Talk:Jessica Elwood

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

Please try and keep to clean language. For now, it is highly believed that this was a raid, considering that multiple places, including Wikifur, were attacked. It is unlikely that it is something Jessica did herself. It is because we do not know whether it was 4chan or Encyclopedia Dramatica (or perhaps some other group) that were involved that the language in the article is hesitant to say which it was as well. For now, until proof can be found one way or another, the wording in the article will stay as it is. If you wish for it to be changed, please find proof that can be used as a reference. SilverserenC 03:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Connection to Arden the Black[edit]

While there doesn't seem to be reference to "Arden the Black" outside of 4chan/ED, there is reference to Arden/"Arturo Juarez"... That's the first reference to Arden in that thread. Look through that and you'll find people who have archived Arturo's work along with some people who noticed the similarities with JE's work. I don't know where the "the Black" suffix comes from - I'm still doing some digging. --Rynl 05:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So, I decided to track down "Jessica Elwood" accounts. Found this one: Probably the real deal. Check contact info; lists "" for MSN and "jesscolaneri" for Yahoo. With only 3 posts in that account, there's not much to go by, HOWEVER, there's this thread: Unfortunately the artwork image is dead - i guess due to the age. The forum is in reverse chronological order, so #1 is on the bottom. Of interest here is that the post says "This time I used a couple tips Arden gave me, to give lights to the hair." This is the first I've seen of there being an actual link between JE and the fabled Arden --Rynl 07:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
You can find references to "Arden the Black" on the Playmouse website. Do a search, and you'll see several images by him. I also know that Arden used to post on the VCL with the name "Arturo Juarez", and he'd also post some of the same images to the Yahoo group/web site under "Arden the Black". Hope that helps! Temaine da Hedgefox! 09:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
While it is often a joke to say "It's not on Google, therefore it doesn't exist" - this is just one of those moments that prove you can't pull that defence. Unfortunately, searching through for the right Yahoo group is virtually impossible (there's thousands of furry groups), so I won't be touching that any time soon. --Rynl 19:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Now its like considering her rather insecure disposition we shall never see J-Elwood again; those absolute fuckers! --Dansk 02:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the "Arden the Black" situation, and I can't say who really carried out the attack. I don't approve of such measures. However I can speak to one or two things:

1. "Jessica Colaneri" was the name she emailed me under, so that much is accurate.

2. All paypal transactions with her were carried out under the name of Martha Guerrero Martinez, so that much is also accurate.

3. The behavior described at Encyclopedia Dramatica is *exactly* what happened to me. I paid her $65 through paypal, got absolutely nothing, not even a sketch, and only got a refund two years later when I suggested opening a thread about it on livejournal/artits_beware. That was entirely accurate, and I'm not the only person who has been taken.

And for those of you calm, rational, and interested enough to POLITELY ask for it, I can and will provide proof.


Seeing as how I don't believe in ED's crap one bit, yes I'd like some proof. Dedodede 03:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It would probably be best to wait to deal with such information until after all of this has blown over, since the situation is pretty volatile right now. If you give it a few days, things should be calm enough that we can look toward putting in information regarding the proof you have. Though I encourage you to give links, screenshots, whatever you like on this talk page, so we can discuss it and work out what changes we will end up making to the article. SilverserenC 03:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help.[edit]

Dedoded - you may believe what you like, but what was described on ED is exactly what happened to me.

Silverseren - That's fine. Do you want me to post the screenshots somewhere specific, or send them to you directly? And are screenshots sufficient, or do you want me to forward copies of the actual correspondence?

It depends on what the screenshots are of, really. But, feel free to put them here on this talk page. As links, of course. That way others will be able to look at them as well. And remember that you can sign your name by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your comments. SilverserenC 04:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Found some links:

And after reading some other posts -- well, at least she's not the worst artist in there. Dedodede 04:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, at least she does give refunds in the end, so I wouldn't call it plain "scamming" as ED did. Dedodede 05:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo account[edit]

The photo account wasn't hacked by whoever/whatever. That was deactivated by herself/himself/whatever - prior to the apology post regarding her using her "friend" for the photos. Just thought I'd share that. --Rynl 05:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So...she had a separate account for photos or do you mean just her account in general? SilverserenC 05:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The Jelwoodphoto account in the External Links. It's listed as being a target for hacking. It wasn't. That was taking down a couple days ago and then she posted the Apology journal post on her main art account. --Rynl 05:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Except the photo of the apology on ED is of the same day she was hacked. We have no idea how long her DA accounts were compromised before they decided to try and ruin her DA presence, whichever /b/tard script kiddie did this could have easily waited a day or two before doing the troll thing, posting a fake apology to match up with the ongoing troll meme. KiTA 14:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
That can only be proven/disproven if a DA administrator checks the IP logs of her account. Until such a person comes forward with that information, all anyone can do is speculate on the matter. If anyone here knows a DA administrator with access to that information, get into contact with them and see if they can check to see if the IP address used to access the account for said malicious attacks was the same or different from the normal IP she logged in with. Duckhat 01:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

ALLEGED July 2010 hacking[edit]

There is no independent verification that the account was hacked. It is possible that it was an actual hack, or it is possible that it was a stunt by the account owner. Ross Boxfox 16:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

However, it is commonly accepted that it was a hacking, so that's what we're going with for now, until other evidence can be found to prove otherwise. In my personal opinion, if she did it herself, then she wouldn't have thought to also attack Wikifur at the same time repeatedly. That seems like something 4chan would do (and are still doing occasionally), so that raises the likelihood of it being a hack. SilverserenC 17:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
If a hacker posted the apology journal, why would they block and delete everyone who pointed out that Camerella - the girl whose pics Jess used without permission - said she had no knowledge of the whole thing? The 'apology' claims they worked on the idea together but Camerella says she just posed for some pictures and fansigns a few months ago and that was all. 18:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Dude. It's commonly accepted that this is an attempt to welsh on all the commissions owed. No one thinks this was real. 22:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Go back to where you came from. First of all, if she wanted to disappear, she would have hit ALL her accounts. FurAffinity was not hacked. Forgetting one of her commonly updated sites doesn't seem likely. Second, the hackers revealed her full real name (even if it wasn't well hidden). That is a classic 4chan move and NOT something that someone who wishes to disappear would do. Your "theory" just doesn't pan out. 23:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It's also possible (and I admit that I'm speculating, but no more than you are) that the hack was meant just to erase/deflect attention on the revelation that she posted fake pictures of herself on her DA account. She later admitted to it many hours before the hacking, but even her admission turned out to be a fabrication as she claimed to know the person she was using the photos from (who later found out and denied this). She may have left her FA account untouched because none of this exists there to hide/cover up. She may also realize that a total wipeout of all accounts would look more like a hoax than just one account. Also, she may have staged the release of her "real name" as a way of making it seem like it is actually her real name, when it may in fact not be at all (no harm to oneself in releasing a fake name after all). I'm not claiming to believe all that, merely playing devil's advocate. It's best not to blindly take sides.Wosret 03:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There just isn't enough proof that 4chan is behind it, and 'commonly accepted' isn't proof. If this article wants to be accurate, then point out that there is speculation about it being a real hack or not. But saying something absolutely happened without proof isn't acceptable. 00:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

+1 General consensus doesn't turn something into fact. There are two camps on the matter - she was either hacked or she did it herself. The problem with her being hacked though is that afterwards, she's practically disappeared off the face of the earth. If she was hacked, based on her previous journal entries and writing style, she would vent about it somewhere - most likely on FurAffinity. Equally so, if she did it herself to gain sympathy, she would post somewhere in order to "rally the troops" to her side - HOWEVER - during the alleged "hack" some people caught on during this time (there's that screenshot on ED) bringing doubt during the event itself - with the JE account posting as well in response. IF she did it herself and was caught out then trying to gain sympathy this way would fall into question. Of course, a counter argument to this is that there was nothing stopping the hacker from pretending to be JE and making it look like a faked hack. Anyway, that's what all the speculation essentially boils down to. The only thing that can be done, in order to get some "facts", is to wait for JE to say something. Of course, i use the word "facts" lightly here on the off-chance that JE isn't who she says she is. --Rynl 03:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
She may not have needed to say anything to attempt to gain sympathy. Once it became known that 4chan/ED was allegedly behind it, many blind furries would instantly pour out sympathy for her even if she said nothing. Case in point, the flood of shouts on her FA account.Wosret 03:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Furry ED/4ch representative here. What makes you people think it's anything to do with us? Gawd. Also, Jessica is obviously a man, and did "hack" his own DA. I doubt any skilled account cracker would get memes fucked up like with the so-called hacked journal. "Never forget, never forgive", what? Obviously the work of Mr. Elwood.-- 17:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I never suggested that it was actually 4ch/ED, just that it would be remarkably easy to get most furries to think so, since so many take the ED/4ch thing so personally, and lack a sense of humor about furry. I agree that it was most likely a hoax. I just hope in the end the proof comes out. Wosret 17:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

ED's take on the situation[edit]

They have seemed to drummed up a large amount of evidence against Elwood. There are plenty of rips and such and evidence that the photos she posted were not even of a friend of hers. It might be worth taking a look.

I agree it's worth taking a look at. A lot of people are quick to jump to the conclusion that everything ED says is wrong, but quite frankly that's a knee-jerk reaction from a bunch of over-protective butthurt furries. I agree ED adds a lot of exaggeration to their articles for the sake of humour but a lot of the actual images posted, such as the Camerella facebook screenshot, Jessica's admission, and the side-by-side comparison of images, are all legitimate images.Wosret 02:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions Taste Good.[edit]

Hey, why is it that you want proof that it was not a hack, when you are not bothering to get proof that it was a hack? Talk about a walking contradiction. You seem to think it's okay to accept a "widely accepted fact," with no independent information to verify it, and then demand an opposing view, which has just as many facts as the other, to have better proof?

Wow. Nice hypocrisy there. So much for being about facts as apposed to rumors.

You should at least include in the article that there is some reason to believe that it may have not been a hack, seeing as you HAVE NO PROOF EITHER WAY.

But that would be the intelligent thing to do. Can't have that....

Agreed. I modified the article to be more neutral, to mention both theories equally, and to clarify that it's all speculation.Wosret 02:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


Anyone else find it fishy as all hell that the same day she's hacked is when a post about her faking the photos is posted? I find it more likely that it was posted by the guy/guys from /b/ and ED. KiTA 01:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's fishy as hell, but you got your facts out of order, and you're actively denying the photos were faked. 01:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The screenshot is legitimate. Note the 200+ comments. It was up for some time before the account was hacked, while she still had her legit images posted. There is another image that shows the pictures Jessica posted claiming to be her, with identical pictures from Camerella. These photos were in her DA account and had been there for some time. While I agree that it is speculation, and I worded the article as such, it seems reasonable the "hack" was meant to cover all of this up. The reason she might not have nuked her FA account as well, is because there was nothing there to hide.Wosret 02:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick addition: While the date on the screenshot is indeed July 9th, note the time is 12:09AM, meaning that it had only been July 9th for a few minutes. The "hacking" came several hours later: 15 hours, in fact, at approximately 3PM. Possibly Jessica realized that her apology was in itself a lie and decided to pull a stunt?Wosret 02:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the people that follow her on DA also follow on FA so they're gonna find out. It would have been smart to nuke all of her accounts instead of just 2. And why destroy only her for lying since half of the people who were happy with it are themselves art thieves the cam whore looked nowhere near as good as her "fake" photos. I think she pissed some one off and they got back at her in a horrible way.

Article revision[edit]

I've got the article to a fairly neutral standpoint as it is. I expect Jessica fanboys might try to revert back to the older and obviously biased/slanted version, which was clearly very unprofessional in nature. Words like 'trolls' and 'retarded' are not appropriate, and the article was clearly not from a neutral point of view. I believe that it is neutral now and presents the facts pretty clearly, as they were known at the time of the revisions. I have a fairly unbiased view, I think, on what's going on, as I'm not part of ED or any of those organizations, nor am I a close-minded furry fanboy that will reject anything negative about Jessica, however bulletproof it is. This has nothing to do with "furries vs. anon" or any of that stuff. We're here merely to observe and document. Wosret 04:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You did a very nice job on the wording. It sounds perfectly neutral. I went ahead and removed the "This article will remain neutral on this subject" sentence, since that's not something a Wikifur article would say. And I extended the "This is just speculation" sentence to sound more neutral and editorial. SilverserenC 05:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology Journal on FA[edit]

This should be mentioned somewhere in the article:

"An apology

First of all, I want to apologize to everyone who bought art from me, for my behavior these past months and years. I've been anything but professional with you all and I am terribly, terribly sorry.

In the past year or so things have been really harsh on my end over some personal issues a few already know, however I am fully aware that is not an excuse to procrastinate about my obligation towards these who enjoyed my art enough to wish a piece for their own.

Please, if I owe you anything, NOTE me asap so I can get your usernames. I will do everything in my power to finish all within 60 days. Please comment only if I owe you something!."

After receiving some negative comments by some disillusioned users, the journal may or may not have been superficially bumped off the front of the FA page.

In the journal, users can see just how many people JE owes art too, and how long some of them have waited.

Except not a word of what you posted is true -- Her FA page has no journal updates since the 4th. KiTA 02:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Look at the journal right before it --> It's right there. Actually, I originally didn't see it either, and my bookmark saved wrong, so I thought the journal was gone. it was posted July 4th, 2010 03:21 AM. the 4th of july journal that you are linking to was posted July 4th, 2010 03:39 PM.

IP addresses are from Mexico[edit]

Just FYI as an administrator from FAF/FA the IP addresses and ones for the "Kacey W" on the main site match on the ISP Jessica Elwood used on the forums. They are from .mx While I will not publicly disclose the exact IP address information of users on the site. This person can only believed to be from Mexico, while claiming to be a Californian.

Please send me a note on FA to prove who you say you are, as I find it hard to believe that you are an FA admin, as even disclosing country of origin, when the user does not want it to be known, is against the TOS. SilverserenC 21:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Not entirely correct.
Fur Affinity values your privacy, and we are committed to safeguarding your personal information to the best of our ability. We will never use, share or distribute personally identifiable information (birth date, e-mail address, ISP/IP or other aliases) except when such actions are necessary to:
to investigate reports of illegal activities, fraud or situations involving potential risk or endangerment to the physical safety of our users.
By registering an account (for use as a User or Group account) you agree that all information provided is truthful and accurate. We reserve the right to close any account created with falsified information. In addition, you agree to keep your e-mail address accurate and up-to-date (as is necessary to contact you or provide password resets).
Person isn't being truthful or accurate, but there is no reason to disclose anymore details other than country of origin is not what user claims is. FA Admin tells us about it in the forums right here. Specific post where the Admin says that the Sockpuppet Paypal account IP matches that of JE. Of course, read through the whole thread. It's interesting, I guess. Specific post regarding Kacey W and JE --Rynl 04:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Also add to that the fact that PayPal shows the account commissioners use to send JE money is from Mexico. Exact post is here

Now it appears JE is now using proxies to try to mask his location.

According to the FA site owner, the IPs for KW and JE "don't match at all. Not even close." It is still visible on KW's shouts, but I do have it screen capped if it is ever unavailable.

Not this again. If you're not going to read the rest of the posts please don't bother posting. It was already addressed the site owner was looking at the IP addresses only on the main site, and the forums record multiple addresses. 22:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

deviantArt unbanned, truth is told[edit]

A screen capture of Jessica Elwood's DeviantArt page, taken 14 July 2010.

Pretty much says it all. He hid all of his art in storage. Now José Eldude is shining in his true colours because he lied about the whole thing.--Fiskie 18:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, inb4 "BUT THE HACKER PUT THE UPLOADS IN STORAGE FHSDKFHSDF". Anyone who hacks an account will have the immediate urge to delete fucking everything. Nobody in their right mind would move all the uploads to storage so they can be recovered later unless it's the account owner who is willing to bring everything back once the account is unbanned. Fanboys are fucking stupid.--Fiskie 19:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I would think it would take a lot more work to move everything into storage rather than deleting it...or maybe the same amount of work. But a hacker would be more inclined to deletion than storage, they would have no reason for storage. So, it's pretty much been confirmed in everything but a direct statement that, yes, this was a hoax. And, I suppose in a sense, it worked. SilverserenC 19:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
No actually storage is insanely simple. You just go to Manage Deviations and when you are in the Public menu you'll see a Select All option and a STORE button. I'm sure someone can provide a screenshot. Deactivation is also really easy. You just go to your Settings - Deactivation - "Yes I want to Deactivate this account"
Okay sure. It takes a fair bit longer ta DELETE everythin' than it does ta store it (since storin' everythin' is literally a three-click process), but why WOULDN'T the alleged hacker go that extra mile ta make sure she was ruined? I mean seriously! With as infrequently as Jess hops on ta do much'a ANYTHIN', ya REALLY think she (or anyone ELSE) would notice her deviations disappearin' one by one from first ta last? That's how I'D screw someone over. Chances are a lotta that crap is irreplaceable.  :B Love, Jessica U. Ingmann (Info/Feedback/Edits) 22:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup. I hardly believe that someone would put all the deviations in storage whilst uploading guro and scat and shitposting journals. Eldude had a lot of art, and deleting all of that would give Eldude a lot of work. I'd immediately jump to deleting all of it if I had cracked his account.--Fiskie 23:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the part about Deactivation is also very simple. It apparently wipes the account completely and is not recoverable as far I understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
And yet it was recovered, which implies that it's not that difficult to get it back. And it also seems that things in storage don't get wiped, because they didn't. So, all in all, what happened to the account really didn't do any damage at all, which is why it is unlikely it was a hacker. SilverserenC 00:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
*Facepalm* Ugh... You PEOPLE! This account was hacked/self-defaced (jury's still out on what exactly happened) and BANNED, not deactivated. THIS account was the one that was DEACTIVATED by Jess. NO ONE said her main account was manually deactivated! >.< As fer the ease of recoverin' deactivated accounts, as per that linked page up there, quote: "Please note that we cannot ever restore your account after you have deactivated it, so please consider this carefully before you hit the red button!", unquote. Technically speakin', if one wanted ta screw over someone quick-and-easy, account deactivation'd do it, but if ya wanted ta leave a lastin' impression, takin' the time ta delete a bajillion piece'a art would do it. Love, Jessica U. Ingmann (Info/Feedback/Edits) 00:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I got mixed up. So...if the account had actually been taken over by someone from 4chan or ED or wherever, it would have been a lot better for them to have deactivated the account, since it would have permanently removed the data? Huh...interesting to know. SilverserenC 00:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, the single-most brutal thing fer them ta do would'a been ta delete every single item individually, THEN deface her page. If they just wanted her outta the way though, then yeah, deactivation would do it. Love, Jessica U. Ingmann (Info/Feedback/Edits) 00:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Added a reference image to this section of the talk page, because it's pretty obvious JE's artwork was not "deleted." PhoenixBlue 00:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Since José Eldude is a liar, and everything he has done so far shows him to be a thief, why don't we go through the article replacing "her" with "his" and so forth? Also, why are people always bringing 4chan into this? Not like /b/ gives a shit about random furry artist #13452. They're all closet furfags anyway.--Fiskie 01:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Except her name is Jessica Elwood, not "José Eldude" or whatever racial insult you feel like throwing this afternoon. I am reverting some of the edits on the page and expanding it with more information. KiTA 02:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You vandalized the page. You removed cited info and skewed the article. Removing insults is fine, vandalizing the page via trolling or whiteknighting is not appreciated.

Removed "revision from KiTA"[edit]

Removed the revisions previously made by KiTA for being highly inaccurate and also it removed neutrality to the article. Sources were cited and removed. Please keep it neutral.

Thank you for that. SilverserenC 03:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Reverted the reversion. I fixed several inaccuracies in the article, including the fact that she didn't "steal" a camwhores' pictures, she apparently commissioned them, expanded the rather non-neutral accusations of "self hacking" with information on the ability to mass store images on DA but not mass delete them, amongst others. KiTA 04:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Reverted back to first version again. There are cited sources you are removing for favoritism. Keep it neutral. While not all the photos were stolen there were some that were and distributed. Unless you can cite that every one of them have been paid for you cannot change the article saying such.
Re-reverted again. This is fun! There are a very large number of edits I made to the article, removing some obvious inaccuracies and attempts at trolling. If you feel some of those edits were in error, please feel free to edit those specific changes. KiTA 04:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
your edits are not neutral in tone, and you are defacing cited references. Knock it off. You also are changing information with absolutely no factual support to your claims.

Lock the page please - Would be beneficial to do so anyway till solid factual text can be placed on it. It's all just speculation and the speculation will just continue to grow in the meantime --Rynl 04:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree if it keep KiTA from removing cited references. KiTA removed cited information on locale, removed neutrality saying that everything was paid. If you are going to add edits, you need to live the cited references ALONE.
Re-reverted, but edited it to be a more neutral POV and restored the references at the same time. Even Camerella reports on the same twitter page that she was paid for the pictures / that her company was commissioned for them. KiTA 05:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Removed KiTA's non neutral language again. Not all pictures. There were other pictures Jessica also used to pass off that didn't belong to Elwood either and these were not commissioned. In addition you cannot say "user Lives in California" when physical evidence is otherwise stated. Knock it off.
What evidence? There is someone saying it in a forum. That's not evidence. In a few days she'll post saying "nope, I'm in California" and we'll be right to where we are right now -- he said, she said. And if it turns out she comes back and says "ok, I'm really in Mexico, ya got me", well, then we'll have a reason to make it more concrete sounding. Personally, I feel her physical location has no bearing on the article, but that's just me. KiTA 05:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, location in this situation DOES indeed matter, because of identity fraud and commission fraud.

Changing wording to downplay facts is not acceptable. Knock it off.

KiTA confirmed for fanboy. Does it matter if she commissioned the pics of Camerella? Regardless José Eldude tried to claim them as his own. As he did with a few other camgirls as well. His name is not Jessica Elwood. Although he wishes it was.
Fanboys are so blind.--Fiskie 11:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the word of a member of the FA staff is more reliable than Jessica's now, with this incident. That staff member has no reason to lie. SilverserenC 06:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, it'll be her word vs theirs. And there's something to be said about a member of the FA staff voluntarily giving out personal information about a user without permission. Now, as for the "Deactivated accounts delete images", we're both right -- deactivated accounts' images remain for several months before they are removed from the server's cache. I know this because the webcam picture on this RP account was available for viewing as of a month ago, but when attempting to go to the deviant user's account you got the error message about the account being deactivated. Regardless, the point of the raid was to troll the people watching her account, and thus deactivating it wasn't an option.
I refer you to and KiTA both need to stop the editing and take their discussion of difference of facts to the talk page, not the edit page.

Silverscreen I apologize, but KiTA keeps vandalizing the wiki, I was only trying to revert it back to neutral tone, and KiTA keeps changing info. Notice I have left most of the info alone (cept for the Mexico Contribution) before KiTA started vandalizing the page.
I am not vandalizing the page. I am updating it with information. Also, please sign your edits on the talk page by posting 4 ~s. KiTA 06:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As Redfox stated, the information that Elwood's IP address originates from Mexico has been confirmed by an FA admin. For all intents and purposes, it is now fact. SilverserenC 06:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC) cashed link of JE claiming to live in cali.

Just a question; how long are you guys and KiTA going to play this game of grab-ass before you ban him for repeated vandalization and skewing of the already-declared-neutral state of the page? I believe after over five repeated and directly deliberate acts of insubordination, you'd learn that he lacks the self-control to be allowed to edit here anymore. Duckhat 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I removed the additional "Possibly intended as a roleplay account" next to the Kacey external link. The only thing confirmed by proof is that the IP's are the same. If he's allowed to say "It could possibly be a roleplay account", then I will gladly put it back up there, and add an "Or possibly be a fallback sockpuppet account". It's up to the admins. Duckhat 12:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I have also taken the liberty of re-adding the fact that sometime either before or during the alleged hacking, the journal was not only added, but also removed. To simply state that it was added during the hacking slants it in an uneven manner when you completely neglect to add that, if it was indeed added during the hacking by the hacker, then it was also REMOVED by the hacker, which raises more questions. I also cleaned up some of the additional points in the article to make the unsightly () interruptions appear in the article in a more professional manner. Overall, I would like to state that if you are going to contribute to the article, it would be best to try and re-word the entire paragraph to make the points less confusing and unproffessional. Sticking facts together sloppily degrades the quality and clarity of the article. Duckhat 13:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Commissions Controversy[edit]

Per a discussion on the IRC, we'll be doing a new section under controversy about Jessica's apparent issues with late commissions. This will be where the location information makes the most sense to put in, as we'll be naturally talking about DA and FA. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the commission scandal, so, please feel free to enlighten us (in this talk page section) and we'll write up a neutral article entry about it. I do remember her ending up on the artists_beware page right before the attack, but it was apparently resolved? KiTA 06:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have enough information, why would you put a section up? It wouldn't be factual? That makes no sense. Read the first talk about commission issues. Until someone is informed, I do not think this to be a wise idea. Let the person with the factal information write it. That's what contributions are for.
That's... what I was asking. For someone to write the section up, and then we'll edit it so it sounds neutral (if needed), and put the location comment there. KiTA 07:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll just leave these here:
--GreenReaper(talk) 07:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's one. Duckhat 16:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've started the section on the tardy commissions with a stub, will edit some more after I go take a breather. Defacing my user page using a sockpuppet was a classy touch though, I must admit. KiTA 21:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please hurry back now. <3 Duckhat 22:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Pity I'm not a sockpuppetTruthspeaker 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Truthspeaker, please keep ED stuff on ED and behave yourself while on WF. RedFox 23:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC) $700 in commissions owed. Confirmation of the fact that the user is also on FA, and paypal recites are indeed valid.

I'll just leave these here. RedFox 21:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the Admin that said to remove info that KiTA is claiming?[edit]

Even KiTA's "Admin" sources in the history is incorrect. There was only one revision early on with GreenReaper that the Mexico reference couldn't be posted on the page until there was cited reference.

(cur) (prev) 05:28, 12 July 2010 GreenReaper (Talk | contribs) (3,333 bytes) (There is reasonable doubt here about subject's location and identity. References would be good to have for any claimed location.) (undo)

There is now a cited reference and KiTA is now claiming that an admin said to remove the info. No admin I can see on talk has said this on the discussion page. This is dishonest. Please show the source.

I'm not sure if what KiTA is claiming is true or not, but on the chance that his is correct, I simply made an IP section in the controversy page, which is probably more appropriate to place the proof of her mexican IP address anyways. Also, it can be a place for giving information about what alternate accounts she has made. Duckhat 15:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I said it would probably be best to remove it from the lede if it was a matter of controversy. That did not entail removing it from the article altogether, as there clearly are references now, and I said as much in chat last night. (Please sign your name here in discussions with ~~~~; it gets confusing when there's a lot of people talking and no names.) --GreenReaper(talk) 14:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
So he's not allowed to remove it from the top anymore? If so, then I'll remove the unnecessary IP section I added. Duckhat 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I hate to have to explain this, but that's life on the Internet I guess: "lede" means the top of the page. The intro. You know, where I've been removing it from? KiTA 20:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, we've all got our Achilles Heel. Mine is technical jargon.  :3 Duckhat 20:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
@Duckhat: Why remove that it was Arshes Nei that was the FA admin contacted? (Asher2501) 15:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I removed it because the way I had put it made the whole thing look as if she was the only admin who was claiming this, when as stated here, she was not the only one. (just the only one we can cite directly at the moment). I didn't want anything stupid like a "Arshes is a rogue admin out to get JE" war to be created due to my wording. Duckhat 15:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Plus, the citation leads directly to her post anyways, so it isn't necessary to put the spotlight on just her in the article. Duckhat 15:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible sign of JE's return?[edit]

I've got a report of enigmawig being blocked from commenting on JE's DA either yesterday or today (with others claiming to have been blocked as well), showing obvious activity on the account despite no word from her journals, deviations etc. Duckhat 14:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is quite strange.--Fiskie 15:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering that they have a screenshot and everything, we can definitely add that into the article. SilverserenC 16:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Yes we can. And by "we" that should probably be someone other than I.  :D Duckhat 21:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A brief reminder about talk pages[edit]

Please note that this page is for discussing improvements to the attached article, not a forum for discussing the article's subject. Extensive suppositions, conspiracy theories, and personal opinions are best kept on LiveJournal. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Which is why I posted it in all my journals all everywhere too! 8D Just wanted people here ta see it as well 'cuz a lotta people come here from other places in hopes of answers. Want people ta THINK a lil'. Ya know? Sidenote: Sorry 'bout all the BLUE LANGUAGE.  :x Fergot where I was fer a minute there. Love, Jessica U. Ingmann (Info/Feedback/Edits) 05:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thinking is generally a good thing, yes, :-) As for answers, hopefully the article itself will provide some! I think it's moving in the right direction at least. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Claims that she did live chats?[edit]

Some people on /s/ claimed she did live chats. If that actually happened, did she just feed a video of Camerella and ignore all people in the room?

Sign your edits, thank you for reporting that there are claims on /s/ about live chats, but please don't throw conspiracies into the talk page. We can't even confirm that the live chats even happened, so how in the world can we claim that it was a feed of Camerella? Instead of proposing that it was a live feed of camerella (and then also proposing that it could actually have been JE or that JE may actually be Camerella just to balance things out), let's just strip it of all the 'fat' and keep only what we do know, which is nothing right now. Now as for the claims, if you have (or later discover) any proof to these live chats, such as video or audio clips, then we can go somewhere with it, but I am very skeptical whether or not anyone can produce any proof of these live chat allegations. Duckhat 10:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not know about live chats but I know of a video from 2008 where JE ink a drawing. The video is mostly focused in the paper but JE's bust is clearly visible. I will see if I can obtain it in order to prove it's real. Stabler3456

Martha Guerrero Martinez[edit]

Recently I've been investigating into the possibility Jessica Elwood is not Jessica Jazmin Colaneri nor Arturo Juarez, but rather Martha Guerrero Martinez. For this I put the following list of proven facts.

-JE and Kacey share the same IP address as confirmed by the admins of Furaffinity, mainly Arshes Nei.

-Martha's email address traces back to a 26 years old female from Mexico.

-For about 4 years JE has directed every commission payment to the address of Martha Guerrero Martinez. This dates back as early as 2006, as seen here

-It was believed Martha's Mexican account was just a shuffle account so it would be directed to another account. But it was recently discovered that said Paypal account is verified, so it has a bank account and credit card to the name of Martha Guerrero Martinez, and they have gone through Paypal's identity verification.

-Tonight I was given an audio file from a friend of Martha/Kacey, where she admits being Jessica Elwood and asks for this information to not be revealed. I had the file tested in case it had been digitally altered, but the file is clean and the voice is definitely female. This person has a heavy accent and speaks Spanish in the later half of the file, as expected from someone from Mexico. (Any idea how to upload it here?)

-The translation of the above file would be something like: " Alright, I am Jessica Elwood. Please...Please don't tell anyone, no one can know this."

Now, this is not speculation. All these facts are proven, so I consider worthy adding this to the article.The link between Arden and JE is far weaker.


Alright, let's see what you've got. Upload it to some file sharing site and link it here. I've got some friends who can speak spanish so I'll see i they can translate, but I need records of the discussion with your friend when he or she gave you the file. Also, if that friend of martha/kace was in a text chat with m/k, I would like to see records of that as well. If your proof checks out, then we will of course add it to the article. Duckhat 12:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, about your claims that "Since it's a confirmed account, Martha must be the real name", you are able to connect your paypal account to ANY bank account you own, regardless of the name on the account. The name on the bank account and the name on the paypal account can be completely different and it will staill say that the paypal account is verified, and transferring of funds is still possible. I will test this out myself by connecting a paypal account under my name to a bank account under my mother's name just to prove this. If it works, then it will prove that the name on the paypal account does NOT need to match the name on bank account, opening the possibility that elwood's paypal is a fake name linked to an account of a different name. Duckhat 14:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
That really ain't necessary Duck. o.o Mah bud at ED (and Google Translate) did th' work FOR ya!  :D *Copypasta from the ED article*
  • Original: "Please, I am not Jessica." "No, I am not Jessica!" "... Muy bien ya, yo soy Jessica Elwood. Por favor...para por favor no le digas a nadie, nadie puede saber esto."
  • Translated Spanish: "Alright already, I'm Jessica Elwood. Please...please do not tell anybody, nobody can know this."
I mean if ya wanna go ahead and do it, go fer it. But if it's already there in plain text... XD Love, Jessica U. Ingmann (Info/Feedback/Edits) 16:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This may be a great find, but I say 'may' for this sole reason: we need visual evidence to tie together the audio in that file with an actual MSN conversation with this martha person. We need screenshots or chat logs that show that martha was in an MSN call or sending voice clips at the time that this was supposedly recorded. When we get logs that show "Martha has entered a call with ___" or "Martha has sent you a voice clip", then we can confirm that the audio has come from Martha's actual msn address. Until then, it's still possible that this audio file is of someone's mexican female friend. At this time, we can only confirm a couple things: The voice in the clip is of a hispanic woman. The woman in the clip says "Please, I am not Jessica." "No, I am not Jessica!" "... Muy bien ya, yo soy Jessica Elwood. Por favor...para por favor no le digas a nadie, nadie puede saber esto." We just now need visual evidence that this audio clip was apart of an msn conversation with the martha msn account. Duckhat 17:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So are we openly stalking her on WikiFur now? This is getting kinda creepy. KiTA 23:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here. RedFox 04:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as IPs go, JE = Martha

Tie this with the Paypal account info, and the IM messages that show the text along with the audio, I'd say that's quite a bit of evidence to that end.

RedFox 05:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"From the feary-realm, if you ask me."

The Sword[edit]

(My apologies for the copypasta)

Hello. This is my first time posting in Wikifur as I am not a furry myself, but I have something important to share. I heard of this drama about a week ago and some names were familiar so I went to research a bit. The subject of this article is someone I once considered a friend before she stopped talking with me with no apparent reason. I gathered this evidence and demanded an explanation, but she decided to ignore my note so I have no reason to keep this hidden anymore. The person called “Jessica Elwood” is none but Martha Martinez, or “CountessaAsryon”.

I am a regular user of the forum of a website called Swords of Might. Back in early 09 a new user appeared and became inactive after a few dozen posts, but I remained in touch with her via PMs. I asked her to show me one of her swords and she took a few photos, which can be seen here:

The date is March 09. A day later I was given this one as well:

Now, after looking at JessicaElwood’s journal history I stumbled upon this entry from a couple months before, where “JessicaElwood” talk about a sword she has. I checked and both the sword in Martha’s photos and the one in JessicaElwood’s journal are the same. Also, I noticed both share a similar quote.

I’ve put together an image that explain in better detail what I am trying to expose, and what I think is a solid evidence they are the same person. The image can be seen here. It’s a little big so it may be slow to load.

--UlrichLiechtenstein 18:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Et-- Hi there! o.o; You saved me the trouble'a copypastain' this over myself! GREAT stuff fer anyone that was curious! (I kinda was!) But what's a booble-wolf with no undies have ta do this? O.o *Points to the FA link*
Sorry, I was looking at another link posted in ED and it seems I copied the url of the wrong page.--UlrichLiechtenstein 21:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so the unanimous decision over at ED as that JE = Martha and there's no longer any conspiracy that JE = Arden. I believe we can remove the Arden section since the Martha connection has far more evidence for a more solid connection. there's no more argument about JE being him anymore, which was why we had it up anyways. So bye-bye Arden section. Now, obviously there's been no confirmation from JE that she is, indeed, Martha, so at this time we can only present the evidence that has recently been unearthed and leave any speculation or conclusion to the readers. Until it is confirmed indefinitely, we have to present it as only a theory at this time, as we are a wiki and not an opinion site. Duckhat 22:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've only recently begun to wonder about the veracity of the sword pictures.... I mean this is the internet, There is a high probability that two people out of the billions that are on the internet could talk about the same sword around the same time. As for the quote, it's a very popular quote, I suspect that a large number of people use it and to point to that as being evidence is a little weak. As for the girl in the sword pic calling herself martha. While ED ran with it and posted a bunch of pics of the sword girl, we don't really know if that is JE. It could be that JE, having read the ed article and seeing that they got it wrong latched onto the Martha name as a way of placating her fans. As for her paypal address... We only have the word of two JE haters that it's really true. These are the people that have been going back and forth about JE for some time and how her activities are horrible and yet, no one else besides these two people have come forth with any evidence at all concerning the "possibly" faked paypal address. Mind you JE has been keeping up on all the internet fun around this issue and I think she may just be using this new "Martha" id to keep her fans happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Collecting Paypal information[edit]

It seems that Dragoneer and the rest of the FA staff are collecting information on the Paypal transactions that Elwood has done. They are collecting "evidence" so they can "verify the damages". This is getting pretty serious. :o SilverserenC 05:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Resulting in a FA ban74.99.93.180 21:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


"Around 4:45 PM, she posted a public apology for her actions..." Would timezone be relevant information? 08:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC) (Asher2501)

Timezone should probably be put in there. Though I would assume that it is EST, since the other times in the article are based around that, but it might not be. (And, hey, Asher! :o) SilverserenC 16:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess if I see KiTA te I'll ask them. And you know me? o,o; 04:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (Asher2501)

User Climax[edit]

Currently there is an user doing several edits to the article that aren't really relevant. I've already asked him to read the guidelines but I am being ignored, so I made an account to speak here. Would this be considered as vandalism?--Salisburysteak 21:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

About this, during this exchange, the section of the IP address part of the article that he hadn't touched also got removed along with his edits (as of the latest correction by GreenReaper). Should I add that part back in? 21:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (Asher2501)
I still see the original IP address section as it was before Climax began to vandalize. So I guess the current revision is alright.--Salisburysteak 22:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Photos and supposed real name[edit]

I just reverted the addition of some photos and casual mention of the supposed "real name" of Jessica Elwood. Even if it is her name, even if they are photos of her, this scandal has not given the whole of the Internet carte blanche justification in exposing private details of her identity, supposed pictures of her, et cetera. Next thing you know we'll have people trying to hunt her down in Mexico and take pictures of her house or something. I'm sure this creepy "anti" fanboy cyberstalking stuff is all the rage over at ED, but it's not appropriate here. I almost wonder if the person posting it was the same lillianwiddlehood who was banned from DA for spamming the same photos everywhere he could. KiTA 11:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, KiTA, see above talk section. What time zone were you talking about in the Return section? 12:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC) (Asher2501)
I'm in mountain, but I believe I adjusted to the more common Pacific when posting that. KiTA 18:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Although an easier way is to just check the Journal. It says "Mon Aug 2, 2010, 4:46 PM" here. Is that modified for mountain time? When I log out, it changes to 3:46. KiTA 19:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It's set to whatever time zone your settings are set to I think. Are mesing around with stuff and setting my profile to my timezone I got 6:46 PM EST. I'm not sure how much adjustment equals Pacific (PST?) time. Was it two or three over? 22:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC) (Asher2501)
The time zones in the US go, from right to left, Eastern, Central, Mountain, Pacific. So, if you're in Eastern time, then Pacific is 3 hours behind. If you are Central, it is two. SilverserenC 23:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup Stage 1[edit]

I just finished a pretty major cleanup of the article, removing some irrelevant points and condensing the information that is there. We really need someone more in the know than I to expand the tardy commission work section of the article. The pictures and hacking are both finished controversies and really should not be the focus of the page, the tardy commission work is a much more relevant section to current and ongoing events, and to the community as a whole. KiTA 06:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup Stage 2[edit]

More general pruning of the article. I would like to get the Tardy section expanded to the same general size of the Fake Real Life Photos section. KiTA 16:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Photos and images[edit]

I've added photos of JessicaElwood to the article but my edits keep being undone. JessicaElwood has accepted in public she is Martha Guerrero, so is not rumor or hersay. Second, there are screenshots focused on the model Camerella. I find sort of hypocrite that the photos of the subject (Martha/Jessica) are deleted but the other images stay. Someone said "Wikifur is nor a tabloid" to explain the removal of my edits. Then why half of the article is about the Camerella situation, which is less relevant that JessicaElwood's real identity? If we are going to show the truth, it must be all the truth, not just part of it. And certainly not just what is convenient for the subject of the article.--Khan Dor 07:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up on the talk page.
No, she's admitted she's Martha. She hasn't given a last name, and there's a huge, important difference in the two things. Indeed, that's the second supposed last name of "Martha's" I've heard. At least this name is a male name, a month ago people were demanding we include references to some male name because they "knew" that it was true, because a parody / harassment website swore it was cause "she totally mentioned Arden the Black as an inspiration, and they're like, both Mexican." Because she hasn't given a last name, it's inappropriate to include it in the article, just like it would be inappropriate to include the results of an "investigation" to, say, the location of Eric W. Schwartz's house.
As to the photos of Camerella, those photos are there because they contain relevant text. The fact that someone a few people on ED believe those photos may be Jessica Elwood is not sufficient reasoning to add them to the article. Even if they were proven to be Jessica Elwood, just because someone was able to successfully violate her privacy does not make it noteworthy information. This is where the "we are not a tabloid" thing comes into play. It's more than a little creepy to see people running around digging up recorded telephone calls, pictures of her, etc etc. There is a very fine line between investigating her on FA (which I still maintain was handled inappropriately -- read: publicly) and people stalking her.
The part about the hack and Camerella will most likely get pruned out in a future cleanup. The bulk of the article should be about the supposed commission abuse, as this is by far the most relevant information. In the end, the fact that she was faking pictures of herself and got hacked by a 4chan/ED user barely warrants a paragraph. KiTA 16:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that all the drama is over, and it's come down to just waiting for new posts from JE (even that fur forum has died) I'd like to know what's next for this page? Will it get updated still or has it died too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)


The article seems fairly unbiased to me, all things considered. While it certainly still needs clean-up, would it be safe to remove the NPOV tag? Equivamp 05:07, 25 June 2011 (EDT)