Forum:Request for Protection of Chibiabos

I, Chibiabos 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC), hereby formally request the protection of Policies_and_guidelines, specifically sections entitled "Exclusion of information" and "Excluding links between players and characters" in regards to the article relating to my fursona at Chibiabos.

I contend that I am a private fur, not having administrated (nor held any staff position of note) over any significant forum or website, not having published anything well-known even within the scope of the furry fandom, and having no violent, sexual or otherwise felonious criminal record

Specifically, any links I do not specifically authorize (by manner of including them myself) to mis-attribute to my Chibiabos fursona as present on "Wikifur," including (but not limited to) any profiles on yiffstar.com, livejournal.com, yahoo, or crushyiffdestroy.com.

I contend that these conditions for such exclusions apply to currently offending external links:


 * Some information appropriate to post on a private forum or talk about on FurryMUCK may not be appropriate for such a public venue.
 * Some "information" contains libel (written statements that are factually false)
 * Some "information" presented on at least one such site I wish "to remain separate from that of (my) characters, or wish two characters to remain separate from one another."

This request may be corroborated privately through my e-mail address at Chibiabos@gmail.com or via private message when I am active on the #Wikifur IRC channel. --Chibiabos 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing offending links pending review of request -- JaeSharp 06:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Its been suggested I was unclear in my non-exclusive list of "profile-hosting" sites I wish for permanent protection against linking to from my fursona article on wikifur, Chibiabos. The list, again not limited to, is:  *.livejournal.com.*, *.yahoo.* (yes, I mean anything .co.uk or other international variants of yahoo.com), *.crushyiffdestroy.com.* *.yiffstar.com*  I am not certain how to be more clear on this.  I am further uncertain as to why the Wikifur policy template, which the exclusion request I am requesting is part of, reads "This page is an official policy on WikiFur. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Except for minor edits, please make use of the discussion page to propose changes to this policy" but I am told it is not actual policy and is not considered an enforceable standard.  If someone can identify where my belief that "official policy" has wiggle room for significant exclusions, please explain it to me as I remain quite confused about it.  Thanks.  --Chibiabos 06:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The request is reasonable, and as there has been no objection I'll implement it according to the Personal information Policy. -- JaeSharp 02:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this matter is still open for review pending review of the do-not-post list portion of the personal information exclusion policy however I have implemented it as described. Watch this topic for more information/administrator opinions. -- JaeSharp 02:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be for allowing some exclusion, if we documented in the article what was being excluded. (i.e. *.yahoo.com, etc) --Douglas Muth 13:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That would seem contrary to my request. Would you be keen to vandals creating a page both libellous and sexually harrassing about you and forcing its inclusion on your article?  The cyd document itself is criminal because it contains factually untrue information, and makes remarks or suggestions of a sexual nature that I am not comfortable with.  If you were to make remarks in this sort about a coworker at work, you could be sued for sexual harrassment.  Documenting within an article that you are removing a link by showing the link is nonsensical on many levels to me.  --Chibiabos 13:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This makes impossibly little sense. How are they sexually harassing you on a web board? Is Representative Foley posting on CYD? It seems that you've said a lot of controversial things on the topic of bestiality, including your "heavenly phallus" quote. These are all statements you've made as public record. Why are you now uncomfortable with those words? Are you refuting what you've previously said? Also, there's nothing criminal about "factually unture information", nor is coming to a conclusion based on your own words. 66.88.135.150


 * I am not notable enough to quote, except for those who harrass or stalk. I am not a published author, am not a furry artist, I have never administrated any significant forum.  I am just a private fur who has been active on boards and I do not share common delusions on quite a variety topics.  I hold unpopular views on abortion, for example, as well as capital punishment (and my combination of views between those two is even more rare), "death with dignity," and a lot of other topics.  My sex life is private and I have not granted you nor anyone else the right to make up stories about it.  Violating my consent is, well, violating my consent; thus, sexual harrassment.  If you do not respect sexual harrassment, why don't you sign your name so everyone can know how little respect you give to sexual consent?  --Chibiabos 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Douglas was suggesting that we note the sites that were excluded, not the specific links. If there is no notification, there is nothing to stop other people adding further links to such sites in the future. You can't expect people to magically know that they shouldn't do something.


 * It is also not fair to our readers and editors to have no warning that a limitation has been placed on the article by the person concerned. There are normally no such limits, and so they will expect articles to fully represent everybody's views. You are seeking to exclude the views of certain people. If others wonder why that is . . . well, perhaps they should wonder. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikifur administrators have sought to grant Sibe, CYD and others freedom from information that is referenced (such as a criminal record and a site's own posts) but unpleasant. There is also an effort initiated by wikifur administrators to alter the rules in such a manner that would eliminate or restrict specific protections against the sort of links that have, for a long time over Wikifur's to-date life, stood unaltered. --Chibiabos 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sibe and CYD have sought such things. We have argued for or against each case, as individuals, just as we are here, and eventually we've come to a decision, as we will here. There isn't a "WikiFur administrators" block that always thinks and votes the same way. As much as you would like to represent the removal of links as a long-standing tradition, so far I can think of only one or two cases, and even there I'm not entirely sure we made the right decision. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * CYD has successfully edit warred out referenced statements and point-of-view-neutralizing phrases. A wikifur administrator reverted my edits to the article and locked it temporarily to prevent me from restoring them.  Since its clear my edits to the CYD article are not welcomed by the wikifur administration, I have ceased my futile efforts to make direct edits and have resorted to remarking my critical remarks in the article's talk page.  No one seems to share my concerns about this.  A strong majority, in fact, seem to feel my rights to maintain integrity in the article about my fursona should be curtailed.


 * If Sibe had not made his "bad faith" act, would your opinion in the matter of whether or not to protect his information (which was about as verified and referenced as you can get) have changed? Did I make his level of "bad faith" acts to warrant such a group resistance against my efforts?  --Chibiabos 01:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sibe had skated close to the edge before, but we were willing to give him a chance. When he messed up that chance, he ended up losing the benefit of the doubt.


 * You've made many edits which I consider questionable, in terms of implying things that others do not believe were implied by the words you referenced. You have also kept trying to use the site's own policies against us, ignoring the fact that in the end, these are guides, and are subject to modification in particular cases, and debate in all cases. You've demanded that we make general rules when there are none (and sometimes in advance of having actual test cases); I am guessing because you think that they will give you the power to say what people should do later on without actually having the consensus of the other editors involved. You have soaked up a lot of my time and a lot of time of other editors with your actions. None of these seem like good things to me.


 * I don't necessarily think that your edits are in bad faith. You probably think you are doing the right thing. However, I think your actions are an example of why Wikipedia strongly encourages people not to edit articles about them or related to their activities. I, too, believe the articles about people or websites are best written by those who are not motivated by emnity for the parties concerned. You are too close, and I think it impairs your editing. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When there are no rules, anarchy reins. I simply wanted a consistent rule before I would spend a lot of time doing research only for it to amount to zilch because you want to give people like Sibe a "second chance" and avoid letting people who would come into contact with him a fair chance to get to know the verifiable facts on public record.  You dismiss my philosophies and question my motives and taking that and coupling it with the one-sided administration where you wish to protect Sibe and CYD from their facts, but wish to force their unsupported opinions on my article after they've had a long time making one-sided posts in their forums and rantings and rumormongerings on FurryMUCK.  They've stalked me around ad nauseum, and yet the moment I point out their claims of being innocent, un-stalking and disassociating from extremist behaviors are false by their own posts and articles, my edits get edit-warred out, their articles get re-whitewashed and my own get vandalized and your administration start changing the rules in what I cannot see as anything but an effort to aid CYD's long-standing one-sided ad hominem attacks upon me.  I've stated this over and over again but you seem to feel I have alterior motives.  You've accused me of having "vendettas" to carry out revenge against others when I'm just calling for justice.  Not once have I called for anyone to libel nor sexually harras CYD back, nor have I ever called for anyone to physically abuse Sibe the way he has physically abused others.  You can't seem to tell the difference between revenge and justice.


 * If I had not written an article about me, there never would be since I am not well-known, even within the furry fandom. I was forced to accept filthy garbage on my talk page for months while you focused on things like moving forward with the greatest whitewash effort I'd ever heard of on Sibe's article.  This double standard has been applied over and over again, and I really wish it would stop.


 * CYD pulled the wool over your eyes, just as Sibe had, and even in the face of evidence from their own website that the actions of their extremist members are not, in fact, disassociated from CYD hasn't seemed to affect your association with them; in fact, you merely seem to become more agitated with me because I pointed out the fact that they lied and they are harmful. You seem to feel I am in a special class deserving no protection of rules, and I still cannot figure out why.  --Chibiabos 02:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again you rely on the argument that the document is libel. It is not, and so, your request is nonsensical.  The information in the document is in the public domain.  Your claim stating your Yiffstar account is not you is simply ludicrous.  You promote bestiality on WikiFur, yet when the documented article claims you practice it, you attempt to exclude it from WikiFur.  The exclusion of your public journal is simply obfuscation.  Your work to obscure the truth stands contrary to the purpose of a wiki -- readers do not visit WikiFur to be fooled and misled, though increasingly often they are.  To impede this flow of misinformation, your article should at least note that information is being withheld for personal reasons.  --DS|go 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You offer zero criminal record for specific criminal allegations. I can state, affirmatively, I have never been convicted -- nor even formally charged -- with any sex crime.  Inventing allegations for the purposes of bringing shame or embarrassment on me is nothing but libellous ad hominem attacks designed to detract from the issues I argue upon.  You've lied to me, you've lied to Wikifur, and CYD's official remarks have made quite the fool of a lot of furs believing it prohibits the actions of RailFoxen.  The lies your organization invents coupled with its long history of specifically targetting myself and a few other private individuals serves no purpose other than to fulfill self-gratification desires on the part of CYD administrators and members.  You obfuscate every issue, delete references to your own site that show contradictions and validly question the credibility of anyone involved in CYD.  I do, indeed, impede the flow of misinformation your group has been expressing about me for the past year, and you have no right to expect wikifur to serve as a forum to validate and expand your libel, stalking and harrassment.  --Chibiabos 00:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to believe you must be convicted of a rape to be called a rapist. I feel your own admissions of rape are close enough to give you that moniker.  However, if you truly wish, I might go through the article and replace the term 'rapist' with 'sexual predator'.  Also, I'll give you the upper hand and time to ask this be placed on the banlist before someone adds it to your article.  --DS|go 02:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)