Talk:Evil Sibe/Archive1

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

This page contains older conversations, click the link above for the most recent.

Attention, Regarding link to Criminal record

The link has been approved as allowed information in regards all privacy laws, public information laws and terms of services for all websites involved. Please see User_talk:Nidonocu#Personal_contact_information.3F for the discussion regarding this. --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 00:06, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Numerous edits have been made to this page since the annoucement of WikiFur. These edits removed information from the page, and so were reverted. When I made the page, I tried to stick to the facts. So far, there has been no debate over them, but there is debate about whether or not they set Sibe in a fair light. There is also debate over whether his real name should be on this page.

Here is a log of a chat on the Wikicities debating this topic, mostly between myself, Offline, and Markus:

(GreenReaper): Anyway, questions? (Offline): I do have a question. now this is not ment to cause harm in anyway. But why is the option to edit the sibe entry not there anymore? (Offline): It really looks as if it's violating the ToS. and whit it being so one-sided, People can't even edit it to add good things. (GreenReaper): I removed the option to edit the sibe article because it had been the target of numerous deletions and alterations, both by people who seemed to support him and seemed not to. None of them was particularly factual or neutral (Offline): Ahhh. (GreenReaper): Well, see (Offline): still however, it really makes him out to be a really bad guy. Now, I'm not a huge supporter of sibe, or am i even a supporter of the fandom. but it does include his real name. (Offline): And since it does include his real name, it's more of an attack on his actual person rather than his made up character. (GreenReaper): So are you saying that the information on there is incorrect? I don't know him personally, but I looked around, and from what I could see, he really *was* a bad guy. (GreenReaper): I have tried to include information that I found that puts him in a more positive light, like the Conifur 2004 visit (GreenReaper): but frankly, the balance of evidence shows that he has on numerous occasions caused trouble to many people in the furry fandom. (GreenReaper): If you have evidence showing that he is, in fact, the savior of mankind, I invite you to post it on the discussion page (as I think I mentioned in user talk) (GreenReaper): if it checks out as a factual source, it goes in. (Offline): Well, i'm not saying that the information is correct or not. I'm actually not to sure myself. It's just the simple fact that it carrys his real name. I would think it better if that were deleated. the name "sibe" refers to a fictional character in my opinion. since furrys tend to make up chartoon characters, and should not reflect their real lives. (Offline): Thats all i'm getting at. * GreenReaper nods. (Offline): if a link happens to have his real name in it, then whatever. however, the name "Ross Reddick" should be removed from the top of the page there. (GreenReaper): I am for the separation of real life and the furry fandom where desired, in most circumstances. However in this particular case there is a reason that overrides that, and that reason is that he has demonstrably been a danger to at least one person, caused trouble to many, and may be in the future. (GreenReaper): Putting the name means it's less likely he can just change his nickname and cause trouble. (Offline): I know there are many furrys out there who would not like to have their real name posted. I figure it's more respect than anything else. they would rather be known as their "character". Am I right? (GreenReaper): For example, if he registers at AC 2006 under the name "niceguy", who's to know? (GreenReaper): You're right. It's in the Category:People page. I wrote it myself. In this case, I feel there is a demonstrable need for his real name to be there. (Offline): So it is one sided then? (GreenReaper): People should not be able to escape their actions of such severity as demonstrated by the links currently there just by changing a nickname. To allow that is a problem. (Offline): Some furs can have the respect of not getting their real name posted. but others due to past actions do not get the same respect. (GreenReaper): Hmm? It has all the sides I found. Again, if there is a different side, please tell me of it. (GreenReaper): With all due respect, some furs did not assualt other furs and then steal their cars. :-) (Offline): that may be true. look at it from his side though. (GreenReaper): Well, what I'd do if I were him would be to ensure that good things about me got into there, so it *didn't* make me look like someone not to associate with (GreenReaper): and hopefully, that's the effect it will have. I'm not *that* hopeful, but I'm an optimist. (GreenReaper): the fact that he managed to attend a convention in 2004 without actually being thrown out is a start on that. (Offline): I'm sorry. I still think it's wrong to do this to one guy just because he is a fuck-up. (GreenReaper): The lyrics "you do it to yourself, you do, you and no-one else" come to mind . . . but, if you think that, then do place that discussion on the user talk page. (GreenReaper): In fact, I could place this entire log on there, if you think it would encourage discussion. (GreenReaper): If the balance of opinion of people who have contributed well to this wiki is that his real name should be removed, then I will. (Offline): Thats fine with me. (Offline): However, I don't see it helping out much since this is Sibe were talking about. (GreenReaper): Well, yes . . . and that is the point. :-) (Offline): And I know that the vast majority of the community dislikes this guy very much. (Offline): But even though you posted the Name rule there, you feel it's right to break it as *you?* see fit. (GreenReaper): Yes, pretty much. (GreenReaper): the "probably not a good idea" bit means it's a guideline (GreenReaper): but even if I'd said it as an absolute rule at the time, I'd feel OK about breaking it if I thought it was right. (Offline): There are alot of furs out there that I don't like, and there are furs I do like. Either way, no matter if there bad or good, I would give them the respect of keeping their name off this site. (GreenReaper): Then I thank you. I would again say that in general, it is an excellent guideline to follow. The trouble is where people's online personas and their real life characters have significant overlap. (GreenReaper): When Sibe tries to go to a convention to which he is banned, one way to at least try to prevent that is to stop people registering using ID with the name Ross Reddick. (Offline): However, I'm quite sure that all the furry conventions know who this guy is. He does appear to be a widly known furry. (Offline): I don't think that posting his real name is going to affect the furry conventions. (Offline): At least, not anymore. (Ruby_M): Hmm. *** Ruby_M is now known as Mark_McCloud (GreenReaper): Probably not. Let's consider the situation where someone new to the fandom comes around. Maybe they got involved with Sibe, only they don't know that since he uses a nickname - but he can't avoid being known as Ross in real life. Should they be able to find his past? (GreenReaper): *uses a different nickname (GreenReaper): I would say that, for their safety, they should. (GreenReaper): If they decide to continue associating with him, it's their call. (Mark_McCloud): Nice ta see ya Offie. (GreenReaper): My main concern is that the information on that page is a fair representation. If it is that, then my conscience is clear. If it is not, that needs fixing. (GreenReaper): The edits made previously did not offer new information that showed him in a better (or worse) light than the current information, and they removed existing information, so they were reverted, and as that continued, I decided to protect the page. (Mark_McCloud): I myself had to defend a page that has been attacted a few times. The main page. (Mark_McCloud): Some people.. (Offline): If a new furry were to join the fandom, I think it would be best if they made friends on their own, and not told how they should and shouldn't be friends with. (Mark_McCloud): The page for Sibe is as neutral as can be. Saying he "smoked a bowl" is not fact in the way it was expressed, but a speculation or guess.. (Mark_McCloud): in any case.. I need to sleep.. I'll be checking for troll edits later after I get sleep. * Mark_McCloud flopps and snores. (JasonR): Really, His real name is only one click away from the Sibe page anyway (in the criminal record). (Offline): I'm only asking that his real name be removed form the top of the page out of respect. Sure, he might not be the greatest person around, but I still feel it's wrong (GreenReaper): Fair enough. That is your opinon, as the above is mine. Such opinions should be placed on the user talk page, where they can be debated. But consider: if most of those in the furry fandom have a bad opinion of him, any new member of the fandom would be quite likely to have the same reaction on hearing what he has done, and continued to do. And I think they should. (Offline): Alright then. Thank you for listning to what I had to say. (GreenReaper): I have respect for most people. But respect itself is a measure of opinion. The level of respect drops when the actions are not commesurate with that. Or, more simply: He's done a lot of bad things. The respect I feel I and others owe him as a human being is outweighed by them. (GreenReaper): Things like "please don't come to a convention when you're not wanted" are based on mutual. If it is not returned, then eventually people stop giving it. (GreenReaper): *based on mutual respect (GreenReaper): I shall post this log on the talk page. I shall also post a note directing users there so that they may debate the protection. (Offline): Thats cool. Thank you for at least considering it and opening it up for disscusion. (GreenReaper): That is what a wiki is all about. :-)

If you are a visitor to this page, your opinion on whether or not it is appropriate for Sibe's real name to be on the page would be welcome below. Also, any further reliable sources of information that you have could be useful. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:46, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

"Sold" pirated art?

I know that he's distributed and torrented various copyrighted works, such as Genus Male and a bunch of art sites such as "SexyFur," but where's the proof that he's actually sold the pirated artwork? I've never heard of that up until now.

Granted I hope this proof doesn't come from word-of-mouth. It seems that whenever Sibe is discussed, McCarthyism suddenly goes into full-effect and people try to one-up each other on what they've heard from the grapevine about $$DA EVIL HUSKEE$$. --Verix

That's fair enough. I can't immediately see evidence for this in the sources, and none were marked as showng that, so I've changed it to "distributing" rather than "offering for sale". Thanks for helping make this article better! --GreenReaper(talk) 02:55, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Oh it's no problem. Is there any chance of also getting a commentary on the scapegoating that occurs due to his infamy? Such as if anyone attacks a channel anywhere, or if something happens to anything furry related, the immidiate response is "it was Sibe!"? Not trying to portray him in a better light, because hey, the record's there (at least at the bottom of the page under "criminal record"), but just trying to add more information as to what happens with this dude. --Verix
Sure, if you can provide some evidence of it . . . for example, if there are newsgroup or forum posts of it occurring. I've not seen it myself, so I don't know.
Of course, you should be make sure that it's not really Sibe behind it all. He can be tricksy, that husky. Like a fox, only grayer! ;-) --GreenReaper(talk) 03:24, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Oh of course. I know of one specifically that happened on FurNet in a channel called #dragonyiff. A bunch of furries (and some Something Awful goons, I think) with the idea to just flood a channel came in, then stopped when the channel was set to "mute." After the flood stopped, one of the few responses was that it was Sibe's doing. That's just one example. I'm not quite sure if it's incredibly apparent, though, but I'll be sure to try and remember more situations that've happened. Verix 03:45, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I never sold pirated art. Thats a blatent lie.
Sibe bragged about his Art CDs a few years ago. He tried to tease, claiming he stole my Art to make money. I have no further proofs he truely did sell CDs. Maybe you could ask "Rabbit Valley", they certainly know the information. --Ozone Griffox 16:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hard Evidence

Since people were looking for factual information regarding Sibe, I have provided the admins of this site with the actual photocopy scans (in PDF form) of Sibe's criminal record and other related litigation records.

On a note for some of the more privacy minded people who have commented on this disccussion. This information is freely available through the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 and through the Privacy Act of 1974. Posting said information in a public forum or other press type format, such as this site, as a part of the Sibe article to present real and hard evidence of this person in question, is an activity which is specifically protected by the Constitution's first amendment and these two acts. Contrary to what some people have mentioned above, the posting of such information can not be legally constituted as slander because the name "Sibe" is considered a criminal alias for the purposes of identifying Mr. Ross Reddick, and because all information pertaining to such activities within his criminal record is factual. Slander must include some element of falsehood which is designed to ruin a person. Facts and truth are not slander no matter how unflattering they are. Additionally, since this information is directly pertinent to the furry community, it would be unfair in the interests of truth and neutrality to withhold or censor it. The facts should be allowed to speak for themselves, if they paint the person in a bad light then it falls upon the person in question to rectify their own actions.

Finally, if you are interested in more information about Mr. Reddick, then I suggest contacting the FBI and requesting a copy of his FBI file (Yes, one exists and is rather lengthy); contacting one of the groups whom is in currently in litigation with him, like Rabbit Valley Press or FurNation Press; or contacting the state/county that said litigation is under teh jurisdiction of.

--Chronocoon 03:59, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Slander? Who mentioned anything about slander? Or am I just being lazy and not seeing mentions of it in that huge chatlog above or in the discussion I had with Green? -- Verix 05:00, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Slander is an inference to what Offline was referring to with regards to the use of Sibe's real name.

(Offline): Well, i'm not saying that the information is correct or not. 
           I'm actually not to sure myself. It's just the simple fact that 
           it carrys his real name. I would think it better if that were deleated. 
           the name "sibe" refers to a fictional character in my opinion. since 
           furrys tend to make up chartoon characters, and should not reflect 
           their real lives.
(Offline): Thats all i'm getting at.
  • Slander ≠ Libel. Sillies.

For the purposes of this discussion, what the law has to say about the name "Sibe" is that it's not a fictional character but a criminal alias of a real person. The use of his real name might be considered slanderous or an invasion of privacy if not for the FOIA. -- Chronocoon 06:25, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Ahh. Okay, I figured it was my ADD. Thanks for the clarification. -- Verix 05:21, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, just an FYI after thought clarification on what I wrote as well: From the point of view of the law, there is a marked difference between an Alias, and a Fictional Name. A fictional name is only used to refer to something which does not exist. However, a fictional name ceases being so when it is used to refer to a real person. This name association turns it into an alias, and aliases are not granted any legal right to privacy. The rationalle for placing aliases on public record and offering them no protection of privacy is to prevent the use of false or alternative names to commit acts of fraud. It is for this the very reason that a legal name change requires a court hearing in most states and one must swear under oath in front of a judge that the name change is not to defraud anyone or to commit future acts of fraud. If aliases were not covered like this, it would present an exploitable loop hole to commit fraud. Additionally, according to the law, the real world does not cease to exist just because someone's actions occur in some intangible virtual space such as IRC or Second Life. The person in the real world sitting behind the computer can be and often is held legally accountable for their actions, wether they be under a "fictional character name" or their real name. So, in closing, regardless of one's opinion on this, whether in agreement or not, it is important to understand that this precident is the one which is currently upheld within the United States judicial system. That's something to chew on and consider as a whole with regard to the whole 'name' rule for this site.

I should point out that various furs do have valid, legitimate court orders of protection against Mr. Reddick. These furs do go to conventions, and the stipulations of several of their protection orders include "if Mr. Reddick is at the same location as the plaintiff, Mr. Reddick must leave."
I should also point out (Sibe) that "various" furs do not have valid, legitimate anti-harassment orders against Mr. Reddick. The only one who does is Grey Fox Of Winter , AKA Loki Grey Coyote, aka Lonnie Wilson. That is the only "protection order" that has ever been served my person on a furrys behalf. The way Lonnie got this order was I emailed him, he responded with do not contact me anymore. Then I replied to that with "Why are you so mean?" He used that email discussion as grounds to get his anti-harassment order (less binding then a restraining order). The order will expire Feburary 2006. -Sibe

There's also an interesting interstate aspect of things: if a court order of protection is violated across or while across state lines, it carries 5+ years of jail time in a federal prison, minimum sentence.

Thus, if Mr. Reddick shows his face at a convention that I know one of these furs is at, I will be calling the FBI, and we'll be rid of him for a while.

Do you have links to scans of these court orders, or physical copies of them? --Dmuth 15:16, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
The order of protection that was gotten by myself against Ross Reddick was served by publication, and became effective on April 13th, 2005, for a period of one year. It was then personally served on Mr. Reddick on May 8th, 2005 by Officer K. Boyd of the Tukwila Police Department at Southcenter Mall in Washington State. It is actually expiring on April 13th, 2006. The service by publication was done due to his evasion of process service. The reason for service by publication is not to have him arrested from his lack of knowledge from the order, it is to keep the petitioner from having to go to court multiple times to get the temporary ex-parte order renewed over and over again due to the respondant's evasive conduct.
Per RCW 10.14.115, if he had contacted me or otherwise violated the order between April 13th and May 8th of 2005, he would not have been in violation of the order, unless he stated that he was an avid reader of legal notices in the King County Journal (which was the newspaper of legal notice record in the county). After that point, if he violated the terms, he is subject to arrest and contempt of court citation by the district court up here.
Anti-Harassment Orders are no less "binding" on the respondent than other forms of protection orders, it's just that violations of a Washington State anti-harassment order is a gross misdemeanor rather than a felony, as far as violations in the state of Washington goes. It could be felony level as far as other states depending on their laws of recognition of such orders from other states and how they translate into their matrix of orders of protection and punishments for violations of such, and federal law also has it's hand in it as well (going across state lines to violate orders of protection is a federal felony offense).
States have various different kinds of names for orders of protection, and different punishment levels for violations of such. Oregon's equivalent to Washington State's Anti-Harassment Orders are called "Stalking Protection Orders". The terms "Restraining Order" and "Order of Protection" should be assumed to be general terms encompassing the whole spectrum of such kinds of orders, because every state is different, and as was proven by Further Confusion, corporations can get orders of protection as well against individuals as well, at least in California. -Gray Coyote 19:00, 11 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I reverted out the following edit to the History section, 20 March 2002:

Having taken $500 from the account, Sibe went to downtown portland to blow the cash at a gay strip club called the Silverado. After blowing the money at the bar, getting drunk and buying drinks for everyone in the bar he drove to Camas, Washington with one of the strippers in the bar. At approximately 7a.m. he was arrested for the theft of the automobile (among other charges).

It sounds questionable, it certainly isn't NPOV, and even if it's true, it strikes me as inflammatory and irrelevant detail, something I don't think WikiFur wants to get into. Fell free to discuss and decide if it should be restored. --mwalimu 17:23, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

While I disagree in part with how the information was presented, I do believe it is more than plausible given his other actions. If we're describing Sibe's character here, how he spent the money is relevant. I would feel uncomfortable about naming the dancer who went with him, but fortunately this did not come up. The terms of the writing were not NPOV - I have adjusted this. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:43, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Revert of questionable content

I reverted out the following edit to the History section, 20 March 2002:

Having taken $500 from the account, Sibe went to downtown portland to blow the cash at a gay strip club called the Silverado. After blowing the money at the bar, getting drunk and buying drinks for everyone in the bar he drove to Camas, Washington with one of the strippers in the bar. At approximately 7a.m. he was arrested for the theft of the automobile (among other charges).

It sounds questionable, it certainly isn't NPOV, and even if it's true, it strikes me as inflammatory and irrelevant detail, something I don't think WikiFur wants to get into. Fell free to discuss and decide if it should be restored. --mwalimu 17:23, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

While I disagree in part with how the information was presented, I do believe it is more than plausible given his other actions. If we're describing Sibe's character here, how he spent the money is relevant. I would feel uncomfortable about naming the dancer who went with him, but fortunately this did not come up. The terms of the writing were not NPOV - I have adjusted this. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:43, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Questionable links

An Anonymous user has added information to the article under history and external links which leads to a site that, according to the "new" information in the article, contains a .torrent file which in itself allows a Bit Torrent user to download about 9GB of copyrighted material like that from Sexyfur among other sites. The same changes in the article suggest that Sibe had been banned from LJ because he refused to remove that link from his journal. If that much is true and the supporting evidence is correct, then it may be wise to remove the potentially illegal link(s) from the page to avoid any potential legal trouble. At this time, I have done so, though leaving the "written" email links in place. I would personally think that linking to a page that itself links to a potentially illegal pirated collection of pictures is an unsafe thing to do on this wiki. --Markus 12:42, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Edit: On second thought, after reading the emails themselves, I find them a little dubious. They hold the real names and email addresses as well as phone numbers of a certain person, and if they are real, the people in question probably wouldn't want to be flooded with calls from heaven only knows how many people. The links so far are found on the thepiratebay website and are called "rabbit_mail", "rabbit_resp", and "rabbit_mail2" respectively and in order. I find them dubious though and probably the entire tracker system of the site may reflect its name, I won't care either way. --Markus 12:42, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm unsure about this myself. I don't doubt that the emails are valid - actually I think they show Rabbit Valley in a fairly good light, which probably wouldn't be the case if they were fake.
I did like the reference to PafCon (CSI):
Hope to see you at the annually furry-convention in Las Vegas! Our whole staff
will be going as the cast from the movie "Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey"
I don't think it's worth worrying about too much, though. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:19, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Please send a valid, verifiable, e-mail request to one of the Wikifurry administrators. The request for exclusion must be made by the person the entry appertains to. Spirou 18:10, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Please regard this as the official request for exclusion. Sibe

Please send a valid, verifiable, e-mail request to one of the Wikifurry administrators. The request for exclusion must be made by the person the entry appertains to. A written request on a Wikifurry page without proper verification is not a valid form of request. As your IP indicates prior vandalism of Wikifurry entries, we have no way to confirm that you are "Ross H. Reddick," (Sibe.) Please refer to the first suggestion for proper exclusion. Spirou 18:16, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
"Negative /r/ removal" is not a valid address. Spirou 18:21, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I've temporarily protected the entry until the exclusion request is verified as actually being from Sibe by an administrator. Play by the rules, and we'll be happy to accomodate your request. Carl Fox 20:12, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I've been on the Wiki long enough and I consider myself to be friends with Greenreaper. I know I'm not an administrator, but I can verify that's Sibe. Trust me? :/ --Skunklogo.gif(U)(T)(C) 20:51, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
This is a removal request from Sibe. The question is, do we accept it?
WikiFur:Personal information has always had an important cavaet - at the discretion of the WikiFur administration. To be blunt, out of all articles on WikiFur, this is the one I was thinking of most when I wrote that.
Many people feel strongly about Sibe. He appears to have done things that, frankly, pissed off a lot of people in the furry fandom, and he has (to my knowledge) shown little to no remorse for those actions. He does not respect the copyright of artists, to the extent that he has actually been tried and convicted for distributing their artwork. His article at WikiFur reflects that.
Ultimately, the exclusion of articles about people at their request is done out of mutual respect. But is this enough for us to justify denying his request? Is it better for the fandom for it to stay? Should we be willing to remove some information but not other information? What are your thoughts? --GreenReaper(talk) 20:53, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
We ought to respect anyone's removal request, even if personally we don't agree with it. Although I hope with Sibe's approval that an article more acceptable to all could be written. For instance, speculation on which conventions one has been banned from isn't appropriate for anyone's article. --Rat 21:10, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, personal information protection is something we have not faulted at yet, even for people like Random and Squee rat. So, as long if he request it personally (A "friends" request in his behalf is no a valid one,) with a real e-mail, that verifies it originated from him ("Ross Redick",) would have to be respected. In other words, he himself, and not hiding behind a "rent-a-email," avatar, or other type of obfuscating device, must ask the administrators in the open.
If removed, his "deeds" information can be incorporated into appropriate articles without mentioning this individual. Just my 2 cents. 21:13, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
He didn't ASK me to. I volunteered. I was talking to him on AIM. And if you keep adding on to these rules of what Sibe can and cannot do, then he'll have no way of sending an email to anyone. Just revert the damn page, it is him for crying out loud.
And if you got a problem with me, just come out and say, okay? --Skunklogo.gif(U)(T)(C) 21:22, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Random's name was removed because it had no particular relevance to the rest of the information presented in the article. Squee Rat has (as far as I know) left the fandom. Sibe remains within the fandom; whether his name is required is a valid topic of debate, and is one of the items of information that might reasonably be removed without removing the whole article. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:38, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
"He didn't ASK me to. I volunteered....And if you got a problem with me, just come out and say, okay?." If you referring to "(A "friends" request in his behalf is no a valid one)," that was a generic phrase, not directed at you... As in ("A request from Ross' third cousin's PT teacher's gardener's son in law's nephew's drunk girlfriend in his behalf is no a valid one,")... >.< 21:48, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
This isnt really a talk about exclusion, this is just a way that GreenReaper can lock the article, and make it seem like hes not being unfair. However, he really is. I hope I get to meet him in person someday, I would love to talk with him personally about my displeasure with his actions. -Sibe
This discussion is a method for deciding how we handle this sort of situation now and in the future. Someone has to be the test case, just as a certain person other was for the removal of names in "unrelated" articles where they were not central to the article. I won't just keep removing articles about noted people in the community without assurance that this is, in fact, the thing that the WikiFur community wishes. So far it seems I was right to worry, as there's no obvious consensus - some people think you should be excluded, and some do not, and there has not been much of an attempt at reconciling those positions by pinning down a middle ground.
I (or another administrator) will unlock the article when there is agreement on what is to be done. If anyone wishes to propose an alternate version that would be better, than they are free to make a subpage that contains a modified copy of the article. If they favour the removal of such protection from other pages as a result then perhaps examples of the pages that would be placed on these unexcluded pages would be appropriate as well. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:33, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
No new rules for Ross Reddick are being applied for exclusion. Random and Squeerat did it by the book (personal email, with their name on it, that could be verified or traced back.) He just need to do as much, that's all. 21:27, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
No new rules are being applied. I have always considered the appropriateness of any particular exclusion request (and I hope others have, too). In this case I am unsure of the consensus of the community, so I have opened this up for general discussion. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:34, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Please just respect my request to remove the article.


I should point out that several times I think the 'Sibe' article has been used as a bench mark for what's private and what's public. This discussion on Talk:Uncle Kage being one. People have to think where the line on public/private info has to be drawn on this wiki and this looks as though it may be where we have to decide. --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 05:13, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I am still undecided on this article. I think however that the second paragraph is in serious need of a rewrite in the interim. It is not apppropriate to speculate on what conventions he may have been banned from. Only the facts should be present in the article. --Dmuth 06:17, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I feel strongly that this article does not qualify for exclusion. Just as a famous person or politician loses some rights to privacy in the general media by virtue of being famous, because the subject has affected many areas of furry fandom I think that the same applies. Moreover, I feel that the exclusion of "famous" members of the fandom would be highly detrimental to the goals of WikiFur. --Duncan da Husky 13:28, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I second what Duncan said. Could be my own words. somewolf 15:08, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

By now, I don't even think it was even Sibe itself, at least asking "directly," to be removed. I still say "Aye." If we apply this standard because he is well "Know," I would vote revoke the protection on "SqueeRat," because, even though she is now old news, the person with that alias did cause a fair amount of commotion, akin to Sibe's actions today, during her time (Same goes for "Random,"...) In other words, why are we excluding these "famous" people's aliases, but we seem to want to throw the rules out for "Sibe"?. Just two cents more 18:42, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Honestly? I don't much agree with excluding Squee Rat or Random, either, for much the same reasons. Now, that is not to say that they don't have a right to privacy - no real names need be included. I think we need to draw a line where a person's actions affect others; THAT is the information we need to retain. This provides context for where furry fandom is today. Why is regarded by many with scorn? Why do some agree with Burned Furs, but not with their methodology? I think that having the participation of these people included in the tapestry of the fandom's history is an important key to answering those questions. --Duncan da Husky 18:52, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
In other words, exclude ALL personal information, leave the Aliased person in. If that is possible (for ALL aliases,) then I would vote "Aye" on the matter. 19:28, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I have trouble with excluding most people who have been exceedingly relevant or well-known among furries in their time, even if they did make personal requests. Reducing or removing some personal information is less of a dilemma for me. -- Siege 09:20, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I believe Sibe is working on a rewrite that does not have the personal information that concerns him. Once we see what he wishes the article to look like, we can perhaps go from there. I would like this issue to be sorted soon - it's been a while. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:09, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
9/10 September 2005: "EvilSibe," with the opening paragraph "As of right now the Bellevue Police department is outside of my house serving a search warrent on my home, I cannot go anywhere and at any moment I could be arrested, announces the possibility of his possible imminent "arrest." In the post, he suggests that Rabco Publishing is behind this development, takes some jabs at Nexxus, and ends it by professing his love for his family, not. The last words in that post were "And now for some lulz:" followed by political satire -- 07:23, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph tries to describe the "gist" of the post, not trying to quote it verbatim. Spirou 07:57, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Final Vote on the matter?

My two cents. The private information of Furs, Non-Furs, and/or Anti-Furs should be protected above all on this Wiki. If Ross Reddick (the real one), or any verified source, wishes such personal information to be taken out, we simply honor it,... but...

Aliases ("Fursonas," "Characters," etc) are another matter all together. Sibe, Random, SqueeRat... they have had the too much of an impact in the history of the fandom to be "sanitized" out. Suggestion? (IMHO only): Strip any personal information out, restore the information under these aliases back in their open entries (Even then, we should do the restoration with a "case by case" system.)

(Notice: This post does not represent the official view of WikiFur on this matter. This is a personal opinion piece.) Spirou 08:30, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing about personas

I'm going to have to add my input here.. We should be diligent about protecting furs who don't want their real-life information here, but at the same time, avatars and characters and such shouldn't receive as much protection, especially in situations where that avatar is "famous" in the fandom.

Since we are an encyclopedia, it is our duty to have articles on those who are "famous" within the fandom. Famous people in the fandom should be treated much like celebrities are in real-life; information about their characters and what they've done to become famous should be fair game on wikifur.

I do agree with removing Sibe's real name and location from his article if he wishes, though. Despite Sibe's antics, it's only fair to give him the same protection we give others. --Zorin 16:33, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree in this specific case. In situations such as Squee Rat or Random or Stukafox where their real names and locations are pretty much irrelevent I'm OK with leaving that information out. In the unique case of Sibe, though, his real name and location are very much a matter of public record (and court records, copies of which are linked from this article), I do not think that there is much point in omitting them.--Duncan da Husky 13:26, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Multanomah County jail is not a private residence anyhow. ;p --Chibiabos 18:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Restraining orders

I think date of that order is incorrect. It says 13 September 2005, but this suggests it was much closer to the convention. I'm altering it to 13 January 2006 instead.

I also find it odd that AAE managed to get an ex parte restraining order. My understanding of the law (and it is a very bad understanding) was you can only get those on a personal basis. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out above in the restraining order section of the discussion page, every state has different laws and rules in regards to orders of protection. California is one of the states that allows corporations to get orders of protection. I believe Washington State does as well, but I'm not 100 percent sure on that. -Gray Coyote 19:00, 11 Feb 2006 (UTC)