Talk:Mozdoc/Archive2

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

Voting phase[edit]

As stated under Exclusion redux and Removal of real name?, I now hereby summarize the opinions given so far on this page as if they were a set of votes, to help establish consensus among the WikiFur community on this point. Registered users may add or change their position and commentary until this period for comment closes on Monday the 30th of June. On the advice of GreenReaper, I am not noting here who is an admin; you can easily look it up if you want to know. Once we have a fully measured consensus - or its lack, which seems possible, I will have a guideline for what action to take next. Please understand that I am trying not to let my emotions show in this matter, in order to give my actions the appearance of fairness.

Notes
  • Regardless of belligerence, this action is due to Mozdoc making a request for the single redaction of his legal name, which places him in the "for" category. My taking any action on this is already exceptional (especially since he has shopped around among admins through all possible means of contact, trying to find someone who would give him more than the time of day - and ended up banned from nearly all such avenues of contact due to his rude, solipsistic, domineering, and harassing behavior); should consensus point to removal of his name from this article, I will refuse to make any other change or allow the removal any other information from the page without a further exceptional reason (such as legal enforcement of a judicial ruling).
  • There are two other users who appear to have interest primarily in this discussion and little else on WikiFur: Michichael (whose only contributions to the wiki are two comments to this Talk page and a spelling fix on Jwoulf), and HellcatCordelia (whose only contributions to the wiki are three comments on this Talk page). Because I know of no other reason to refuse it, I will extend full faith and credit to their comments here.

Summary of arguments as of Monday night, 23 June, if all commentary is given one full vote (let me know if I got the interpretation wrong or put you in the wrong category):

+4 for redaction (Mozdoc, Michichael, Rootdown, and HellcatCordelia)

Arguments include: Because he wants it and everyone who denies him is stupid and wrong; because he's changed and is currently harmless; WikiFur has no jurisdiction in matters of public interest; displaying the name is a form of punishment which shouldn't be allowed on the wiki.

=3 neutral (GreenReaper, Siege, and Spirou)

Responses include: Provisional support provided the public interest has no further need of such information; similar provisional support; refusing to take a position and inherit its pain.

-4 against redaction (Spaz Kitty, Findra, DuncanDaHusky, Ayukawataur)

Arguments include: Because he is a threat to others and should be watched; because he has made legally actionable threats, and keeping the name in will be a great time-saver for legal action; reiteration of threat which needs watching; because he has not changed from his prior recorded behavior, and should therefore not receive any greater privilege such as the removal of information.

Balanced, without a clear direction. That's how things stand at the start of this week, as I read them here. If someone wishes to make a clarifying argument, I would be pleased to attend to their words. -- Siege(talk) 08:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The 30th of June conflicts with Anthrocon. Many users from this Wiki will be at the con from the 26th to the 29, and may not even be aware of this vote until after the 30th due to convention-related travel.
I'd like to ask that the date be pushed back to July 7th, so that all parties may have sufficient time to comment. --Douglas Muth 15:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur. I'll be out until late on the 30th. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I vote for redaction as well. I can understand to some degree Mozdoc's hostility in the matter - I have dealt with far too many people who just do not listen to polite requests, and only pay attention when you "get in their face" as the saying goes.
What can it hurt to remove his real name from the article? After all, it would be a show of goodwill - and if he DOESN'T calm down as a result, it could always be re-added to the article ;) All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 10:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall polite requests for exclusion from Mozdoc. Certainly the page edit which Rat interpreted as a request for exclusion was less than polite.
At any rate, I'll declare myself neutral on whether to remove Mozdoc's real name from the article. -- Sine 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Its YOUR loss and my gain that it just so happens that the thirtyith coincides with Anthrocon. This voting proceedure will END on the end of this month, and WILL NOT be extended any further. This bullshit has already been dragged out two fucking weeks, I'm not letting it go for a third. Stick to the original ending date and quit putting me through this bullshit.
--Mozdoc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mozdoc (talkcontribs) 01:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC).
no offense jeremy, but i am going to agree with douglas muth above. it is in the better interests of the community to allow for a well informed decision to be made than a hasty one.
and a bit of advice. attempting to dictate to the staff of wikifur how they will run their system is not going to win you any votes among them. in fact, illustrating a measure of patience and respect may actually help your case.
--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 16:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm in two minds about this. Do we not come to furries as a way of fantasy flight, to get away from real live? The truth is I read/scanning over this. To say that "Other people make names available so why not us?" is also not right. Most people start on here with only an internet name and grow from there, wishing there real life not to be known. Is this not going to cause people from steering clear of joining groups? Granted I am utterly mortified and disgusted about what I read above and simply could not read some of it. The thing that got me the most is the swearing in the posts. For me if he asks for it to be removed, it should unless he was found guilty in ordinance with the justice system. Looking over this I can see enough that this could happen.
--VWhitepaw 18:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
a quick note. he was found guilty in a court of law (http://www.furbid.ws/images/administaur/restrain.pdf). that is part of what the whole problem is. with his history of terrorizing others, people have a right to know who and what they are dealing with.
--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 01:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I say go ahead and remove the name. It's not really necessary to the article and if people really needed to obtain his name for some reason it'd probably be easy enough to find particularly since this debate has been going on for what over a month? --SnowdriftGM 18:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I say go ahead and remove the name and article, if it is the wish of the person, to not be in such a article, then their wishes should be followed, and their names and the artical removed. Afterall its their name and such on the article. (Rangerwolf) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.192.66.64 (talkcontribs) 20:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To Sine: No, there was no polite request; I simply chose to interpret the verb rather than the emotion. As I may have mentioned before, if I were responding emotionally, Mozdoc would have just been ignored and the matter dropped.

Other business: A time extension has been proposed and seconded, and I don't personally see it as any great onus to add a further week, considering how much community attention is normally focused on Anthrocon (MU*s, chat rooms, and forums are generally depleted of users, and I don't see WikiFur as any exception to this). My intention is and has been to give time for adequate protest in the first phase (one week, unencumbered); protest was given, so I opened a vote. And I intend to give that vote sufficient time for comment, because that's the very purpose of a vote. I made no promise to render speedy judgement, but three weeks (total) is generally much faster than most cases progress in a real court of law. Monday the 7th of July is fine with me, and that makes four votes for extension; anyone else? -- Siege(talk) 16:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We are extending the vote to July 7th mostly for Anthrocon, as it affects a few furs/non-furs, but that is the July 4th weekend,... which will affect more people, their family and friends than the con itself (I'm flying cross country myself that weekend.) Monday July 14th maybe? Spirou 19:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
You are NOT extending this shit to have two more fucking weeks included in it just because the dates you choose coincide with Anthrocon and the July Fourth weekend. Fuck off. Dragging me through all this shit, extending this fucking voting process THREE WEEKS all because of pointless events is evidence that NO ONE at WikiFur wants this bullshit to ever fucking end and so as such my entire article needs to be removed immediately. Its obvious NO ONE can keep a fucking time table and stick to it around here, always changing shit at a moments notice.
THIS VOTING ENDS JUNE THIRTYITH AND NO LATER. I'M SICK OF THIS SHIT. MY ENTIRE ARTICLE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR REMOVAL FOR HAVING TO PUT UP WITH YOU PEOPLE.
--Mozdoc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mozdoc (talkcontribs) 23:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC).
The events mentioned as reasons for extending the voting period are hardly inconsequential. I do want the bullshit to end, but mind you, we're most likely not focused on exactly the same thing. We aren't doing this to jerk your chain; we want to make sure the community is heard. However, I agree that this is getting a bit silly. My family rarely went anywhere on Independence Day - of course, for eight years or so, the local fireworks show was held at the end of our street - so I don't have a good measure on who's going to be out, or for how long; do you spend the entire week travelling and visiting, Spirou? Maybe close on Wednesday or Thursday so folks have a chance to catch up, but it's not going to be the end of the world if we can't catch absolutely everyone. -- Siege(talk) 13:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It was just a suggestion to discuss, not an order for people to carry on. Spirou 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Ayukawataur: "a quick note. he was found guilty in a court of law"
I hate to say this, but being found guilty in a court of law in this country in this day and age does not really mean much....
In my own research and experience, guilt or innocence tends to be decided by such things as wealth, influence, and popularity. :( Think I am wrong? Then by all :::::means ask me to show you some court records - some of which I was personally involved (did not do what I was accused of, yet was crucified anyway... ) All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 22:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
i am perfectly aware of how it works. i have been in court more times than i care to count. my wifes family is 99% lawyers, both defense and prosecution, as well as civil law. and i have to say one thing.
there is no doubt that jeremy did what he was penalized for. he was not only found guilty, he has admitted multiple times since that he has done it.
yes, i want to see this end as well. however, i have not gone through everything i did dealing with him for my own benefit. it was done to give the rest of the fandom a chance to see that you can stand up to his kind of behavior and can protect yourself from that form of lunacy. no one in this world deserves to be targeted by people like him. they do not need to be terrorized. they do not deserve it, and as long as there exist people who openly attempt to use threat of force as a domination factor, the rest of us have a right to know who they are and how to protect ourselves from them.
--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 21:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Its just come to my attention that this website WikiFur is being unfair to those of the furry fandom who want to participate in this, and don't want to become part of your cesspool of shit by creating a name for themselves. Forcing people to become registered users? Completely unfair and uncalled for. I'm getting contacted by random people who've tried to add their support in to this page for one of the sides and find themselves unable to because they're being forced to register. GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEADS THAT MAYBE NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO BE DRAGGED DOWN INTO SOME FULL OF SHIT WEBSITE LIKE WIKIFUR AND WANT TO KEEP THEIR NAMES OFF OF IT. If you're going to decide who can support who and leave comments here, then this website is really pushing some legal issues. EVERYONE should be allowed to leave their support here whether they're registered or not.
--Mozdoc—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mozdoc (talkcontribs) 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC).
I voted to have his name removed because the recent continuation of this whole facade is becoming unreasonably reaching on the borderline of internet harasment on Mozdoc sake. Yes he may of said some things that were regrettable and I understand that you wish to protect users, but to hold someones real life information against their wishes is wrong and most probably illegal. There are websites like Fchan has a DNP list of those who wish not to have their information posted against their wishes.. Moz has told me that he only wants this page to be taken down and that he can move on from this ridiculousness. I already gave him advice to follow if this does continue on beyond Anthrocon.. I wish you luck Moz..
- Dunc (aka Duncan Wulfweards) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.166.142.24 (talkcontribs) 00:38 and 00:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
actually, and yes i know that is bad english, but it does working for me, the moment the order was signed by a judge, it became a matter of public record. what he did, how he did it, all files related to it, they are all available to any person who wishes to see them.
and the copy of the order is available to any person who wishes to see it. and, at the very top of it, it has his name, what he was facing, and what the penalty was. since then he has not changed, he has not stopped his behavior, hurting people who do not deserve to be hurt, and has done nothing to illustrate that he deserves to be able to stealth his way into the lives of even more innocent artists.
harassment is what he does... this is a debate on a privately owned system as to whether or not the administration, and the community, is going to turn a blind eyes and give into the threats of another individual, or stand up and tell him that they will not tolerate his bullying actions any more.
(this post brought to you three dictionaries and two grammar checking systems.)
--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 08:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
What I cannot fathom is that the very person keeping this going on wikifur ALSO happens to have had personal involvement in the situation as a whole. I honestly believe that Ayukawataur needs to step back from such an active role in this matter. As I have said before, it is like an officer investigating a crime commjited against his/her family - A decent department will actually prohibit such because of the possibilty of clouded judgement and/or poor decisions on the part of that officer(to put it in layman's terms).
There's too great of a chance for abuse if the officer IS involved in such a situation.
To that end, I shall ask once more - Ayukawataur, will you kindly take a step back from your active role in this? All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 14:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


Voting tally (June 29th, 2008)[edit]

+6 for redaction (Mozdoc, Michichael, Rootdown, HellcatCordelia, SnowdriftGM, AnthoSamurai)

=4 neutral (GreenReaper, Siege, Spirou, Sine )

-4 against redaction (Spaz Kitty, Findra, DuncanDaHusky, Ayukawataur)

All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 14:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

i really do not have a choice in this matter. other people keep dragging me back into it. not only did he drag me through more problems than many can comprehend, but it is a regular occurrence for others to come to me asking that i help them with how to deal with him.
a large number have already contacted me and informed me that they wish they could vote, but the fact they can not vote anonymously means he would know who they are, and they fear for their own safety. even then many are afraid that he would figure out who they are by the ip records. kind of a sad thing when that much fear exists due to the actions of a single individual.
either way, i never wanted to be part of this. i all but begged him, actually i did beg him back in the early days, to not force my hand. but he created this situation. i am doing no more than playing out the part i was handed. if you had been around since the beginning, and/or had actually done your research, you would have known that.
my vote remains as is, however, i will also state if the community decides otherwise, i will be more than happy to be the one to remove it. though, i will also point out, there is information that is pertinent to both mine and my wifes, as well as furbids page, that was removed by me in order to better facilitate the information being in only a single place. that place was his page. if it is removed, i will be adding it back on the relative pages, for posterity sake.
something you should keep in mind. this is not just his information here. it belongs to three of us. and as long as that is true, he may have the right to ask it to be removed from his page, but i also have the right to place the applicable information, sans name direct, on our pages - because it 'is' our history as well.
--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No you will not repost any removed information on your own pages or elsewhere. My request for complete and total exclusion means that once this page is removed, any mention or whatever you have written on your pages about me is also to be removed. No questions asked. It will be like me and you never crossed paths.
--Mozdoc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mozdoc (talkcontribs) 21:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC).
we are voting on your removal of name, not on the removal of your existence. and, you do not have the right to edit my life or my wifes life, or the history of what you have done to furbid.
--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 00:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You know Ayukawataur, I'm begining to wonder whether you are friends with a certain woman from California whom has been termed the "Wicked Witch of the West" . Your statement parrots her's nearly word for word on reasons why your supposed "friends" don't show up and vote, And in Triple W's case, she was doing her damnedest to manipulate all the users of an entire forum into backing her, using lies twisted information and even people's Real Life information to intimidate others into letting her have her way - which was total control of the forum - all the while claiming she was an "innocent victim" and people were out to get her "for no reason".
Granted Mozdoc taking Kacey's art and using it is not right (IF it happened exactly like you claim it did - there IS the possibility of embelishment), but continueing the conflict just because you can is not right either, regardless of the angle.
All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 03:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ayukawataur on this. Mozdoc doesn't have the right to change history, and he has a specific history with those two and Furbid. What I'm looking to support here are the three qualities of justice, mercy, and plain speaking, in support of the balance between individual rights and the public good. In this case, opening the question of whether retaining his personal name on the article is the right thing to do. If Mozdoc chose to refuse this community action and seek legal recourse, I would have to ask that the vote be abandoned, and I would refuse to make the change under discussion pending the results of said legal action. At this time, he hasn't said whether he wanted to abandon this route, so I am assuming in good faith that he is willing to continue to participate.
I don't see this as continuing a conflict. I see it as resolving a particular issue, so that people can agree to let it go, and everyone can move on and deal with the remaining effects of whatever decision is made. We need less drama and more joy around here, but not at the cost of others' dignity or need for fairness. -- Siege(talk) 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have removed the unregistered votes from the current tally. Registration is quick and easy, and we ask that if you want to vote, that you please give yourself a name we can address on this wiki. It doesn't have to be your fursona name (though many use theirs); it doesn't have to be your real name; but it is very helpful for us to be able to contact you to address any concerns that may arise (on your part or on ours). Besides, we like to see our community grow! :) -- Siege(talk) 15:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On the (perhaps inaccurate) presumption that the voting deadline is, in fact, not 30 June, but, rather, 7 or 14 July: I vote for keeping Mozdoc's real name on his WikiFur page. The guy has made serious death threats, for crying out loud! As for his protestations about no longer wanting to be part of the fandom, said protestations ring awfully damned hollow, considering that he was on staff at Further Confusion '08 -- and those who think Ayukawataur is conducting some sort of vendetta against Mozdoc might, perhaps, take note of what the Big A. had to say about Mozdoc in that link: "I note that this year, [Mozdoc] was not only an excellent gofer, but he was quite well restrained. ... an excellent worker who was able to quite methodically reorganize the constore materials ... an excellent (how ever abrasive) door guard ... i would like it to be added to his page that he did behave himself quite well." Those are the words of someone who is monomaniacally determined to have Mozdoc's head on a platter, come hell or high water? Not. It's just a pity that Mozdoc's approach to this whole sordid affair has pretty much always been "You fucking MORONS can just obey my every command without question -- or I'll fucking KILL YOU IN YOUR SLEEP!!" As far as I'm concerned, Mozdoc is just trying to evade the consequences of his own highly suboptimal behavior. So, to sum up, I say "The name stays in". Cubist 05:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The statement that Mozdoc was 'on staff' at Further Confusion 2008 is incorrect. He was a volunteer at Further Confusion 2008, and not staff. I speak from my position of Executive Secretary for FC2008. --Findra 16:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Instant addendum: It occured to me that Mozdoc's "I don't want to be part of this community" complaints merely refer to a desire to not be WikiFur community in specific, rather than a desire to not be part of furry fandom community in general. If that's the case, Mozdoc is seriously deluded. WikiFur exists to document the furry fandom; Mozdoc is very definitely a part of said fandom; therefore, Mozdoc damn well is 'fair game' for inclusion in WikiFur. And all of his obey me or DIE, you fucking morons!!! whines are just not going to help any. Cubist 05:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
sez findra: "(Mozdoc) was a volunteer at Further Confusion 2008, and not staff." I had been under the impression that a convention's "staff" includes everybody who works 'behind the scenes' to make a convention happen, be they full-fledged ConCom members or volunteer gophers or what. Stupid (albeit honest) question: Why isn't a "volunteer" considered to be part of a convention's "staff"? Is this just a traditional term of art, or what? Cubist 11:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
A staff member at a convention is usually someone who is scheduled in advance, works in a specific department, and has a specific role laid out for them. Volunteers by comparison are just random folks who walk up and offer to help. They have no set commitment, and can put in as much or as little work as they like, and can work in different areas during the con. Volunteers who work a lot usually become staff members the following year. :-) At least, that's how the volunteer and staff system works at Anthrocon. --Douglas Muth 13:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote tally (July 3rd, 2008)[edit]

+6 for redaction (Mozdoc, Michichael, Rootdown, HellcatCordelia, SnowdriftGM, AnthoSamurai)

=4 neutral (GreenReaper, Siege, Spirou, Sine )

-6 against redaction (Spaz Kitty, Findra, DuncanDaHusky, Ayukawataur, Cubist, KendricksRedtail)

The vote seems close. If Michichael happens to pass by this page again, I'd be happy if he could clarify whether his last statement here qualifies as a different vote, just to make sure that his opinion is given proper acknowledgement. With the time extension in mind, I think July 7 at 12:01am is an entirely fair date to close for final tally and action taken, so I'll be giving my opinion at that time, and making my closing move on this page. And then I'll move on. -- Siege(talk) 06:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cubist, Have you ever even considered the the situation might be a result of the "breakdown of diplomacy"? If neither side is willing to lower their sabre, at least part way, things will only continue the way they have been.
Removing his name would not necessarily have to be permanent - whether it remains off the article would be dependant upon Mozdoc's future conduct.
It seems that in this day and age, the only thing being polite and respectful gets a person is ignored, told to f - off, or hit. And THAT is what I believe is going on with Mozdoc - society has kind of taught him the bad habit that unless you are confrontational and ready to resort to force, people will not listen to you.
If we are going to judge Mozdoc on what society as a whole has drummed into him, then we need also judge ourselves.
Do we wish to continue on this downward spiral that civilization is sliding down, or do we wish to TRY to at least slow the degeneration?
All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 22:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Just popping in... The squeaky wheel may get the grease, but you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. And an annoying fly will certainly be the first one swatted. Nice people may be ignored sometimes, but they're also more appreciated. Assholes get noticed, for sure, but they're also loathed and often refused things just to spite their behavior (I've been intentionally difficult with rude customers before because of their attitude). Mozdoc has some really, really, REALLY bad manners, and we shouldn't automatically forgive him because of what "society" has supposedly taught him. His behavior seems more anti-social than social, anyway. Spaz Kitty 22:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with SpazKitty here. For all that Mozdoc claims to be the victim of the world's hatred, he is more often than not the instigator of that ill-will himself. He recently applied to have his ban overturned on SpinDizzy muck, claiming to be reformed. His tolerance lasted until the head wizard (which is Austin Dern, and not me - a fact Mozdoc seems to repeatedly ignore) refused instant reinstatement, and said it would have to be discussed among the wizards. This one temporary set-back provoked the same behaviour of insults, obscenities, and threats that has been his hallmark. Seriously, folks, it's not that he's misunderstood. The suggestion that removal of his name will somehow 'draw the conflict to an end' is something I could only euphemistically call 'optimistic'. --Findra
I am not suggesting automatic forgiveness - Instead, I suggest a means of drawing the conflict to an end instead of punch and counter punch.
Contact me on YIM if you have it, SpazzKitty - "aysakiansamurai".
All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 23:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Shorter 'Vladuz': "If we don't remove Mozdoc's real name from his Wikifur page, the terrorists win!" Overblown histrionics much, V-boy? I say you're a concern troll, and I say the hell with you. And my vote remains the same. Cubist 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
So now you resort to name calling and putting words in people's mouths, huh? You are one sad individual.
Cubist, you are really and truely showing that you cannot be talked to in a reasonable manner - and only further prove my statement about politeness versus hostility. :(
You ALSO seem to have a problem with misquoting others. I'm willing to bet that you are one of those that think it is "cool" to start trouble for your own amusement. I would advise you NOT to try starting anything with me - my patience is greater than Mozdoc's, but so is my anger. To quote an old TV line "Don't make me angry - you wouldn't like me when I'm angry".
Intolerance breeds intolerance, CUBIST - remember that.
And for the record, the reason I am in support of "Vladuz" is quite simply because he showed ebay for what they REALLY are - greedy scum who do not care who get's scammed or hurt, so long as they get another dollar in their pockets.
All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
CONCERN TROLL
"A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group."
Excuse me a moment... (Falls out of chair laughing).
Ok, so let me get this straight - because I am TRYING to to get both sides to stand down to some degree, you are claiming that I am Mozdoc using a second account???? Oh good lord, not ANOTHER person like "triple W" :)) Why is it anytime someone doesn't agree, they have to claim that the person they disagree with is a "sock"???? That is really pathetic, Cubist.
If you are going to act that childish, then I suggest you have your parents supervise you whenever you use the computer.
So I am a SOCK?? WHY am I always the last to know these things? :)) 18:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think its a bit of an invasion of privacy to have Mozodc's real name on here for everyone to see. Hellkat9940 05:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Stating the obvious (what most here seem to have missed)[edit]

It seems that in regards to the removal of Mozdoc's real name, most of the people here are missing what should be very obvious - the fact that the removal of his real name would not be a permanent, "for all time" event.

Just because it is removed, does NOT mean that it could never be added again should he become overly aggressive once more. ALSO, if he DOES straighen out, such information could be further added to his artcile showing that fact. The opposite can also be true.

Ladies and Gentlemen, We have before us a golden opportunity to guide this individual into a better life. Shall we use it, or throw it away?

So I am a SOCK?? WHY am I always the last to know these things? :)) 03:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, why bother. Nobody really cares anyway - if they did, a lot of what is going wrong in this day and age would not be happening.
So I am a SOCK?? WHY am I always the last to know these things? :)) 03:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get this over with please?[edit]

Or is the date going to just keep getting pushed back until theres enough to support an unfavorable result because its July 7th today and thats when the final decision was supposed to take place. SnowdriftGM 14:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The decision closes on July 7th. Personally, I would have chosen the end of it for all time zones, but Siege is welcome to close the discussion at any time that they feel appropriate.
If you have to rely on timing to ensure that you have a favourable response to the proposal, it rather brings into question your confidence of public support for the proposal. (I'm not too happy that we had to have a vote on this in the first place, rather than reaching a consensus on the best - any case where a significant proportion of the population feels we're doing the wrong thing is unfortunate.) --GreenReaper(talk) 14:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. As of this morning July seventh there was a one or two vote advantage allowing for the removal of my name from this damn article. No one added themselves to the persons against it, and no one decided to get off the fence and go for one side or the other. As far as I see it, this is fucking over. I'm getting my name off the article before this drags out another week because some moronic dumbass out there decides to bring up another excuse to drag it out even longer. I don't see why you can't all just agree to allow me to get the exclusion I ASKED for and get my name off of WikiFur ENTIRELY AS I WANT.
--Mozdoc
sez Mozdoc: "As of this morning July seventh there was a one or two vote advantage allowing for the removal of my name from this damn article." No, there was not any such "advantage" -- not unless you know of any votes that were cast since the tally of 3 July 2008. Sure, the person signing themself as "Hellkat9940" offered their opinion on 7 July, but "Hellkat" did not go so far as to say "I vote to remove Mozdoc's real name from his Wikifur page". This leaves anybody but "Hellkat" unable to determine whether "Hellkat"'s position is "It's wrong, and I think it should be corrected," or "It's wrong, but I don't really care if it's corrected." As for the person who signed themself as "So I am a SOCK?? WHY am I always the last to know these things? :))", that's just AnthroSamurai under another pseudonym, and his (?) vote is already counted in the 3 July tally. So where's that "one or two vote advantage", Mozdoc? Cubist 11:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Gee, it looks like you people are grasping for ANY EXCUSE to leave his name up on the article. Anyone with half a brain can see WHY Mozdoc is so pissed off at all of you - you're going out of your way to fuck with him.
You people are coming DANGEROURSLY CLOSE to making yet another deadly enemy - is that what you want?
And YOU Cubist, you better quit it with the childish shit before you get your ass paddled.
So I am a SOCK?? WHY am I always the last to know these things? :)) 14:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote tally (July 8rd, 2008)[edit]

+6 for redaction (Mozdoc, Michichael, Rootdown, HellcatCordelia, SnowdriftGM, AnthroSamurai)

=4 neutral (GreenReaper, Siege, Spirou, Sine )

-6 against redaction (Spaz Kitty, Findra, DuncanDaHusky, Ayukawataur, Cubist, KendricksRedtail)

Deadlock. As some other users as suggested, we should put this already to rest (the proper way.) Contacting other registered (valid) users/Sysops by staff could be a solution, but (imho) this matter should be settled today Spirou 16:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why bother??? You KNOW that certain people will just dominate the situation and his name won't be removed either way. People are just using this as another means of messing with the guy to set him off.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even YOU have gone ahead and skewed the voting by selectively removing votes.
So I am a SOCK?? WHY am I always the last to know these things? :)) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
please enhance your calm anthrosamurai, lest ye be seen as no more than a troll who looses poorly. such would be bad for your cause.
i have remained quiet for a while now, however, i would like to say something now. yes, this should be closed. it has been going on for too long and some of the less mature among the ranks have started to show that immaturity. it will only devolve. however, at the same time, anything other than a verdict in their opinion favor will also be met with the same level of maturity. opinion, not fact, of which i hope i am wrong.
i would like to propose two things.
1 - any future votes be restricted to established users. either side can easily find straw votes if we do not use that restriction.
2 - preferably, we allow the admins themselves to make the decision, and no matter what it is, we agree to abide by it without complaint. their site, their decision. which is where it should have remained to begin with.
side note- i have edited anthrosamurai post above to provide proper indent format.
--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 17:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is what is going to happen.
Mozdoc's name will be removed for a period of one month.
If he starts further trouble, it will be re-added PERMANTLY, with no further consideration for it's removal.
What ELSE will happen... well, none of you really want to know.
So I am a SOCK?? WHY am I always the last to know these things? :)) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but even YOU have gone ahead and skewed the voting by selectively removing votes."
  • Users with the name RubberDuck, Kong, Blurrr, and OneEyedWilley have not been found making any decisions (pro/con/neutral) about this vote presently. Will re-add their votes if they make their presence and/or wishes known.
  • A quick inquiring note has been sent to users Cypher, Hellcat9940, and Duncan Wulfweards to confirm that you have their permission to add their votes to the matter at hand.
Spirou 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Uh... I don't think that's your decision to make.
And, I'm going to ask you again: knock it off with the name calling and general incivility. It is not helping things any. --Douglas Muth 20:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Doug?
F--- YOU
So I am a SOCK?? WHY am I always the last to know these things? :)) 20:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

COMPLETE AND TOTAL FUCKING

BULLSHIT.

I WAS AHEAD BY ONE VOTE AT THE MORNING OF JULY SEVENTH.

I WAS SITTING HERE REFRESSING THE PAGE AND THERE WAS NO FURTHER ACTIVITY GENERATED AFTER THAT TIME. THE VOTE WAS FINALIZED, THERE WAS NO MORE SHIT ON THE PAGE. I FUCKING WON AND NOW YOU LITTLE PUSSY FACED SHITFACED MOTHER FUCKING SACKS OF SLOPPY SHIT DECIDE TO GRASP AT WHATEVER MOTHER FUCKING STRAW YOU FUCKING CAN TO FUCK ME IN THE ASS *AGAIN*. FUCKING AGAIN. MOTHER FUCKING AGAIN.

KNOCK THIS FUCKING SHIT OFF! MY NAME IS TO BE REMOVED FROM YOUR FUCKING SITE IMMEDIATELY AS IT WAS AGREED. LAST MINUTE MODIFICATIONS TO THIS FUCKING VOTING ARE OBVIOUSLY SHOWING THAT THIS WEBSITE AND ALL THE MORONIC DICKHEADS THAT RUN IT ARE BIASED AGAINST ME AND WILL DO NOTHING BY FUCK WITH THIS, FUCK WITH THAT, FUCK OVER THERE, FUCK OVER THERE, AND THEN FUCK EVERYTHING UP AFTER ITS SAID AND DONE.

YOU LITTLE DUMBSHIT ASSHOLES HAVE WASTED TWO WEEKS OF TIME AND HAVE GOTTEN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DONE WHEN IT WAS OBVIOUSLY IN MY FAVOR THAT THIS VOTE WAS GOING AND YOU JUST CAN'T STAND TO FUCKING LOOSE CAN YOU? WELL YOU HAVE. I FUCKING WON YOU LITTLE ASSHOLE PIECES OF SHIT. I FUCKING WON.

I WANT MY NAME REMOVED IMMEDIATELY.

--Mozdoc

sez mozdoc: "I WAS AHEAD BY ONE VOTE AT THE MORNING OF JULY SEVENTH."
Really? There were seven votes "in your corner" (as it were)? Who is it that cast this elusive seventh vote, please? Cubist 08:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Closure and explanation[edit]

There was no consensus between those debating the issue. The name will be kept, for the following reasons:

  • Only one person supporting removal is a regular editor of WikiFur with a majority of edits outside this topic.
  • Half of those supporting removal had less than 10 edits on WikiFur. All had less than 200.
  • Three of those opposing removal have two-year track records and thousands of unrelated edits each.
  • A comparison of edit counts gives a ratio of 40 to 1 for those opposing removal, without considering the relation of the edits to this article.

Supporting removal[edit]

Total: 314 edits

Opposing removal[edit]

Total: 13608 edits

I do not wish to devalue the views of those new to the site - their contributions are welcome and appreciated - but it is clear that those supporting removal do not represent regular editors, nor have they succeeded in swaying the opinion of these editors. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but KendricksRedtail shouldn't even be fucking counted in this because his declaration of opposing removal of my name came SEVEN MINUTES AFTER THE 12:01A DEADLINE THAT WE *ALL* AGREED TO.

This makes it six votes in my favor, FIVE in yours. My name should be removed. Look at the page history and tell me if I'm fucking wrong. I'm not. YOU ARE AND YOU'RE FIXING SHIT TO WORK IN YOUR FAVOR TO JUST CONTINUOUSLY FUCK ME SO THAT I APPEAR TO HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO OBEY YOU'RE FUCKING RULES AND HAVE MY NAME LISTED HERE WHEN I WANT EXCLUSION. How about just admitting fucking defeat and shutting the fuck up that for once YOU FUCKING LOST.

Get the hell over it and remove my name...NOW.

I would also like to add in the fact that there was NEVER ANYTHING SAID that people needed to have a certain number of edits to be fucking counted. If you're going to play this fucking game then I have every right to take your faggot asses to fucking court and demand removal of my existence from here. You're word that this would end, and obviously ended in my favor, breaks an agreement that was established here. Six to five in favor of removal of my name and yet you make up piss poor fucking excuses to keep it here citing stupid bullshit about the people who bothered to stand up against the little prick sacks of shit that run this site not having enough edits?

FUCK YOU. IT DOES NOT AND WILL NOT MATTER HOW MANY EDITS A PERSON HAS. They participated in your fucking sick ass joke of a "community", and all they get is their support for me thrown out just because you think that it takes editing the fucking articles in here to be counted. I'm in agreeance with GreenReaper on this one that you are full of fucking shit and just grasping at whatever straws you can to have your fucking way and it isn't going to fucking happen. I ask that Kendrics be removed from this "voting" process and that my name be excluded from here, AS ASKED.

--Mozdoc

sez Mozdoc: "Excuse me, but KendricksRedtail shouldn't even be fucking counted in this because his declaration of opposing removal of my name came SEVEN MINUTES AFTER THE 12:01A DEADLINE THAT WE *ALL* AGREED TO." Beggin' yer pardon, Mozdoc, but for some strange reason, I think [a particular edit of Kendricks Redtail's that was timestamped 2 May 2007] just might be relevant to your argument here... Cubist 10:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It also does matter what placement a person has in the community, as if these particular members registered and started editing - or primarily edit articles relating to this conflict - as the people supporting removal do, then they could quite easily be people who registered primarily to sway the result of the vote and not to become a productive WikiFur member. They may have even been pressured into showing support without knowing the proper context of the debate. Add on to this that they don't even contribute enough to be considered representative of the community at large, and it's a very one sided battlefield here. -- Alexander Greytc 17:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

UNJUST & DISHONORABLE ACTS[edit]

I think all wikifur users, and the fandom in general, should be made aware of the tactics and dirty tricks the site dictat - excuse me, ADMINISTRATORS - employ to get their way.

GREENREAPER - changing voting policy after the fact to support the underlings of his dictatorship.

There was no consensus between those debating the issue. The name will be kept, because only one of those supporting its removal is an unrelated party and a regular editor of WikiFur with a majority of their edits outside of this topic, as opposed to four of those opposing its removal. Half of those supporting removal had less than 10 edits on WikiFur. Of those who had more, none had more than 200 edits, and only one was not mainly or solely involved with this situation. Conversely, three of those opposing removal are WikiFur administrators with two-year track records and thousands of unrelated edits, and one other editor also appears otherwise uninvolved with this conflict. (These policies WERE NOT stated until AFTER voting was finished, and were used simply to gain an unfair advantage in favor of what he and his fellow controlers wanted.)


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

SPIROU - removal of votes in favor of redaction, then claiming that he hadn't seen the votes and needed to "contact them to find out".

I voted to have his name removed because the recent continuation of this whole facade is becoming unreasonably reaching on the borderline of internet harasment on Mozdoc sake. Yes he may of said some things that were regrettable and I understand that you wish to protect users, but to hold someones real life information against their wishes is wrong and most probably illegal. There are websites like Fchan has a DNP list of those who wish not to have their information posted against their wishes.. Moz has told me that he only wants this page to be taken down and that he can move on from this ridiculousness. I already gave him advice to follow if this does continue on beyond Anthrocon.. I wish you luck Moz.. - Dunc (aka Duncan Wulfweards) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.166.142.24 (talk • contribs) 00:38 and 00:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its a bit of an invasion of privacy to have Mozodc's real name on here for everyone to see. Hellkat9940 05:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick inquiring note has been sent to users Hellcat9940, and Duncan Wulfweards to confirm that you have their permission to add their votes to the matter at hand. Spirou 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC) (Duncan Wulfweards made it clear BEYOND ALL DOUBT that he was voting.... for redaction - Yet Spirou deleted his vote ANYWAY)


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

CUBIST - General harrassment & support of dishonest actions by Spirou(re: vote deletion)

Shorter 'Vladuz': "If we don't remove Mozdoc's real name from his Wikifur page, the terrorists win!" Overblown histrionics much, V-boy? I say you're a concern troll, and I say the hell with you. And my vote remains the same. Cubist 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

sez mozdoc: "I WAS AHEAD BY ONE VOTE AT THE MORNING OF JULY SEVENTH." Really? There were seven votes "in your corner" (as it were)? Who is it that cast this elusive seventh vote, please? Cubist 08:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

sez Mozdoc: "Excuse me, but KendricksRedtail shouldn't even be fucking counted in this because his declaration of opposing removal of my name came SEVEN MINUTES AFTER THE 12:01A DEADLINE THAT WE *ALL* AGREED TO." Beggin' yer pardon, Mozdoc, but for some strange reason, I think [a particular edit of Kendricks Redtail's that was timestamped 2 May 2007] just might be relevant to your argument here... Cubist 10:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (This voting was not in effect on May 2nd, 2007, so how can any such edit count towards offsetting Kendrick's voting AFTER the deadline?)

As for my not editing elsewhere, GREENREAPER conveniently leaves out certain facts in his desperate attempt to justify his dishonest and cowardly tactics.

As the situation now stands, wikifur itself is just as damaging to the reputation of the fandom as the perverts are.

75.8.39.7 21:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

SHALL WE SHOOT-DOWN ANOTHER OF GREENREAPER'S LIES???
AS USER "AnthroSamurai"
20:44, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AnthroSamurai‎ (→Threats do not belong on WikiFur)
20:20, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Vote tally (July 8rd, 2008))
20:13, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dmuth‎ (→IM contact) (top)
20:11, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AnthroSamurai‎ (→IM and flames from this user)
19:58, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Vote tally (July 8rd, 2008))
16:37, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Vote tally (July 8rd, 2008))
16:33, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AnthroSamurai‎ (→Threats do not belong on WikiFur)
16:33, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Dmuth‎ (Replacing page with 'Hey moron, I had removed it before you even finished sending the message. NOW, if you want to continue to garbage.... Well, let's just say you'll find out how evil I really a...')
15:32, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc
15:05, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎ (Removing all content from page)
14:58, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AnthroSamurai‎ (→Threats do not belong on WikiFur)
14:55, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Can we get this over with please?: YOU PEOPLE AREN')
14:46, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Can we get this over with please?)
14:45, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Can we get this over with please?)
02:39, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Can we get this over with please?)
02:38, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Vote Tally, July 7th 2008 2130hrs)
02:29, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Vote Tally, July 8th 2008 2130hrs: new section)
02:28, 8 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (Undo revision 203837 by KendricksRedtail (talk))
03:47, 7 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Stating the obvious (what most here seem to have missed))
03:40, 7 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Stating the obvious (what most here seem to have missed): new section)
02:10, 7 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase: Move Findra's posts to keep things in chronological order - Findra, PLEASE don't post in the middle like that, it makes it too hard for people to read new posts.)
20:03, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AnthroSamurai‎ (→Dispute with Cubist)
18:55, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:GreenReaper‎ (→What is wrong with Cubist????: DAMNIT - keep forgeting to sign the posts. :)))
18:53, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:GreenReaper‎ (→What is wrong with Cubist????)
18:52, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AnthroSamurai‎ (→Dispute with Cubist)
18:42, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎
18:21, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase)
18:18, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase)
18:16, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase)
18:14, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:GreenReaper‎ (→What is wrong with Cubist????)
18:06, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:GreenReaper‎ (→What is wrong with Cubist????)
17:32, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:GreenReaper‎ (→What is wrong with Cubist????)
17:31, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:GreenReaper‎ (→What is wrong with Cubist????: new section)
17:06, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase)
17:05, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase)
00:12, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spaz Kitty‎ (→Message 412) (top)
00:12, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spaz Kitty‎
23:31, 4 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase)
22:17, 4 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase)
22:14, 4 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase)
11:46, 4 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎ (→Mother Nature's a pain in the a**)
11:40, 4 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎ (→Mother Nature's a pain in the a**)
11:37, 4 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎
00:12, 3 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:MySpace‎ (Created page with 'Ok, why are there entries for myspace, facebook, and other NON-FURRY RELATED sites on wikifur???????? 75.8.39.7 00:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)')
04:14, 30 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Siege‎ (→Life immitates art (lol): new section)
03:56, 30 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase)
14:23, 29 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase)
14:22, 29 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase)
14:11, 29 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase)
10:03, 29 June 2008 (hist) (diff) m Mozdoc‎
09:47, 29 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Mozdoc‎ ((best way to laugh is to make others laugh))
22:48, 27 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Voting phase)
10:46, 25 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Removal of real name?)
22:38, 6 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:69.46.17.168‎ (Created page with '===lying as you did goes against what this country was founded on=== I do not know why you would edit my userpage to add such lies, and personally I do not care. If you have a ...') (top)
22:32, 6 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mwalimu‎ (→Reverting vandalism: new section) (top)
02:40, 5 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Banned again?)
04:59, 4 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Bigfoot‎
04:21, 4 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Bigfoot‎ (Add photo)
04:04, 4 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Bigfoot‎
02:57, 4 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎
02:28, 4 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎ (Undo revision 197085 by AnthroSamurai (talk))
23:14, 3 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Asylumfoxy714‎ (→Anons aren't so anon.: new section)
15:19, 3 June 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Siege‎ (→Request: new section)
14:52, 3 June 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Banned again?: new section)
00:02, 28 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Bigfoot‎ (Hey, come on! He's more furry than all of us combined! lol)
23:48, 27 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Straitfox‎ (→Deletion)
23:38, 27 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Siege‎ (→Romanian & the IM: new section)
23:34, 27 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Siege‎ (→Didn't do it)
23:29, 27 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ayukawataur‎ (→Name translation: Deleted post - Rat's edite of my post made the whole thing pointless :() (top)
23:25, 27 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rat‎ (→Selective enforcement)
21:04, 27 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ayukawataur‎ (→Name translation)
19:04, 27 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spaz Kitty‎ (→Self defense)
18:58, 27 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Ayukawa goading Mozdoc into further aggression?: clarify)
17:36, 27 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AnthroSamurai‎ (→Removal of contributions)
17:27, 27 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Ayukawa goading Mozdoc into further aggression?)
12:08, 27 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AnthroSamurai‎ (→Removal of contributions)
11:37, 27 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ayukawataur‎ (→Name translation)
12:56, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rat‎ (→Selective enforcement: new section)
12:53, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Ayukawataur‎ (Undo revision 197345 by Brushwell Clinton (talk))
12:53, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Brushwell Clinton‎ (→Don't push it lad)
11:19, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dmuth‎ (→Is there any proof?: new section)
11:02, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spaz Kitty‎ (→If you only had a brain :)): new section)
10:58, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AnthroSamurai‎ (→Removal of contributions)
10:43, 26 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Ayukawataur‎
19:32, 24 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AnthroSamurai‎ (→Removal of contributions)
19:25, 24 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎ (Undo revision 197131 by Brushwell Clinton (talk))
17:02, 24 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tabitha (story)‎ (Undo revision 197095 by Brushwell Clinton (talk))
16:59, 24 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AnthroSamurai‎ (→Removal of contributions)
16:50, 24 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Brushwell Clinton‎ (→Don't push it lad: new section)
16:46, 24 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎ (Undo revision 197094 by Brushwell Clinton (talk)
14:35, 24 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Secret Sabrina Society‎
14:34, 24 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Sabrina Online: The Story‎ (Undo revision 195798 by AnthroSamurai (talk))
14:32, 24 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tabitha (story)‎ (Undo revision 196332 by AnthroSamurai (talk))
14:31, 24 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎
14:28, 24 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎ (I addeth, I taketh away)
14:26, 24 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Kacey Miyagami‎ (Undo revision 197077 by AnthroSamurai (talk))
13:55, 24 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Kacey Miyagami‎ (Undo revision 197051 by Ayukawataur - It leads to the same place, AYUKA.)
05:44, 23 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Legal issues: There is no need for TWO links to the same place.)
23:23, 21 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Conflict of interest) (top)
23:19, 21 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Conflict of interest)
22:56, 21 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ayukawataur‎ (→HE or SHE?)
05:04, 21 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Conflict of interest)
05:01, 21 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Conflict of interest)
04:38, 21 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ayukawataur‎ (→HE or SHE?)
07:07, 20 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tabitha (story)‎ (Upgrade tag to "NOVEL" - Story is at 56,947 words)
07:03, 20 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Tabitha (story)‎ (Created page with '===Technically, no longer a "short story" === I just did a word count on all 13 chapters of this story - and it's broken out of the "short story" category.... at precicely 56,9...') (top)
06:51, 20 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎ (Whoever considers 40,000 words to be a short story never had to type that many. :)))
03:19, 20 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:AnthroSamurai‎ (→Removed "short story" tag)
03:17, 20 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎
03:16, 20 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎
20:05, 19 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mwalimu‎ (→Removed "short story" tag: new section)
19:53, 19 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎ (Undo revision 195870 by Mwalimu (talk))
01:41, 18 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Mozdoc's love notes via IM)
13:19, 17 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Sabrina‎ (top)
11:47, 17 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎
11:47, 17 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:75.7.254.145‎ (top)
15:33, 16 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dmuth‎ (→How about THIS one. :P)
15:22, 16 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dmuth‎ (→How about THIS one. :P: new section)
10:02, 16 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ayukawataur‎ (→HE or SHE?)
09:49, 16 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ayukawataur‎ (→HE or SHE?)
09:43, 16 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎
09:40, 16 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Image:Lag650.GIF‎ (Saw this particular lag box on 05/16/08 at 0438... What can I say, I get goofy at that hour of the morning. :))) (top)
08:16, 16 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Sabrina Online: The Story‎ (Update chapter #/date)
08:11, 16 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Secret Sabrina Society‎ (Created page with 'An "underground" fan group of Eric W. Schwartz's skunkette character Sabrina, alleged to have been involved with pornagraphic, or yiff style artwork of the character.')
01:19, 16 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ayukawataur‎ (→HE or SHE?)
01:02, 16 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Conflict of interest)
23:26, 15 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Legal issues)
23:23, 15 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Conflict of interest)
23:17, 15 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ayukawataur‎ (→HE or SHE?)
23:16, 15 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ayukawataur‎ (→HE or SHE?: new section)
18:20, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Legal Issues)
14:23, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dmuth‎ (→deletions)
14:01, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dmuth‎ (→deletions: new section)
12:55, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Confilct of interest)
12:53, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Confilct of interest)
12:05, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Confilct of interest)
12:01, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Confilct of interest: new section)
11:50, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Legal issues)
11:48, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) m Kacey Miyagami‎ (→Legal issues: remove some info added by Ayukawataur - see talk pg)
09:53, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎
09:43, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎
09:23, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Exclusion redux)
09:22, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Exclusion redux: Sorry, lol - couldn't resist (read before reverting please - you'll laugh))
08:09, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Tales from the Reservation‎ (top)
08:02, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎
07:49, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Exclusion redux)
06:07, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Exclusion redux)
05:32, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎
05:30, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎
05:22, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:75.7.254.145‎
05:19, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:75.7.254.145‎
05:10, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User:AnthroSamurai‎


AS USER 75.7.254.145‎
02:37, 13 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mozdoc‎ (→Exclusion)
11:17, 12 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Spaz Kitty‎
04:11, 12 May 2008 (hist) (diff) The American Journal of Anthropomorphics‎ (Fix screw-up.)
04:09, 12 May 2008 (hist) (diff) The American Journal of Anthropomorphics‎ (Add info on issues)
03:48, 12 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Darrell Benvenuto‎ (top)
03:39, 12 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Darrell Benvenuto‎ (top)
03:31, 12 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎
03:15, 12 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation
03:12, 12 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎
12:20, 10 May 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:75.7.254.145‎
08:36, 10 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎
06:49, 10 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎
06:40, 10 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation
06:39, 10 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎
06:09, 10 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎ (→External Links)
05:58, 10 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎ (→External Links)
05:56, 10 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Tales from the Reservation‎ (Author's email added (Insert evil grin here))
16:32, 9 May 2008 (hist) (diff) Jason Dahlen‎ (→External links: Added his newest site) (top)
SO, as anyone other than the flunkies can see, I did not come to this sight solely for Mozdoc - I did not even know who he was before all of this. Nor are my posts solely in defense of Mozdoc - as I have threatened to conk his and Ayuka's (along with anyone else) heads together.
And Limey? Next time you want to make claims about me, at least do your homework first ;)
75.8.39.7 00:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


I stand by my statement - roughly 80% of your edits relate to this case. My point was not that you were a supporter as Mozdoc, nor that you came to this site at his bidding - merely that you do not have the same editing experience as those with opposing views, and so in a tiebreaker situation, the views of more experienced editors should prevail. I discounted Findra's opinion for the same reason, and their view was opposed to yours. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
you do not have the same editing experience as those with opposing views
Look junior, The fact that you keep going on about "EDITING EXPERIENCE" while shoving aside ACTUAL and PRACTICAL experience, and insisting on lying when you have been caught red-handed (Your own comments prove such) makes you look like a total buffoon.
I would suggest you correct your dishonesty.... but you and I both know that you won't - you would rather lie, manipulate, change rules, and generally screw with people. The only way you will change is if you get your ass kicked by the fandom - and to that end I have already emailed and/or otherwise posted the above over 250 times to various people, groups, and sites.
75.8.39.7
I vote for removing his name, The longer we all drag this on, the longer it will go on. I think mozdoc will go away if we just leave him alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Germanshepherd (talkcontribs) .
A decision motivated by Mozdoc's harrassment of the members of this site is not acceptable. Mozdoc has made it clear that he will be satisfied by nothing but complete removal of the article, anyway. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
GREENREAPER: "A decision motivated by Mozdoc's harrassment of the members of this site is not acceptable. Mozdoc has made it clear that he will be satisfied by nothing but complete removal of the article, anyway."
So yet ANOTHER excuse for your dishonest actions? I suppose next you will claim you didn't want to do it, but one of the other admins (or maybe Ayuka) MADE you. ;)
Had you and the others played fair and not used this as yet another means of messing with the guy, then even if the decission had been against people like myself would have stuck up for you. HOWEVER, since you played dirty, you can expect the same right back at you.
Give it up, junior - You got busted cheating, plain and simple. And your dishonesty in this is going to be known all across cyberspace.
75.8.39.7 05:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is This Still Being Voted On?[edit]

If this is still being voted on, count me as a vote opposed to removing Mozdoc's name from the article. I'm not involved with any of this drama, I just stumbled into this page from browsing Recent Changes, but after reading the comments on this Talk page, I don't see sufficient reason for his name to be removed. Beyond that, everything that can be said has been, it seems, and I'm admittedly a bit confused as to why this is still being debated.

There, it's not a tie anymore. - Natasha Softpaw 08:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Is This Still Being Voted On?." No, voting closed on July 9, 2008, sorry Spirou 08:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, just figured I'd do what I could to end this ridiculous discussion. Natasha Softpaw 08:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, methinks it would not have ended even with the removal of the user's name,... Call it a hunch... =P Spirou 08:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Methinks you misread my comment, I'm opposed to removing his name, partly due to the reasons you allude to. Natasha Softpaw 08:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, was late, and I was tired Spirou 23:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

fc'08[edit]

officially he was a gofer. while there he did numerous gofer duties, including helping with the setup and teardown of the art show hardware, helping with organization of the con-store, and generic door guard duties, where he mostly stood there across from me as i waved people in. he was not a member of security staff. --Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 05:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. The reason I put that there was that I've been at cons that tend to lump the "door guard" role together with that. I've changed it to just "gofer" for simplicity. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty to set this shit straight considering I don't know how in the fucking hell you people know about every little mother fucking thing that I do in this shithole of a world. I volunteered at Further Confusion, and I plan to do it again and beat the ever loving shit out of every single one of you faggots that I meet there to get my point across that I'm sick of being listed here against my will and wishes and that you dickheads refuse to do your job and obey the request to remove my entire existence from this fucking site. I also volunteered at Califur 4, but signing up was as far as it went. I never did anything because I would've had to devote my entire time at the con in order to get my membership back, so it was hardly worth it considering it was three days long anyway.
Are we fucking clear on this? STOP DOCUMENTING MY FUCKING LIFE AND REMOVE MY NAME OFF WIKIFUR NOW.
--Mozdoc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mozdoc (talkcontribs) .

Use of edit counts in voting[edit]

It's easy to rack up edits when all you do is post on wikifur. My first edit may have been on here and the main reason I registered may have been because someone threw out my vote when it wasnt from a 'registered name'. The fact of the matter remains that there is only one specific portion of the fandom I'm involved in and thats the Gateway MUCK project and a few other MU*'s that arent Taps/FurryMUCK. Therefore I will probably never hit this magical '200 edit' mark where apparently someone's vote means something. It's also possible to rack up edits by small contributions. Finding out this makes me wish I had not bothered in the first place. SnowdriftGM 01:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain it this way: If you had to make a decision on Gateway MUCK policy, and the opinion was evenly split between people who had visited as anonymous users and then registered and maybe logged in once or twice for a few hours, and those who had spent years working on improving the MUCK, what would your decision be?
We seek the input of all members of the fandom; but ultimately, if it's clear that the people who make this site work are unhappy with it, it's probably not the best decision to make. There is nothing magical about 200 edits - or the fact that the edit count was used at all. It was simply a way to demonstrate the great disparity between the involvement of the groups in WikiFur.
The edit count also does not imply that these users are more heavily involved in the fandom as a whole - the majority of the heavier users' edits are not content modifications, but improvements to the style, formatting, spelling or grammar; or discussions of how to present and organize information. It does mean that these people are regular contributors to WikiFur, and therefore deserve a greater say in how it is run, other things being equal. It also increases the confidence that they have experience of similar discussions, and haven't decided (or been asked) to drop by to comment on a particular topic. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Snowdrift, if you haven't figured it out yet - Greenreaper and his buddies simply didn't want his name removed... so to get what they wanted they rigged the voting.
Think about it - Spirou removed votes in favor of redaction, the other good old boys all sidded togthers, then non other than greenreaper himself changes the rules AFTER voting is complete, claiming only those votes from his nazi elite count, and nobody else matters.
Greenreaper has shown that he's a spoiled little snob who will do whatever it tekse - fair or foul - to get his way, and the others who joined him in this farse are no better.
75.8.39.155 09:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Judgement Rendered[edit]

Apologies to those for whom the action was left hanging. I was unavoidably detained without access to my computer, from the evening of the Fourth of July until very recently. In my judgement, the votes appear to be balanced. I have offered mercy of a sort in redacting Mozdoc's name; anyone may still find it in the edit history.

If anyone has a palpable reason to reinstate said name beyond it being "public record", then I won't stop them; but my own personal judgement has been offered in this matter, I have taken action to offer some forgiveness on my part, and I am DONE and MOVING ON. I encourage others to do so as well. I repeat my personal refusal to remove any other facts from the page, because it is sure that Mozdoc's reputation has been built brick by brick, and will have to be rebuilt, again brick by brick, if he wants anyone else involved in these matters to move on and give him a chance to be his own self again. Please note that this is not a victory, just an ending.

Thank you all for your time, thank you for participating. Please, everyone, let go of your anger and let the conflict end; I feel that there's no point dragging it out any further. -- Siege(talk) 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Though I don't see the vote as being "balanced" since it was screwed from the get go - Good show mate on standing for what's right. Count me as an ally ;)

John Cross 75.7.252.32 16:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)