Talk:Benji Squirrel

While this article includes the sentence "Mizzyam was one of the artists who contributed to Softpaw Magazine." I'm not seeing any mention of the name Mizzyam in the Softpaw Magazine article. -- Sine 03:39, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
 * That is because it was done under the listed alias "Amarimasi". See issue #4. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:42, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
 * Only one hit with Mizzyam+Softpaw+Magazine: A pdf download of a comic "intended for" Softpaw - Spirou 03:44, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Privacy vs. public interest
From what I've seen and the messages I've received, it seems likely that the subject of this article will request personal exclusion, or removal of what appears to be their real name, and possibly mention of the recent allegations. I would be interested to know other editors' feelings on what our response should be. Does public interest outweigh their privacy? Where should we draw the line? --GreenReaper(talk) 14:01, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
 * I've made an edit on request of Mizzy and his sister, to remove private and personal information. I tried not removing too much, while still protecting his privacy. I hope this is acceptable. --Zarphus 14:11, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
 * Even with the personal request of them, it is deemed public information by the 'Access to Information Act' (R.S.C., 1985, c. A-1) and under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (S.C. 2002, c. 1) the information is public as the offender is over the age of 18. Some kind of reference should be made, if not up front, put somewhere on the page to keep a fair and detailed article without personal influence. --RoudyRaccoon
 * Our response to this public criminal matter?. Mitch Beiro, Frank Gembeck, Fritter, Sibe, David Ross, etc,... Any information on matters that could affect individuals on the fandom should be noted and not whitewash, swept under the rug, or terminated (deleted). tp "to remove private and personal information", along with the event in question is hiding the unfortunate deed. If proven innocent, the information then could be argued by editors that it could be edited out to prevent further harm - Spirou 15:38, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

A person who I believe to be his sister has now contacted me directly and requested that the article be removed on the basis that he has not been convicted yet, and that he would like to keep the matter private. --GreenReaper(talk) 15:42, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
 * Unfortunately the matter is indeed public, it has been sent out of multiple news medias both online and on radio broadcasts, their 'private matter' is indeed public, in the interest of freedom of information, the article should remain.--RoudyRaccoon
 * Neither has Mitch Beiro, and both crimes are serious enough, public, and the information could be of use to fandom individuals affected by their behaviors (Mitch's case, there implication by Police that other minors could have been involved). Not something to parade around, but when it is public already, then are just one of at least a dozen public outlets reporting on it, not the sole site disbursing this data - Spirou 15:57, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
 * Whilst I could, perhaps, be persuaded that the real-life name is not necessary, I think the seriousness of the charges made by police are such that the Controversy section should remain. Should there be no eventual conviction then that section could be removed (or, better, be amended to emphasise that fact).--Higgs Raccoon 16:05, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
 * I can agree with Higgs Raccoon on this, mention of the allegations should stay, how ever the name has already circulated through the fandom, removing it now would likely not solve any privacy issues. --RoudyRaccoon
 * If that is the best we can hope for, then so be it. if you can find a way to cite the allegations without directly citing real name, that may be a point to settle for. - though his sister right now would prefer if the entire page were wiped. while i would prefer that myself, i am gaining a rapid understanding for how this site works, and i understand how unlikely this ideal scenario of full removal is. --Zarphus 16:17, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

As much as I would like to have not seen this happen in the first place, this is a site of user contributed information and requires honesty and reliable resources, and simply covering up information that came from an already public source would be detrimental to the whole premise of a 'wiki'. --RoudyRaccoon
 * well, i tried. :( alright. Mizzy's friends and family won't be pleased, but i guess i have no choice but to accept your decisions. - i would ask that some of it be withheld until some of the situation has been made more clear, but i am sure that too will be met with resistance. please use discretion where appropriate. you have my thanks for being civil, and my apologies for the inconveniences of the early edit.--Zarphus 18:14, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
 * As much as it personally hurts me to see such a large artistic contributor fall like this, and don't get me wrong it does hurt, I can't take my own opinion back about an information based outlet such as this. I do appreciate your understanding and your civil discussion in this matter and I'm sure everyone else here does too.--RoudyRaccoon

Names
I'm curious if there were mentioned links between account names beyond various accounts listing http://spottedbunny.com/ as the user's homepage, and the two Official Links at http://spottedbunny.com/links.php While looking at that website, I found another name (formated as first and last name) which I don't see used here on en.wikifur.com -- Sine 02:04, 4 November 2012 (EST)


 * Meanwhile the presumably real name that appears in media articles (and in Flayrah and here) is, it seems to me, linked to the various other names only by a Google cache of a social networking site (September cache, earliest message by the user shown is from June). I'm uncomfortable with usage of a name that may have been inadvertently connected or left visible by someone... while we do usually document arrests and other legal matters... I don't have a solid conclusion or even question here, but wanted to put these thoughts out. -- Sine 02:20, 4 November 2012 (EST)
 * It was more or less confirmed by 'connecting the dots' more then anything, he was widely known to have lived in Hamilton, Ontario, to be 24 years of age and was the only warrant based arrest for November 1st, 2012 as listed by the Hamilton Police Department. He also used to have photos up of himself building a shed in the family backyard (No longer available), with a simple search of the family name (Gotta love Google), said address can be traced back and the exact same shed can be seen on Google's 'Street View'. In my mind I have no doubts the listed name and connected accounts are indeed him, if that is what you are getting at. --RoudyRaccoon

Information Pertaining to Conviction/Case details
I have spent a few hours trying to dig up court records or news articles on the following trial and possible convictions to get a more accurate description, as stated in previous discussions on this talk page, it is often helpful to list if the defendant has been found guilty or cleared of charges. If anyone has any further information to list or access to local court records it would be greatly appreciated as I can't seem to find anything other then the vague news articles here and there. --RoudyRaccoon


 * If anyone has information about his conviction it would be greatly appreciated to expand the article. There is a rumor that charges were dropped but I cannot confirm this as any information has avoided the public eye. --RoudyRaccoon

Section removal
Mizzy has contacted me directly, stating he has been cleared and requesting the controversy article be removed, do I have permission? --RoudyRaccoon
 * I would like a response when ever someone gets a chance, we do have proof that charges were dropped and the information pertaining to it has been directly requested to be removed. --RoudyRaccoon
 * Due to the current edit warring on the article, please post here the reference links about the court decision, it will be added to the article until the temp protect is removed - Spirou 20:53, 25 March 2013 (EDT)
 * If you can provide a reference for the proof, I am sure we can include it in the article. Removing the entire section seems like it's something that would require more discussion. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:54, 25 March 2013 (EDT)
 * He would not give me access to such files which is understandable but I did direct him to you, GreenReaper, he also wants his name removed as a privacy request, since charges are dropped this shouldn't be an issue as media outlets should be clearing it here as well, you could probably re-write the whole section if not removed to indicate he is indeed innocent. --RoudyRaccoon
 * If he was found not guilty and/or exonerated by the Justice System, such information should be public already. Is there such a link to the courts decision to drop all charges/finding him not guilty? - Spirou 21:53, 25 March 2013 (EDT)
 * If he has those links he definitely won't give it to me --RoudyRaccoon

Potential removal of real life information/exclusion
As hesitant as I am to deal in theoretical situations, I suspect this will come up, so we might as well do it now. ..

If the charges have in fact been dropped, and removal of real life information (or exclusion) is requested, do we grant either of those? If they have not, but he has not been convicted, and it is still requested, should we grant it? I think I know what some of the answers will be already, but I'd like your opinion. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:40, 27 March 2013 (EDT)


 * If charges are dropped, I'm fine with it; if he is not convicted, I'm fine with it; if he is convicted, that information needs to stay. Equivamp - talk 08:49, 27 March 2013 (EDT)


 * I personally feel, that since the loss of the Google cache that linked his name to his online account, we really don't have much of a choice, and as I discussed with GreenReaper, I don't feel the Flayrah to be much of a solid link between him and his accounts as it really doesn't prove its own information. As he stated, it is now down to the trust between the reader and the editor and that really doesn't float with me as a valid reference in my eyes, it's more 'word of mouth' rather then a source of solid proof. I would like to hear from you guys on this as that's just my two cents in the matter. --RoudyRaccoon


 * Despite being run by and contributed to by many of the same people, Flayrah is mostly a primary-to-secondary source, while WikiFur is typically (for this kind of material) a secondary-to-tertiary source. In this case these differences really come down to trust. Trust in WikiFur lies less on the contributors or the material than on the process of review, to see that the edits have been made in accordance with our policy and referenced, where appropriate, to reasonable sources. Flayrah runs on its own reputation. You trust the contributors and editors of a particular article to have made an accurate assessment of the facts at the time of publication - or you do not. When we provide sources, they're more for those interested in finding out more. Evaluating them for accuracy is part of the value we provide as a publication. As a corollary, if you trust an article, it doesn't matter if the sources it's based on become inaccessible – if it was right at the time, it still is. (Incidentally, nobody has stepped up to say that we got the name wrong, which you would think might happen if it were.) --GreenReaper(talk) 19:07, 29 April 2013 (EDT)


 * That's the big point though, while no one can say you were wrong, now no one can say you were right either because of the loss of that reference. I'm going to have to stand my ground on this, real information should be removed without solid references, and the Flayrah article just isn't that in my eyes, not the way they feed into each other. Unless our guest of honor in this article comes out and tells us we're right or wrong, at this point it should have been removed with the rest of the dead links. I mean really, the way you are explaining it me me, I could go out and write my own article call him John Doe and I could reference it just because I wrote it and can vouch for it, as that is basically what is happening here. --RoudyRaccoon

Dead references
While I've ultimately decided to step aside in this whole matter, I can't help but notice almost all of the references, including those that tie his online name with his real one have either gone 404 or have been linked to the wrong page, anyone else seeing this?.--RoudyRaccoon
 * I have marked the dead links/references, I'll leave the rest to you guys --RoudyRaccoon
 * Done. Replaced dead links with new ones (TheSpec.com, Spotted Bunny Forums, Vivisector.org. AM680 CJOB [Canada], AM900 CHML [Hamilton, Canada]), delete the ones that had no secondary back-up sources (Ontario Furs, Steam, AOL Livestream, but noted on article of these actual links having been posted/existed in the first place, as it was done with similar dead ref links on the Sibe article), aaand killed the dead external links. Thanks for the heads up, it definitely needed an update. - Spirou 00:14, 13 May 2013 (EDT)