From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Exclusion request

The subject of this article has requested personal exclusion. Should it be granted? --GreenReaper(talk) 23:56, 6 April 2011 (CEST)

At the risk of sounding like I have a personal issue, my opinion is that given the ban from F-List and the reason for it, the subject is of interest to the community and should not be excluded. However, if not excluded, the article remains editable and any edits mentioning what the issue was and why (banning) will likely continue to be reverted. The noteworthiness of his ban from Second Life does not strike me as being as great, largely because Linden Labs does not publish the fact of a ban or the reason for it; the reference appears to be from the subject's own website, so if he hadn't posted anything about it, it would likely never have been known. The references are available in the edit history of the article if anyone should care to peruse them. As I'm the one who has reverted the recent reversions and it seems as if I'm starting to take this a bit personally, I think I'd better leave it for cooler heads. --GingerM (Leave me a message) 00:15, 7 April 2011 (CEST)
F-List and me both wanted to drop the event as we resolved it long ago, Keeping on this is just pointless, The second life bans are barely worth mentioning because they are the results of internal conflicts that are not relevant to the public, The bans are more or less issues with selected people in LL. And the minecraft thing isn't notable to me at all as most of those bans are from servers I never visited, are are the result of a discussion on a IRC channel and preemptive strikes on me. This page serves nothing but to highlight extreme negatives and further defame my name and cause humiliation. This page was infact created by trolls against me from the F-List incident, A complete issue that was between me and F-List which was resolved. Zidonuke 06:39, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
If personal exclusion will not be granted I request that noindex tags be added. Zidonuke 06:44, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
I am strongly against exclusion and noindex tags because it is being requested by Zidonuke in an attempt to coverup or otherwise impeade people's ability to become aware of his well earned bad reputation. Quite simply, Zidonuke is a cunt who gain's people's trust only to fuck them over later. He did it on F-List and he is now doing it on Minecraft. People have a right to know about the positive AND negative sides of a subject and in this case its unfortunate that Zidonuke has a totally negative reputation but this is his fault, and his fault alone. He now has to live with that reputation and or show that he has changed. Leon Hunter 07:12, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
I don't see how that would make sense. If exclusion is refused, the reason would be to allow others to discover your past when dealing with you. The way to resolve this is not to try to cover it up or change your name in an attempt to escape your actions, but to stop doing the stuff mentioned in the article. You can keep on the path you're on or you can turn around and change these into youthful indiscretions. I've seen both done on WikiFur. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:15, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
And furthermore, even 13 hours ago on YouTube "Currently willing to grief servers with hacks. Leave IP here."[1]. Leon Hunter 07:43, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
The addition of his contribution to hungle is interesting. In total, he made less than 5 commits to the huggle codebase (out of 500+ in total) and has since had his commit access revoked for reasons unclear, I feel the scale of his contribution to huggle is not represented by the current context and furthermore misrepresents the timeline, his limited contributions to the Huggle project were in Oct 2010, the F-list / Secondlife / Minecraft stuff came after that. Leon Hunter 17:33, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
I still feel that Leon Hunter is a single solitary troll that is out for blood for me for his own personal reasons rather than doing things for the the good of everyone. I believe that unless other contributors can work with my article that it should be taken down. Zidonuke 20:09, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
Firstly, I am no troll. I am a person who has been affected by your actions and I don't take kindly to that. But all that aside, you can't fuck people over as you did with F-List and Minecraft and then cry foul when people don't say nice things about you and feel motivated to make your history well known so people treat you with a level of caution when it comes to positions of trust. Secondly, I am not alone in this view, there are many people who have been affected like me who wish to make sure your history is represented in a factual manner and whilst you dont like the facts, they are the facts. I have better things to do than to troll some shithead kid, trust me, but making your history known so that you dont weasel your way into another project that affects me IS within my interests and the interests of people in the furry community. If I was out for blood I would do so in more innovative ways then merely editing your WikiFur article. Live with the consequences of your own actions. Leon Hunter 21:10, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
Oh and btw, Cute SL Avi (seriously) Leon Hunter 21:13, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
I'm agreeing with Leon on this one. Furthermore, Zidonuke has stated that he's okay with F-List now, but I can state with certainty that this is not the case. If we (F-list's moderators, admins and coders) were on good terms with Zidonuke, certainly he would not remain banned now.
Also, as said earlier; this article's purpose is not to slander your name, it's to provide information. Zidonuke has proven several times that he's a very unpredictable person, gaining people's trust only to stab them in the backs later on. I think it's interesting to know that when Zidonuke "hacked" F-list, he didn't do this on impulse. He had backdoors installed on the server, which evidences that he had been planning an outburst like this all along. So, he never did things because he has an anger management problem, but simply because it's what he does - probably because he enjoys it. Zidonuke has repeatedly shown that he's not willing to stop all this either, so I think this page covers a matter that concerns everybody. It's important to tell people who to avoid. Viona 12:37, 13 April 2011 (CEST)
I ran into multiple personal issues with the page existing now. I beg to request its takedown at this point... Seriously... I have to keep explaining myself to everyone who even sees the page now... Zidonuke 01:48, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
You have to explain yourself? Thats more than the users of f-list, minecraft and secondlife ever got. Leon Hunter 02:19, 26 April 2011 (EDT)</s>
I've had a change of heart on this issue, I've spoken to Zidonuke personally on Steam out of interest. He is indeed a person, with his own set of issues and I no longer feel it is appropriate for WikiFur to be used as a smackboard in this instance. I feel that the article smacks of punitive punishment and privacy evasion which, if the old saying two wrongs don’t make a right is anything to go by, isn’t the right thing to do. I think Zidonuke generally lets his emotions and at times boredom get in the way of his otherwise outstanding contributions to various projects and his request to be excluded must respected. I honestly think that Zido is somewhat scared because people are instantly disliking him due to this article and are making that well known to him, WikiFur has a duty of care here and a moral obligation to not impose unwanted attention on people if it’s going to affect their health and I think that this is potentially the case with Zidonuke. I recognise this might be seen as the backflip of the century but talk to Zido, he's more human than you would think. I started this article myself and 90% of the substance has come from myself alone, I would also like said content removed. Leon Hunter 02:57, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
Wow, that was really drastic. At first you're being 100% rational about this stuff, now you're fully letting your emotions take control of your opinions. Yes, this article may conflict with moral values regarding Zidonuke, but removing the page would conflict with any moral values regarding the people he has hacked in the past, and the people he will be hacking in the future. Even -during- his attack against F-list, he kept telling the site's founder that he was sorry (and that he'd quit doing stuff), right before taking a next step and making things even worse. If Zidonuke has been telling you that he's sorry about the stuff he's done, and you believe him, then you're just another person to have fallen for his blatant lies. Viona 08:08, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
Did he hack you or did you fail to vet your staff properly? If I recall correctly it was the later so F-List staff coming here preaching anti-zidonuke slogans does your image no favours when you gave said person all the access in the world without any peer review of actions. It could have been anyone that did what Zidonuke did. In any case, when I wrote the article its sole purpose was a punitive retaliation to what he had done on F-List and as we all know WikiFur is not the place for this. As it stands the article still serves that same purpose. I cite various WikiFur policies in support of exclusion including "In addition, not everyone is a public personality, and some take offense at the idea that other people would be able to write anything they want about them on a public site. Yes, this is the wiki way, but remember that WikiFur is not intended to hurt anyone. In general, it is sensible not to include people who do not wish to be included in WikiFur. This is usually not a problem if they really don't want to have a presence here. " and furthermore "If you do not wish to be included in WikiFur, please contact an administrator requesting removal. The request will need to come from a verifiable address. In most cases, your request will be granted. This will entail complete removal of the article about you, and its replacement with the notice". That is the policy regarding exclusion, some people might say it leaves a margin of judgement by the admins but seriously who are the admins to decide whether someone’s genuine request for exclusion is to be up held or not, the person requesting exclusion should not change the outcome it is common decency. Talking of the future is somewhat interesting because you don’t know if he is going to change, or if he isn’t and your claims regarding him continuing (after saying sorry) are at best unverifiable and I won’t take them on face value as you seem to have a vested interest in shit canning Zido. WikiFur has moral obligations here, the page has been used to oust Zidonuke's personal, real life information and those revisions are still accessible which I strongly disagree with, the least GreenReaper could do is respect Zidonuke's request. Leon Hunter 08:41, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
So you mean that, in case a person abuses their admin privileges, the other admins are to blame, because they gave them these privileges. Eh, okay... I'd like to note that Zidonuke helped out quite a lot at first, and gained Hexxy's trust on a personal level. People are no robots, and are never predictable, so what Zidonuke did couldn't have been helped -- It could just as well have been one of the other admins or coders who destroyed the website on a rage trip, but they don't do that, since they're not the kind of hacker that Zidonuke is. (At least, I kinda trust they aren't... As I said, nobody is predictable.) To respond to your last point: If your concern is the personal RL information on this page, then I'm fully okay with that. Remove the line saying that Zidonuke lives in Virginia, and there'll be no more privacy issues. Viona 09:36, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
Given some further thought, the article lacks neutrality and details what he has done in the past without going into his motivations or context for doing so at the time. He cannot, out of moral obligation, reveal these motivations without breaking the confidentiality of in-staff discussions and what bullshit was happening behind the scenes at F-list that triggered him to do all this. So if he can't tell his side than I see no reason for the article to exist in any way shape or form. Lastly, Zidonuke is not a hacker, hackers break into systems, every incident I’ve seen involved people handing him access on a silver platter and pissing him off later. I also got a smile out of the fact you side stepped most my arguments, including WikiFur's own policies on this matter and the ones you did address you turned into Straw man arguments. Running for politics anytime soon? Leon Hunter 09:42, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
I'm certainly not opposed to adding details about his motivation, but I'd like such information to be valid before it is posted. Of course, I won't be able to crawl into his head to check whether what he says was his actual motivation, but if his explanations contain any fallacies, I will continue pointing them out. From what you've been posting (and been saying to me in private), you seem to be intent of having his side of the story included, which is good, but you seem to be really reluctant to anything I can tell you as a person who witnessed everything from a first row seat. Viona 14:17, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
Anyway, I'm going to refrain from posting here, at least for now, because the kind of support Zidonuke is getting is starting to frustrate me. I don't want to post anything that might slander Leon, myself, F-list or Zidonuke, so I'll keep from giving myself the chance to do that. In case it's required, I'll gladly talk about this in private though. Viona 14:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Rather ridiculous page

It was a very useful page when it still stated that he used to be an admin on f-list, and that he abused his power there. It was then reverted to simply stating that he's a furry and a programmer, which held no informational value whatsoever. But the way it is right now is just plain ridiculous in my opinion. "Best known for his work on F-list and Second Life"? He is not known for either of these, simply because his "work" mostly existed of hacking into everything that was remotely hackable. I suggest we either remove this page entirely, or put some truth on it, concerning what exactly makes Zidonuke a noteworthy person. Viona 16:24, 8 April 2011 (CEST)

Notability is not required for an article. However, those supporting the refusal of an exclusion request should provide a clear reason for doing so. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:33, 12 April 2011 (CEST)

Removal of personal information

I am requesting that in lieu of the article being excluded, information such as Zidonuke's location and real name be removed from both past and present revisions as they serve no useful purpose and exist solely to out Zidonuke's real life identity. Furthermore it violates privacy acts in certain jurisdictions to have such information listed. Leon Hunter 11:05, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

I honestly don't mind his private information being removed, as I already stated in the previous discussion. All I want is that innocent people's security is higher on the priority list than a criminal's "security". In other words, people have the right to know this person's past, so that they can protect themselves against him. They don't need to know his real name for that, since he never uses it as a handle online anyway. Viona 11:24, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
I am fine with this, with the understanding that it will not affect any furry aliases which he may use now or in the future. --GreenReaper(talk) 11:36, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
I can't foresee anyone using their real name as an alias, if that arises I’m sure it can be dealt with at the time. Leon Hunter 11:50, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Innocent until proven guilty?

I've heard of what he did, but no ones proved any facts, WikiFur is not a court.

Innocent until proven guilty? it seems to me these edits are an attempt at a kangaroo court? Viona, What jurisdiction are you in that you think it's ok to off the wall call him a career criminal without any real world legal trail taking place or a psychologist saying such. When he's within the custody of a court or prison service and has been sentenced by a Judge with a crime that's a proven fact he's committed then he's a criminal, and up until the single point he has served that amount of time a Judge asked him to serve and has left the jurisdiction of that court or prison service.

I don't see him charged with any crime, no link to any court documents or any evidence it was escalated beyond a TOS violation, so you don't have a free speech right to call him a criminal though he may have committed acts that where against the TOS of such websites and his punishment was a banned account, not a trip to court so please remember the rules on defamation, protecting the innocent is not an excuse for you to meek out your own brand of long term personal punishment.

It makes you look like a vigilante out for personal justice and vengeance. Which is what you appear to be in your own words, I've had experience with your types and I've been watching this and I'm disgusted in your attitude you're not a judge and neither is WikiFur it's supposed to be factual not hearsay, back up what you say with facts linked to a court document or stop editing. If it's the truth then some part of it's ok to say but calling someone a criminal before it's a proven fact by a court of law might fall under defamation, and protecting the innocent as you put it should not be at the expense of his personal and legal rights. --Bunjie 12:14, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

Hmm hmm, now what exactly is the purpose of this post? Is it to call me a hypocrite? Is it to urge me into providing proof for what has happened? Is it to have stuff on here removed? You seem to be jumping from one subject onto another, and I'm not even sure whether you're getting ad hominem against me or not. Nevertheless, your first point is valid. Wikifur is not a court, therefore "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply here. We know what has happened, and what Zidonuke has done. Zidonuke has admitted it and has talked about it in public on multiple occasions. You know just as well as I do that he's wronged many people, and if I take the liberty to call him a criminal, I might be exaggerating (although I heard some rumours about Minecraft server owners dragging him to court, but then again, rumours are just rumours) but I'm certainly not in the wrong to do so. And no, I'm not here for personal vengeance. I'm simply here to protect the integrity of this article by posting the things I know. Viona 13:49, 27 April 2011 (EDT)


Shouldn't the edit here also be suppressed as it contains information that was supposed to be removed from the article? Crashdoom 17:22, 22 May 2013 (EDT)

Huh, I guess I missed that one. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:30, 22 May 2013 (EDT)

May 2013 edits

Due to edit warring, de formatting, wrong formating, redundant data, moving information to wrong sections, non-acceptable ref links, etc,... Plus the once stated prohibition of the reinsertion of personal data by Leon Hunter, the article is temp locked until I can get to it after working hours - Spirou 12:07, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Needless to say I’m rather frustrated with the recent developments imposed by mindless entities, but rather than yelling and shouting I’m going to marshal my facts and explain why it is I believe that there was little wrong with revision 403031 of the article.
Firstly I’d like to point out that there was no edit warring. Edit Warring is when two users are fighting about the content of a page. Could you please inform me as to where the edit warring between two users occurred? I understand that I was making rapid edits to the article but that was nothing which couldn’t be resolved with a talk page message either on my page or the article if it bothered anyone. The blanket protection of an article purely because an Administrator doesn’t agree with its content is absolutely ridiculous and counterproductive. And the “Piss off let me write it” attitude exhibited on this page can be responded to with nothing but contempt. How dare you. I get the vibe you’re in the wrong sort of business but that is purely my personal opinion.
On the topic of personal information, I struggle to understand why adding the state, age, and publically associated company of the subject is such a gross violation of privacy. It would appear to me that Spirou and Higgs Raccoon have a bad case of Bi-Polar disorder. They love it when they personally hunt down and link to every single one of his private accounts, which “co-incidentally” contain ALL of the “private” information I posted on the article. Yet when well-meaning editor comes along to expand the article so it isn’t the vague stub seen in revision 346366, using information readily accessible by existing references and Google, an administrator locks the article, makes a sweeping deletion of a large block of text (which contained NO private information but established a pattern of behaviour which is relevant to the subject) and basically says “Step aside *pulls up pants* let the professionals handle this”. Not one attempt was made by the Administrator to communicate with me any of the following: A) The Style is incorrect B) That Pastebin reference isn’t useable, can you find another? Or C) Leave that information off. Not one attempt prior to full protection. Oh, and on another note, GreenReaper publically outs the guy’s full name on Furry News Network, yet he doesn’t want it done on WikiFur? Gold. What true hypocrisy.
So why should the private information be included? I’ve argued both sides of this debate so I know it very well. You’ll know the reason it was removed from the article in the first place is because I personally asked for that to occur. So why the change of heart? Over time I have come to realise that some of the information does contribute to the substance and interpretation of the article. Obviously, a 44 year old computer programmer and a 22 year old computer programmer have different levels of maturity. The subject was barely out of his teens when he became well known for his negative behaviour (NPOV is something I’ll get too shortly). His age helps give readers and understanding of what benchmark of maturity they should be using when reading this article, is publically available information and was not his date of birth (which could be considered too private). His state not only gives further geographical context, such as southern or northern states, but it gives the reader an idea of which laws the subject is governed by. In many jurisdictions what the subject has done would be considered a felony. Knowing the jurisdiction adds this context. Lastly the workplace he is associated with establishes that he is a highly skilled person in the area of IT, working for a Fortune 500 company. In relation to the types of things he has done over the course of several years, any reader would naturally be interested in that information as it adds depth and clarity to the article. All this information, is public and indexed on the Internet. And yet when that information is compiled it’s seen as “oh no, bad”. THAN WHAT ARE YOU FOR? Isn’t an article meant to be a complete, factual representation of the subject? Isn't that your goal? To have a COMPLETE compendium of everything that furies want to know? You denied him the right to exclusion so don’t, for a second, claim that “Oh, he has a right to pick and choose what information he wants on the site”. As I said, Gold that it is absolutely fine to use his real name on Furry News Network, but don’t do it on Wikifur.
Secondly, I understand and respect the need for articles to maintain a neutral tone. However it must be said that when 90% of everything that a person is known for is bad, the article may have an unavoidable negative tone by nature. You go to the article of any serial murderer or rapist on Wikipedia (a site with stricter guidelines than Wikifur) and you’ll realise that it’s not nice reading for the individual. Well, Zidonuke is a person who on a serial basis gains the trust of communities and then fucks them over. It’s the same thing. No amount of window dressing can avoid this. But does that mean we should only make brief mention of the person’s ills? No, it doesn’t. I’d happily expand on his contributions to Huggle or Second Life if that were duly possible, but unfortunately it is not possible since that’s all there is too it. But anyone who visits this article will no doubt want to know (in detail) about the F-List incident and all incidents that he has been involved with. We should not deprive them of that information out of some sick sense that it isn’t “fair” to list all the bad things when there is so little good to talk about. That..was..his..choice.
And Lastly I concede to Spirou that the formatting may not have been ideal, that one or two references may have been ultra vires to Wikifur’s referencing policy. But that is what the edit button and talk page is for. You don’t need to use the protection button and shut everyone out because they styling is wrong. Because well, I’ve got news for you, the styling on 80%+ of WikiFur pages doesn’t follow the guide anyway. In regards to the duplicate referencing, I was cleaning that up and would have done so if not locked out by the benighted Administrator.
So yes, have fun writing the article by yourself Spirou. I look forward to reading an article which covers all the topics, is completely referenced whilst still maintaining a neutral tone. Good luck with that and I’ll be sure to comment. Leon Hunter 12:52, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
Oh and, It should be noted that the subject of the article stuck on a NoIndex tag years ago after his exclusion request was declined and not one Administrator noticed it nor took the initiative to take it off. Yet when a well meaning editor spends an extensive amount of time trying to expand the article and give it detail, the article is protected and (again) the admin practically posts a civil "piss off let me do this" message on the talk page. If only they watched the things that really mattered, oh well, I guess I'm an idealist. Leon Hunter 13:01, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
It would appear to me that Spirou and Higgs Raccoon have a bad case of Bi-Polar disorder. They love it when they personally hunt down and link to every single one of his private accounts, which “co-incidentally” contain ALL of the “private” information I posted on the article.
A curious statement seeing as the only edits I have made to the Zidonuke article were to roll back a blanking and to include his fursona species. Oh, and Leon? A word of advice: You might want to drop the personal insults or you'll find yourself blocked from editing.--Higgs Raccoon 13:08, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
But... I already am blocked from editing. It's called "I'd like to try and finish editing this page and I can't because benevolent dictator protected the only page I want to edit right now without even communicating with me prior". Also I see what happened with the links and redact my remark about you "hunting them down", but the fact that you edited them (and did not remove them) is still tantamount to an endorsement of them being there. Leon Hunter 13:16, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
Why is this stuff suddenly coming back up again? Zidonuke 13:21, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
It will be gone/fix as soon as we repair Leon's disregard of a rule set a while back - Spirou 13:49, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
Can you please readd the NoIndex tag to the page as well? It's been there for more than a year. Crashdoom 14:03, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
The NoIndex tag was thrown in there by the subject after his exclusion request was declined. I hardly thing that was within the intentions of GreenReaper declining the quest. Leon Hunter 14:08, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
You said in an edit that I told you on IRC that consensus was required to remove the tag. What I actually said was pretty much the opposite: "I actually don't think it should be noindexed, though I don't have strong feelings about it. If you want that, you should argue for it on the talk page, because it does not appear to have been part of the original conversation. With the removal of the real-life personal information, it is unclear why the article should not be indexed." Also, please don't treat my personal views as a ruling from on high. This is a community and articles are to be based on the consensus worked out between editors, not determined by appeals to authority. --GreenReaper(talk) 15:33, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Cut the hyperbole/dramatics

The main reason for the lock down was edit warring. The article clearly stated that "Location and real name (was) removed per consensus decision - see talk", a notice thst you removed, and promptly started to insert that personal information back in, plus extras ("it's believed..."), plus you reverts of several edit formats on the article (brackets around aka's, 3 times, warned about it). What part of "Location and real name (was) removed per consensus decision" gives you leeway to circumvent the omission of somebody's personal data?.

Going back through the deleted revision pages, you clearly were gunning to have all his personal information show up on the article. When I made I routine edit yesterday, you promptly deleted the PII notice, and starting to all his personal information back in. Dictatorship?. No try "moping up the mess with somebody with POV agenda". If you can't follow rules, with civility, please abstain in "helping" with any and all articles in the wiki.

Tl;dr?: You restarted it, we have to go behind you and fix it. Which now i have to do during my lunch break to bring the article as quickly back online - Spirou 13:46, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Where was I warned exactly? Oh! In an edit notice supposedly. Is that now protocol for warnings? Oh, when you get around to re-writing the article, don't forget to add that he now develops for Fur Affinity as I was just enlightened. Leon Hunter 13:54, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
And who would have ever thought that the following summary's, abbreviated to hell no less, could me construed as "warnings"
"(Wikify (Medium) +Wikipedia/ext ref links -double links +Ext link -()/re-insert "previously known as" on aka's paragraph +Unref tag)
(Wikify (Medium) +Section +Wikipedia links +fix Twitter addy -F-List ext link (empty data) +Ref links format +Ext links +Unref/Clarify tags (ambivalent accomplishments))" Leon Hunter 13:58, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
Typically editors pay attention to edits by other users and also read edit summaries, after all, isn't that what they're for? To inform you about the edit and the reason for it? Sorry if I'm too closely relating WikiFur to Wikipedia on this, but that tends to be the understanding on most MediaWiki run wikis. Consensus isn't a one-man show, it's based on the opinions and decisions of an editorial group of people, if one person decides to go back on that then you're in the wrong and should face the music. Yes, this isn't Wikipedia but take a page out of their book will you? WP:CONSENSUS WP:NPOV WP:NPA Crashdoom 14:00, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
I totally agree and vaguely read the edit summaries. But it really does portray a vast ignorance to assume that anyone would take any of those summaries as a warning. The PI comment within the article is fair call, I'll accept that. But to say that I (as in me specifically) was given 3 warnings in any way shape or form is unsubstantiated tripe. Seeing as we're both familiar with Wikipedia, Is a warning Leon Hunter 14:06, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
"Don't forget to add that he now develops for Fur Affinity as I was just enlightened." Please do so, if you could, as I just spent my lunch time fixing an article. Thank you - Spirou 14:34, 23 May 2013 (EDT)
I've decided to abstain from editing the article. As you so well pointed out my interests in this topic are not that of a neutral person and thus my input, according to your personal opinion, would be entirely superfluous and only serve to hinder this amazing institution. I wouldn't want to be a burden, so I'll just stick to my own personal article and that of my community. Leon Hunter 15:07, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

"I've decided to abstain from editing the article." As you wish. "my input, according to your personal opinion, would be entirely superfluous" ...but don't do so based on fabricated assumptions. The statement "If you can't follow rules (as in "Location and real name (was) removed per consensus decision - see talk"), with civility (no personal attacks), please abstain in "helping" with any and all articles in the wiki." does not equate to "Your further edits to this article are now considered 'superfluous' (e.g. Unnecessary, redundant, unnecessary, needless), i.e. we don't want you to hinder out amazing dictatorships with your contributions."

One final note regarding fabrication: The actual FNN article title regarding Zidonuke's F-List hack was "Rogue coder’s attack takes F-List down", not "Zidonuke ([personal name redacted]) taks down F-List, a Furry Fetish Roleplay Site" as you wrote. Accuracy helps. - Spirou 22:42, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

The current version of the article no longer features the title I had referenced. However, I found an archived copy which shows the page title in question was still in use on the 17th of June 2013 - Well after this response accusing me of fabrication was made. Please note the page title accordingly as you seem to have read the article title. Furthermore, I'll trust you'll retract the accusation that I fabricated anything and will do well to look properly in future. Leon Hunter 17:34, 13 January 2014 (EST)