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

I received a message from Mix telling me that he posted the incident of the Something Awful t-shirt as a personal attack on Banrai because she banned him recently from one of her comms and so he was all pissed, so he decided to hurt her the best way he could and he claimed that if she released his ban, he'd take the edit down. In otherwords, his recent edits have NOT been made in good faith. Instead he's trying to use blackmail tactics here openly and blatantly, which clearly violates our rules on personal attacks. There's no looking at it any other way. Barring a full ban of Mr. Mix from WikiFur, I propose that we'd first remove the protection that we seem to be giving him. The current whitewashed mess there is quite an insult to our claim to completeness and fair and balanced and an insult to our credibility. I've been wanting to give his article an overhaul for a while with even NPOV as well as referenced sources. I've spoken to one or two other administrators in channel and they agree. If not, then I suggest complete removal. We can't do protected halfass anymore. Either they're excluded or they're fully open in the spirit of wiki. So here's my proposed options: 1)we punish Mix by suspending him from WikiFur, 2)We unlock his article and give the article itself a complete and fair overhaul. or 3)we completely remove it and leave it at that.--Kendricks Redtail 18:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not blackmail, that's extortion. But anyway... I think that edits such as that which are not being made in good faith are grounds for a ban.
As for #2 and #3, it's a question of how much drama do we want to deal with? I'm cool with #2, but we will have to deal with the resulting drama. Something to keep in mind. --Douglas Muth 19:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not a ban, but a suspension? Or at least revocation of the "immunity" he enjoys? As far as #2 goes, as long as we back up everything written there, there isn't much room for him to talk and if it ends up in #3, oh well, but I'm willing to bet we could keep it around for similar reasons as say, Sibe. I'm not saying the article is going to be entitled "Why Mix is an Evil Bastard" because I'm sure there's more to him in this fandom than the drama he's caused. We could document that. Keep it fair and balanced instead of whitewashed.--Kendricks Redtail 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
So, you want to turn him into what? Another Sibe where we start releasing stuff like his real name and crap? I already spoke to you earlier about this about my feelings on this subject and no. Just no. It's not worth it. These "bad guys" who don't want their information out their deserve the same benefits the "nice guys" who ask for protection and blanking do. So, either please both sides and make everyone happy-happy, or please no one at all for the sake of encyclopedic integrity.--AshMCairo 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
While protection is perfectly acceptable when the 'bad guys' are trying to make amends and change their ways, there must be exceptions made for those that just want to hide behind a locked page while constantly enticing more and more drama. I am of the conviction that the page should be unlocked, and Mix's deeds be documented so the public can see who he really is, with all the facts backed up. As it is, this all stinks of a cover-up. But, that's just my personal opinion, of course. --Banrai | talk (04/30/07) 20.23 (UTC)
The fact that you haven't provided an ounce of evidence for any event is justifiable. Rant all you wish about how I sexually harrassed, blackmailed, stole, and whatever else you wish to include, without a drop of evidence, you win at teh internets by doing so.
Posting what I posted is true and not biased, nor attacking, nor vandalism. You're just an idiot that randomly filed a DCMA against me for having my icon up one day. Lemme restate that, you FIRST filed a counternotification against me against me using my own artwork as an icon. Then screamed 'rape and pillage' in your livejournal when I lodged one back at you. Then you became fuckbuddies with Dmuth, edited my talk page to include other rumours you heard, and didnt even have the guts to back that up with evidence, even after witnesses who aren't friends of mine told you the opposite, and also telling you to stfu. Funny thing is that both of you think this is blackmail. That is bullshit. More like revenge for 'continuing' to be a bitch and not let this shit drop. When I apollogized, it was sincere and to the point. But you had to stir the pot again and let the shit hit the fan... one... more... time... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mix (talkcontribs) .
Uh, dude? Which part of No Personal Attacks is unclear? If you want to call us names, I suggest you do it someplace else. --Douglas Muth 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a bit hard when you and your pals seem to scared to talk smack to my face. You win at teh internets too, happy happy joy joy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mix (talkcontribs) .
It seems to me that that you're more interested in picking a fight than you are discussing the issues. Come back when the ban expires. --Douglas Muth 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'm lost how you can file a counternotification before a notification is filed. Second of all, I have documented proof of you actively stated that you made the following edits and contribution in an attempt to blackmail her into restoring you to a comm that she owns. By any definition, including legal, that's blackmail. Call it vengeance, call it whatever. It's immaturity, even for a furry's standards. As for your other activities, man, the links that could be brought up! The staff members that can be spoken to. Sorry, dude, but reading about your behaviour, you simply aren't a victim. If it was the recollections of a few people, I'd say sure. But there's quite a few and I doubt there's a HUGE conspiracy out there. I doubt one day someone just randomly picked on you. This kind of behaviour is from a reputation you built for yourself. You dug yourself this grave. Did Banrai build up her own negative reputation too? You sure as hell betcha! But now she is actively trying to restore her good name. Do a lot of people still not trust her? You betcha! It'll take her a long time, but she believes it's worth it and she's made the changes necessary. You continue to act and behave in the attitude that earned you the reputation in the first place. We've discussed this in the past, you and I. You have got to make a HUGE and very public (but not a negative public) 180 if you want to restore your good name as well. Like I told you this morning, BE the bigger man.--Kendricks Redtail 22:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Things like his real name and birthdate and such can be avoided. The thing is with the protection thing is that its fine with people who just don't want to be included in the project, that's fine. In Mix's case, it seems to be that he wants that shield so he can make edits to other people's article, but he can't be touched and I disagree with that. Many of the "good guys" have no public face and it is their private information removed and without it, the article has no content. With the "bad guys," I can remove all private information, keep the public information intact and have an article still! But in the interest of FAIRNESS, we try and maybe give a more detailed description of them outside of the drama. In the meantime, the "good guys" get their deeds and actions detailed on the WikiFur, at the same time, so do the "bad guys".--Kendricks Redtail

Removal of exclusion

Relating to the conversation found at Forum:Exclusion_policies and the reasons described there, as well as the above talk page, I propose that due to admitted malicious editing and general actions throughout the furry fandom, that this article exclusion be revoked. It is incomplete and whitewashed and deserves at least a cleanup to improve quality, if not a complete and full rewrite by the WikiFur community. Alternatively, we could grant full exclusion and complete removal, but under conditions that editing by said individual cease.--Kendricks Redtail 06:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As noted previously, I disagree with preventing editing as a condition of complete page exclusion. Denial of exclusion should be based on public interest, not WikiFur's interests. Instead, the ability to edit - including the exclusive ability to edit the page about themselves - should be removed as the result of bad faith editing actions. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there could be a level of public interest in this. This is the proposed rewrite. It is complete, accurate, contains references, has been crossreferenced from existing information regarding him on WikiFur, and does not contain any "private information." Review the rewrite and decide whether it could merit public interest. I realize that this could possibly generate drama, but as a certain green Norn once told me, "Be bold." --Kendricks Redtail 07:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up a bit. I'm still not all that convinced that his actions are of a level of notability that would normally override a request for exclusion. Frankly, the only thing there that really seems significant is the artist_beware stuff. I'm concerned that the part about Aspergers' is something that is not only a personal item of information, but the very sort of thing that does match up to the concept of beating someone over the head with an offhand comment they once made, doubly so because of its relevant prominence in the lead paragraph. I'm also concerned that the meaning of some things in the original were changed - and that the full name specified was wrong. This sort of contentious article is something we're judged on. Whether or not it gos in, it has to be right. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Another rather valid note that Mix makes on his LJ is that one of the people posting there, Rose Quoll, has her own problems - rather more recent and expensive than a complaint about his offer (however rude it was). --GreenReaper(talk) 07:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I do not like him at all, and I have serious issues with some of the things he's done on this wiki, but I'm not sure whether his actions are sufficiently notable to warrant an article on him at this time.
It wouldn't hurt to keep the rewrite around though. Things might change someday. :-P --Douglas Muth 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay out of this as much as possible to do personal angers getting in the way of a neutral stance - however I am all for this article going public. Mix has hurt many in the fandom, not just myself and a small handful of others. I could come up with a handful of links showing all sorts of debauchery, with just a short time's searching. That in itself warrants saying that Mix isn't an infamous figure in the fandom. It just seems to me like everyone is trying to downplay how Mix has time and time again hurt artists, yet are all gung-ho about taking others (such as Sibe) to the gallows. Just my thoughts. --Banrai | talk (06/13/07) 19.14 (UTC)

By all means, link us! --Douglas Muth 20:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, but as I said before, I want to stay distanced from this because I do NOT want more drama started on my page. This is just evidence, as I have seen it. It may be POV, it may not. But here's what I have come up with.
Anyway, there you go, Dmuth. Enjoy, and hopefully there's something helpful in there to help shape this article in a direction that will be more informative to others, as well as to help keep others from being taken advantage of in the future. --Banrai | talk (06/13/07) 21.07 (UTC)

Dealing with the Mix controversy.

I just thought of an idea. How about we allow Mix to retain some control over the content of this page, but allow others to clean it up and make it look nicer, and require him to have a single link to an off-wiki page that explains the point of view of those who dislike him, such as Banrai, and allow him to maintain a single link to an off-wiki page that explains his own point of view and his friends' POVs, with a disclaimer that said off-wiki pages are not NPOV.

This will ensure not only that his page is not filled with drama but that both sides of the issue are heard in a way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starblade (talkcontribs) .

Sounds a suspiciously lot like *gasp* a wiki?! Imagine that. A public page allows others to clean it up and make it look nicer as well as contributing new information or background information as long as it is in good faith. Mix still has some control because he can edit too. Just like everyone has some control over their own pages. But in essence, it's a community effort. Those external links would easily fit into references. However, I don't know about the whole well, this is his POV, this is their POV. What belongs here is a neutral point of view. I think it's pretty easy to look at the two sides and figure out what REALLY happened. And from that conclusion, then you write what happened. If you can't come to a conclusion, just report the exact concrete infallible facts. Who, what, when, where should not change between different sides of stories, only the how and why. Going off that, you can easily reference out to LJs, FA journals, whatever. It's pretty much assumed anyways that said journals would be reasonably biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadow Hito (talkcontribs) .
Well, most of the things Mix tells me are in fact different hows and whys, and those seem to be things that are most often disputed. For example, in that whole Mix calling Banrai issue, Banrai claims that the calls were not warranted and that Mix was harassing her, whereas Mix claims that Banrai wrote in her LJ that she was feeling really bad and wanted someone to call her, so he did. Furthermore, I don't think that people's LJs and IM logs qualify as hard evidence, since the content, amongst other things such as dates, can be changed retroactively. I've even seen some cases where someone edits other peoples comments simply because it was made to their LiveJournal. So most of it is hearsay just as if someone witnessed something being done IRL but didn't capture audio/video footage. Starblade 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, not quite sure how you've seen that, since you can't edit other people's comments made to your LiveJournal - just screen or delete them. If Mix claims something, then he should put that in the article as a claim. He is free to do so. He knows where the edit controls are. No need to go recruit meatpuppets.
As for evidence - very few digital things are totally reliable. If there is doubt over a particular source's truth then that should be noted in the citation, or in the most extreme cases (e.g. ED) it should not be used at all. However, I would caution against claiming something is unreliable when you know that it is in fact true. This is unlikely to result in the removal of the source. What will happen instead is that people will look for more evidence to back up the claims made - and if they are true, then they will probably find it, and various other things that the subject would like to have kept in the past. That's how articles like Sibe happen. --GreenReaper(talk) 08:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)