Alright I think we need to address this a bit more. Should we really list his achievements and how active he was in the fandom considering everything now??
Seriously I think we should edit it to be wayyy more barebones. It's like saying "Hey here is a cool person! BTW He's a pedophile".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) .
- Why would we remove furry information about a person on a wiki encyclopedia about furries and the furry fandom? --Equivamp - talk 13:21, 18 October 2017 (EDT)
- Wikis are meant to present information about a subject (in this case, a person), which includes but is not limited to controversies. If you read a Wikipedia article about a politician for example, you're not likely to find their article only highlights their scandals (and in many cases, scandals have their own article). --FrostTheFox (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2017 (EDT)
My qualm is regarding the "Controversy" heading. To me, the word controversy is something you use to describe a furry who intentionally rustles everyone's jimmies, or who has a very outspoken unpopular opinion. Posession of child pornography is not controversy, it's very much felony criminal activity and an extremely serious offense. Instead of "Controversy" I feel a better heading title could be "Criminal Activity" or something like that. But of course, this is just my opinion. - J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) .
- I somewhat agree that 'controversy' isn't used in the dictionary sense across WikiFur (and, well, the internet as a whole), and I'd be fine with it put both ways, but I feel like considering these events usually garner outcry on Twitter or other social media it's a fair usage. --FrostTheFox (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2017 (EST)
People have many questions related to the criminal case even though RC Fox has passed, I will be requesting the court transcript since the defendant is deceased. Connor Goodwolf (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2018 (EDT)
I believe the Article describing RC's arrest is erroneous in describing the charges. It conflicts with the docket, and what the DA said. He was charged with 20 charges of possession and 1 of dissemination, and 1 of criminal use of a phone initially. You can tell by the docket because the "dissemination" charges are listed separately from the generic "child pornography" ones, which according to PA law denotes possession. I have updated the article to reflect final charges, as well as given more information on the timing of his missed court date and bench warrant on the day of his death. JackRCarrane (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2018 (EDT)