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

Please do not revert information which is supported. Thank you. --GingerM (Leave me a message) 23:07, 6 April 2011 (CEST) Older conversations have been archived. Please view the links on the right if you wish to review old threads.

Discussion Pages


I removed the reference that Zidonuke is a furry known as Doridian as this was both factually incorrect and unreferenced. They are in fact, two different people. To see a WikiFur Administrator adding patent nonsense to a BLP is utterly disgusting. Spirou would be well advised to withdraw until he gets his facts straight. Leon Hunter 11:25, 11 January 2014 (EST)

The removal has been reverted has I left out the reference text clipping on the desktop (thanks for the heads up). And thank for your post has, as I was able to further research the Doridian links, which let me to the necessary links to ref his professional involvement with Pokémon World Online (PWO), and his subsequent hack of the game. The Crashdoom name, though, was not added, as all references to Crashdoom<>Zidonuke are not there, or strong enough to support this claim. Thank you again to pointing out that the reference links were not present. Quite an "oopsie". =) - Spirou 16:26, 11 January 2014 (EST)
I'm again removing this content as there is no proof that Zidonuke is Doridian, all links provided are pure speculation and drama. Can you provide concrete evidence to the contrary? Nothing you've posted proves anything. "WikiFur is not a place to hurt people. Malicious edits, hate speech, et al is not welcome here. Stick to the facts!". Also, despite it being a guideline, WF:NVOR Crashdoom 16:43, 11 January 2014 (EST)
Revert. Reporting somebody's deeds are is not "maliciously hurting them". And locked for the weekend b4 another ad naseum edit warring (same players, surprise). - Spirou 18:26, 11 January 2014 (EST)
Spirou, none of the references you have provided give *any* evidence that Zidonuke (A US Citizen) is Doridian (A German Citizen). In fact, the citations you have provided give conflicting information which is all in the eye of the person who wrote it, those persons include random users on the Internet who have no more credibility than your local tabloids. I would go on further to point out that most of the citations provided openly state that the connection is mere speculation. Hence, it would be a misrepresentation of the sources to state the connection as fact while using those sources as justification. Ergo: If I run around stating that I think Spirou and Greenreaper are same person using enough aliases, it doesn’t make it any more of a fact and your unwillingness to consider the possibility that you are mistaken is not healthy for a project like WikiFur. I must ask you to reconsider your position in the interest of maintaining the high standards of factual correctness that WikiFur strives to achieve.
In the interests of accuracy, the most which could be accurately stated on the article is that there has been ‘’speculation’’ that Doridian and Zidonuke may be pseudonyms of the same individual. This I would be perfectly fine with despite knowing otherwise, however to state it as a definitive fact is not only incorrect but also far beyond the scope of any information available. Given that all four citations you have listed also provide ‘’’conflicting’’’ speculation, one saying Doridian is Zidonuke’s partner, the other saying they ran a server together (but weren’t the same person), one saying they might be the same individual – Surely it can be deduced that the topic is contentious, without any real proof nor consensus from the internet community. So if the internet community is yet to settle on a position on this topic how is it that someone in your position can make an instant ruling that you are correct and that everyone else is wrong, despite having no personal contact with the subject matter? It’s kind of like a fitness instructor writing physics papers, they might look good, but they simply won’t add up.
Furthermore, I am troubled by your remarks and behaviour on this page yet again. Historically, it is not deemed appropriate for a wiki administrator to protect an article in order to preserve his or own edits that lack community consensus…doing so flies in the face of why we are here as a community. If this is the standard of collaboration you desire, perhaps it would be better if you started ‘’“Spirous Personal Blog of Factual Incorrectness”’’ rather than dominating the collaborative process on WikiFur. There are now two editors who disagree with the additions you have made. If you’re observant you would have noticed that Crashdoom and I have had differing opinions on this article in the past. For us to both agree that you are mistaken would conventionally suggest that your additions are worth review. Furthermore, the fact that you have provided false citations for the addition that Zidonuke ‘’’is’’’ Doridian would conventionally suggest that you’re operating here with a level of confirmation bias rather than considering a holistic view. I am also troubled that you would dismiss the contributions of topic-focussed-editors. While it is no secret that the majority of contributions I make are to a select few articles of which I am knowledgeable in, the same can be said of all editors. Editors tend stick to stick to what they know and what is of interest to them. Immediately dismissing edits based on who made them (instead of their substance) is an abhorrently benighted angle to take.
Given the above, I’ll be requesting that another Administrator comment here, as I genuinely believe your involvement here has been to the detriment of WikiFur.
PS: In response to your remark that reporting somebody's deeds is not "maliciously hurting them", I would simply say that stating Person A and Person B are the same individual when they’re not, to the detriment of Person B’s reputation; is malicious. It is malicious because elementary research skills easily reveal that Doridian and Zidonuke are individuals in very different parts of the world, who just have similar interests in IT, programming and playing games (as do many furries). But you seem unable or unwilling to do your own research to find that out, preferring to simply use reddit sub threads. With standards like that I fear that the standard of information on WikiFur will become no better than the standard of information on 4chan. Ergo: Two fifths of fuck all. Leon Hunter 21:54, 11 January 2014 (EST)
" Zidonuke is a furry known as Doridian as this was both factually incorrect and unreferenced. They are in fact, two different people." Citation needed. Please do present any relevant information that contradicts the references provided by all the people, unrelated to each and their services, that were affected by the individual in question, which links the names/identities together.
Tl;dr: If you are able to provide a compelling case thus, these people then have an incorrect assumption on this conclusion, which it will be rectified on the article.
But, until then, once more, watch. your. language. (you been warned about this before). - Spirou 22:20, 11 January 2014 (EST)
Last time I checked WikiFur had a policy of no personal attacks. For which I see none. It also isn't considered coerce for Administrators to hand out warnings to those they are in edit disputes with. Perhaps you might wish to redact that before Green gets here. Just because you bankroll this place (funny how money often correlates with career progression on crowd funded projects) doesn't mean that I'll simply be subservient in the face of farcical behaviour. Furthermore, you would also be well advised that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The extraordinary claim is that Doridian, someone who has an extensive and current Internet presence, who lives in Germany, is in fact a sock puppet of Zidonuke, who lives in the United States. You provide me with an exact quote where a reputable person has stated they are the same person combined with the evidence for such a remark. Until that time, your addition is mere speculation without consensus. Not withstanding that you appear to have dodged most my points but that was always to be expected. Leon Hunter 22:37, 11 January 2014 (EST)

"Two fifths of fuck al", "Zidonuke is a cunt", "It would appear to me that Spirou and Higgs Raccoon have a bad case of Bi-Polar disorder", "But it really does portray a vast ignorance",... This language. Anyways, back to the point:

" Zidonuke is a furry known as Doridian as this was both factually incorrect and unreferenced. They are in fact, two different people." Citation needed. Please do present any relevant information that contradicts the references provided by all the people, unrelated to each and their services, that were affected by the individual in question, which links the names/identities together.

Tl;dr: If you are able to provide a compelling case thus, these people then have an incorrect assumption on this conclusion, which it will be rectified on the article.

...and as for "Your addition is mere speculation without consensus". Nope, it is a group consensus generated outside this Wiki, based on multiple sources/references from people not related to each other, and on distinct, different projects. As for your "They are in fact, two different people", that's actually, until proven otherwise, your opinion, not an established fact.

The solution to this dilemma is presented, e.g. if you wish to make the effort to prove all these people are, regarding this particular notion, incorrect, please, do gather ready your empirical refutal material. I will reestablish the article back to edit status, hoping on a good faith effort on your part to make your valid counterpoint. - Spirou 23:37, 11 January 2014 (EST)

After extensive Googling I have found only a single forum post where a person of little importance had claimed that Zidonuke and Doridian are the same person. This post did not supply any reasons or evidence to substantiate that claim. The Starbound Reddit thread referenced that post and presented it as "speculation", Hence I still feel you have fallen well short of providing evidence for the addition of the alias Doridian to the article when everyone else is merely speculating on the matter. Whilst I feel your request is an unreasonable one due to the fact that proving the matter beyond all doubt would be excruciatingly painful, I'll gladly accept the challenge on the provision that I can present any and all evidence to Greenreaper personally as to protect the privacy of the individuals involved and to ensure that any administrative stance is neutral. Do we have an accord? Leon Hunter 17:21, 13 January 2014 (EST)
If you can disprove any and all the references provided by the parties involved, the changes will be noted on the article, as any reference disputes are handled. - Spirou 17:47, 13 January 2014 (EST)

A path forwards[edit]

OK guys, calm down . . . everyone here needs to assume good faith. We are all trying to make a better article.

Unlike Wikipedia, we allow "original research" where an assertion is not disputed. In this case, it is not good enough for us to state that "X is Y", especially given the nature of these references. Nor is it good to simply remove that assertion. Instead, we must be more specific: "A said X was Y's partner"; "B said X had the same IP address as Y", etc. We need to report what is actually in the source and who said it - things which you both can agree on - so that the reader can make up their own minds, rather than saying "this collection of sources supports this assertion" and putting that in the article.

I'm not getting into the details because honestly I am not particularly interested in them. I am hoping that editors will work towards creating a version of the article which all parties can agree with. That is when you know you have reached consensus - because nobody sees a reason to edit. Such a point is reached a lot faster when editors make it their goal to make each other happy.

Getting there will require expanding into more nuanced coverage of the third-party assertions regarding Zidonuke, Crashdoom and Doridian. You're all capable of editing the article accordingly, so please do so, rather than appealing to authority (either references, or myself) to support your own opinion of the truth. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:13, 13 January 2014 (EST)

Clear. The references that implied Doridian<>Zidonuke were not present/available when first suggested years ago, presently up in the article as they became available recently. The allegation that Crashdoom<>Zidonuke, also suggested in the past, is not up for consideration for inclusion, as the only three allegations are a "hearsay" from a third party, a "because I say so!", and a possible IP match that has no refs available, written or in digital media wise (screenshots). As suggested as a solution before, if any or all the references provided by the parties involved is not accurate or rebutted, they will be stricken from the article. - Spirou 02:28, 14 January 2014 (EST)
I just want to state that our IP addresses will likely match up in multiple cases. Crashdoom has visited my home and has been on my internet. Doridian, Crashdoom and myself shared the same VPN endpoint at one point. We have all been friends over the years and pretty close at times as well. So you cannot assume an shared IP address means they are the exact same person. Zidonuke 18:02, 15 January 2014 (EST)
(To Zidonuke): Here's a suggestion. You have verified links that determine you are indeed Zidonuke. It's logical to assume that somebody like Doridian has spent considerable time in the internet, enough to be accused of all the deeds caused, in short, he/she should have a website, social media, or profile pages on the internet. Indication of such would dispel the allegation brought by third parties. Simple.
I don't known why bring up Crashdoom, as the allegations/references, as stated before, do not support the Crashdoom<>Zidonuke, but if you also want to present the case that you are not Crashdoom anyways (not in the article, so is no skin of your nose), website, social media, and/or profile pages links would do the trick. No, this is not a personal vendetta (I edited the article to reduce the presented non-furry related information on the "Controversy" section), but if several new links are submitted years later that bring up the Doridian<>Zidonuke conundrum again, it should be noted.
But, if it can be refuted in a verifiable way, good!, great!, links and name removed from article, and everybody moves on. - Spirou 18:23, 15 January 2014 (EST)
Well I present Doridian Twitter Steam FA hes also lives in Europe. Zidonuke 18:48, 15 January 2014 (EST)

Revert to pre-Doridian edit (January 2014)[edit]

A one side effort to resolve this issue is counterproductive. Revert/remove issue/reference links to pre-contention saved edit.

Note: Any editors who may wish to revisit this issue, please be advised to review the archived talk page and edit history timeline regarding this matter to avoid a repeat of the consequences that transpired. - Spirou 19:00, 15 January 2014 (EST)

(Edit 16:00 PST): User Zidonuke has provided links that user Doridian may not be related to himself. Any editors may take this references in consideration for possible future edits. - Spirou 19:13, 15 January 2014 (EST)

Fur Affinity[edit]

While the use of a different handle is not controversial by itself, the use of one to conceal the fact that the person who'd broken F-list was now working on FA (and in fact had been for a year) clearly was controversial. We should cover this, but I don't particularly like lumping everything he's done with websites into a "Controversy" section; if there's a better way to present his appointment, the controversy, and his departure, we should probably take it. The bulk of it probably belongs on History of Fur Affinity. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:19, 12 December 2014 (EST)