Talk:Evil Sibe/Archive4

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

google video regular size[edit]

the link on the main page is to the fullscreen version. this one includes a link to download the video. [Google Video regular size]

Thanks for the tip. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Traffic incidents[edit]

On the Controversy timeline, there are a few instances that are hard to make a case for their inclusion, but the traffic ones (deleted per now, may be re-instituted if I can make the case,) is more of a personal matter: People have them everyday, most don't reflect on the type of person they are, and, these are really not furry connected (even if trying to tie it to his state of mind.) I had made the case about it a while back, and opinions pro/con are welcome on the removal decision.

While at it, what's the status on his warrant arrest?,... Ongoing, dropped, fake?,... Aaand, the "reference" section needs a major clean-up shake-down (dead links, format, attach reference to the pertinent paragraphs, etc,...) Spirou 07:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

August arrest[edit]

Quick note: sibe was arrested today(8-18-07) on that outstanding warrant. it is unknown how long he will be held for. ~snowy

Confirmed in VINElink. Oh well. Hope he can find something productive to do there. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

theres a typo btw. its august 18 2007 not august 19 2008. ~snowy.

I'm not having a good day for dates . . . --GreenReaper(talk) 06:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

its okay. ill try to keep updated when we hear more. we'll most likely go see him as soon as possible and see whats up. ~snowy

p.s. it still says 2008.
Sheesh. At this rate it may be 2008 by the time I get the date right. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

FurJAM ban[edit]

Just trying to establish the exact sequence of events about the e-mail ban sent to Sibe...

According to AussieHusky (organiser of FurJAM) this e-mail was actually sent to another fur, Timon_b.

Aussie, when you say "he then forwarded it to Sibe", do you know for certain it was Timon who forwarded the mail? Could Timon have shown it to someone else, and they then forwarded it to Sibe?

Also, at what point did Sibe's name get on the ban? Did Timon change it, or did Sibe? --Higgs Raccoon 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Timon: Sibe Rocks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Sibe's out![edit]

According to VINElink, he was released yesterday.

Just in time for his birthday, too! Seems everyone has their birthday this 18th (mine's one day after). --GreenReaper(talk) 20:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Mine was yesterday. --mwalimu 15:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sibe's Out Confirmed![edit]

He's recently updated his greatest journal, posting a new pic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smallfry90 (talkcontribs) .

Request for removal or reworking from subject[edit]

Sibe has again requested removal of this article. He feels that (somewhat paraphrased):

  • It incorrectly represents his character, highlighting negative points over positive
  • The timeline-based presentation of events is not conductive to balanced coverage
  • The mention of crimes for which he was not convicted is inappropriate, as is the inclusion of his real name
  • The current effect of the article on his person is inappropriate relative to the amount of harm that he has and is causing the fandom
  • WikiFur's standard of inclusion/exclusion is being unfairly applied (e.g. "Do I have a different standard then Lance Rund? If so, why?")

I would like to know what information the community feels is essential at this point, whether they feel the above complaints are reasonable, and if so, how to solve them. I would be interested in edits to this article - either minor or significant - that improve it from the respect of these comments while keeping any information considered essential to the furry fandom in place. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The more things change, the more they stay the same. His (still ongoing as of this date) habit of uploading artist copyrighted art to image boards and servers, specially PirateBay's image board (where it's guarantee for those works to be there forever,) doesn't do squat to prove a desire of change. "He feels that It incorrectly represents his character, highlighting negative points over positive,"... Well, when you have more negative points than positive... =/
"The current effect of the article on his person is inappropriate relative to the amount of harm that he has and is causing the fandom,"... I dare-say that there's a lot of people, artists and comic/illustration websites/companies that have a different view about this; Plus "You reap what you sow,..." "Don't shit were you eat,..." etc...
"WikiFur's standard of inclusion/exclusion is being unfairly applied (e.g. "Do I have a different standard then Lance Rund? If so, why?")."... Lance Rund has not pursued a continuing pattern of detrimental acts to individuals or companies in the fandom =/
Is there information or data that could be edited out?. Yes, and I did take some of that out myself (like the traffic violations,)... Can more be edited out, again yes, there's alot of negative data that is indeed borderline furry related, and the article as a whole is in dire need of a once over (his revolving-door jail experiences, are we going to add all of them if he continues to do so?.)
But, as for asking for some consideration, we already fell for that one before - Spirou 07:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
...That said, future behavior/actions could very well put him on a position of reason that warrants removal of said personal info. It's up to the individual - Spirou 08:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that within the last month, I have received multiple unsolicited invites from Sibe to various social networking sites, at least one of which was of an adult nature. Make of that what you will. --Douglas Muth 15:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So because the dude is a bad dude, he doesn't deserve the same respect of privacy that other's request nor the same levels of standards that others have? While the guy is a menace to artists who attempt to sell their artwork, certainly, that doesn't necessarily mean we should run his name through the dirt. Kanye West's mother recently died, and because he "butchered" a Daft Punk song, a few people say it was because of Karma. I don't necessarily think that's fair to Kanye.
Wikipedia concepts aren't supposed to play judge and jury, regardless of the weasel-words and arguments that are sprinkled throughout articles. And neither is WikiFur. We seem to accept that some artists, as infamous or famous as they are in the fandom, deserve some amounts of respect for their privacy, but for what reason? They're public figures, are they not? Sibe, similarly, is a public figure as well, but with a different level of infamy.
Arguably, it's a steeper hill to climb for him to request his article be taken down considering that he is Boogeyman #1 in this fandom, but I think it'd be fair to at least consider his request, and not simply write it off as "Sibe is a jerk, I'm not going to listen to what he has to say." Verix 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
We do have standards. But the standard is not the decision whether or not to exclude someone; it is the process by which we decide whether or not to exclude someone. This process need not end up at the same result for every person (indeed, if it does, it is simply a rule, not a process), but it should come to the same result given similar situations. And this does indeed happen.
If you look at the cases where personal exclusion has been denied in part or in whole, you can see several quite strong patterns - whether or not a person's actions constituted an actual crime in part or in whole, whether or not it was a one-off event or something that has gone on for years, and in some cases whether they had taken steps to redeem themselves. The point of exclusion is that the community generally feels that personal privacy should trump public interest. In these cases, they feel the opposite.
As for judging that public interest - well, yes, we do have to do just that. If not us, who else? The point of this website is to serve the furry fandom as a whole. Nobody appointed us, but this is our website, so it's up to us together to decide what's on it, and to define how we come to such decisions. Wikipedia does make similar decisions, albeit under the header of notability, and wrestles with the same problems. You might think they would put up anything that is published by a verifiable source, but it actually ends up with a system rather similar to ours.
I think you are wrong to single out artists as beneficiaries of this process, because I can think of at least two cases where exclusion was denied to artists (due to art theft and fraud, respectively). It may be true that artists are more likely to request exclusion, but that's a different matter.
Making a general rule is the easy way out, and I'd be fine with that if everyone agreed with it. However, this is not the case - there are some people who think that WikiFur should allow everyone complete exclusion, some who think we should not allow any exclusion, and some (seemingly the majority) who can go either way depending on the situation. It is impossible to please everyone all the time, but allowing the community to decide who should not be eligible for exclusion and exactly what that implies in each individual situation has worked out well enough so far. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason I include the artists is mostly of personal observation and opinion of the social workings of the furry fandom, really. Artists and creators are the main reason this fandom exists, so obviously they get placed on a higher totem than anyone else. So, naturally, they tend to benefit the most from... well, essentially anything the fandom has to offer! But when an artist is found to have stolen something-- traced, art-theft, things of that nature (especially when it comes to other furry artists)-- their place on the totem is essentially taken down, once the rumors (be they fact or fiction) spread throughout our small interconnected network. And, rightfully so, they lose whatever respect they've earned.
So, naturally, I drift in that direction, because the fandom as a whole has a natural social bias toward artists and benefiting them. Which is why I brought it up. I still feel artists who are respected in this regard benefit from the system simply because they are the main resource of this fandom, but I'm an extreme social skeptic and pessimist, and that's not what we're debating here. :)
From what I gather, then, there's no way this page is going to be taken down, not necessarily because Sibe is a public figure, and not necessarily because he is simply requesting this page be taken down, but because it serves the public interest for there to be information about him. Which is a debate I've been raging for years (regarding how much of a demonic figure Sibe is), so I'm not really going to go into it because I don't want to bother going into it again, since no one seems to change their minds or opinions on the dude anyhow.
Sibe's usual representation is to portray him as a criminal waiting in the shadows at any moment to either pound the living hell out of someone or sexually abuse them or something like that. While he certainly doesn't have the criminal court record to back up the fact that he isn't, I think many who have observed Sibe's treatment over the years will agree that the majority of his records are blown completely out of proportion.
With this in mind, I think we should look more carefully at how we treat this issue, considering that our role isn't necessarily to be an objective source of information, but rather one that curtails to the public interest. So we're more of a journalist institution than an encyclopedic one.
Therefore, considering how hot-button the issue of Sibe is, I think we should be extremely careful about how the information is portrayed. The public wants to drag Sibe's name through the mud, and I think the history surrounding him proves this. And many will spread rumors about him just because people dislike him. So at the very least, I believe we should try to make the page as informative as possible without simply saying things that he's possibly done or things people have heard that he's done (like, for example, the child-touching thing). Hersey has no place in the encyclopedia or in journalism.
So many words. Wiki debates are weird. Verix 01:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Our aim is to be a source of objective information on matters that are in the public interest as it pertains to furry fandom. I do not think these two goals are in conflict. What is in the public interest is debatable, but even if we do not exclude a person we should still aim to cover them as neutrally as possible, as you describe.
As for hearsay, that's one thing. Actual charges are something different, and something that journalistic sources are quite willing to report (though most reputable publications would avoid implying that a person was guilty until they were convicted). --GreenReaper(talk) 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Open editing?[edit]

Why isnt this article open for editing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 03:21, 20 November 2007

Hmm, it should be open,... No, edit its set for admins and registered users only right now. You can create an account easily by accessing this page - Spirou 08:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article itself has sadly been a target for vandalism in the past. Such as page blanking, word replacement, replacing the entire page with garbage, the subject of the article turning vandal despite previous consensus against removal of information, and so on. So to help protect against such, we locked out anonymous edits on this article.
We're in the middle of a new review about Sibe's most recent request for the page to have info clipped out or blanked. Its a very long discussion that I can't make heads or tails of right now. ^^; I don't know how it'll come out in the end.
If you want to edit the article you have a few options. One of these options is to post the information you want to add or remove here and discuss why you think it needs to be added/removed.
Have a nice day and happy editing! --Markus(talk) 08:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for removal or reworking from subject (part deux)[edit]

Reverted Sibe's edits as we haven't have had a consensus regarding this article. We should put to rest the continuing queries about how much of the information currently present needs rewording/reworking/tweaking, etc... (a massive cleanup wouldn't hurt either,)... Spirou 07:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any logic to removing the subject's real name, as there hardly seems to be a separation of fan and RL identity, and he has uploaded a photograph of himself. I'm inclined to think unrelated offences should be summarized down or cut, in the same sort of way as i'm for summarizing down or cutting long lists of jobs or school accomplishments; they don't seem particularly relevant to a description about a-person-in-the-context-of-furry, nor particularly interesting to random readers. -- Sine 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sibe here. Im going to delete the timeline and actually write an article that includes all the elements of the timeline.

Sibe Bans[edit]

I have removed the ban information from Euroference, as well as the time stipulation from " -- from 2002" . I had someone tell me I'm a rumormonger what not, and I used Wikifur for information, and I found this information to be unsourced. Please either source the material or do not post it. Remember that no matter the negativity of the person in question, the goal of wikia sites is to maintain NPOV as much as possible. Thanks! Redcard 08:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Random note - the information about Eurofurence was added by (a German IP), however this user has not made any other edits that would establish their identity for sourcing. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As was told to me by another fur who works security at major conventions, Sibe is favmous for "declaring he's been banned from various events." The timeline you have is actually incomplete in that regard, but a lot of it is kept behind the scenes. Also, he has been known to use proxies to manuever his identity and make it appear like he is somewhere else for the purpose of increasing his "story." I don't think he was banned from EF. I think that's just him "Sibeing" us. 02:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Above is me. Redcard 02:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Why am I banned for 24 hours?[edit]

Why am I not allowed to add information to the timeline? Why am I not allowed to clarify the sentance structure in the timeline. The rape allegations are pertinent, as well as the information about when i went to anthrocon in 99.

I know that its takes away from the tone of "hit article on sibe" but Im more of a multifaceted person then a rap sheet.

I would like not to be banned when I add true things to the article.

Isnt that what this is supposed to be about? Actual events.

Or is this just a sibe hitjob? Either way, Id love to know.

Sibe 10:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Sibe

The page was locked - as noted in the history. If you had been banned, it would not have been possible for you to edit this page either.
In general, pages should only be locked when other attempts at communication are not working, or in the case of actual vandalism (and not mere content disputes). The purpose is to bring parties to discussion here, on the talk page, where a consensus about what information should be in the article can be hammered out between parties. Arguing in revert edit summaries tends to be counterproductive. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of references in debates about facts[edit]

The presence of multiple {{fact}} tags do not make "undisputed facts" seem very convincing. Obviously, someone does consider them questionable, or at least in need of substantiation. If quoting facts and statements from a report, please add a reference. Web-accessible ones are preferable, but failing that a reference to a paper document that others have some means of accessing is fine.

I am aware that there is other information in this article that could be similarly criticized. WikiFur generally allows original research as long as no editing parties have issues with its current presentation. If they do, then the editor with the problem with it should remove it (having done a quick check of other references where it may have been mentioned in case they can be used - multiple lines can be tied to a single reference, see the VINElink example). It is up to the party claiming a fact's correctness to provide references, if and when they replace it; otherwise, its presence should not be enforced.

This is best done in cases where the truth is being fabricated or misrepresented - removing information that you know to be true and a fair representation tends to lead to it being referenced, as we have seen before. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)