Forum:Chibiabos' requests for blanking

List of articles
Chibiabos has requested that the following entries, which he created about his characters, be deleted from WikiFur:


 * Chibiabos and User:Chibiabos
 * Jolt
 * Londikin
 * Londikin (Haven MUSH)
 * Londikin (Spheres MUX)
 * Londikin (Meadows MUCK)
 * Kunagnos
 * Mahxissa
 * Zetan
 * Fortivirago
 * Ironhoof
 * Strongheart
 * Klondike
 * Terrayme

Discussion
Over on his user talk page, Chibiabos has requested that articles about himself, his creative works, and his characters be blanked (there is a specific list there).

As I said on User talk:Spirou, as the character articles are about roleplayed characters with distinct identities, histories, species, et cetera, I support keeping them and keeping them as separate articles. The pattern here is for such characters to have their own articles unless there is a very small, unexpandable amount of information, or the character is primarily a fursona. I don't think either of those points apply in this case.

More generally, while I wouldn't argue that these articles are of any very significant import (although in a number of cases they are about characters on multiplayer worlds which have since closed, and information about such is worth preserving) I am made uncomfortable by the thought that articles not about a person themselves could be deleted due to a (former) contributor's request. I think that would be a bad precedent to set.

-- Sine 18:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea is well argued (I retired my request for Spd based on it,) the only thing I pointed out later is that if it would to serve a better purpose for cross-reference to have them (the characters) being consolidated in one page, which then it would be linked to his article (even i it's locked.)


 * More or less the same solution we did with the Anthroness characters, were they were consolidated into a single article (The_Anthroness_(characters),) then linked to the main article. just my two cents on ye matter =)


 * -- (Spirou at a remote station) 63.204.227.202 19:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see a reason to consolidate the characters into a single article, as they're not related other than by having been created by the same person. I don't think The Anthroness characters form a parallel case, as those were extremely short, list-format articles on characters from the same comic. -- Sine 20:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "I don't think The Anthroness characters form a parallel case, as those were extremely short, list-format articles on characters from the same comic," ah, I forgot that logical angle. All right then, I retract my suggestion of character article consolidation. Which brings us to the crux of the matter: Removal as asked by owner, claiming intellectual property?, or inclusion on Wikifur as furry historical data?. My opinion?: Abstain, not due to intellectual or copyright reasons, but due to getting too involved in matters related to said individual,...


 * --(Spirou at a remote station) 63.204.227.202 20:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't just remove a person's contributions if they leave. However, I feel that characters can be a private detail about a person, and as such are covered under the personal information policy unless otherwise notable (for example, if they were a member of a comic like Miss Mab it might be appropriate to record their in-comic details). These are not comic characters - they are personal characters. I therefore think these should be deleted. We would delete the same information if it was on the page about them, after all. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree that these characters are personal; they were roleplayed on publically-accessible multiplayer worlds, and I would say are thus in essence story characters. -- Sine 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not all the worlds were publicly accessible; you had to register for an account in some. I was the primary contributor, and in most cases the only one with the exception of minor edits and "seed stubs" created by GreenReaper gleaned by my furvey.  You're welcome to revert to those if you absolutely must irritate me by continuing to associate my furriness with wikifur.  --Chibiabos 12:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you ever use any of the names as aliases in public writing? If so, I would argue that those should stay. 733


 * Not one of them would fit the bill to be an article on wikipedia. The only reason to keep them is to continue to irk me, and it does a good job of that.  --Chibiabos 22:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I stayed out of this from the beginning since I didn't know enough on the topic to take sides (I also dislike conflict), but it's been 3 months, and I'd like to see this issue resolved ASAP. I think that the character pages should be deleted, as I strongly believe they are personal creations - whether or not they were played in a 'public' realm, they are still the intellectual property of the owner. Would the same standard be applied to fursonas being RPed as characters on Tapestries or Furry MUCK? Seeing as how we allow fursona names to be protected-excluded (as opposed to only real life names), I think not. I'd be very upset myself if someone said Spaz Kitty, Sumu, or any of my other roleplayed-creations weren't my "personal" character, but rather a publicly-owned concept.
 * As such, I believe that all of Chibiabos' characters should be removed if he so desires them to be. While I do support the gathering of information, particularly with past MUCKs, I see this as counterproductive - to me, links from characters on MUCK listings to the player may help reconnect old RP-partners, but when the player of a character has decided to remove themselves from WikiFur, then the aforementioned purpose is no longer achievable. Spaz Kitty 16:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I for one did not suggest that characters become a publically-owned concept. I do, however, think that information about characters should remain publically available, once that information has been made available.

As I believe I stated somewhere above, or other discussions, I am very bothered by the precent of removing someone's contributions solely because they left in a snit fit; it seems to be giving in to spite.

While re-connecting people from multiplayer worlds or other activities is an interesting and laudable effect, my understanding of WikiFur is that it is a collection of information, not a directory, and such connections are not a purpose here. (Not indenting to cut down on squishing.) -- Sine 17:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I formally, fully and completely cancel, refuse and refute any and all rights for "Wikifur" or any other website or webservice, to maintain, retain, or republish my creative works and/or creations in whole or in part, including those I may have contributed to such websites or webservices in the past. Regardless of legal enforceability, any continued storing of any of my creative works constitutes a violation of my specific and explicit wishes.


 * I do this as my only means of protest of general issues of imbalanced and whitewashed articles on pro-piracy and pro-bullying groups and websites, Wikifur continues to maintain personal sexual harrassment against me in several article talk pages and has refused to do anything about it, but when I refuted bogus points (either made up or meaninglessly selectively applied) made in support of deleting articles I had written which documented artists' explicit refusals of unauthorized redistributions (contradicting the bogus "Do Not Post lists means we aren't pirating" claims made by some piracy websites), I was banned from WikiFur. Having a point of view that is different from the majority on Wikifur is a offense by banning, but sexual harrassment of someone who isn't popular is rewarded with official Wikifur administration liasons and protection of their whitewashed articles.  This behavior, which has not changed, I will not support, condone, tolerate nor associate with in any way, shape nor form.


 * I fail to see how any of my 'character articles' offer anything significant to Wikifur and their continued presence is in defiance -- whether willful or merely neglectful -- of my request over my own creative works I made months ago. --Chibiabos 10:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As noted in Copyrights, you cannot retract the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) under which written work is submitted to WikiFur. -- Sine 21:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikifur admin has violated Wikifur's own Term of Service in very bad faith and as such, no contractual agreement I made, expressed or implied, is valid. --Chibiabos 12:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Er... I don't think that's how contracts/license agreements work. Using your logic, I could get out of paying for Windows because it keeps crashing. ;-)  --Douglas Muth 14:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You could probably demand a refund, if the crashes are due to defects in the software. We have not paid Chibiabos anything for their work, though, and in the lack of consideration (the legal technical term) there is no contract. The GFDL is however a license, and not a contract. It is not clear to me whether or not the legal right to revoke a non-exclusive license exists. It is a big issue that nobody here has the background to address. A decision here should probably be based on whether it's morally the right thing to do rather than whether or not there is the right to demand it. --GreenReaper(talk) 15:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning toward excluding it. Even though GFDL can't be retracted, admins of WikiFur can choose not to host a particular GFDL document. And the characters will still be listed on the pages for the MUCKs, so it's not like we're hiding anything. --Rat 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The logic behind the demands is faulty but I think it's the best thing for all concerned if they're just deleted and the issue is closed. --Lynn Onyx 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can think of some much stronger words to say with respect to this matter, but all I'll say is that I'm on the same side as Lynn Onyx on this, for the sake of conclusion. If someone else recreates them in the future, that's not WikiFur's problem. --Scani 15:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Scani, could you elaborate on "If someone else recreates them in the future, that's not WikiFur's problem."? -- Sine 18:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll do my best, Sine... my argument pretty much falls along the lines of notability on this site (which I know has been disposed of as compared to Wikipedia, but still). Quoting Chibiabos earlier in the discussion:
 * I fail to see how any of my 'character articles' offer anything significant to Wikifur... (I personally find this remark kind of funny considering they were posted in the first place, but I digress.)
 * When a player posts character articles, they really don't have a claim to notability, because clearly your own creations will have FAR more importance to you. We've established on the site that this level of notability is okay for posting articles. However, if someone else came along and created articles on those same characters, that establishes a higher level of notability. In the former case, requests to delete are justifiable. In the latter case, this is less so, with the justification for deleting decreasing as more people edit the article and take an interest in the subject, establishing a public interest which WikiFur shouldn't interfere with; hence why I say that if there's been notability established by someone else creating an article, it's not their responsibility to argue with WikiFur admins. They need to argue with the fandom at large, an argument they'll likely lose. In this particular case, I don't think very much of that public interest was established, which strongly suggests a delete. That having been said, I don't think that this has been handled in an appropriate fashion by the petitioner, to the point where it's admittedly gotten me more prejudiced than I should be in this discussion. It reeks of a bad 180 to write your own articles, and then pull them due to protest against the site - which I think is really the only reason. --Scani 21:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The administrators' behavior was extremely inappropriate. Articles I have written, such as the list of explicit artists' limitations on redistribution of their work, was deleted because a) to retaliate against me and b) because it contradicts the pro-piracy articles Wikifur administrators protect and refute articles which demonstrate contradiction to claimst of pirate groups.  I have every right to protest Wikifur's abusive behavior ... in fact, it would be wrong of me to silently accept it.  I had no idea when I wrote the articles just what sort of organization I would be associating with in Wikifur, one whose own administrator is a supporting member of a group dedicated to stalking and harrassing furs and even allows and protects members of that group to commit sexual harrassment within wikifur itself.  What really reeks is to have a set of rules and break them as part of a mob mentality to attack and ensure imbalance against unpopular furs.  --Chibiabos 12:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You say you had "no idea just what sort of organization" you'd be associating with. And yet every time you edit the page, you saw: Please note that all contributions to WikiFur are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. I'm at a loss to figure out why you think that license in any way is dependent upon the personalites of, and your opinions of, the administrators and editors of this wiki.
 * It's not. WikiFur maintains the legal and ethical right to use anything you have submitted under the terms of that license. As such, what you are requesting is a favor from the WikiFur administrators. The more you continue to insult the WikiFur editors, the less likely anyone is to grant you that favor. --Lynn Onyx 15:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point, you're the only one dictating and cementing your own unpopularity, which if you're not careful is going to ensure that your request isn't honoured. Regardless of whether the administrators choose to remove your articles or not, you have not endeared yourself to anybody following this discussion, including myself, and I don't even consider myself part of what some cynics would consider a "WikiFur cabal". --Scani 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct I am dictating and cementing my unpopularity, and with an organization like Wikifur, I would not wish it otherwise. I do not want to be popular nor associated with a group that supports and protects pirates and bullies, to the point of not only allowing whitewashing of their articles but their actual administration being active participants and supporters of their groups and, on Wikifur itself, reverting any articles pointing out the fallacious claims of harmlessness by such groups and deleting articles which document complaint and damages done to furry artists and fandom members by these groups.  This is inherently unethical anti-wiki.  I neither desire nor value popularity among unethical people, though I will not claim I am immune to the effects.  --Chibiabos 11:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Scani. That is very clear. I think most of these particular items are sufficiently notable (I left comments on at least some of article talk pages to that effect) for inclusion here, but my main objection, and an extremely strong one, is to WikiFur removing a contribution at someone's request. There is an exception whre information is removed after someone is granted personal exclusion, which we have a defined policy for. (As it happens, I disagree with our practice of personal exclusion, but that is another matter to be discussed in its own space.) -- Sine 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The continued inclusion of the articles only has value to those who stalk and harrass me by persuing my roleplayed "alts." Unfortunately, its not really a surpise to me anymore that Wikifur supports such behavior.  --Chibiabos 12:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My objection is strengthened by the fact that Chibabos, having been given a temporary ban on editing, stated "If you aren't going to restore my ability to contribute to wikifur, then I formally request each and every contribution I've made to Wikifur be erased and struck." My assumption is this is the attitude behind the request for personal exclusion (which was granted in accordance with policy) and the request of other pages to be blanked, which has been followed by repeated demands and which we are discussing here. -- Sine 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But you have no objection to there was no problem in deleting an article I was working on which contradicted the whitewashed articls on "Do Not Post" piracy groups like fchan that give the exact phrasage used by artists iterating their desire to not have their work redistributed without their express consent. The article was deleted completely even though it documented -dozens- of furry artists and their official word on the subject ... you can't get much more relevant nor better referenced than that, but articles that have no relevance and don't even have reference are kept and maintained to retaliate against me.  --Chibiabos 12:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Psst. Stop talking. Every time you open your mouth, you say something else that makes us reconsider whether to do this. If you'd stop digging yourself deeper into a hole, we'd probably just reach consensus and get this resolved. But every time you introduce yet another spurious bit of illogic, it prolongs the process even further. You've made your request. We're talking about it. Just let the system work. --Lynn Onyx 15:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Every time you open your mouth, you say something else that makes us reconsider whether to do this." You just proved my point that the reason my request isn't being abided has nothing to do with whether or not the articles I wish to have deleted are relevant, are cited, or any of the other professional criteria (which none of them are) ... they kept solely in personal retaliation against me.  --Chibiabos 11:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Once more you're missing the point. You have NO right to demand what you want. What you are requesting is a FAVOR. Nobody is OBLIGATED to do you favors. The more you call the editors of this wiki unethical, claim that the admins support sexual harassment, and generally insult people, the less likely people are to grant you any kind of favors.
 * If you were acting reasonably and cooperating, this could have been taken care of a while ago. However, you chose to throw insults and unsurprisingly, the editors who contribute to the wiki are not feeling particularly charitable. You are your own worst enemy. --Lynn Onyx 21:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And once again you simultaneously miss and prove my point. I'm not going to call a crook a saint ... every admin here from Greenreaper on down have repeatedly attempted to force me to simply accept that articles countering bullying and piracy will not be tolerated on Wikifur when a popular majority supports acts if piracy or bullying.  The rules here are an agreement agreed to by its participants, and when you decide the rules don't apply just because someone isn't well liked and breaking rules claiming fairness or balance for personal retaliation against someone, that is neither reasonable nor cooperative on your part, regardless if its the actions of a majority of those here at Wikifur including the administration.  I will not be reaonsable nor cooperative with liars, hypocrits and bullies and do not expect me to change my behavior regardless of how many liars, hypocrits and bullies are in the mob.  Being cooperative with bullies would make me an accessory, and I refuse to be one again.


 * The only reason these articles are maintained here is to help individuals stalk and harrass me outside of Wikifur. If that's the behavior you are going to publicly and consciously endorse instead of just unconsciously with your go-with-the-flow mob tirade that gives you a false sense of being in the right, don't blame me if I do what I can to make you feel uncomfortable in realizing what it is you are doing.  --Chibiabos 20:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Poll-type format
Would it be appropriate to use the Keep/Delete poll-type format to assist conclusion of this issue, mayhaps? Spaz Kitty 16:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --Lynn Onyx 07:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise
Let's just edit the articles and remove the references to 'played by the same person as Chibiabos'. This maintains the integrity of WikiFur, doesn't concede to Chibiabos's unreasonable demands, but also satisifies his desire that these not be "used to stalk and harass" him. Especially since he has asked to be personally excluded, and that has been granted. Therefore let's remove the references to him as a person. --Lynn Onyx 03:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Being Bold
Okay, I made the following changes:


 * Chibiabos and User:Chibiabos -- already blanked
 * Jolt -- entry doesn't exist
 * Londikin -- removed reference to Chibiabos
 * Londikin (Haven MUSH) -- removed reference to Chibiabos
 * Londikin (Spheres MUX) -- removed reference to Chibiabos
 * Londikin (Meadows MUCK) -- removed reference to Chibiabos
 * Kunagnos -- no change needed, doesn't refer to Chibiabos
 * Mahxissa -- removed reference to Chibiabos
 * Zetan -- removed reference to Chibiabos and link to alt.lifestyle.furry post
 * Fortivirago -- removed reference to Chibiabos
 * Ironhoof -- removed reference to Chibiabos and several other players
 * Strongheart -- removed reference to Chibiabos
 * Klondike -- entry doesn't exist
 * Terrayme -- removed reference to Chibiabos and link to alt.lifestyle.furry post

I have also removed all the templates from these pages, as (a) there's been nothing speedy about this process, and there isn't a pressing need to delete these pages anyway. (I'd say that the Londikin entries should be merged and the disambig page removed, but really, that's a minor issue).

Chibiabos, does this satisfy your desire to have your personal information removed? Other WikiFur editors, do these edits seem acceptable to you? --Lynn Onyx 02:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't these articles still just vanity articles about my characters? There's nothing verifiable about them and I remain the most significant contributor to each of them ... on just about any other wiki, writing articles about yourself is considered bad.  Here, where it isn't, why can't you simply have them withdrawn if you no longer wish to participate?  Ulterior motivations aside, were it a matter of wiki principles, there's no real solid reason for Wikifur to retain them at all ... there's no references to the information they contain (no posted logfiles of the characters demonstrating the claimed traits), nothing to verify the information I put in them, and no way anyone could balance them.  In fact, there's no real evidence to verify any of those characters actually existed on the MU*s I claimed them to be.  --71.217.92.163 08:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ... okay, so now you're suddenly concerned with the integrity of Wikifur. And not about harassment, which was the issue I addressed. Way to move the goal posts. BTW, my character page is likewise unsourced. You think it should be removed too? This is getting silly. You don't get to take your ball and go home, period. That's not how wikis work, not this one, and not any others.
 * If you have objections to the edits, please state exactly how they fail to satisfy this complaint of yours: The only reason these articles are maintained here is to help individuals stalk and harrass me outside of Wikifur. I realize you won't do this, as you've promised to be uncooperative. But like many other people on this wiki community, I too am running out of patience with your trolling. --Lynn Onyx 16:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikifur has no integrity for me to protect, I'm just arguing from the perspective of a wiki since my personal appeals to protect myself have no effect. Wikifur destroyed any patience I had left long ago when Wikifur admin reverted every edit I tried to make to articles that whitewashed pirate and bully groups that I have either experienced directly or know to have caused serious damage to furs and the fandom, even when I referenced the information using links to posts in their own forums.  An admin even dared me to try again on channel after reverting my edits and locking an article ... but instead, I tried starting a new set of articles documenting the harm these groups have brought to the fandom and the truth behind the "Do Not Post" list claim by pirate groups as being adequate to meeting artist's requests, when in fact a large number of furry artists have officially decried them and explicitly stated on their websites or newsgroup posts that they do not want their work copied and reposted without their permission.  The mob's response -- admin and 'regular' wikifur user alike -- was to state the articles were "inappropriate" for wikifur and at least one of them has been completely deleted by Wikifur admin as a result.  Greenreaper is a contributing member of one of the bully groups whose articles are whitewashed and admin protected against balancing out.  In retailiation, on several talk pages throughout Wikifur, disgusting false sexual accusations have been made against me, and they still remain thanks to Wikifur admin.  I must accept this since there's nothign I can do about it, and of course that's fine and acceptable to you because you don't like me ... that tells me all I need to know about your character and those who go along with this in silent acceptance.  I've put up with this mob activity for many months, and yet I'm the troll and you're the one whose patience has been lost?  I've been way too patient and way too silent for way too long.  Be careful for what company you keep and what behavior you associate yourself with.  --71.217.92.163 23:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Time for some motivational talk. From What WikiFur is:
 * "WikiFur is about furries and the furry fandom. WikiFur is a public resource where people - both furries and non-furries - are able to come to and learn about both the fandom and those in it. This means that we do have articles on people in the fandom, even if they are not regarded as particularly significant."
 * It then goes on to mention that this is why people are allowed to write their own articles. Personally, I'd rather have someone else writing the article on me - but I'm also aware that if it was not in place, we would only have a very small selection of people on this Wiki. I'm going to go out on a limb here - I don't represent WikiFur in any official capacity, but this is just my personal line of thought - and say that having this allowance EMPOWERS the many other people other than the Kages and the 2s in the fandom like you, me, and everyone else who should be credited as the REAL drivers of the furry fandom, regardless of how much they've actually done. As such, whether you want your articles to be kept or deleted, there is ALWAYS a good reason for someone to be listed here. --Scani 18:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, there are reasons, but are the reasons good or bad? What reason is there to list someone's characters who doesn't want to be listed?  No one knows all the characters I have roleplayed, no one individual has roleplayed with them all.  A few close friends are familiar with many of them, but they would never go against my wishes and put, detail or list them in a place I do not want to be associated with.  Associating me with Wikifur is harmful to me because of what Wikifur really stands for (in contrast to what it claims or states to stand for) and the activity of both its administration and the majority of its users.  Putting my name in association with Wikifur would be the same, to me, as putting my name in association with the Bush administration ... the disconnect between sound bytes and claims, and what is actually done is pretty much the same, come to think of it.  --71.217.92.163 23:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you shouldn't have put your name here. Duh. --Lynn Onyx 15:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No one warned me ahead of time what Wikifur really supports. I regret the liason I made and the work I have done for wikifur.  I think I've made that abundantly clear by now.  --71.217.92.163 08:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh well! Sucks to be you. Anyway, we're done here, I think, with the edits I made. Bye! --Lynn Onyx 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

would it be ok if I...
would be ok if I asked someone (or two, or three...) to tell me (write down an article about perhaps) what exactly happened in this whole situation in an unbiased way? I'm curious why each people here reach their current and past opinions on this matter, what led people into acusations complains and antagonizing behavior and stuff, but I understand if my request is denied--Tigro Spottystripes 22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That may be hard, because many people regularly involved in the wiki were involved with this, including myself. :-)
 * Essentially, Chibiabos wanted a large amount of privacy and control over the display of certain accusations about their life and activities, but also wanted a lack of privacy and control for others (most notably Sibe) that they deemed not to deserve it. Several people saw that as hypocritical, and thought Chibiabos was "rule-lawyering". There are usually problems when the community thinks that one party is trying to take an unfair privilege and I think that was the issue here.
 * There were other issues involving the presence of certain articles, and accusations that WikiFur was promoting activities by failing to remove or reword our descriptions of them - descriptions which others saw as quite reasonable. They decided to make their own articles in response. This didn't work out well.
 * Ultimately it became a case of "you can't get everything you want all the time, and if you whine about that long enough people will get annoyed and you no-one will even listen to you." At which point they decided to take their toys and go home. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * mmm...so basicly, regardless of if the original accusations were based on the truth or not, the issue was the person wanted to have the page with their accusations protected and the pages of the accused be unprotected and baiting vandalism, did I got it right? --Tigro Spottystripes 03:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well . . . more that people had commented negatively on both of them on various third-party sites, but they wanted to be able to keep their page free of references to such comments while ensuring that references to adverse comments remained on the page of another person (along with that person's real name). Basically, they wanted to be able to be able to whitewash their own page but denied that to others, which is where the unfairness came in. WikiFur regulars are willing to accept that some people have different ideas about where the line between privacy and public interest lies, but they don't like users who want more privacy for themselves than for other people. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Au contrare, wikifur demanded and won whitewashing protection on the articles of proven pirates and bullies and continues to maintain, on talk pages, unfounded personal accusations (and outright personal attacks) on a number of talk pages, and you have to date refused to extend full exclusion protection to Chibiabos though he stopped making any contributions to Wikifur months ago. You are still a member of CYD, aren't you?  --66.235.20.66 05:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha. :-)
 * Sorry - "a member of CYD" is very amusing. I have no standing over there; all they know me as is someone who comments on WikiFur-related articles, which is what I am. Talk pages are not articles. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be safe to state that you are comfortable with your participative membership and association with the group, and the actions of its leadership and other members on and off the CYD website and forums do not trouble you significantly enough to disassociate from them or their behaviors? --66.235.20.66 05:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What part of neutrality isn't understood here? I'm sure GreenReaper neither condemns or condones the actions of CYD. They're just another website to him, as it is to me. For God's sake, this isn't an investigative report.--Kendricks Redtail 06:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles describing them are locked in their favor, edits to the contrary are reverted and disallowd, all suggestions for balancing away from their whitewashed status are completely ignored ... that, and personal association through participation with the group, fails neutrality. There is no impartiality. --66.235.20.66 06:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not particularly concerned with the actions of any member of CYD, just as I am not particularly concerned with the actions of WikiFur members off this website itself, because I don't see what it has to do with WikiFur. Plenty of people post at WikiFur without trying to be "associated" with it. My own 43 posts (0.06% of total, and 0.07 posts per day) are open for inspection, just as my edits here on WikiFur are. By post count, I have more "association" with Furtopia, and I'm hardly a blip there. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 06:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with that discription of events. -- JaeSharp 04:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course you would, but it doesn't ring true ... when protection was asked for under Wikifur guidelines, at first you threatened to alter those guidelines such that Chibiabos could not receive that protection. You further editwarred Chibiabos on whitewashed articles about pirates and bullies but expected Chibiabos to accept accusations of being a rapist and other things which are still present on several article pages on Wikifur.  --66.235.20.66 05:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, we have accusations against lots of people on talk pages. What's your point? Talk pages are not articles. Consider them the equivalent of usenet - and just as reliable. As for guidelines - they're there to guide, not to force, as Chibiabos attempted to do - that's why I called it "rule lawyering". They act as summaries of what's happened in previous cases. Given that the users made the guidelines, they're perfectly free to change or ignore them if they think they're being used against the community. That's why Wikipedia has ignore all rules as one of theirs - it means that everything is considered on a case by case basis, and you can't use a technicality to overrule a general consensus.
 * In the case mentioned above, we saw someone who would go to great lengths to try and use WikiFur as a tool against things they disliked, over the objections of others. They viewed this website as a method to enforce standards and morals, with the same sort of "if you think it's wrong then WikiFur should say it's bad rather than just describing it" that I get from trolls on LiveJournal - who completely miss the point and value of having a neutral resource. When this person found they were not getting the support from the WikiFur community that they expected, they attempted to drum up support from elsewhere to their causes. Such people tend to find themselves isolated. Nobody wants to be next to a loose cannon, as you never know where it's going to roll next. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So because Chibiabos disliked things like piracy and bullying, and saw articles on Wikifur which were unbalanced whitewashing groups and individuals readily and regularly practicing pirating and bullying, even if (in the case of pirates and the "List of Do Not Redistribute requests" article deleted by Sine on 11 January 2007) dozens of furs (in the case of that article, -furry artists-) were documented as supporting a viewpoint Chibiabos attempted to convey (in fact that was the entire point of the article -- that Chibiabos was not making things up to piss people off as you seem to continue to imply with your history rewrite here, but trying to rebalance articles that continue to paint whitewashed pictures of bullying groups like CYD and pirate groups like fchan), it was okay to revert edits documenting contradictions to articles on, say, CYD just because the Wikifur admin felt like it, and making repeated false accusations of plagiarism despite the references in the fledgeling article being documented (which rather fails the claim of plagiarism). Was any action taken for the personal attacks against Chibiabos on Wikifur?  Enlighten us if there were.  Was Chibiabos banned from Wikifur for saying something on a talk page a Wikifur admin -- the same one who made those repeated false claims of plagiarism, no less -- that the particular admin didn't like?  Doesn't that constitute special un-protections against a user?  Are you 100% assuring that at no time was any decision made based on personal feelings regarding Chibiabos as opposed to Wikifurs' operating guidelines or the lacking merits of the claims and supporting links provided by Chibiabos?  --66.235.20.66 05:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And what of the supporting links provided by the people whose edits were conveniently removed from Chibiabos? :-) You're rule-lawyering again, and it won't work any better this time. Actions on WikiFur are taken because the people involved think they're the right thing to do, not because "operating guidelines" say they should. This has been explained several times already. The reason that works is that the people concerned are chosen based on their ability to decide what this is, and because if anyone else with the same powers thinks it's a bad idea, they can undo it. If you don't think it's the right way to run a site, feel free to make your own. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 06:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rules are here for the ruling majority to make up, change and ignore as they see fit, there's no point in think to expect you to follow your own rules.  Personal attacks, described on some articles as strictly unacceptable, are okay when made against Chibiabos, while Chibiabos himself behaved so inappropriately by daring to refute unfounded accusations by Wikifur admin, he was banned ... and while his article was blanked as per his request, it was only partial -- unlike nearly all other articles blanked by request, the history was left intact depite the claim that the reason some blanked-by-request articles aren't completely blanked (with a blanked history) is "Because some don't ask for that?" ... did Chibiabos not well express his request was for full blanking and was there no apparant motivation that he considered wikifur hostile to him?  --66.235.20.66 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point you to our What WikiFur is not page, specifically the part about WikiFur not being a democracy. In short, we reach consensus by discussion, not by voting.  We have created, changed, and revised policies before, and we'll likely do it again should consensus by reaching on changing a specific policy.  --Douglas Muth 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While some of this has since been blurred by later edits and additions, this timeline of links might be helpful:

October 2 - 5 Forum:Request for Protection of Chibiabos

October 8 http://community.livejournal.com/wikifur/41748.html

October 10 Talk:List of Do Not Redistribute requests

October 12 Forum:Chibiabos' requests for blanking

There was also some stuff on Usenet (!) around the second week of October, I believe. -- Sine 06:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * These are the Usenet posts in question, made by Chibiabos:
 * * http://groups.google.com/group/alt.lifestyle.furry/browse_thread/thread/31bae3798cf936df
 * * http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_thread/thread/3eea34aeee6b165b
 * * http://groups.google.com/group/fur.artwork.erotica/browse_thread/thread/a8dd5462d367fa58
 * --Douglas Muth 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)