Talk:Jeremy, the Duke of Otterland/Archive1

I added the quote back to the article because it establishes that the subject has a history of trolling on LiveJournal. --Douglas Muth 00:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the quote because I'm *not* a troll, and you're just trying to blackmail me.

For those who are trying to blackmail me, quit it; one little incident does *not* make a person a troll.


 * First, I'll get the policy stuff out of the way so as to avoid any future misunderstandings:


 * 1) Please do not remove other peoples' comments from talk pages.  Talk pages contain the history of how an article came and the discussions surrounding it, and are considered a valuable resource that goes along with an article.
 * 2) Second, please do not remove text from an article without explanation.  That is frowned upon here, and any such changes will almost always be reverted by an admin.  That goes for an article, not just this one.  If you have an issue with something an article, you should explain on the article's talk page.


 * Now, as for the article itself. There seems to be some confusion here as to what "blackmail" really means.  Blackmail is defined as "the act of threatening to reveal information about a person ... [unless certain demands are met]".  That's not the case here.  I am not threatening to release any information, I am actively releasing such information, and I am not trying to extort anything from you in the process.


 * I feel the quote is appropriate to list here, because not only is it something that you did in fact say, but you state on your LJ that you will not tolerate things such as "destructive criticism", "uncivil debate". However, the quote is an exmaple of you doing something which you adamantly claim to be against. I feel that it makes it especially worthy for inclusion in this article.  --Douglas Muth 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you have some sort of vendetta against me because I made that post, and I'm sorry and will never do it again, I just wish you had been more honest in your User Info that you would post things like that...


 * Pretend you're me. You make a post in your LJ, and some random person who you have never heard of before shows up and replies with insults.  How would you feel?  How do you think I felt when I saw that? --Douglas Muth 20:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd ban you from my LJ.


 * OK, guys. I've added it in as a reference, not a quote, as I believe it applies specifically to the political side of things. I would note that politics is an area where people often have deeply-held beliefs which may not bring out their best sides when they come into contact with those of the opposite persuasion. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

I deleted my comment from Giza's LJ entry, so is that link to his entry still relevant? -Jeremy, the Duke of Otterland

Look, there was absolutely no excuse for what I did in Harli's LJ. I was a complete jerk who grossly overreacted to a post that wasn't even remotely offensive, and completely regret the day I said what I did then. If I could go back in time and prevent myself from saying that, I would gladly do so. I don't want what is posted to Encyclopedia Dramatica blackball me for the rest of my life when I look for a job one day, as I have done my online writing and art only under my pseudonym. So if any of you know anything I can do to get that ED article toned down or removed entirely, please help me. Thanks. --Jeremy, the Duke of Otterland 20:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section?
Given recent events, namely that 1) the subject of this article has been showing up in the Encyclopedia Dramatica IRC channels demanding that they take down their article about him (and being slightly unclear on how "free speech" works), as well as 2) recent harassment directed at him (publishing of his home address and phone number, breaking into some of his accounts, etc.), do folks think it would be worthwhile to start a "controversy" section in the article?

Keep in mind that such a section wouldn't necessarily be to cast blame on the subject of the article, but rather to document actions taken by both parties in the dispute. Thoughts? --Douglas Muth 23:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I vote in favor. May his behavior and the consequences to such be an example.  --DS|go 23:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto Downspin. Spaz Kitty 23:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Downspin, your comment lends a vigilante legitimacy to the actions of his provocateur. No one  deserves harassing phone calls for acting like a fool on IRC. What he did was not acceptable, but neither were the actions of his provocateur. Like I said below, give him one last chance. Simba B 00:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to wait a few days or a week or so to see what happens. He deleted his LJ here within the last 24 hours, and may be attempting to extricate himself from this mess once and for all. Should that be the case, I think it would be wise just let all of this go and allow him to get on with his life. I think that we need to give some consideration to documenting this kind of stuff here, both now and in the future, rather than blindly documenting every random drama episode. Personally, I think documenting it lends legitimacy to (foolish, IMHO) actions of both sides. We are after all, the furry version of Wikipedia, and with that comes some credible authority on matters of the fandom. Let's use it wisely. Simba B 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Postscript: If he continues to allow himself to be provoked by the ED crowd, by all means, go ahead and write it up in the article. I am simply arguing for giving him a last chance of sorts.


 * I'm cool with waiting for a week or even longer. --Douglas Muth 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My $0.02: if the precedent is going to be that infamous furries, to an extent, lose their right to privacy (e.g., Sibe's ED-esque article), then the standard should be applied across the board, namely, here. I vote in favor with an additional request for policy clarification as this circumstance is not fully documented in the help policies.  :3 Leam 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiousity, is there any status on whether or not a tasteful controversy section is acceptable? Since the 3rd of January, there has been another Arbchat and 2 DMCAs, which would qualify as still "allowing himself to be provoked by the ED crowd." Leam 00:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I don't see why not, as long as its a) tasteful, 2) it's written objectively and with a neutral point of view and iii) it is fair to both parties, especially the article subject. A controversy section is not a place to air out grievances, but rather chronicle significant happenings regarding this person that may be considered controversial. Tread carefully. This will be scrutinized heavily as do most other "controversy sections" and if it seems like it's going the wrong way, it may be deleted if an administrator deems fit. Above all, be nice.--Kendricks Redtail 00:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Added. I couldn't put an actual Encyclopedia Dramatica link in for some reason, which I will be investigating.  Tinyurl will have to do for now.  Leam 23:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

College?
4 Associate degrees at age 22? Plus this seems to suggest he is pursuing two different bachelor's degree programs at two different universities. I'm not doubting him, but wow... that's a hell of a lot. I'm just doublechecking the accuracies of this.--Kendricks Redtail 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That reminds me... assuming that the article about him on Encyclopedia Dramatica is accurate, he is apparently "disabled" to the point of getting Social Security benefits. This makes me skeptical about his academic claims.  --Douglas Muth 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not assume anything on ED is accurate. I would assume just the opposite. [[Image:Tycon.jpg]]Coyoty 07:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, he is autistic. Perhaps that gives him a certain level of genius? Think Rain Man.--Kendricks Redtail 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he has Asperger's Syndrome. From what I've seen of him and my familiarity with the condition, it seems a rather severe case. So pretty close to autism. Simba B 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is, specifically, a form of autism. I know of no cases of Savant Syndrome, another form, expressing alongside Asperger's.  Even if he was so afflicted, I still find it highly unlikely he could earn four two year degrees in under four years, write a novel, and participate in so much drama.  I wouldn't say he lies, but it's more likely he's shaping reality to fit his fantasy.  --DS|go 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just lay off him a bit, okay? You are unnecessarily rough. As for what AS is exactly, you should read the Wikipedia link. It's not as simple as a "form of autism". Simba B 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Roughness is unintended. I was merely perusing his article and pondering some of the accuracy of the content, is all. It seems, well, extraordinary. --Kendricks Redtail 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to you, but rather our friend Downspin here. Sorry for any confusion. Simba B 02:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, agreed. But rough as it may sound, it DOES seem to be a valid point. --Kendricks Redtail 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. You have a point. Simba B 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked this info. he has attended colledge and Written two books.  as for the levels he suggest, I don't think he's trying to lie...  but whatever.  also, he has mild/moderate Autism, that would give him a lead in writing and help in colledge.  he sounds like my bother.  - cchristian talk 
 * So what do we want to do regarding this? As many associate degrees in as many years is pretty farfetched. I don't know how Autism and/or Asperger's can aid him in that as I'm severely undereducated on those afflictions. Wikifur should be all about veracity, therefore is there a way we can verify his multiple degrees, while at the same time his enrollment at the two colleges?--Kendricks Redtail 20:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've personally never seen his claim to four degrees in four years, I do remember noticing he'd been to quite a lot of schools...looked like he did the common community college->state university route IIRC, which IMHO isn't indicative of someone who could earn four associate degrees in four years. If you ask me, the burden of proof should be on him (or whoever made the original claim). If he can't or won't prove it to us, the claims should be removed or at least the lack of verification documented. As for the AS/autism angle, many people with AS are smarter than average but I don't see it as being so much of an aid that his claim shouldn't be questioned. Simba B 20:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's on the page, plus it was on his profile and so many other places too.--Kendricks Redtail 21:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is where he makes his claim and around this time he picks up an additional associate's degree and certification. This boy is crackin' if he's getting that stuff.--Kendricks Redtail 22:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology
There was absolutely no excuse for my asinine behavior in LiveJournal, for saying that harli_raver, liberals, and gays belong in concentration camps, for saying MoveOn is retarded, and so forth, and I sincerely apologize. However, I believe that posting personal information about me and hacking my LiveJournal is wrong as well and would like that Encyclopedia Dramatica article removed entirely. Thanks.--Jeremy, the Duke of Otterland 15:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this look like ED to you? Stop complaining to us about the ED article about you.  --Douglas Muth 16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 *  IGNORE THEM they will go away when you stop making it fun for them.  also, they didn't "hack" your account, they guessed your password.  I went over there and they said that they gave a warning to the guy who did that, but they did'nt want to get rid of the info unless there was a serious privacy violation (like your street address).  all you're doing is riling them up.  - cchristian talk 
 * *clears throat* I have been saying this all along. Yes, please ignore them. It's the only way to make them stop. Simba B 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignore somebody who wants to send me off to a concentration camp?! Several responses come to mind; "ignore" isn't one of them.
 * I think the "ignore" comment was directed at Duke Otterland, actually. --Douglas Muth 19:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. I am trying to tell Duke Otterland how to make the ED trolls stop bothering him. Frankly, the more I read about his behavior and comments (like the gays-in-concetration-camps thing), the less inclined I am to defend and/or help him. Simba B 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I have looked at the ED article history, as well as the talk page. Looks like there's a lot here I don't know about, especially since his journal is gone now (apparently it was banned or some such by LJ and not deleted by him). From what I can tell, he said something fairly nasty to Dmuth on his journal. So I'm no longer comfortable defending him, despite my understanding of the difficulties of AS. I apologize for not researching the history of this mess before getting involved. I see no reason not to believe much of the factual information in the ED article and talk page. So to change my position above, I would give a tentative yea to the Dmuth's original idea. Simba B 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How bad do you have to be to actually get banned by LiveJournal? Considering I've seen some pretty fucked up shit, not to mention raunchy. Trolls thrive on LJ. I had thought that he had just deleted his journal to hide from everyone or so no one else would get it. --Kendricks Redtail 01:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect his lj was deleted by the staff because it was compromised...-SkippFox 01:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted my own LiveJournal and requested it to be suspended, thank you very much.--Jeremy, the Duke of Otterland 04:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * sounds right... - cchristian talk 
 * Never seen it done before. Spoke to him. He said he was going to discontinue his LJ and he had suspended it. I suggested to him nicely stronger password security. Varied capitalization and nonalphanumeric characters and acronyms. Let's just put it this way. He doesn't take advice well. His behaviour only seems to reinforce what the article suggests as well as Dmuth and Simba. I give my support to Dmuth's idea.--Kendricks Redtail 01:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like he made it seem like he was responsible for the suspension. In the vein of shaping reality, read the message returned by Livejournal here and tell me what you think. I come away with the impression it was suspended by LJ and not him. I thought that users were only capable of the 30-day delete then purge function of LJ. But I've only been on LJ since September so I don't know all the features, to be sure. Simba B 12:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Should have read Duke Otterland's comment above...

I am curious how someone could hack into a LiveJournal account other than brute force password cracking. Tretonin 13:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * that's what we've all been saying, the "illegal" thing is that they posted private info. - cchristian talk 
 * Is it an incredibly asinine thing to do? Yes. Is it illegal? Doubtful. Although you seem to already have this idea as you put illegal in quotes. Simba B 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be illegal if you consider it libel?--Kendricks Redtail 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought libel had to be untrue claims about a person. And a cursory glance at Wikipedia seems to back that up. I don't see how phone numbers, street addresses, and so on could ever be considered defamatory under that definition. Simba B 21:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not defamation. It's an invasion of privacy, but that's not actually illegal (unless we're talking things like credit card numbers and your SSN, which have specific protections). Nor is it illegal to state something something untrue that a reasonable person would not believe, as if nobody believes it, no hurt has resulted (the question is what they would believe, and that's a question for the courts). The same protections are actually used by WikiFur - as long as we remain truthful or at least take reasonable steps to try and establish that truth (that is, we don't maliciously post lies about people with the knowledge that they are true), we can publish what we want. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * it is the posting of private info that was obtained in an (I forget the word... ^. .^;;;) way, and they then used it in a deframitory way. I also bet that if we brought this to a judge he would be annoyed that they are using his disability for thier own entertainment, which is disgracefull, especially when an """ADULT""" does it.  I'm pretty sure that it is somewhat unlawfull, of course, I wouldn't take it to court...   - cchristian talk 
 * A couple of things relavent to the conversation:
 * 1) Truth is an absolute defense against any charge of defamation. If the address and phone number they posted were true, then no defamation has occured.  Whether it's harassment or not is an entirely different issue.  They fact that at least one harassing phone call was made to him could give him a case for proving harassment, however.
 * 2) Re: his autism, again, if it's true, then there is no defamation. Also, if memory serves, he himself has made the claim of being autistic, so I'm fairly certain that no privacy laws which pertain to medical records would have been violated, since the patience himself disclosed that he had the condition of autism.
 * --Douglas Muth 03:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I know that you think too highly of yourself to realize that that ED article about me was wrong and inflammatory, even if some of it might've been true, but it was wrong to post all those details, including especially sensitive personal details, all my former LiveJournal posts, and Friends-only posts I made to various communites, and so forth. I've repeatedly apologized to you over and over, but no, you went behind my back and contributed to ED nonetheless. Please don't be such a big baby and let's just get over, please? Yes, what I did in your LJ back then was wrong, but so is your backstabbing me; it was just *one* incident in your LJ, after all, and I've since not trolled you. And for your information, Central Texas College, from which I got my Associate Degrees and Certifications, *is* an accredited college, thank you very much. And fine, I'll keep my LJ link in my article.--Jeremy, the Duke of Otterland 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Issues regarding ED has no place here in WikiFur, nor do your words for Dmuth. WikiFur is not a battleground. Contact him privately regarding these matters. As for your schooling, we have just been trying to figure out how you've gone to multiple colleges, acquired multiple Associate's Degrees in less than 4 years. We're not disproving your claim, we find it to be a little dubious, that's all.--Kendricks Redtail 22:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I won't mention ED anymore. By the way, I didn't get my degrees from different colleges, I got them from the *same* college, which is, as I've said, accredited.--Jeremy, the Duke of Otterland 22:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not doubting the accredition of your school. What boggles most of our minds here is that you have 4 associates degrees in as many years. I'm not going to even mention how expensive that is ($40,000 per associate degree from CTC, I looked it up), especially in Texas, but your article also shows you pursuing seperate degree programs at Central Texas College and Tarleton. How on earth did you manage 4 2-3 year programs of study (we're discounting the Certifications, those are so freaking simple to have (has 3 himself)) in less than 4 years after graduating high school? On top of that, writing novels and devoting as much time to video games, books, furry as your LiveJournal suggests it has. Either you're insanely gifted or you're exaggerating just a bit. Given the nature of this place and the people you're talking to, honestly what do you think?--Kendricks Redtail 23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not pissed at you because of that single incident in my LJ. What I have issue with is that fact that you seem to have no problem dishing out caustic statements (such as ones you've made about gays, for example), but seem to be totally unable of accepting any form of criticism in return.  Your showing up in ED's IRC channel and demanding that they remove the article about you is a good example.
 * Freedom of speech works both ways - if you choose to go around and offend people (which is your legal right), be prepared to have them criticise you in return (which is their legal right). If you don't like the fact that people are criticising you, than may I suggest that you knock it off with some of the nastier comments?  --Douglas Muth 00:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, I've stopped making those nastier comments, and for your information, I didn't *mean* what I had said, and I know it's very, very easy for some people to take things I say the wrong way. I realize I'm not immune to criticism, and from now on if someone sends me something nasty I'll just ignore it. How would you feel, by the way, if you unintentionally said something nasty and people began posting nasty stuff about you all across the Internet?--Jeremy, the Duke of Otterland 04:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a heartfelt apology, but the whole I didn't mean it schtick I NEVER buy from anyone. When you typed whatever you said, you meant every word of it, whether it was to intentionally attack him or someone else or just trying to stir the pot. I've read some of what you post. There IS no right way to take ANY of what you say. For example, the infamous gay concentration camp. How are you supposed to take that the right way? And you can't unintentionally say something like that. I think you need to look inward and reevaluate yourself, your inner values. It's good to ignore things, it's a step in the right direction. As for the Internet, oops, oh, well. Jeremy, you've done yourself a favor and gotten painted a furry Internet celebrity. Perhaps that was your plan all along. And celebrity comes with a price. Just go to the supermarket today and read all the rags at the checkout lane. Nasty stuff, eh? It's no different here. When you figure out how to avoid shit like that, then you go ahead and tell Hollywood. There are plenty of actors who would like to know. Otherwise, tough it up, maybe have a laugh or two. And don't take the Internet so seriously.--Kendricks Redtail 14:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know the cases you mean. Was it, though? How are we to know it was not just culled from public sources, like LiveJournal posts? I'm not suggesting it's something we want to publish here, of course. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sphinx
Your fursona has always looked close to a sphinx to me. Tretonin 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, the useful purpose in saying that was what again? Given the subject of this article's sensitivity, I'd like to know what your purpose was in saying that if it wasn't just to stir up the pot. Simba B 23:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that could be taken wrongly. Tretonin 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Revert (Spirou)
Talk thus far suggests that the section is appropriate. If you think otherwise, I suggest a vote. Is there Wikifur policy on this kind of controversy? Leam 00:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are more than a few people in fandom that are racist, homophobic, rude, crass, or just plain crazy. Again, unless it's widely know or notorious (...and this views of his only seem to graze appearance in ED, a few LJs [of people not keen of Jeremy,] and the classic places were his antics fuel the evening talks [4chan, 7chan, etc,...] plus, your addition,) it doesn't warrant a "Controversy" section.


 * Stupidity and lack of social manners a controversy does not make,... Is that were the case, more entries on this Wiki would be have lengthy "Controversy" sections.


 * But, If you wish, will put up for a vote. Make your case, present the reference, and put it up for decision Spirou 02:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think part of the reason why there is interest in a controversy section isn't because of Jeremy Gallen's alleged homophobic remarks and the alleged lack of social skills, but rather because he seems to have a history of trying to cover up these behaviors. Deleting his incendiary comments from other peoples' LiveJournals (like mine), storming into ED's IRC channel and demanding that the article about him be taken down, (ab)using the DMCA to have the article be removed, etc.  It all adds up to a case of someone who can dish it out, but can't take it. &lt;/rant&gt;  --Douglas Muth 04:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That, and the drama at one point spilt over from Wikifur to ED, 4chan, 7chan, SA, FA, a good chunk of the furry LJs, and probably a few that even I don't know about. Several hundred furries are not an insignificant number.  I will have said references up by this weekend or Monday.  Leam 20:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out that there are less-notable controversy sections that exist here; if Wikifur is to document the furry fandom, it needs to a) acknowledge how much inevitable drama it will document; b) state where the line is to be drawn; c) be consistent about sticking to this Pandora's standard. Leam 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Very well. If it's referenced enough, you may not need to put it up for vote Spirou 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to add the references to this section of the talk page and not the article, because I think that would be unkind. Figured I'd leave the outright trolling to ED, unless I'm doin' it wrong?  ;-)  Leam 15:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as controversy goes, I'd like to point out yet again that Jeremy Gallen seems absolutely hell-bent on removing any criticisms that are made of his behavour. I cite this recent edit here on WikiFur as an example. --Douglas Muth 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Shut Up, Judge! meme?
I was unable to find any references to this that would indicate that it is some sort of meme, or in fact, very many real uses of this that didn't seem to be literal, and none that would indicate that this phrases originated from this person. I don't see how it's reliant to an article about him unless it's in semi-widespread usage? --WhiteFire 23:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See the images shown on his ED article (http://encyclopedia dramatica.com/index.php/Duke_Otterland - remove the space) and the 'Shut up judge' article (http://encyclopedia dramatica.com/index.php/Shut_up_judge). Spaz Kitty 23:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is ED a valid site to source from? I mean, it's named "encyclopedia dramatica" for a reason. Though, the Shut up, judge! page there does at least have more than two images with the phrase in it, which may be an indication that it's more than a one-off. Is there any references that show that it came from him? That it's a meme on the claimed spaces (myspace, livejournal)? Considering some of the questionable claims made and discussed on the talk page here about this fellow, it seems worth verifying. Maybe my google-fu is just lacking but I didn't find any LJ posts that mention it, though there is an interest tag. -WhiteFire 00:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've personally seen it on the 100x100 trade community on LJ before. In fact for a long time that was the popular theme and a lot of people got sick of it. I'm still trying to find if there are any surviving posts there. The joke kind of wore off after a while probably.--Kendricks Redtail 00:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see you got some references to these in there, I'm quite happy to pull my objections and eat them. :) -WhiteFire 00:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for making me go get them. It makes the article better overall. Would you like some ketchup? ;) -Kendricks Redtail 02:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the origins, it is confirmed that he originated the phrase on a game review he wrote entitled Shut Up Judge. An art trade ensued over this and the original image can be found not just on ED, but also on Otterland's FurAffinity account.--Kendricks Redtail 00:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but a single art trade and a game review do not make up a meme. IMHO. Are there references outside this that refer to this that article as the source of a meme? The other references to "shut up, judge" that I found through google seem entirely unrelated, and considering the likelyhood of that phrase being uttered.... -WhiteFire 00:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard it referred to as a meme, but if you have a better word for it that's more accurate, feel free to change that. The meme part came from the fact that everyone started doing Shut Up, Judge icons of other furries or doing artwork of Duke saying it. When it becomes everyone posting that on LJ, that says meme to me. But I could be wrong. --Kendricks Redtail 02:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Easier to reword?
I decided to replace "notoriety" with "negative attention." Even though the SHUT UP JUDGE meme has made it's way around the chans, LJ, FA, etc, a lot of the good links are dead, and some of the stuff I wanted to link to are 404 on 4chan and the Duke's now-deleted LJ. I was making my rounds today on drama_awesome, and I came across 5 references to the meme. That speaks notoriety to me, but this seems easier than fighting it. Leam 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, http://www.livejournal.com/interests.bml?int=shut+up+judge :3

I also removed the bit about his sexuality; does the hypocricy need further illustration here? We're trying to not be mean. Leam 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I took the cleanup tag off, since I think that about covers it. Leam 01:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

extreme POV?
re: http://en.wikifur.com/w/index.php?title=Jeremy%2C_the_Duke_of_Otterland&oldid=134243 I am confused about what is meant by "extreme POV." Separating the paragraph like that, the fact that he was trolled makes no sense, nor does the "SHUT UP JUDGE" meme. Leam 07:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He wasn't tolled because of his beliefs, he was trolled because of his attitude. Check the IRC logs posted there as well as re-read the entire article. It mentions his views in one paragraph and concentrates on his attitude and conduct in all others. Mikael Grizzly 09:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the argument can be made that there is a definite relation between the two. That aside, you should at the very least rephrase it that way. "Supposed" just opens up another can of worms.  Leam 09:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The link is shaky at best. No one there criticized his views - they pointed out the inconsistencies and bad attitude. And sourced it. Mikael Grizzly 09:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I followed much of the rants on LJ that sparked all this and the subsequent trolling (both in IRC and on the various wikis) -- I respectfully disagree. And again, if you think it's shaky, please rephrase it; don't break it.  The last version wasn't bad or "extreme NPOV."  Oh, if only screencaps were valid references...  If you want a quick supporting example of where his views and attitudes were criticized, take a look at the thread where he was going off on DMuth with his anti-Democrat views, and the drama that resulted.  I believe it's cited in the ED article and earlier in this page.  Leam 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a single short paragraph concerning his views (and hypocrisy) on Encyclopedia Dramatica - all the rest deal with his attitude, conduct, writing etc. None flame him for his views, just point out inconsistencies and blatant contradictions. Mikael Grizzly 20:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the trolling was an overall attack due to his beliefs AND attitude. Word it to reflect the all encompassing nature of that and I think we'll have reached compromise.--Kendricks Redtail 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed with above. Since it's not 3am or so, here's that link (which was at the top of this discussion page :-P): http://giza.livejournal.com/295070.html?thread=2364830#t2364830.  I'm sure if you read further into the articles, you can find more, but frankly, without his views, no one on ED would have found him nearly as funny; the bad attitude is only part of the equation.  In fact, one could argue that we wouldn't be having this discussion if it weren't for the mentioned link.  If you want to rephrase that, please do.  In the meantime, I am partially reverting it so that the fact that he has an ED article isn't just a paragraph on its own.  EDIT: well, let's try to incorporate mentioning the reaction... I don't know...  fuck it.  Someone else have a look.  Also added the bit about SHUT UP JUDGE  Leam 23:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)