles were not meant to be used as extortion to silence unwanted criticism from other web sites.
People saying what you want them to on other web sites should not be a condition of whether something is contested or not.
Please stop taking my words and infering things from them I never said or meant and making accusations you can't support.
This is why we have trouble speaking with each other, and why I strongly suggested someone else act as chairman before being fired from FE. If someone like Scani, who as we both agree, has the ability to speak with skill, grace, and civility, were chairman, relations between FE, Ontario Furries and I would probably have never degraded in the first place.
The first time I banned FE from Ontario Furries, your discussion with me had me wanting to make it permanent. It was Scani's respectful and professional manner and his willingness to take responsibility for problems and solve them that convinced me to give you a second chance. It's unfortunate he isn't able speak for the rest FE.
Dan Skunk 03:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to weigh in my opinions. As an outside party, I feel it might be worth it.
As I can see, OntarioFurries has been mentioned in the description of the convention. Should every mention of it be scrubbed? No. Should they all stay? No. This is why OF has a stub of its own. If references to the involvement need to be said, put them there.
Dan is mentioned on the page as it is. Please see the above comment regarding OF - All of the same opinions apply.
The page for Furnal Equinox is to give people interested in finding out about it more information about the event. You need only cite a reference and people can choose to go look for themselves. This is the whole reason citations exist.
As for the editing war going on: give it a rest folks. The page is good. it has the info. Leave it be for a while. Nothing will be added continuing to say that things are in contention.
To sum it up one last time: rest the topic and move on. Please? Either leave the article info to the people currently involved with the event, or to outside neutral third parties. Wikifur is not the place for personal grievances. (IMHO, no public forum is)
Feli 21:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Ontario Furries was removed as a reference.
Other people have been named with a description of their contribution. It's only fair that mine be as well.
I did cite a reference, and it was removed as well.
Not continuing to remove facts that are not in contention and supported by citation should resolve the debate.
People who are currently involved in the event should not control what is said about past members.
No, it's not a place for personal grievances, but it should be a place for facts.
I was just trying add my involvement in the fandom to the appropriate articles. Only FE keeps trying to remove parts of it.
Dan Skunk 03:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Danskunk was officially removed from Concom unanimous vote on 7/20/09


Removal of Dan from concom and staff. Passed. Unanimous Vote Dan as Staff. Vote was (4)No - (1)Yes. Failed. Danruk removed from Concom to staff. Passed. Unanimous Vote. Sparrow removed. *Pro-Forma* Unanimous.


Excerpt from the Meeting minutes from the date of the meeting. He knew of the meeting and didn't show up. As can be seen, he was voted of concom and staff as unanimous. He was not allowed on as staff on a vote of 4-1. The was a Quorum, as for Danruk and Sparrow, both had not been in contact with the committee members and con in a long time. So they were voted on and removed. This was the same time the "new, current and formal" committee was made. Before this it was done at meetings. Not on the forums.

Meeting Notes

Who just went in and edited the original committee list? That was not the original committee at all. I went to actually meetings with them and have notes from them.

Dan Skunk 04:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Both you and the other user have stated to have copies of the meeting notes that verifies their own argument. However, neither of you have produced visible evidence of these notes as proof for your argument. Could both of you please upload them so that we can view them? SilverserenC 04:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Wolfmist just proved my own argument with the notes he posted. How could I, Danruk, and Sparrow be removed if we weren't already members.
And who was present at that meeting? I'm only aware of 4, and there were 5 votes.
Dan Skunk 04:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no concrete committe at that time, only the people who were a form of a committee, at that time the NPO wasn't even signed or registered. So it wasn't even a legal corporation at the time.

You three were considered "members" even though you had not been to any meetings or attending anything. In fact you were the only 3 left who hadn't just walked away and made it clear. yet you were never part of anything. As it stands, I have given factual records of what happened, you have yet to prove anything, from you claiming to be a founder or founding committee member, considering there wasn't even a committee at that time, just a gathering of people.


I said members, I said nothing about meeting attendance.
You even called it a concom in your own notes. There wouldn't be any voting and you wouldn't be calling it a concom if there was no convention committee.
And the NPO did go through, with my name on it as a director, I have emails saying I was being removed from it. I wasn't trying to include that either.
Dan Skunk 04:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It can be called whatever in the notes, the fact is. I and the others know what happened, we have the facts and the proof and all you have is the constant crap you keep adding. For someone who hates the con so much and the people involved, your pretty damn insistent and adamant about taking as much credit for it as possible. You've done nothing for this con, except put it down during the planning and even after the con finished, you made it clear about your dislike and even hatred of the con and the people involved, yet you continue this nonsense to give yourself as much credit as you can. you were give your "Thank you" in the conbook (Which I can also scan and post) and you should be greatful for that much and move on.

It was a hard decision to even give you that small "Credit" after all the negativity you are putting on the convention and the people involved.

Please move on - Shane.

The insults are not necessary.
Neither is the slander. I never said I hated the people involved in the con.
It was called a concom because it was a concom. You can't just declare over a year later that what we were all saying, and what you were saying now was all wrong.
Dan Skunk 05:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the citation saying I started a discussion on Ontario Furries after getting financial backing than anyone can look at in the torfur archives. Could I just add that only? Or even at least put something down saying it's a personal claim?

I have email from the torfurcom list as well:

Welcome to the "Torfurcon" mailing list
Wed, March 11, 2009 7:46:00 PM
"torfurcon-request [at]" <torfurcon-request [at]>
Hey guys... to make things a little bit easier to manage (and pursuant to Roo's request), I've created a mailing list for ::convention discussion - you can send to torfurcon -AT- lists -DOT- forterosso -DOT- com and they'll be redirected to all of ::us.
Please contact Scani if you have any concerns or wish to be unsubscribed. Thanks!Welcome to the Torfurcon [at] mailing list!

I'll let someone look at my mail if they need to even.

The insults and slander are far out of proportion to what I want to do here in my opinion.

I just want wikifur to have an accurate picture of my involvement in the fandom.

Dan Skunk 05:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing else to say, facts are facts and you need to move on and get your reality straight. No insults have been made to or about you, just facts and truths.

Edit: Lots of people were on that "list" that were intially not supposed to be and are no longer on it, that was also during the initial stages of many things and problems being worked out.


Those are not facts, they're opinions, I dispute your accusation that I hate the people involved in the con. That makes it not a fact.
I edited the article to remove more inaccuracies.
"Toronto Furry" as an organization is a loosely affiliated group of resources serving members accross Ontario. It's area include the location of Camp Feral and C-ACE which have had up to 130 and 224 attendees, respectively. The "Toronto Furry Home Page" became known as "Ontario Furries" on November 13, 2008, reflecting this service area.
Clarification of whether "Toronto area" or "Toronto Furry" is intended is needed.
The convention originated with private discussions between Dan Skunk and other individuals and later moved to forum discussions. , December 2nd, 2008.
The name Furnal Equinox, was not chosen by questionairre. the results of the questionairre held, "Great Canadian FurCon" as the winning name.
CON NAME: What is your first and second choices for on name?
[ 2 ] OnFurCon
[ 7 ] TorFurCon
[ 11 ] Furnal Equinox
[ 13 ] Great Canadian FurCon
"Furnal Equinox" was chosen later by a email discussion with the committee. It was declared the winner on June 11, 2009 with 2 votes made by Shiro Tora and Pakesh De.
TorFurCon mailing list, June 7, 2009
TorFurCon mailing list, June 11, 2009
Dan Skunk 11:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now I am involved.
C-ACE was an event held in an Ontario location, but was not resourced by Toronto Furries any more than What The Fur is on Ontario Furries.
Dan, Please stop throwing terms around which have no bearing on the current situation. The staff of Furnal Equinox has not been slandering nor insulting you. As a matter of fact, the inverse is true. Wikifur is not the place for arguments, nor personal vendettas. This is a place for information. Factual verifiable information. Forums and Livejournal are the place for personal opinion.
No one is claiming that you were not involved at the very start of the organization. However, following your departure from the committe, you were not involved with FE any more than you were with any other convention's con-com. The forums serve as a place to announce information about conventions. Using forums as such does not constitute direct involvement on a personal level. If this were the case, then Benjamin from has had as much involvement in FE.
I would highly suggest that all parties just drop the subject. Nothing is served by anyone dragging this on, especially here on Wikifur. I would ask the admins to perhaps monitor for any changes, and if I have stepped over the line I do apologise.

Feli 14:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Toronto Furry" area has included Ottawa for a long time, hence the name change. C-CACE was within that area.
If I back up my claims, they're not slander. And I've not insulted anyone. Please cite where you think this has occured.
I am *trying* to put verifiable factual information here and it very much is being removed.
I never said offering forums constituted any involvement. That's not what I'm trying to add here.
Dan Skunk 15:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wolfmist, please stop undoing edits and placing back information that's being contested.

Dan Skunk 16:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed information - request for clarification

"Prior to Furnal Equinox's establishment, the largest gatherings in the Toronto area tended to be larger furmeets such as the Islington Furmeet and BBQs hosted by Potoroo, which regularly attracted between 50 to 100 people."

This appears to be a fact. It is contested that Camp Feral and C-ACE are examples or earlier conventions held in the Toronto area. I see no problem in adding in Camp Feral to the line, since it generally only has 100 people as it is, so that shouldn't be a problem. However, C-ACE is not a furry convention, it merely has a few furry themes. It is, if you look at the template, under the non-furry section. So I do not believe it should be held as an example of a furry convention in the area.

"The convention originated from discussion on forums in late 2008 and early 2009, bringing together a number of interested individuals and the financial resources to develop a convention committee and the required organization."

This, also, is a fact and applies to Dan Skunk as well. The main problem seems to be that Dan Skunk would like his name mentioned, but since no other names are mentioned in the statement, I think it is fair to keep it without any of the contributing members' names.

"and was added to a list of names on a questionairre to consider what name was best, these were answered by the local furries at Islington Meet and tallied up later."

This line is disputed because it seems that the questionnaire was not actually followed. If so, then that should be explained in a line after this, because that doesn't involve the truth of this line. SilverserenC 17:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC) The questionairre was created by myself with Blindsights input and I personally handed them out and collected them, the name "Great canadian fur con" won out in the polls, but because it was ssmall marging of 2, there was a vote put to the names of the two winners and Furnal Equinox was chosen.

Furnal Equinox was not a name that was created and then used right away, it went through the questionairre like all the other names and was voted on at the end because of the small win margin between Great canadian fur con and Furnal Equinox.


It's agreed that forum discussions lead to the convention, but the financial resources were available prior to that.
The forum they took place on was Ontario Furries. And the originator of the discussion was Dan Skunk. They could be included as they were important contributions to the convention. The person who originated the name was named.
Adding that the questionaire results were not followed is good.
Dan Skunk 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
For clarification's sake re: previous examples of Toronto area gatherings... Camp Feral! takes place in Algonquin Provincial Park, three hours north of Toronto. Likewise, C-ACE took place in Ottawa (several hours east of Toronto) during its existence from 2002 to 2007 (its status as a furry convention is outside the scope of this discussion). All take place outside of the area generally defined as the "Greater Toronto Area", or indeed outside the more generous "Golden Horseshoe". I should note that Feli was a key player at C-ACE - according to this site, even a co-chair! - so I'd definitely defer to his word above.
With regards to the questionnaire... while it did take place, the results were taken in an advisory manner and the final decision on the name was made by the convention committee. (Admittedly, it was close - but history has close calls sometimes!)
Finally - this is an object of concern, as some parties in this discussion have posted messages from a restricted access mailing list. The list was intended for discussions among prospective concom (and later, concom outright) take place in a confidential setting. Is there any policy on the citability of private e-mails that haven't been made available to the public? --Scani 02:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The Toronto Furry Area and the Greater Toronto Area are different areas. Toronto Furry includes members from accross Ontario, thus making it incorrect to say FE was the first hotel furry convention. C-ACE started as a furry convention and later changed to a broader theme, hence it was the first hotel furry convention in this area.
The decision for the name was not made properly either. It was done over email insted of at a meeting. Quorum was not present, and it was declared decided with only 2 votes out of the 4 members that responded and 8 members on the mailing list. It would be more correct to say the chairman chose the name.
As long as you're not going to deliberately present false information, I won't contest it nor cite private emails to support it. You made a strong suggestion that the results of the survey decided the name of the convention, which was not true. Also, your own members are citing this information.
Do you have some proof that the concom was not really a concom? It was called such and they worked together to organize a convention. This assertion also contradicts your previous messages in this page.
Dan Skunk 11:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, toronto furries, existed way before danskunk ever showed up in the fandom locally, I can back up this fact, having been part of the local group since 1996 and Danskunk didn't show up till 2006-2008 or so. - Shane(ChronosWolf)

How is that relevant?
Dan Skunk 11:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Danskunk has no interest in showing facts or making good light of the con, as he is making clear on his livejournal, now asking people to boycott FE. He has and continues to be nothing more then a hassle to the FE convention and the people who run it and attend it.

Livejournal post -


My aim is to present an accurate light of the convention, neither good nor bad.
If you want to contest facts, do so and cite sources to prove them.
If you would like to include the boycott in the article, that's fine, but I don't think it's necessary.
Dan Skunk 11:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


Danskunk was removed from the concom for the reasons that were given, it was a unanimous vote, even from the people who supported him. That's all there is to it.

Danskunk was given appropriate credit in the conbook for his involvement and that was all he was due. This whole issue is with Dan having claimed many times to be "THE FOUNDER" of the convention, when a toronto convention has been talked about way before Danskunk showed up. Danskunk refuses to see facts and wants as much credit as possible for everything he did. He makes claims that he put in "hundereds of hours and hundreds of dollars". When does take a bus ride once in awhile constitute as "hundreds"?

Before people read this or other stuff and try to put together an "idea" of what happened, gather the "FACTS" from both parties and then deal with it, when your biased on one side or to one person, you never fully listen to the truth. - Shane Nicholson

I thank you for the information, and i have reached my conclusion on the issue. Thank you for bringing light to this.

-Black Mage

About 8 visits to Toronto, bus and train fairs, and lunches. is where the cost came from. I look at a number of different hotels and convention centres.

People had talked about a convention in Toronto before I was here. I was the first to announce it was actually going to happen after finding people that would fincance it and finding a venue.

I've added a controversy section to the page, same as the one on Dan Skunk's person page, as it should be more relevant here.

Maybe we could just add what claims and counter claims are relevant there.

Dan Skunk 19:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The actual contributions I made, have been supported with archived email list messages, and appear to have come consensus.

Why don't we add that to the origins section, removing some of the controversy?

Dan Skunk 19:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Date of announcement contested:

"Furnal Equinox was formally announced to the world on July 1 (Canada Day), 2009. , Furnal Equinox website (accessed 14 July 2010)"

Actually took place on December 27, 2008, on the Toronto Furry mailing list:

"We had a lot of discussion about it here before, but we now have someone that has 5 thousand dollars for it and another that said a few thousand wouldn't be a problem.

Several people with experience running conventions have expressed interest in helping run it.

We spend a lot of last night discussing management, finances, and liability.

Looks like it's no longer a question of if it's going to happen, but how we're going to do it.

I've made a board on the web site we could use to collect ideas and help.

I'd really like to see us come together and support this since people are going to be putting a lot of effort into it for all of our benefit. "

Dan Skunk 16:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It was officially announced July 1. What was said on a mailing list didn't count, nor was it the official date, in fact that is stuff involving people who were not even part of the concom at announcement. Date put back.


Scrolling through the huge amount of arguing above, most of it comes across as petty nitpicking. I'm frankly not that interested in the finer details and political in-fighting. The page should be an easy summary of the convention with a nod to what few finer details are relevant. Controversy mentioned only in the most basic sense. (A claims B, X claims Y. And not twenty things - limit it to, I dunno, three.)

You need to FOCUS and agree on RELEVANCY. So: When you post in this discussion, keep it simple. (1) What you want included and mentioned. (2) WHY it's important. (3) Prove it. If you can't prove it, it better be VERY important. (See number 2, but doubly so to make up for it.)

I will say this on the latest nitpick. The December 27, 2008 forum post DanSkunk refers to isn't official: it's decisive in tone. "Okay guys, we've agreed we want a convention, and we want to follow through on it." From what I recall, you didn't have a hotel yet, you hadn't decided on staffing yet... explain please how this is "official"? Compare President Kennedy saying that the United States intends to land a man on the Moon vs. the actual announcement of the people, spacecraft and launch date involved. What's important here - the announcer, or the announcement? How about "The idea had been floating around the Toronto area for over 10 years, and earlier had led to the creation of Feral, but the notion of a local, hotel-based convention gained solidity on the blah-blah forums in December 2008." ?

Let's apply the 1-2-3 thing. (1) Both sides want us to know WHEN the convention was offically announced. And there's disagreement. (2) WHY should we care? DanSkunk, WHY are you making an issue out of it? For the rest of you, WHY is the WHEN issue significant? (3) You've tried to prove it - with a link to a convention FAQ and a link to a forum post. Forum post does not hold up under scrutiny. Note that you all skipped over step 2? See what a mess you're making? FOCUS.





lines. 21:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've moved the controversy to the FE 2010 page, since it's very convention-specific. I've removed the controversy section from Dan Skunk's page, except for one line to acknowledge the debate; it points where to go for the details. I've re-worded the Origin section on the Furnal Equinox page, since that's what got this mess started. Keep the controversy OFF the main Furnal Equinox page; it should be a general introduction to the convention, and nothing more.

As an annoyed third party, I've attempted to be as neutral as possible. I've read through as many of the war-edits as possible to get this summarized neatly and simply, to present the main points of contention and offer both points of view. If you want to make future edits to the controversy, JUSTIFY them in the Talk page. 23:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Origin were undone. Unless you know the facts of the origin of FE(which so far it seems you don't), don't be changing the origins of the convention. The information provided had nothing to do with FE. Also if you insist on making changes to our con page, then don't do it anonymously. -Shane Nicholson

Anything that is contested should not be stated as a fact.

There were four people involved in Furnal Equinox when it was announced in December. We had financial support, organizers, and had found a venue and had created a forum. All those who were involved continued their involvement as part of the committee when it was formed in February, 2009.

It was the first announcement that the convention was going to take place.

When the announcement was made on July 1st, there was still no date chosen, nor was the NPC that would run it registered.

Neither announcement has any more officiality than the other, but one was clearly made first.

Dan Skunk 15:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Added See Also section linking related information on Dan Skunk article. 20:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

July 1st is the official con date, when Furnal Equinox was announced, we had a date and hotel already lined up. Dan's "dates" were when they announced they were working on a con, not Furnal Equinox. Thus it has no relevance. Please stop editing our page Dan. You can post whatever misinformation you want on your personal page. - Shane Nicholson

You had no date and no contract with a hotel. They only think more you had was a name.

The page does not belong to you to spread missinformation.

Dan Skunk 23:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added a citation for the official announcement of the convention on July 1, 2009 as originally noted in the article. A date and venue had not been announced at that point - both were announced in a subsequent posting on August 27, which can be noticed later on in the thread. At that point, by making an announcement to the public, the intent to put on an event was quite clear and not easily backed down from. --Scani 03:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added a citation for the announcement on December 27, 2008.
You've announced you want to give me credit for my contributions. Could you maybe not keep trying to remove it from the wiki article
--11:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

See Also Danskunk - Removed, association to his wikifur article is not necessary and he is named in the main page. Person is not associated with the convention and after many issues, person is not to be reassociated. - Shane Nicholson

Reference to Dan Skunk reverted. Dan Skunk was an important part of starting Furnal Equinox, having found the hotel, and creating the con com. He was also a subject of controversy involving the convention which is discussed on his personal wiki page and which is an important part of understanding the convention's origins.

Dan Skunk 15:55, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Danskunk removed again. Convention does not wish association with this person's page. Person already is associated by being mentioned in this article. Do not replace "See also" section. This is the conventions wikipage, you have a right to modify your own. But not modify the conventions if we do not wish certain articles referenced from this page.

Shane Nicholson - Furnal Equinox Director

I disagree. Anyone has the write to modify any page on the Wiki. Because one is elected or appointed to run an event, does not give them an implied control of the information written about them in an encyclopedic form. I suggest any claims of involvement be documented with thorough references, and if those references are contested, that they be done so by third-parties, neither Dan nor the convention, since no other consensus can be reasonably reached between the two parties, as the numerous edits to this article show. BlueOtter 17:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
With a lack of consensus, it might be reasonable for the opinions of both parties to be included, though that appears to be disagreeable to Furnal Equinox. I have included references to a mailing list in a deleted section describing the origins of the conventions which were not disputed as fact. The inclusion of a history section, however, was disputed as making the article too long. 09:55, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

I understand that WikiFur is a free resource that is open to all to edit. However, some of Dan's edits have basically overwhelmed the page in a manner that I would consider "self-promoting"; I really have no interest in this encyclopedia providing a soapbox for him to express his opinion that he founded the con. There are plenty of places for soapboxes, including the UNOFFICIAL site that has been linked to previously.
The problem is a matter of balance. The claims of Dan founding the convention are only supported by him. Is it really fair to give those assertions "equal weight" versus a convention that had over 450 people last year? It sets a dangerous precedent that anybody with tangential involvement in a convention in the past can push their viewpoint and get a disproportionate share of the action. That's hardly just to those who have been working on the convention since day one (even the co-chairs, who have been with us since the beginning, only get one mention on the main article; Dan Skunk currently has two).
A year ago we made an official statement acknowledging the events of the last two years and the actions that we needed to take in response. While the statement acknowledged Dan's initial contributions to the convention and his original involvement as a director (that has never been in dispute), it also states quite clearly that he was dismissed long before the first edition of the convention took place, and that the dismissal was an uncontroversial one among concom notwithstanding Dan's opposition. Our About Us and FAQ pages tell the story in general terms, but you'll note they don't identify a specific founder... a distinction we would like to maintain.
Edit: I should probably point out I've been a concom member and director of AEO since the beginning. --Scani 08:15, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
If an individual contributes more to a project than another, a fair account of people's contributions, therefore, would inevitably say more about them than another. That does not make the account unfair or self promoting. Omitting some people's names and contributions while including others creates an implication that those listed are responsible for contributions that others provided. That is unfair and self promoting.
The number of people supporting a convention is irrelevant to the weight of an argument. My community web site,, currently has 528 members, many of whom are also members of Furnal Equinox. They all have their own opinions and reasons for being members of each and it would be dishonest of me to imply they support my opinion. It would be a dangerous precedent to allow anyone to use such measures of popularity to control what is presented as truth.
Those people who were removed from the concom prior to the first event taking place (which was protested by more than just Dan) were responsible for finding the venue, funding, starting the convention committee (which is when they invited Scani to be involved), and promoting the convention. They were also responsible for the convention being held in 2010 rather than being held over 'till 2011 as was previously planned. That they were shut out before the convention took place does not deminish their contributions or the fact that 2010 would not have taken place at all without their involvement or that the remaining concom would not have become involved without them. While the convention wishes to hide them, I believe these facts deserve mention, not to promote myself or the other founders who were shut out, but to tell the truth.
Scani was only invited to be involved after we'd already found funding an a venue after working on it for months before. 09:55, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

I don't think "invited" is the proper word to characterize how I first got involved; perhaps there was mention of "Scani should be involved" but ultimately the end decision was mine to offer, and that was based upon the public discussion on the OF forums. I put my name forward on said forums and have been dragged along for the ride ever since. --Scani 17:07, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Invited refers to where I made the post inviting people to be involved which is what started that discussion. Danruk, Sparrow, and I were already working on it a couple months prior to my announcement.

Dan Skunk 08:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

I would like to continue including the link to the unofficial Furnal Equinox site, because it discusses the origins of the convention and credits people who gave ideas and inspiration before the project was undertaken.

In the interest of of giving people fair mention of their contributions, I think that information should really be on the official page, though there seems to be a practice of not giving individuals credit for their contributions.

Dan Skunk 08:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Anthropomorphic Events of Ontario section

I've put Anthropomorphic Events of Ontario as a section (section stub, so far), including a bit of information stated in the article Dan Skunk. When something is mentioned & linked internally in the main text of an article, that's not included in a See also. -- Sine 15:24, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

Edited to show that quorum is in dispute, as per discussion on this page. Only 4 committee members were present for the vote where 3 others were dismissed. Whether 8 or 9 members were on the committee is also in dispute. I recorded the committee consisting of Pakesh De, Blindsight, Crassadon, and Shiro Tora who were present and Scani, Danruk, Sparrow, and Dan Skunk who were not. Shane, who was not a committee member was also present. There is also some confusion as to whether his vote was recorded though he was not on the committee. 09:55, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Wrong. Scani was attending Via Skype. Please get your facts straight. removing edit. There was a Quorum. Sparrow was not concom or director, he was under 18 and thus unable to be part of it. Danruk did not attend,neither did Danskunk. Thus 5 of 7 were there and it was Quorum with unanimous. Shane Nicholson

In the context of describing the organisation, I don't think there is a need to go into what is apparently a debate about quorum and process. Do others have an opinion on this one? -- Sine 12:15, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
To confirm what Shane said as the person in question: I was present at the meeting and cast a vote re: the proposal to remove Dan. It has been our practice that those who attend the meeting by teleconference (Skype or similar) are considered to be present for the purposes of quorum. Considering I did not (and still do not) live in the Toronto area, this arrangement has allowed me to participate in meetings, as well as others who have come on board since then.
No, I don't think it's necessary to talk about process and bylaws in the body of the article itself (hell, that's my responsibility with FE and even I know it's boring ;) ). Considering one of Dan's claims made in the article and on this talk page was that he was removed without proper authority, Shane and I both felt the need to refute it in this space. There's no reason to say "quorum was present" in the article -- that's just implied if the decision was made in the first place.
Even if Dan was given the benefit of the doubt re: Sparrow being an active and voting member of concom... that's still 5 out of 8. --Scani 17:07, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

I had added that a quorum was present when dan was removed, because they article makes it look like he was removed unfairly(and this is how he will constrew it). he will say there was no quorum and there was, so that must be made clear in the fact of his removal. I had no vote, I was on as a secretary and assistant. I was not part of the committee till afterwards when a vote was put forth to add me. Information is recorded in meeting minutes and has been referenced before. - Shane NIcholson

First of all, Scani never claimed to be present last year when I discussed who was there. That claim has only surfaced this year from you. You can look at Scani's own statements in this discussion. Scani also claimed 9 members were on the concom then, and now claim there were 8. Perhaps he and you are mixing up what meetings you were attending and who was on the concom.
You seem to have a habbit of creating new facts that support your arguments and calling me a liar. Such as when you came up with the claim Sparrow, Danruk, and I were never on the real concom.
There still seems to be confusion of what the difference is between the concom and the board of directors. Both of which should have distinct functions and responsibilities. One of which is that it should be the board of directors that removes or adds directors--not the concom, which includes people not on the board of directors.

Dan Skunk 08:40, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

First of all, Shane has substantiated my presence at said meeting. The present co-chairs could also attest to my presence. This is not a contradiction and this is the first time that you're bringing into question the fact that I was there in the first place.
The responsibilities of the concom and Board of Directors are indeed separate. The Board of Directors are responsible for governance of the operating corporation -- signing authority at the bank, other financial matters, and reports to government as needed. The concom, in contrast, runs the convention. The five people who are currently directors serve on both concom and the Board -- which is not ideal from a governance perspective, but a board not consisting of members of concom was simply not practical for us at the time and still is not.
My exact words a year ago, which I believe you're referring to, were "at the absolute MINIMUM the remaining four directors and/or officers of the convention were present at the time to vote on the matter". It was made in response to your assertion that "Quorum was not present at that meeting, making the decisions against the articles of incorporation."
The point was made because the remaining directors were all present to vote upon your status which would have impacted your role as a director -- but I qualified it with "at the absolute minimum" because I did recall there were more present (and did say that I recalled five votes being cast). When I made the statement, I did not have access to e-mails and therefore felt the need to qualify it so it wasn't excessively relied on. However, it was correct when it comes to your role on concom: Pak, Blind, Crass and I were all directors at the time and were all present. Moreover, ShiroTora was present and voted, who was a concom member but not a director. --Scani 12:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
Being the first time I've heard of such an assertion of your presence or of anyone attending by skype, and given that would have easily resolved the issue a year ago if it were mentioned, especially when I specifically counted the number of attendees as 4 without being contested then, when memories were clearer, and the history of false and misleading statements from the convention, I still find it questionable.
I do not argue the claim's inclusion so long as it's presented as a claim, rather than a fact.
Dan Skunk 13:07, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
Had I known that your misunderstanding centered around whether I was present at the meeting, I would have clarified it immediately. There is nothing opinionated about "five people voted, a quorum was present, and Dan was dismissed" [regardless of whether your assertion that Sparrow was voting concom is accurate, it was still quorum]. Those are just the facts. But I doubt anything coming from FE will convince you otherwise. --Scani 12:52, 23 August 2011 (EDT)
It would have been more convincing had it been presented immediately. It would take some effort for FE to earn back enough trust where I took what they said as fact after so much has been false. There was also a history of making decisions without quorum.
Dan Skunk 20:10, 23 August 2011 (EDT)


The unofficial page that Dan keeps posting and undoing as it's removed. Is a third party page, written by an unknown person, hiding behind a privacy registration. The site does not hold actual factual information, while some of it is proper, most of it is all false and is a third hand account of what is seen from the public eye during the time last year.

As it is not completely factual and most of the information is disputed, it does not need to be in the references section, since it is not a reference to FE, more as a person making a page "using our company name" as their domain name, in an attempt to get people to go to it, instead of the and .ca pages.

It is under the assumption, but not proven that the webpage may in fact be made by DanSkunk himself.

Either way, the webpage is an attempt to cause more issues with the convention and all it's information is what Danskunk has claimed to be factual, even going back from the start.

Please do not re-link this page as it is not facts and not related to the convention, other then it's a 3rd person's account and using our domain/business name. Which is being worked on being reported as an intentional use to discredit the convention and lure people to it's site.

Shane Nicholson Furnal Equinox

Emails quoted on site are verified through email archives. Quotes of posts verified from backups. Furnal Equinox's ban on is confirmed. Facts are mirrored from article on Dan Skunk.
Information provided by Furnal Equinox is in dispute.
Link is noted as unofficial.
Information regarding Furnal Equinox's dispute may be added to the article to better inform readers.
Dan Skunk 16:10, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for verifying that this is in fact you that put up a webpage, using the company's name and domain name. Now we know that it is you, using the convention name on the net to try and post information that is not verified(you claim all your info on it is verified and FE's disputes are not). Again unofficial and since it's your page and your info, please link it from your Wikifur page and not the conventions. Will continue to remove link from the convention page. - Shane Nicholson

Furnal Equinox Page Set to m?

While I appeciate the page being set moderated or whatever, Danskunks edit is not part of FE and should be moved to his page where it can be linked to and not from our convention page. - FurnalEquinoxShane

(m?) Anyways., the FE article is about it, and everybody who was involved with, including Dan Skunk. It's stated there was some bad blood, and references were added (FEs, and a changed Dan's link to a reference, with a note of concern that it could be POV). Hiding it on Dan's page is not the proper way to present both sides of the issue, and yes, you seem to think it blemishes the article. Well, it's life, and you take the good with the bad. This is an historical Wiki, after all.
You have fought this inclusion so long, now people are probably curious of what transpired (I finally was!). Every week was/is edits and talks, edits and talks, well, welcome to history =/ - Spirou 00:48, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
Another mass deletion.
Labeling that reference as personal statement, I find inaccurate, as it's not a personal statement from me, but more a sequence of events. I might possibly consider a personal statement explaining my feelings and opinions on it in the future, but haven't done so yet.
I was attempting to fill in a little more of the history behind the convention's inception. Having been the first person actually working on the convention itself and having been involved in the other projects that lead up to it, I feel I have some perspective to add to it that will help enlighten people as to how things came together.
Both Scani and Shane who only became involved months later, after the events I discussed took place. I welcome what perspective they wish to add, but I think it should be done by adding perspective, not deleting someone else's.
I somewhat understand Scani's idea that adding credit to some people is bad, as it is diminishing to the contributions of others involved, but removing mention of their contributions is diminishing to the people that made them and creates a inaccurate implication that the people who remain named made those essential contributions when they did not.
Instead of massively deleting the contributions of others to this article, we should work to add more information to it instead. If someone has some different perspective that they believe is important to include, add it and make references.
These appeals to official and unofficial sources do nothing to increase or decrease the merit of the sources. Official just means what Furnal Equinox wants said, which in no way make it more accurate than what someone else says. Quoting references you create yourself, does not in any way increase it's credibility either.
So, lets work on adding more information, if there's a disagreement, let's inform people that there's a disagreement and describe all sides of the argument. Let's work to better inform people rather than attempting to censor things you don't want them to read.
Dan Skunk 22:48, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

These edits and discussions wouldn't keep happening if Danskunk wouldn't keep changing and adding things to re-inforce his side of the story. If you notice after last year, things were left alone till recently when he started adding his unofficial website using the cons name to post more of his side only crap. If he wants to keep telling his side, he should be posting it on his site. This is supposed to be for facts about the con, not one persons side of the story(as I've been told many times), yet his sided is allowed to be used as a link to a page, with unverified facts.

People are long aware of dan's involvement in the past with the con and his past and current anger and attacks on the con currently, there is no need for him to keep posting this crap into the con's wikifur article. - FurnalEquinoxShane

These contributions are disproportionate to the rest of the article and others have expressed the view that it does not need to be overwhelmed with a history at the expense of other interesting items. The claim of wanting to be recognized as sole founder of the convention (which has been made on Dan's personal journal) has been rejected numerous times by FE -- putting together FE has always been a group effort and one individual claiming sole credit compromises that ethic. Dan's initial involvement as a former concom member has been acknowledged by the convention and is recognized in this article, and if people really want his side of the story he has a venue for it that expresses his point of view. This is not it. --19:14, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
The contributions are proportional to the truth. This is not an opinion or a point of view, this is what lead to the convention and recognizes everyone that contributed to that. It explains how it was a group effort by showing what different people contributed.
How the convention go started increases the informative value of the article. People have asked for this information.
In the interest of making an article that better informs people, I suggest Scani add to the article an explanation of FE's rejection of providing this information if he feels it is important.
Dan Skunk 23:01, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Could we continue working towards adding to the value of the article, making it more informative instead of deleting information.
I suspect the motive behind Furnal Equinox's rejection of contributions by certain people is both so they can take credit for them and so they won't look like their motivations for removing these people from involvement were selfish.
Dan Skunk 23:18, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
FYI, m denotes a minor edit, not "moderated". Spirou used it to denote small corrections to his edit. --Scani 12:35, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

Then I'm confused, if I try to edit references, it's blank. That's why the M was curious to me. - Shane.

You see where those little numbered tags are throughout the page -- like "announced to the world on July 1 (Canada Day), 2009. [1]" When you edit the page in those sections, you'll see the actual references between <ref> and </ref> tags. The reference section just takes all of those and puts it at the bottom of the page, endnote style. --Scani 07:33, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive move

FYI, I moved the discussion to an Archive page as it was getting long and unwieldy. It is still preserved and I'll redirect links on the main page to point to it.

With regards to the Origins & Controversy section, would it be appropriate for it to be split off into a separate sub-article? I honestly have very few issues with it as presented and it seems Dan didn't have too many either. --Scani 22:53, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Not sure if you should move all of discussions somewhere else. You could just keep adding at the bottom.
I would like to see more back in the history section and may add some of it back later.
I don't believe the controversy is either lengthy enough, nor a seperate enough subject to justify a seperate article. Splitting it to a seperate article would only hide the information further and necessitate more information being added to the main article to compensate for the removed information.
We should strive to present the most fair and balanced information about the convention here and moving mention of most of the founders to a seperate, more obscure article is not fair and unduly slants the article in favour of Furnal Equinox's opinions of what they want people to know and not know.
Dan Skunk 19:52, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Pyat's edits

I have made some significant edits to this article. What was there previously went into a degree of negative detail that not only made all parties in the dispute look bad, but was also surely of no interest to anyone outside the dispute. I believe the edit I have made is accurate, positive, and fair to everyone involved. I invite others to "Wikify" better than I can!

--Pyat the Mouse 19:54, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

I added a few details of the history back.
I believe we should present a neutral account of events regardless of whether they appear negative.
While it's important to mention people who contributed to the founding, who is currently in charge and why, is also of importance.
I shall consider how to word the deletions from the committee better. 20:05, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
I realize this is just a subjective opinion, but speaking as an outsider, I don't think those details matter to anyone outside of the people involved. I am quite certain there is no way to relate the chronology that won't vex either yourself (assuming this is Dan) or some of the current Furnal staff. Every committee effort has "drama" of this kind. When it gets aired, everyone loses. Keep it positive and report on facts that cannot be disputed or coloured by perception or memory, and everyone involved wins.
Pyat the Mouse 21:48, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
To clarify, the detail about Dan finding the hotel, etc. is fine. The details about the con com meetings, and who said what on their website, and who was mean to whom in whatever venue are rapidly disappearing into the past and perhaps best left there.
Pyat the Mouse 21:57, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
I didn't notice your removed the entire controversy section to I restored it.
To re-itterate, presenting the convention positively is irrelevant. Accuracy and neutrality is.
The negative reprocussions of the convention continue in the local furry community making it a relevant part of it's history.
Dan Skunk 20:43, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
"The details about the con com meetings, and who said what on their website, and who was mean to whom in whatever venue are rapidly disappearing into the past and perhaps best left there." Ah, that's why Wikifur is here for in the first place: to record history, present, future or past, good or bad of any matter furry related. Censorship of actual public known or written data is not the norm (with exceptions: Personal data) - Spirou 21:42, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
I can agree with that sentiment, Spirou. My intent, though, was to create an article about the event that contained only confirmed details. Nearly everything in the controversy section is based on the subjective assumption of bad will. Many items are simply interpretations of actions taken by other people, the truth of which can never be determined. Now, I realize wiki isn't journalism, so I guess I should not consider articles here in the way I'd look at a news feature. I'll leave the article alone, , but I suggest (as I think I have in the past) that it deserves a linked article of its own containing a clear time-line.
Pyat the Mouse 22:15, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Having said I'd leave it alone, I edited some of the latest additions for grammar and clarity. I do not think I changed the sense of the words at all, though if Dan disagrees he's free, of course, to edit them back.
Pyat the Mouse 22:24, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Disputed assertions are fine to include, so long as stated as fact of who says what. The drama the convention has caused is certainly an important part of it's history and deserves mention there.
A link to the controversy section for more information is a good idea.
Dan Skunk 14:31, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm sorry, how is the con causing Drama, it's all stemming from you Danskunk. The con itself is causing happiness and joy to those who attend it and speak highly of it. The only real negative ever heard or mentioned of the convention, is from you. - Shane

That should be quite obvious by now, Shane. I don't think I should need to repeat myself.
Dan Skunk 09:13, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Internal link to controversy?

Still new to this wiki thing - I added a "See Also" thing to the opening section after the mention of founding controversy, linking to the section all about it. It's clear, it's obvious, it's there, it's visible, and let's everyone involved continue the jolly wikiwar. Pyat the Mouse 11:27, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Some of the material in the opening section was removed because I felt it was better presented in the History and Controversy section -- some of it is also redundant, and doesn't need to be said twice. It also provides for a better flow and cohesion to the chronology presented, for those whom are interested in it. --Scani 19:36, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

The facts presented were in balance with the others in that section, small amounts of duplication are expected and acceptible when giving a brief description but also including a more detailed presentation for those interested in more.
The deletions also present a biased point of view in favour of Furnal Equinox as it removes all information that shows them negatively. A balanced and impartial point of view is more desirable. One where negative and positive are presented in balance.
The deletions appear as a further attempt by Furnal Equinox to mislead readers by censoring criticism and alternative viewpoints.
Dan Skunk 19:57, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
One person saying one thing, while everyone else involved says that person is wrong or altering facts in a self-serving way is not controversy, it is an argument. Not giving equal time to the viewpoint of someone who says the sky is green is not censorship. I am not affiliated with Furnal Equinox and had no role in planning it, but I have watched the drama unfold on the forums and IRC. The "drama the convention has caused" seems more like "the drama Dan caused because he was mad about being dismissed." Dan's outright resentment of being removed is well-known.
Pyat the Mouse 07:11, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
Just because the truth is unpopular, doesn't mean it isn't the truth.
You, like you said, were not involved, hence, have no knowledge of events other that what you were told. It's entirely possible you are being lied to by more than one party with first hand knowledge yet, although you have no means of differentiating truth from frabrication, still believe your opinion holds equal weight to those who do.
For example, any resentment I have for being dismissed, if there is any, is completely overshadowed by the lies, pettiness, immaturity, arrogance and selfishness I've experienced from Furnal Equinox.
My only goal here is to present an accurate account of events. If the truth happens to show them in a negative light, that is their own fault.
Dan Skunk 09:36, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

Furnal Equinox article concerns

I wanted to approach you in your role as a WikiFur curator with regards to the edits on Furnal Equinox. First of all, I appreciate that the goal of WikiFur tends towards preservation of the historical fact, and apologize that the proceedings have dragged on as long as we have. My concern is that User:Dan Skunk has a vested interest in the content of the article (this should be VERY clear based upon how much of the article involves him). Most notably, a set of edits that I made, which did nothing to censor content (rather rearrange it), were reverted and dismissed as "censoring criticism". If what I can expect going forward is that any legitimate edits will be vociferously reversed, that isn't acceptable to me. I'm having a sense of "victim, judge, jury and executioner" right now, which can't be good for the wiki ideal. Dan and the staff of Furnal Equinox (including myself) have thus far failed to come to a consensus and I don't see one coming at any time in the near future for reasons that go well beyond the bounds of WikiFur. The article needs some sort of arbitration or other third-party intervention to assess what content is relevant, and how it should be presented. Is there any process that we can work through to accomplish this? Feel free to respond on my talk page. --Scani 21:15, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

A lack of arbitration is the whole point of wiki. There's no group of people that get to control what is or is not presented as true and relevant.
The tools are already in place to deal with disagreements. You present the disputed facts by explaining that they're disputed. Explaining all sides of the story.
Furnal Equinox has consistantly argued that they should have control over what is said about them and how. That anything not approved by them is "unofficial" and therefore unacceptable. That is not within the wiki ideal, but rather, exactly the behaviour wiki was founded to prevent.
They consistantly work to censor anything negative being said about them, true or not, not only on this site, but anywhere else, by presuring people to remove the content and insulting and slandering the people presenting it. The same thing happened on my own web site multiple times, instead of graciously accepting criticism, they presured me to remove it and insult and slander the person presenting it. I removed all their threads twice, trying to allow them to change, and not only did they not stop, they started attacking me as well.
I applaud wikifur for continuing to uphold their ideas and not give into such authoritative and controling behaviour.
Dan Skunk 09:14, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Moved discussion to pertinent page - Spirou 16:31, 7 October 2011 (EDT)