Talk:Evil Sibe/Archive3

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

Request for removal[edit]

I am formally asking for my personal information and my article to be removed from WikiFur. This article is currently being used as a vehicle for attack and hatred. It is also making it difficult for me to get a job, so please lay off the wikifur article. Its also bothering my family. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sibe (talkcontribs) .

I am for removing his Real Name on the Article, but not the Article itself. That way, he will be able to find a job. My two cents. --Ozone Griffox 19:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
If he's paid his dues and is now earnestly trying to find a job, ditto for the above. --Frizzy 20:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's my thoughts on removal of Sibe's real name:
  • Time has passed. There's been a certain amount of opportunity for reflection - and, assumably, for any appropriate charges to have been delt with.
Sibe's criminal record, spanning many years, shows that not only has he not learn his lesson from the corrections system, but he has, in fact, continued to grow in violence over the years. Of course he wants his record wiped and expunged, at least from the furry community ... but I see absolutely nothing to indicate he's done anything to wipe the slate. I've seen zero expression of remorse and, in fact, several furs continue to maintain legal no contact orders against him. --Chibiabos 04:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • People do change. Sibe probably isn't the guy he was ten years ago, or six months ago. The measures that were necessary then are not as necessary now.
There's zero indication of change for the better. His record, in fact, seems to have gotten progressively worse, from assaulting his father to thumbing his nose at the terms of his probation to violent coercion. I'm sure he doesn't want to go back to prison, but I am also certain he has no sudden enlightenment in terms of respect for others or the law. --Chibiabos 04:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The fandom isn't likely to forget what Sibe did in the past - but I believe it has the capability to forgive, over time, and given no further cause to complain.
You seem eager to, and to allow him to come in fresh to new furs from here on out whom you propose to deny the right to know about Sibe's violent convictions. Sibe has no right to keep his criminal convictions a secret, and it is in the best interests of all furries not to repress nor suppress his verified public criminal record. --Chibiabos 04:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Sibe's under probation now. I think that it is fair enough to give him a stab at sorting out his life outside the fandom, provided that no further problems occur. If he can act with a level of respect towards the other members of the fandom, and to people in general, then we can surely do the same. If not, then it is a simple enough matter to reverse the situation. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
No, Sibe violated probation for (among other things) being on the Internet, which his probation specifically prohibited him from doing ... that's why he was thrown in prison. He's now on parole, and unfortunately the terms of his parole are not yet known. If they match the terms of his probation, he is violating his parole by even accessing wikifur. --Chibiabos 04:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree on removal of personal information if detrimental Spirou 21:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
STRONGLY DISAGREE. Sibe is a convicted violent felon, and abiding his request to remain anonymous and to have his photo removed can have no other purpose than to allow him to befriend new furs with a new alias whom have no clue whom they are dealing with. Sibe's criminal activities are well referenced and can only be publicly verified by wikifurrians anyway if they know his real name. --Chibiabos 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
We strongly respect request for removal of personal information, except for a few very rare cases (until recently, Sibe was one of them.) At present time, Sibe has served his sentence, and has expressed a desire to try things differently. If that desire is genuine, Wikifur must respect that right of privacy. If not, his deeds will follow him back here Spirou 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Sibe is likely violating his parole even by being here, but will have to wait until the official public terms of his parole are known to find out. Even if his parole does not stipulate that he stay off the Internet (which is what his probation stipulated, which he obviously did not abide by, and that is what got him thrown in prison this time). Much of the heinous acts Sibe has committed against furries cannot see the light of this article because they cannot be verified; what he's been caught doing in his public criminal record pales in comparison, but it should be enough -- a convicted violent felony record -- that innocent furries' right to know who he is and what he is done should take precendence over his right to keep his identity and public criminal record a secret. I dare to suggest that although I seem to be the first voice of dissent against expunging his identity and/or record from the article, I most definitely will not be the last. I think Sibe's actual victims should be given time to weigh in and their opinions and concerns must be given full, due consideration. --Chibiabos 04:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
With the information I currently have access to, I am in favor of keep the article essentially as is. The reasons for removing the article (namely HR problems) are rendered moot as any HR dept. that is worth it's salt would perform a criminal background check. Provide case and docket numbers for x-reference on specific charges and remove victim/familial information (information is accessable if required by the case/docket number) -- leave charge and date of occurance information. Appendages to this recommendation may result as furture information is discovered/learned -- JaeSharp 05:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarification, did you mean "as is" with his RL photo and identity stripped out and protected, or as it had been up until yesterday with his RL identity included? --Chibiabos 05:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
IRL Identity included, I don't see how it could harm this person directly with the information I currently have. I was recommending removing familial/victim information to protect the victim's privacy. -- JaeSharp 05:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with the request for removal of the article, or removal of his real life name. Chibiabos pointed out several good points of contention on this issue. First is the fact that he has not actually served his sentence. He is still on what's called "Post Supervision Release", which is another word for Parole in the State of Oregon, for another 3 years. This is verifiable by going to the Vinelink website, choosing Oregon, and plugging in his first and last name.

Second is the fact that even if he was not on post supervision release, him being free of post supervision is irrelevant. Sibe has posted as "Ross Reddick" in several newsgroups that is linked to within the article itself, so it would be insulting to the intelligence of the readers of the article to have a prohibition on posting his real life name and then just simply clicking on a link and finding out his real life name. Unless the Wikifur Administrators intend to start removing links and cutting out information merely for the benefit of the person doing the complaining, then they should stay.

Sibe is complaining about the article resulting in it being quite difficult to find a job merely due to the Wikifur article. Again, this is an avoidance of responsibility on Sibe's part. If HR Departments are doing Google searches in newsgroups and the web, then cutting out his real life name here in the Wikifur article isn't going to do him any good, because of his notorious postings there. HR departments are wary of hiring violent felons for good reason. His violent actions against Brian Floyd was his fault. His evasion of his warrant for his arrest for over a year is his fault. He is not a good candidate for exclusion or removal of name, and the last time we hashed it out in discussion, it was agreed that this was the case. Just check the archives. --Gray Coyote 07:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith request?[edit]

See below - this interpretation was incorrect

It has been confirmed that Sibe was the person who made an anonymous edit asking for clemency under the name of another person, including information on that person while doing so, three minutes before making an edit under his own name. I have blocked Sibe for the remainder of his parole for clear bad faith in editing the article about himself. There can be no assumption of good faith without trust, and I do not trust him not to try to decieve us again.

Given the situation, I can no longer recommend even the removal of his real name from the article, and so I have restored it to the previous state. Editors here were willing to give him another chance, but he blew it the moment he clicked the edit link and made the choice to impersonate another member of the fandom. That is unacceptable. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

(?!) I must have missed something somewhere. The initial plead was by Sibe, correct?,... Who/where did he impersonate somebody?,... Just curious (same IP?) Spirou 07:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. -- JaeSharp 07:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There was an initial edit from, which traces to a Portland, OR locality, in which the Sibe article was blanked and replaced with a plea for the removal of personal information about people and their parents. This IP was later confirmed to be the one used three minutes later by Sibe to edit under his account. This edit has been removed from non-admin viewing, as it contains personal information about Gray Coyote (another reason to suspect Sibe), but the same IP later removed his real name as well. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification *Sigh* So much for hoping for a change, so much for giving him a chance Xp Spirou 07:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, so it turns out that this was not what happened. I hate 3AM. :-)
We thought that it was "Hey, stop putting people's personal informatin into articles {Name and location of Gray Coyote as identification}" (which is where the impersonation came in). Instead, he was saying "Hey, stop putting people's personal information about people into articles {insert personal information of Gray Coyote here as a 'how do you like it'}". It looked like he was signing it, which is what caused the original interpretation.
So, ban reduced to 1 month for dropping Gray Coyote's information into the article for spite. The edit is still removed because it includes this personal information. This still leaves us with the question of what to do with Sibe's real name. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 07:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote to deny this removal request. -- Siege(talk) 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to login)

What to do with Sibe's real name?[edit]

Good question, but as GreenReaper stated, it's late everywhere. I think we need to get everybody involved... after a nights sleep. I'm reserving my judgement on this matter at the present time, specially in light of his little "tantrum" (posting somebody's personal information because we wouldn't take his info and article down.) Will see how the whole Wikifur community goes forward with this Spirou 08:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The request was made in bad faith. I reiterate my objections from above. --Gray Coyote 07:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a complete re-hash of the discussion that took place nine months ago and I don't see that anything has changed in the intervening time that would alter my opinion on the matter. The article should stand as it is written. ----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 11:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

why not?[edit]

If you will give any other person who has an article on Wikifur the chance to have their articles wiped, then why dont you give Sibe the same courtesy? At least remove his photo and his real name. He has been requested the article that concerns him be removed, for gods sake just honour his wishes and remove it, like you would have done for anyone else. You will do no 'civil service' by leaving it up. It does not fall to the furry fandom to 'warn' anyone against anything he has done. Quite frankly, its none of your business. This is a wiki, not a bloody police warning system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimruthien (talkcontribs) .

We don't actually grant that automatically (there is at least one case in which that has not occurrsed, Bart Bervoets). I think you are missing the point of the article, though - it's not for the police, who obviously know who he is, it's for us. It is in part a warning system - but for the furry fandom. His actions are part of our history, which is part of the purpose of the wiki. That is why I am opposed to the removal of the article in whole - because what he has done deserves remembering. It is our business, because Sibe has been bothering us as a community. Most people's actions are not wholly entwined with their identity, so they can be excluded while the information about their actions is preserved, but not Sibe.
The question is whether or not he still deserves the courtesy of having his real name removed, or whether we should just leave it here as a deterrent to others who would seek to walk the same path. He obviously doesn't like it here, so it's reasonable to assume that others would not either. I believe the main reason not to would be because he has, at every point, failed to extend that courtersy to others. Respect is a two-way street - the whole rationale for the personal information policy is based on mutual respect. Sibe has wronged many individuals within the fandom, in some cases by doing exactly the same thing - "outing" their lives, or their livelihood - and as far as I can tell is not sorry for doing so. Indeed, his first act before even logging on was to do so once more. Now, he doesn't have to be sorry for what he does, but if he takes that position, should we grant him any concessions? --GreenReaper(talk) 08:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Because, through his own actions, Sibe has become more than just an individual member of the fandom. He is perhaps one of the most infamous members thereof, and attempting to wipe this article would be wiping more than just a an article about a person, but part of the history for the furry fandom. Like it or not, Sibe pushed and exceeded the boundaries of good taste and personal behaviour within the fandom and because of him we now know where those boundaries are.
If Sibe truly is trying to "go straight" - and this wouldn't be the first time he's said that, by the way - I salute him and wish him the best of luck in his life and future endeavours. However, one cannot simply "wipe away" the parts of history one does not like. Sibe fully understood the ramifications of his actions and now must live with the consequences of those same actions. Having an unflattering article about him - especially when it is, as far as I can tell, truthful - is one of them.
Therefore, I must STRONGLY DISAGREEE, in the strongest possible sense, with any attempts to wipe this article. I do not believe that Sibe has shown good cause as to why the article should be removed. Kiranlightpaw 13:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I too agree. I think I can sum up the situation by saying that while we can forgive, we cannot forget. --Douglas Muth 15:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well put. I believe editing to remove any information from the current version of the article would be a disservice to everyone, and against the fundamental idea of wikis as repositories of community knowledge. Therefore I also disagree with Alohawolf's suggestion regarding the timeline, below. It's all factual, fair, useful, and public-domain information, collected in a convenient way. --Tom Howling 16:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just liberally edit the article instead, remove the timeline section, which I think is inflamitory at best, and leave the article in the wiki otherwise. --Alohawolf 09:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Sibe changed. I don't think he will ever change. BUT everybody deserves the chance to get a Job. Nobody has the right to make his Job finding more difficult that it may already be. If removing his real name from the article can help, as little as it may help, then we have to do it. Plus, if Sibe finds a Job, he will certainly learn life faster. My two cents. --Ozone Griffox 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone unilaterally decided that they were going to delete the name, without obviously reading the talk page, luckily it was reverted, though I have to address one thing that was stated as explanation for what he did: "most of what is in this article is false and very biased information." False? I don't think so. Considering the fact that everything court related based is backed up by court records and transcripts, to claim that it's false is folly. --Gray Coyote 17:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In User:FoxDiller's defense, I should point that he's relatively new on here, having just started editing today. It is possible that he may have not known about the vote. --Douglas Muth 17:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
We had an extended discussion on IRC, during the course of which I explicitly noted that there was a vote and that so far it was seven to four against. He is new to editing here, but not unaware of the current situation.
One of his claims was that there was no basis to the claims of Sibe's attacks against his father. Perhaps we need a more specific reference for these? --GreenReaper(talk) 17:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem, Greenreaper. Let's start with case cites. King County (Washington State) Superior Court case number 95-8-07446-6. This is the one where he was convicted of domestic violence against his father and lost his right to possess firearms in Washington State. The next case, KCSC# 96-08-01563-8, never resulted in a conviction, however it was again for assault on his father. He essentially had a no-bail warrant issued for his arrest in April of 1996 after disappearing, and then only came back after his 18th birthday to file a motion to quash the superior court case and warrant for lack of jurisdiction (He was now an adult legally and therefor the superior courts in Washington State had no jurisdiction over the crime). I am not sure what happened to the case afterwards, because as far as I can tell, it was never refiled in District Court against him as an adult. --Gray Coyote 07:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(VOTE) Should Sibe's RL name be removed from the article to give him a chance to start anew?[edit]

Aye, Nay, Abstain:

Aye. Yes, even after the "spite" incident,... If he is not truly serious about giving himself a second chance, a revert can be made Spirou 23:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye. I don't trust him, but everybody deserves help in finding a job. --Ozone Griffox 23:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Even if he's acting like a baby (sigh), we should be above that. --Frizzy 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Abstain, with a twist. There are reasonable arguements from both sides, so I will abstrain. However, I would like to propose that IF his name is removed, we document that fact, and the reasons behind that, on the article. --Douglas Muth 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I still hope the vote goes to "Nay", but agree re: documentation. --Tom Howling 07:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nay, he's expressed zero remorse and, in fact, has proven he's going to continue attacking furs, he's abused the anonymity of the Internet to hurt the furry community by pirating art and attacking individuals online and I see no reason wikifur should any more protect Sibe's real name than wikipedia should protect the Green River Killer. Further, I object to a quick vote when a lot of affected artists and others on furry wiki have not had a chance to weigh in. He has notoriety and his reputation and identity do not deserve the protection of anonymity, period. We should not be voting on this a third time anyway. --Chibiabos 02:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nay. His actions with the edit which were later hidden makes his demand without merit. I reiterate my objections from above, there is no reason to insult the intelligence of the Wikifur readers with this request for the removal of the name will not assist him in getting a job, his own criminal record is doing that for him. This is the third time this has been discussed in regards to his name. If Bart Bervoets was denied his request, even though he hasn't recently done anything, then it should be the same with someone who did things as recent as yesterday. Gray Coyote 05:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nay. Through his actions to damage both furry fandom and those within it, he has forfeited any right to anonymity. ----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 03:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nay. The actions of this user do not demonstrate good faith. The request was refused ealier for reasons noted. This information is publically avaialble from other sources (Fredryk Phox, etc) and, not to be insensitive, would alienate many people if it were to be removed. The magnitude of the acts committed should also be taken into account, this person has a history of dangerous and destructive activity that members of the fandom should be able to easily find out about even if this person is using another alias/identity. -- JaeSharp 04:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nay. Of the reasons cited for, I feel that it's far less likely that a HR department will deny employment to him for a page in a wiki than, say, a criminal background check. I know it'll be possible for people to grab the information in the history either way, but given the nature of his history... I can only think that starting anew within the fandom would result in the further victimization of our fellows. --DataBank 14:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nay. Considering how many oportunities people (and the law) has given him, and he still keeps doing his particular stuff. Id say his name should stay, at least until he proves himself he's not the same. --Cesarin 11:39, 13 September 2006 (GMT-6)

Nay. See above for the reasons. --Kiranlightpaw 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nay. WikiFur should not omit or censor widely publically avalible details about a person. Nor should past history attempt to be erased. Leave as is. --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 18:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has the right to choose where their personal information be displayed. Be it a name or a photograph. Dimruthien

That's a new one on me. Can I get a legal citation please? (Excluding cases where posting said information is done with the intent to harass) --Douglas Muth 13:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nay. Incidentally, I believe the question was phrased in a way that encourages "Aye" votes, making the fact that the vote has slanted toward "Nay" all the more pointed. --Tom Howling 07:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tally count as of Sept. 19, 2006 @ 7:19 AM (UTC):

  • Aye - 4
  • Abstain - 1
  • Nay - 9

Note regarding wikifur personal information policy change discussion[edit]

There is already an established talk page for this: WikiFur_talk:Personal_information --Chibiabos 04:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal Of Personally Identifying Information[edit]

I am going to remove his real name from the Article, because as a furry and a proud one at that, having this kind of information, no matter who this might be is wrong. Regardless of past issues, most of what is in this article is false and very biased information. It is not the responsibility of people who have grudges against a person to be the 'warning' system, this just promotes hate and violence. I've seen time and time again where people take matters into their own hands where the results are almost disaterous. The punishment of a crime is dealt by a judge, and not a website for furry information. The only reason that this article continues to illicit ill will towards anyone, including Sibe, is to mob as a group. This should be of context of information; not bigotry. I have also removed information that has no evidence backing it up. Anyone will Google and some level of intelligence can find out facts, they don't need (and we don't need) intollerance of anything. I can't move you guys to delete the article, but I plead with you as someone who's done a lot worse in his past, but has grown from it, leave the name out. Just the name, and if there is data on Sibe, have evidence to back it up.

Things like, violated probation for (among other things) being on the Internet, which his probation specifically prohibited him from doing ... that's why he was thrown in prison. Those are aspects of the case that no-one but the Portland judicial system would understand...not some random Furry. Honestly guys, I don't want to be involed in flame wars with people, including Sibe, let's extend the olive branch and not be evil people. It's not up for us to decide if this man should be able to get a job, nor why would it be the resonsibility of the WikiFur community to decide that... Things like his badge, and his pictures, they don't have permissions to be posted? I'll remove those in one week if someone can't provide proof of permission to use those photos... Love Fox Diller, (

P.s. Why am I doing this? Because I believe that social grace is something we can always strive for, but is not in our right to deny such to others.--FoxDiller 17:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikifur contents are not subject to the views of a single individual. Please scroll up to the "(VOTE) Should Sibe's RL name be removed from the article to give him a chance to start anew?," and place your vote so your points of views can be added to the rest of the community in deciding this matter Spirou 17:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This violates the vote in progress, not to mention endangers lives by allowing Sibe to continue to offend while denying those who are unaware of him the publicly verifiable facts that he is a convicted, violent felon, and has abused anonymity and being unknown in the furry community, causing great harm. --Chibiabos 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the article:
  1. I have reverted your edits to the article. Voting is still in progress on this issue and consensus has not yet been reached, AFAIK. Nothing sinister intended by that, but it's generally accepted practice around here to wait until voting is concluded on a disputed section of a page before modifying it. (also, please don't insert and sign comments into articles. Comments should be made on the talk pages, thanks!)
Not to mention that the vote was going in favor of retaining the info anyway. --Chibiabos 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. Which information in the article is "false", please?
  2. This website is not "punishing" him, it is merely documenting events which have happened. If by documenting events which have happened, this causes an individual to look bad in the eyes of others, I think it is a reflection more of that individual than of the website that is documenting them.
  3. You mentioned using Google to find out the "facts". Please tell us what you dug up with these Google searches. We'll be happy to add it into the article.
Also, as someone else pointed out above, any reputable HR department is going to do a criminal background check and a credit check when hiring someone, and not paying attention to a random webpage about them. I think this wiki is the least of his problems, insofar as getting employment is concerned. --Douglas Muth 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Plus, the motive of helping him find a job by erasing a public posting of his public criminal record so that he can deny having one is aiding and abetting fraud on the part of Wikifur anyway in my book. I see no reason to honor a request to commit fraud, even if this would be hard to prove or not stand up in court. --Chibiabos 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Should all information not pertaining to furry be dropped?[edit]

A lot of the information in this article has nothing to do with furry, and (it seems) a lot to do with conducting a smear campaign against this individual. I note specifically:

Except they are true and publicly verifiable. --Chibiabos 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
And I discount the poster's whole line of reasoning that follows. Everybody's Wikifur page has content that's clearly "non-furry". For instance, mine goes on at length about my musical background and work life. O.K., you could argue that that's different because I wrote it. Well, let's look at a better example: Uncle Kage. He's never had a hand in the page about him, and it contains lots of "non-furry" content. I doubt you'd suggest that it be removed. --Tom Howling 07:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 9 Dec 1995 and 6 March 1996: Both have nothing to do with furry and both apparently happend before he was 18, thus would under normal circumstances be expunged from his legal record.
Except they haven't. --Chibiabos 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 20 Jan 1999: Were any furries involved in this auto accident?
That he's violent and blatantly reckless with cars should be of great concern to anyone wanting to know him personally or meet him at a convention. If you can't understand why, then it would be wise for me to be extra cautious around you as well. --Chibiabos 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 6 Mar 2001: Nothing furry here.
Aside from the fact this individual has been active at furry conventions and in the furry community and wants your help to return among us by having you expunge his convicted public record from furries' knowledge. --Chibiabos 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 20 Sep 2001: Again, what does his driving record have to do with anything?
All part of his convicted criminal record. It doesn't bother you to have a violent, reckless individual attending cons? --Chibiabos 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as this goes it was actually a part of the fandom as a passenger of his was/still is a furry, namely me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omenbunny (talkcontribs) .

  • 18 Mar 2002: (unaffiliated with the furry fandom): I think this says it all.
I'm still confused as to why you want to expunge a criminal's record so he can continue to wreak serious harm on the furry community. --Chibiabos 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • May 2002: Driving record stuff again; why?
  • 3 May 2002: Thus already tarred as a bad driver, Sibe is further tarred as being mentally ill. Where's the furry connection in this? Why is it presented at all?
  • 5 Dec 2002: Drug use is brought up by implication; where the facts lack, innueno lies?
You are accusing a judge of innuendos? The terms of his probation and the hearing transcript (and even the recording, actually, available from the court as an MP3 burned on CD if I recall) are the public record source of this. You seriously expect to have any credibility calling the judge a liar making an innuendo? --Chibiabos 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nov 2004: Is this information or stalking? Again, where's the furry connection?
Again, Sibe places himself in the furry community. Its criminal activity by somone in the furry community and establishes Sibe has no respect for law and authority. This is very valuable information for any furry concerned for their own safety. --Chibiabos 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 6 Dec 2004: More driving record stuff. Maybe he drives an Audi Fox or a Volkswagon Rabbit? Not seeing the connection to furry here.
  • 28 Dec 2004: Didn't see the word "furry" in there anywhere.
  • Sept 2005: No furry interest that I can see?
  • 5 Feb 2006: If Bound Wolf is a furry (which it sounds like), I can see this being included. Otherwise, the same question is asked: what, if anything, does this have to do with furry?
  • 17 Feb 2006: The accusation is terrible, I'm glad he's not living next door to me, he's an awfully bad person, but what has this got to do with furry again?
  • 7 Mar 2006: More of the same.
  • 23 Mar 2006: Same questions apply.
  • 1 Sep 2006: Why is this even remotely important, furry or not (and it appears to be under the catagory of not-furry)?

Sibe's not nice person, he's hurt people, he's a dick and a lot worse. He's even a criminal. But if the alleged purpose of this article is to document things that are important to FURRY, shouldn't that article stick to things that are FURRY-RELATED? Yes, this information is all based on public record, but is it equally allowable to publish the driving records and arrest records of everyone in Furry simply because they are in Furry?

Sibe is a well known figure in the fandom, and wishes to re-enter the fandom. I'm sure he appreciates people like you trying to help him expunge his record, so the vast majority of furs won't recognize him for the violent, reckless felon that he is. He's abused the anonymity of the Internet time and time again to cause harm to a large number of furs, including artists (and by extension, those artist's fans). His criminal record establishes he has had plenty of opportunities to mend his ways from plenty of departments of justice and corrections, and he has disregarded them all. This is, in fact, exactly why Sibe not only deserves more chances, but anyone attempting to help him have another chance by wiping his record is helping put him in a position to abuse others again and bring more harm to the furry community. He abused this too many times and has gotten away with it too many times already. Why do you wish to help him get back to his pattern of increasingly abhorrent violence and abuse? --Chibiabos 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And as far as this goes, Sibe is most likely not a danger, part of the whole thing that caused him to go against the fandom, as well as start his whole art sharing thing was the fact that a good majority of the fandoms major artists were in essence postig copyright all over their work without any knowledge of how copyright actually works, as well as tring to be a wake-up call to a few that they should seek employment outside of drawing furry art/furry smut. His violence really has nothing to do with the fandom. And as far as the whole removing his persoal information from the web, I think it's a relatively good idea, nobody deserves to have their name, and such spread all over creation because of what they did in the past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omenbunny (talkcontribs) .

Note about removed timeline block[edit]

This block was removed, as it was not referenced:

14 September 2006: Sibe was spotted at "Metrotown", one of the largest malls in the Greater Vancouver Regional District at aprox. 1pm. The group that spotted him consisted of three individuals, two of whom wish to remain nameless for fear of retaliation from the alleged pirate. Upon sighting Sibe, Jessy-Fox, after recovering from the shock of having sighted a convicted fellon, immediatly tried to contact mall security. Unfortunatly upon returning to the spot where they had sighted Sibe, they were shocked and awe'd to find out that he had already departed.

It was added by anonymous users (the first is probably Kyle Fox/User:FoxDiller, judging by this edit). I have no idea if it is accurate or not. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That looked to me like a bad try at being funny when posted the first time. I don't think it's accurate, just me two shekels Spirou 07:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, in theory it is virtually impossible for Sibe to legally enter Canada until 2014. It might be that he lied to get in. It might also be that it's a bad joke, or a deliberate attempt to insert misinformation. In any case, probably not a good thing to have in without any documentation to back it up. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Why would it be "virtually impossible"? Its actually "virtually impossible" to stop someone going into Canada, as the border is much larger than the Mexican border and is ignored, for the most part, even though that's the border most of the 9/11 terrorists came across. --Chibiabos 15:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Note "legally". Just because he has the ability to enter does not mean he has the right to do so legally. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a less-known Vancouver, WA, which is just north of the border between Oregon and Washington (directly across from Portland, OR, which is mostly in Multnomah County). While the above is certainly information of... questionable value, it does illustrate the need for usage of full place names. --DataBank 11:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is, but that's irrelevant in this case, unless the Washington city also is within a Greater Vancouver Regional District and has a Metrotown mall, which strikes me as unlikely. -- KDelany 18:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
What's just as bad is "Washington" being given as the only place name when someone actually means the city of "Washington, DC." DC might be better known, but the state of Washington has a higher population (in total). --Chibiabos 15:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing about such an incident on either of the local furry lists (vfur and vaf). In addition, I've not heard anything about a Jessy-Fox around here; granted a lot of people don't go to meets, but usually there's at least an introductory post or mention at some point. -- KDelany 07:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this Different than Lance_Rund[edit]

What I would like a clear answer on how this is any different then Lance Rund, he requested a removal, for similar reasons, and it was granted.. why not grant this request as well? --Alohawolf 23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Lance has neither a felony record, nor has he ever pirated artwork. --Douglas Muth 23:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Because there people felt that it was not really all that relevant who the person was, while here people certainly do think that it is relevant. That discussion was actually about the removal of information from other articles, which doesn't exactly apply here, but it is a good example of how decisions are made.
The simple reason the article about Mr. Rund (as opposed to the mention of his name in another article) was removed was becuase there was no significant complaint about doing so at the time. This tends to be the case for members of the fandom in good standing. Sibe is evidently not one of these, and there are people here that feel he does not deserve any concessions due to the nature of his actions. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this better suited for a policy discussion elsewhere, but since we are dealing with this topic right now, what are your thoughts about a similar situation with Canis Claxis taking into account the alleged incident at Mephit Furmeet X? --Frizzy 05:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's best discussed at Talk:Canis Claxis, and I would suggest that following Giza's suggestion there would be the best way to go. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Pre-age 18 charges[edit]

Not trying to start something here but I have the feeling I probably am, but in addition to the debate about removing personal information, what about the charges filed before he was an adult? My understanding of U.S. law regarding information pertaining to the legal situations of minors is shakey at best, but it would seem to me, that charges put against one as a minor when one is well past that age, shouldn't be appearing on a wiki - from both a moral and possibly from a legal standpoint. I move to remove those charges (and have their removal be a seperate issue from the other indictment list or the real name) - AbyssWolf

As with all other information on Sibe, it is still publicly accessible. It is not shaky ground of any sort to post a public record. I have no idea why you feel a publicly accessible criminal record shouldn't appear on a wiki article on someone who has broad notoriety (publicity) in the community the particular wiki serves. --Chibiabos 03:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
If there is a legal reason why the pre-18 stuff should not be posted, can you point us to the law in question, please? --Douglas Muth 03:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It may vary from state to state, but generally juvenile court records are kept confidential as opposed to adult cases which are a matter of public record. The philosophy behind this is the hope of rehabilitating younger offenders to turn their lives around without the stigma of a criminal record. This is why the identities of minors are usually redacted from breaking news events and it is not unheard of for the media to get in trouble for improperly disclosing juvenile records.
This can be overidden in cases of serious violent crimes where the accused may end up getting tried as an adult anyway. For more background on this, please read the Juvenile Law Center's article on Privacy in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings. --Frizzy 06:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
To be on the safe side, I've omitted them until someone can come up with justification for their inclusion. --Frizzy 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Washington State does not consider juvenile records to be private. In fact, the idea of "privatizing criminal records" does not exist. The most an expungement does is allow you to say "I haven't been convicted of this crime" on most job applications. It does not, however, allow the records to be deleted, at least as far as Washington State is concerned. Anyone who can go to the King County District Courts can still get the records, they just won't show up on a WATCH check (Washington's version of NCIC).--Gray Coyote
Upon further reading, it appears Sibe's juvenile records were not expunged (cleared) from public record because he did not follow up with the court or stay out of trouble as an adult. I'll leave it up to you folks to decide whether it should be added back, but I would recommend you leave out details that did not directly result in a sentence, probation, or other juvenile adjudication. --Frizzy 17:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, I would like a CLEAR answer on why non-Furry information is pertinent at all, especially the stuff from his driving record. Sibe was never violent against the community, whatever else is sins are. Leave the ddos and copyright infringement in, obviously, but does it really matter that he was in a traffic accident, even if he was at fault? After all, if Sibe's information is public enough for Wikifur because Sibe's a been declared a bad person by Wikifur (yes, he is a bad person), then is it fair to post the same about Hangdog, Squeerat or Betty Roget because they're "bad people", too? Is it fair to post public information about ANYONE in Furry simply because they are in Furry, whether it's releated to Furry or not, with the decision left up to whatever whim the majority is feeling on Wikifur that day?
I don't like the idea that if a group of people on Wikifur decide you're fair game -- FOR WHATEVER REASON -- then you might find your own records posted online, regardless of whether they have anything to do with Furry or not. That's not providing information, that's enacting revenge. Is this really what you want Wikifur to be?
You've ignored my replies and those of everyone else, I guess. "Sibe was never violent against the community" WRONG Sibe's reckless and violent nature is against everyone, but only against non-furs have stuck thus far. Sibe has physically and sexually abused furs, he just hasn't had a conviction. Do Hangdog, Squeerat or Betty Roget have violent felony records? Violent felon is a clear and verifiable status that Sibe meets -- he's been convicted of violent felonies and they are verifiable from public records. Why you want to allow violent, convicted felons to go to cons where they can, do and have (as Sibe did) catch furries unawares. Maintaining a careful watch and holding them accountable for their criminal records is justice, not revenge. Revenge would be eye-for-and-eye, doing unto them as they have done unto others; justice is merely doing what one can to protect innocent furs from those who have caused verifiable harm to others. If a mass murderer got out of prison tomorrow and joined the furry community, hiding under a furry alias so no one would recognize them, would they have a right to demand their record be expunged from a wikifur article?
It is not the duty of Wikifur to clean someone's public criminal record and hide it from the community. Sibe has caused great harm to the furry community, and when reading the wikifur article on Sibe, no one should be denied the right to know that he is a violent felon, and have specific information they could verify and look up from public records with the information in the article. --Chibiabos 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Chibiabos, are you claiming Sibe was actually violent in Furry? Everything I see in this article related to Furry is about copyright infringement or computer nonsense. Can you document some specific physical assault in Furry by Sibe? Can you document where Sibe "physically and sexually abused furs"? I notice you note there was no conviction, so how do we know this happend at all beyond heresay? How has Sibe "caught furries unawares" at cons? If you can't document these fairly seriously accusations, then why are you making them at all? Your whole point about including his criminal record is that Sibe has wrought a path of terror through furry when the evidence shows he really hasn't. You keep trying to link Sibe's activities outside of Furry with the things he did within it, and you're doing so with alarmist, but unsupported, claims. See also: Bush, Iraq, WMD's.
Also, Justice is meted out by people who are answerable to either the law its self or to a higher authority that plays by a set of rules. If I saw some set-in-stone rules about when admission of someone's criminal record on offenses having nothing to do with furry was allowed on Wikifur, I'd feel much better about what's being done to Sibe. Again and repeatedly, the criminal offenses listed have nothing to do with furry, at all.
Once you get past all the hysteria and loaded wording of the entry, all Sibe actually did IN FURRY was: 1) Engage in flamewars on the Usenet; 2) Flood some IRC channels; 3) Posted copyrighted work to pirate channels (and got sued for the same, which is the most newsworthy thing here); 5) Get banned from Something Awful; 6) Engage in some Live Journal drama; 7) Show up at some cons and get thrown out; 8) Be a general pain in the ass. That's it.

General philosophy[edit]

Furries tend to be significantly more open and intimate with one another, and that requires trust. Someone with an established history of violence and attacks against the fandom, including defiling the intellectual property rights of struggling yet much admired artists within the fandom, has no right to hide in anonymity. The last convention Sibe was allowed to attend has closed down. Violent, convicted felons have no place in the fandom except for those who don't care.

It would be unconscionable and unfathomable to allow a person with Sibe's established history to return to the furry fandom to hurt more furries. Having been exposed to individuals in the fandom much like Sibe in their abusive and bullying natures, I have little doubt Sibe's violent, controlling side will continue to grow only worse.

There is no official authority in the furry fandom, no judge to revoke Sibe's furry license. Within the fandom, which knows no geographic nor political boundaries nor borders, the only tools we have to protect and guide ourselves and each other is knowledge and information. Wikifur is an excellent place to explore new things we might like or learn new things about areas in the fandom we thought we knew. It is also a place to learn about the pitfalls and the dangers, and whom we truly need to look out for and protect ourselves and each other against.

Why anyone wants to let someone who has abused both the anonymity of the Internet and easier flowing intimacy to gratify their violent, controlling lust is beyond me. There is an old saying -- fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Sibe forfeited the trust others placed in him, and has done nothing to deserve restoration of the trust he has betrayed. --Chibiabos 14:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say here, with the exceptions of trying to link Sibe's attendance with a con closing down and your unproven accusations that Sibe's been violent in the fandom (which enters "he said/she said" territory). By all means, document that which has to do with fandom and leave that which doesn't out. Ripping into people's personal lives outside of furry is a dangerous and McCarthyesque step, no matter what the offense or intention is. With Sibe, it seems pretty cut-and-dried. My worry is that anyone critical of furry will suddenly find their personal information posted here as well, and with no recourse to have it removed other than the mercy of the editors. Since there's no rules about when personal information can be posted, other than at the whim of the editors, there's nothing to stop this from being done.
If this can be done to Sibe, it can be done to you, me, or anyone else. Justifications never lacks, nor does pettiness in Furry.
We've both made our points now. Surprisingly, there's been no personal animosity or name-calling. This is the most important issue Wikifur will ever face, yet it was handled calmly and cooly. Score one for levelheaded discussion between opposing viewpoints. GG!
Actually, it hasn't been wholly handled civilly; see Sibe's attempts to edit the article and substitute someone else's RL information for his own. You are making a dangerous stand when you personally vouch for Sibe's innocence, because I know for a fact that he is not. Inability to produce evidence does not, in fact, mean Sibe did not conduct the acts. I have no evidence to bear against my own personal abusers; that does not mean the abuse did not happen ... I simply ran and hid instead of standing my ground, thinking to preserve evidence and file criminal charges at the time the abuses occurred.
Regardless, Sibe's violent history is of concern to any community that tends to be a bit more lax in regards to trust, and it is not acceptable to mask his verified violent past.
Think of it this way, purely hypothetical ... suppose you owned and operated a jewelry store. Obviously, you'd want to have trustworthy employees ... suppose everyone you hired had signed statements to the effect that they had never been convicted for anything more serious than traffic infractions ... then suppose you found out one of those people did, in fact, have a history of shoplifting.
By your logic, it wouldn't matter, since they hadn't shoplifted against your specific store, so you should just let them be.
When it comes to violence and abuse, it is much the same -- someone has spent all of their adult life (and even prior to their adult life)
Put yet another way, given Sibe's conviction for what he did to his own roommate, would you roommate with him? How about sharing a room at a con?
I don't know what makes you believe a violent bully stops being a violent bully when they put on a furry hat. Though I've never met him, I understand Sibe is quite charming in person, which fits with my own personal abusers -- meeting them, you'd find them intelligent, charming, even social and gracious. It would be a shock to you to find out they were, in fact, abusive and controlling. You wouldn't believe it, and more to the point, wouldn't want to believe it ..... and, in fact, I believe that to be the greatest source of resistance in the fandom to guarding each other and themselves from bad people like Sibe who call themselves furry. Its the same boat the Catholic Church was in, not wanting to believe it was possible those who rose to become priests could actually rape little boys. No one wants to turn on a brother.
Being welcomed and accepted in the furry fandom is not a right that should be given away freely. Sibe does not have a civilized past. Its not a matter of "eww, he has a fetish for X!" ... its a matter of him, undeniably, infringing the rights of others with violence and abuse. Its not a theory, its not a wild rumor, its a convicted violent record.
I truly hope you do not learn the lessons I have the same way I have. I wouldn't wish that on anyone ... though at the same time, I wish you could understand the importance of not giving away trust based on blind faith, especially in the face of facts that are concernable. --Chibiabos 02:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing to consider is the reality behind Sibe's situation. This is not some pack of rumors that some guy might have harassed girls at a convention, or put out herm art flyers in a hotel. The guy committed actual crimes that involved people getting hurt-- for real. Not hurt pride or hurt feelings or ruined someone's con experience, but things that involved police, lawyers, jails, courts, etc. Keeping an article such as this one in the interests of public safety might be wise. Maybe delete the actual name but keep the aliases and picture.

Journal after release: 5 September 2006[edit]

Sibe's comments on his time in prison, blames the furry fandom, and refers to a fictitious "furry gestopo"/"furry police". This is evidence on how he views what happened, what he says can be quoted from his journal.

...So as far as the stuff from the furry wiki article, for those of you who are curious about whats *really* going on, know that there have never been any charges filed or have I even ever been indicted on any type of "sex crime" of any kind. The reason for that is because I dont do that type of silly bullshit.

That all depends though if you believe in the credibility of a six foot seven, 400lb man who claims that I raped him against his will.

Me being a 6'2", 185 lb man. Anywyays.... I violated my probation and didnt show up in court, plus one of the furries showed up with a picture of me smoking weed out of a bong. It is a shame that furries are trying to make this seem worse then it is. Only 2 more felonies to go and I get life? No this isnt cali, oregon dosent have 3 strikes and your out. Thbbbbt....

...Also the pirate bay got shut down, then opened back up again. I lost about 20 lbs, I weigh around 170 now, been doing a lot of pushups and situps and dips and stuff. Also a lot of people in my life are telling me to leave the whole furry thing behind me and to move on with my life. Part of the problem there is that I always thought furry art was cool, unfortunately it is sold by furries. Not to say that there arent cool people out there, just some of them have no lives and live vicariously through making things that arnt that serious seem very serious.

What I found the most disgusting is how people celebrated my going to jail like it was some type of big thing, its not a big thing. However I wonder if those same people would have celebrated like that if they have ever been housed in a place to keep human beings inside for a long period of time.

Clearly if one inspects some of the more serious allegations against me, one would find them ludicrous. No evidence to support them, as well as the fact that Lonnie "the blob" conspired with several furries, Timba being one of them to attempt to file a report of some "rape" that happened to see if they can get one of the prosecutors to bite...

can anyone[edit]

say CREEPY STALKING? 17:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Terms of his probation[edit]

Does anyone have concrete info on this? This was posted publicly in his journal:

She said I should stay off the internet.

And stop looking at pornography.

And she wanted to see where I post things.

I thought that I still lived in america, where a 27 year old dude

criminal or no could look at some good ol fashioned porn.

In that vein

at (warning that it includes porn, most likely pirated). He's also made posts that he's failed a drug test and continues stalking individuals who have filed restraining orders against him.

I'm hoping someone can and will obtain a copy of the terms of his probation, though I do understand there's been a beaureaucratic mixup that's hindering the process. --Chibiabos 15:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Who elected you his probation officer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Yet Another Opinion[edit]

Few of us appreciate art piracy, including me. This is why there should be an article on WikiFur discussing art theft, or copyright issues. There isn't, but if there were, it would be the most appropriate place to mention things that our community finds distasteful. Yet, even our article on furry art mentions nothing about copyright.

There are many potential legal issues associated with using a "reference" work such as WikiFur to disparage a person. That aside, it also makes furry look petty and vindictive. I'm personally ashamed that this page is considered "one of the best furry has to offer". That alone says a mouthful about what our fandom has to offer.

Take a page from Wikipedia, which, while flawed, is still more objective than most wiki projects. Wikipedia staff are allowed to immediately delete any article that meets the following criteria (G10):

"Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to."

This page is remarkably one-sided for a "reference" work about someone's influence within the fandom. It's nothing but a long list of negative events, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with furry fandom. It includes numerous things about Sibe's home life, psychiatric history, car crashes, and other crimes that did not involve furries. Some of this may even be legally actionable (such as the quotes about his psychiatric history), especially given that many of the references are drawn from second-hand material posted on blogs and newsgroups (if referenced at all).

First Sibe, now DiveFox. Who's next to have their personal information spread all over the wiki? Most furs are given the common courtesy of having their personal information left off of the wiki if they request it; especially their legal name, since "furry" is commonly enough associated with "pervert" in the public eye that our fandom recognizes the importance of allowing people to preserve their anonymity. The only reason that Sibe doesn't get this option is that he's extremely unpopular, and WikiFur is, to an extent, a popularity contest.

Is taking Sibe's personal information and plastering it on a public website an appropriate means of "getting him back" for taking other people's pornographic "art" and doing the same? Is this what WikiFur really should be about? I hope for something better.


--Trickster Wolf 05:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Both articles are not set on stone, this being a living encyclopedia,... There are a couple irregularities on the Divefox article we would like to take a look at, and as for Sibe,... I will reserve my judgement for later (all thought there are a couple paragraphs that i don't think as any baring with his deeds on the fandom,)... Trickster, if you feel you can produce/add some counter-argument references, you are more than welcome to add, or argue the merits pro or con.
It's an open book =) Spirou 06:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree I should contribute more than simply complaining, and I'd like to do that in the near future. My main concern is for the potential for legal fallout stemming from libel. I'd rather not wake up one day to find WikiFur no longer exists because of a court injunction. I'd also rather not find out one day that information on someone close to me has been vandalized with baseless rumors. I have to question whether it's a good idea to keep a bio up of myself, and then I have to wonder whether I'm one of the people who would be allowed the courtesy of removing it--since that appears to be a revokable privilege. It's scary. Even being associated with the fandom is potentially damaging to one's profession, and the kind of anonymity that other fandoms that are often mistakenly associated with fetish sexuality (like BDSM) treat as sacrosanct, furries step on. It's increasingly difficult to avoid being publicly reported on by your fellow furs. When you end up too well-known, your name gets stuck on a website, and you can't pull it off.
Eh. I'm probably just too old for all this.  :)
Trickster --Trickster Wolf 05:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
...I just deleted a 20 minute response entry in one second by mistake,... Xp Will try to re-respond after a Tylenol break,... Spirou 06:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a note here in regards to legal issues: I have personally received legal threats over the content and presence of several articles, including this one. While I do not have reason to believe that any of them are serious threats, if it turns out that they are, I will not allow them to become a chilling effect on the website. I'm not the richest guy in the world, but I'm far from the poorest, either, and I believe I have sufficient resources to defend such a case.
I have a suspicion that any lawsuit that had any injunctive effect would probably have to be against Wikia anyway, as they are the ones with ultimate technical ability to control the presence of information here - I have no more control over it than any other administrator. Wikia staff have experience with such cases through their work on Wikipedia and are likely to be able to deal with such a suit if it happens.
As for the question of anonymity - there is no question that Sibe is being treated as a special (though not unique) case, because many members of this wiki appear to feel that it is appropriate to do so. They have stated their varied reasons for this in previous conversations. Some feel that it is actually WikiFur's duty to warn others about him, as a previously convicted criminal in the fandom. I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but it's certainly not our duty to help him hide the links between his real name and his actions, either - online or in real life. Such removals are made out of a matter of consideration for members of the fandom. When you do things that members of the community deem "bad", they end up individually removing their support for such consideration. Our only true duty as I see it is to make a best effort to ensure that the information here is an accurate representation of the subject. If that really does cause problems for him . . . well, it's unlikely to be his association with the fandom that was the issue. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You're trying to have it both ways here. On the Divefox entry discussion, it's noted that the purpose of Wikifur is not to "warn" people. Yet here you're saying the exact opposite. Given that the majority of Sibe's entry concerns affairs that in no way involve Furry, I have to ask what the purpose for their inclusion is? Why is his driving record included? Why is his criminal record included when it has nothing to do with Furry? Is the criminal record of ANY Furry fair game? The driving record of ANY Furry? Even if these offenses have nothing to do with Furry? What if I knew a popular Furry artist had a conviction for child molestation, would you allow this information to be published here? What about the Furries who've made public claims about being NAMBLA members, should that be published, too? Obviously, both would be of concern to the parents of children who might attend a convention. Are you now saying the dividing line between "knowledge for the public good" and "the right to privacy" is how POPULAR someone is in Furry? Seriously, is this what you're implying? 733 20:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm? Giza said that, not me. People may have different views of what WikiFur should be or how it should work. :-) He was right though, because in general WikiFur contributors think it's bad to have information on here that will hurt people. The question is whether there are any situations in which some information should be included even if it has the potential to harm - in this case, to try to prevent harm to others. Some people think that there is.
What I'm implying is that the WikiFur community has the right to run the wiki how they like it, and that includes making exceptions for people that they consider exceptional. If the contributors come to a consensus that the wiki should generally do something, and that is generally done, then it becomes policy. If contributors also agree to do something different in a particular case, despite these precedents, then that's what happens. That's how wikis work.
Popularity is only a factor because popularity is a measure of mutual respect. If people have a history of failing to respect a particular community, their requests for consideration are unlikely to be given much consideration. Why should they be? In such cases I think that the wishes for those loyal to the fandom to have an accurate reference should come before the wishes of those who have caused harm to other members of it to avoid looking bad to others.
It is not the only factor, though. Favours have limits, and everyone has their own idea over what they should be. In this case, a lot of people appear to be very unwilling to extend Sibe even a small favour, because he has done things that they consider both notable and bad, and they don't want him to be able to hide his connection with these actions, even if it has the potential to hurt him. Conversely, there are some big favours that most people would never grant for anyone. For example, if someone started shooting fursuiters at Anthrocon, it would probably go on their WikiFur article and stay there, no matter who it was or how nicely they asked for it to be removed.
People who have had criminal convictions for child molestation? If they could be confirmed, they'd probably stay. If it were a minor conviction which taken place a long time ago (say, a decade since), some might consider it in the past. Others might consider any length of time (or even an acquittal) insufficient. Since you mentioned it, I would suggest you look at Paul Kidd for a specific example of someone who is well liked by the community but for whom a conviction is still recorded. As for driving convictions, I'd personally love to know if someone had a conviction for dangerous driving before letting them borrow my car, or drive me anywhere. How often do you imagine people want to do that at a convention?
You are welcome to argue that doing different things for different people is morally wrong in general, or that this particular exception to our usual respect for people's privacy is inappropriate - both are valid positions. You may convince the community that you are right, in which case the article is likely to change. My personal view is that there is a big difference between "X has an alt that draws furry pornography" and "X has been convicted of a violent crime". The latter is a matter of public record for some very good reasons, and I think such things should be an exception to our privacy policy.
The key policy I wish to try avoid breaking in this article is neutrality. I don't think this article is non-neutral - I think it makes him look bad to people because he's done a lot of things that people consider to be bad. If you know that he has done some good things that are not mentioned here, I would welcome you to do so. Can you? --GreenReaper(talk) 23:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)