Talk:Mozdoc/Archive1

MUCK list

The list of MU*s from @action does not look legitimate to me, and the jokey tone of various other pieces in the same document does not reasure me. -- Sine 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that this article was written tongue in cheek. Although at the time it was written, Mozdoc had been banned from at least SpinDizzy, Unbridled Desires, and Furry Muck, (due to a hostile obsession with two characters on these Mucks,) the reference to the @Action News Mozdoc Delights, Amuses Wizards With Inept Demandsahould be taken with a grain of salt as that article was written tongue in cheek. Although it well summarises the situation, not all the statements or opinions in this article or others are always based in fact.

As it says at the bottom of that page, "The things reported don't have to have actually happened, (any more than anything that happens here does,) but make sure you don't overstep the social boundaries and rules of interaction that we have." It is in that spirit that article was written. Mozdoc had become, for a small muck like SpinDizzy, a very large, very annoying problem and the writer had become fruistrated with his actions and responded, rather than with vitrol and disgust, with humor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argon Hamilton (talk • contribs) From Mozdoc article 03:30 and 03:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC). Modified 04:21 and 04:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)..

As a wizard on SpinDizzy, I'd like to make it clear that none of the wizards have encouraged or are involved with this particular effort to document Mozdoc's history. I'd also like to reiterate that the articles cited from in the newspaper should not be viewed as accurate reference information. Articles there are often humorous and stretch the truth to some extent. --Findra 04:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm readding MUCKs I assume to be true given by statements here and references found. Spaz Kitty 13:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion

Although there were personal attacks in it, I take http://en.wikifur.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mozdoc&diff=next&oldid=135319 to be an exclusion request. I'll perform it in 24 hours unless there are objections. It would not affect references to him on other pages where he is a legitimate mention. --Rat 07:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

which part would you be excluding? as the mozdoc page seems to have been created to remove the problems from other pages. i was planning on writing up a 'moz&furbid' chronicle for it as well.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 08:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mozdoc page only, similar to, for example Alex Kitsune. Of course, if it's not the will of the community, I won't do it. --Rat 08:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. So, here's the issue. There's this guy, and he is not a guy who appears to get on well with certain other people. He claims that this is an isolated case, but evidence suggests otherwise. There has indeed been legal action against him in the past, although it has lapsed. He was allegedly removed from Further Confusion 2007. Further Confusion has yet to confirm this officially and I suspect they will not do so, however we have no particular reason to doubt the claim.

Do we exclude? It seems like he's trouble, not just past trouble, and it's rather hard to decide just how much is idle posturing. Harassment is a crime when it is taken to extremes. I personally feel that his indiscriminate use of death threats (often coming quite out of the blue against third-parties) is something that really should continue to be noted somewhere as a caution to others. Realistically this article name is probably the place people will come looking. The attitude with which this "request" was made does not help. Does it need his real name? He's ghosted FC when he was banned, so it might be worth it for checking purposes. Thoughts? --GreenReaper^(talk) 08:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

More "out of the blue" harassment: a comment on Mozdoc's FurAffinity page from slyfox819 on 4/27/07 said, "What the hell was up with that hateful instant message you just sent me? If that's how you treat people who want to be friendly with you then you're never going to have any friends." Spaz Kitty 13:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

i would rather not see it removed. i have been putting off writing up about him on ayukawataur, furbid-sf and it would also documenting on kaceys page as well, which would be almost a mirror of what would be on mine. what would go on furbid-sf would be similar, but there are other happenings which are not related directly to either of us. then one may have to consider the inclusion of information on goldfurs page, and each of the mucks that are able to be verified... and so on and so forth.

it would become a bookeeping nightmare that could be more easily covered on just his page. as is consistently stated. he did these things and wikifur is not about just showing the good side. it is about showing the what really happened. and i assume that means in an easy to read, easy to understand manner.

his name is not going to be hidden as long as the tro record exists, and as it is a matter of public record. there is no point in hiding it.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Vote against exclusion. As for real name, like I said on Kacey Miyagami, no. He's a (verbal, at least) threat to people and shouldn't be allowed the privilege of being "hidden" from view. To use a common MUCK motto, ICA=ICC, buddy. You act a certain way over and over again, don't be surprised when you're forced to receive the less-than-fun consequences. Again, I reference Sibe - he wasn't granted exclusion, either. Spaz Kitty 13:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would vote against exclusion for the same reasons we did not honor the exclusions for Sibe and Bart Bervoets. As I said in the Sibe article discussion, "Just as a famous [or infamous] 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."----DuncanDaHusky^(talk) 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote against exclusion too. It seems that the subject of the article has a consistent history of this sort of activity, and I'd rather not see it removed. --Douglas Muth 13:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote against exclusion. When I created this page, it was as an attempt to siphon all the drama away from the other pages so we can do things like unlock Kacey. I'm sure she would like to resume updating her wiki. All relevant information instead of being spread out on various articles can be consolidated here, such as stuff about Furbid. I'd really like to hear how this all really began. Also as well, we keep other not so illustrious figures on this project, aka Sibe, to name the most apparent. All Mozdoc has done is work his way up to that level and he did it all by himself. He has threatened the lives of MULTIPLE people by now, not just Kacey.--Kendricks Redtail 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

i could write up how it all began. it will take a little while, but i do not mind much.--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do. I think this way we can better understand why he is the way he is. I also wouldn't mind hearing his side of how it all started, but I don't think we can get a clear lower-case g-rated version from him that doesn't paint you two as the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet.--Kendricks Redtail 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

okay. like i say, it will take a bit to get to. and as most things i write here will probably be done in segments. i do not know if you can get anything from him. in all the years i have dealt with him, he has not been any different than you see here. he truthfully hates me and kacey, which is a bit beyond my ability to comprehend. he even blames me for his ban here, or so the communications i have received from him say. i do not know if he is capable of understanding cause/effect relationships.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 22:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see that the community came out strongly against exclusion. I won't be doing it at this time. --Rat 10:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are SO full of shit. You miserable piece of shit mother fucking cunt sucker. You posted all of this shit and didn't think that I would notice? Oh you are sadly mother fucking mistaken you slut. I have read it and now that I have you've just made my fucking blood boil all over again with how you've meticulously detailed and documented every mother fucking thing that I've done wrong with you. How about we come to a fucking compromise here?

How about you destroy all that shit that you've bothered to remember, recall, save, catelog or post online, removing all of your shitty undeserved bans against me, allowing me back in onto Furbid since you don't have a god damn reason to keep me out other than the reason that you fucking hate me and own it and it gives you a hard on keeping someone like me out, and then, when all that shit is done, give me your phone number so that I can contact you when all else fails on IM's or some shit like that.

You just had to go and piss me off again didn't you? You could've kept your mother fucking mouth shut. You could've not even put that fucking shit in on Kacey's page, you know that you little cunt? You could've just shut that shithole in your mother fucking face and stop it from spewing shit all over the god damn place, and had that happened, I wouldn't be so pissed the fuck off at you right now and feeling my hands tense from wanting to punch that smug smile on your face clean off. You annoy me, you piss me off, and you can't take a fucking hint. REMOVE ALL THE FUCKING BANS and already we'd be on much better ground.

But NO. Your just like every other mother fucker in the god damn world. All that you can focus in on is right in front of your fucking face and all you see is me getting pissed off and yelling at you and that's all you ever fucking see. You don't bother to even fucking listen to the shit I'm saying and do as I ask, under the promise that once you do, THINGS WILL BE MUCH FUCKING BETTER!

I'm disgusted to even continue my existance as a 'taur player with your in the midst of it all. I'm disgusted and revolted at how much pull you have as a person over every fucking con, website, or little fucking thing that I try to call my own and have out at you in some fashion just so I can have the happiness of FUCKING YOU for once and getting away with it. You don't deserve Kacey, you don't deserve to own Furbid, you don't even deserve to fucking live. Your a god damn curse and all because of me posting some of your cunt sucking wifes work online you had to start all this shit. You could've just let it slide, you know that you little shit? Why don't you start letting it slide, remove your fucking bans, and how about removing all of your shit that you've posted online about me.

And then go fucking die.

How you mother fuckers like that? I better not hear any one of you people responding to this. I get the last fucking word in everything. I am determined to get my way and fuck you all until you leave me the fuck alone, let me be the outspoken person that I am, rant about what pisses me off the most, and not give a shit about it. Not a big fucking deal if you ask me, so fuck off and lock this forum so that no sacks of shit can post to it again. Especially you, Noriko.

--Mozdoc (added by 85.10.128.6 01:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

Mozdoc, I doubt you'll ever read this... but I'll give it a shot anyway.

I have yet to see anything that shows WHY you went off on a hell-raising spree, at least nothing definative. Granted, ayukawataur in particular tends to be an a** - but a relatively minor one compared to all the other crap going on both online & off.

You've built up quite a notorious reputation so far. Now that you have, you can make a choice - to continue using that rep as you have been, or to change focus and use it to try and change how things have become in the world. I know from experience what such a reputation can accomplish. Lol, the very upper class "snobs" in my area who used to delight in pushing people around and throwing their weight around now tend to, as the saying goes, "walk on eggshells" and think twice about acting like a**holes towards others, simply because they are AFRAID of how I might come down on them. Hell, even the police who would look the other way at their antics & law breaking are hesitant to cross paths with or run afoul of me.

In spite of the way it sounds, I don't want you to think I'm bragging - it's a hard road & a hard life. But with all the crap I've seen I just couldn't stand by and let it go on, I had to do something about the unequal treatment.

With that said.....

Will ye join me? or will ye stand against me?

75.7.254.145 02:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Other controversy

Stuff to add to the article when I have more time (or if someone else wants to tackle it, go ahead): Mozdoc search on LJSeek. Spaz Kitty 13:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

History

as per kendricks redtail request for information on the experience.

i am going to use here to add items in first until they can be put in by those who are better at writing than i am.

* may 12, 2002 kacey and i were contacted by a fan, and a friend of jeremy, informing us that he was distributing her work, and was claiming he had permission to do so. he used various methods, including sending a zip file of all her taurs at the time over idahobobs taur list. previous that incident there were no watermarks on kaceys work.

* may 12 i attempted to contact jeremy via email to verify. i received no response over a period of five days. after which i removed all of kaceys work from online to update with visual scarring watermarks and replaced them.

* less than an hour later i was contacted by jeremy wanting to know why i had done such. after i explained to him his part in the choice, he started by telling me that i had no right to do such and demanded that i replace the images without watermarks. he further demanded that all images of kaceys to be listed in the future be free of any visual scarring so that he could download them and print them for himself, claiming her work was not worth what it was selling for. he further claimed that both kacey and i should be grateful for his actions as it would obviously make her more popular by getting her work into more hands. i of course declined.

* he immediately responded with methods you see as similar in his actions here.

* we decided to let him purchase one of her prints (stretching cheetah taur) off furbid. after he received it he contacted me claiming he now had another watermark free image and was going to copy it for distribution so that we could never sell another print like it as anyone who wanted it could get such for free. he was immediately blacklisted from future purchase.

* it was after he found he had been blacklisted that he went from being belligerent to full death threats. not only directly to us, but was threatening our lives to other people, which was forwarded to us on a daily basis.

* during all of this time i continually expressed a desire for him to clean up his language. the excessive use of profanity was making it complicated for me to understand him.

* i decided shortly after this happened that i was going to take two actions. the first was i wanted to know who he was. in depth. if he was making threats against our lives, we needed to know who he was. the second was i spoke with a couple of lawyers about the situation. we were advised to sue him for copyright infringement, criminal copyright infringement, file a restraining order, and involve federal authorities for the death threats.

* it took a while before we actually did something about it. during the interim time i learned about him. spoke with him many times. i also spoke with his birth father and his mother trying to find a solution that would not require doing something which would ruin his life. after a short period of time, on his mothers email account, the typing structure changed, which led me to contact her again directly. she explained to me she was no longer receiving email from me and feared jeremy was intercepting them. she also told me she feared the only way to handle the situation was to take him to court.

* as we saw a convention approaching rapidly, we decided that it was in our best interests to file for a restraining order. we took the time to warn jeremy of our intention, and explained to him what it would mean and how it would affect him. he responded with further threats and told us we would never be able to get one as we had no grounds to get one.

* in october of 2002 we filed for a restraining order in the los angeles superior court. an immediate effect 30 day order was put in effect until the actual hearing. after reading the logs of all communications the judge actually expressed fear for kacey. also, despite what jeremy claims, it was not i who filed the order. which anyone who reads it can see. i am named as a second party on the order. it was filed in kaceys name.

* in november of 2002 there was a hearing. jeremy failed to appear, which granted kacey a win by default.

* as jeremy enjoys pointing out, yes we did use the lawyer fees as a tax write off.

* after jeremy was served with the order he immediately contacted me, violating the order. which i ignored. in fact i ignored him, as per the terms of the order until i took over furbid.

* due to the terms of the order, jeremy was subsequently denied access to any convention kacey and i went to. this was because we needed to get business licenses to sell in areas which cons took place. this immediately made said locations officially places of business, which was also listed on the order as no contact. not all conventions were happy about this requirement. out of respect for the conventions themselves i do not wish to list them and what we went through with each. other than anthrocon.

* prior to ac'03 kacey and i were approached by dr. conway. he wanted to know how it was that someone could have an order against kacey, and what it was she did to make jeremy file against her. apparently jeremy was attempting to use a slightly doctored scan of the order claiming he had an order against us and was trying to get us banned from the con. as the law required we keep the order with us at all times, we provided dr. conway with a legal copy and jeremy was banned from anthrocon. the next month dr. conway sent me a notarized deposition of the experience.

* bit of humour - dr. conway stated his first thought was "kacey? what is she going to do? cute him to death?"

* each year, despite his being unable to register, jeremy did attempt to both attend and ghost at conventions we were present at. on one incident he was almost caught by the police for doing so. san jose incident case/report #05-013-0926. he managed to flee the con and spent the rest of the weekend in a hotel across the freeway.

* during all of this time he did make contact on various occasions which was ignored.

* later i will add furbid into the timeline. and if need be flesh some things out more.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 07:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

it really was not until around 2004 when things really began to be a problem. shortly after it was announced by jeff orr that i was taking on the job of furbid assistant admin. jeremy began again his harassment in full. this was expected by both myself and jeff, and we chose to ignore it. however, when i took over as admin, the entire situation changed drastically.

as jeremy had been still harassing through email, and other contact, it was suggested by our attorney to make a public announcement. this announcement explained that i was banning jeremy from use of the discussion board. at the time he was not being banned from the actual auction system. i will not publish exactly what was said, though it had to do with extremely (i imagine) painful sexual practices and how he intended to perform them on myself and kacey.

it was his immediate response which led to his ban from the auction server. this involved the creation of multiple accounts nd continual harassing contacts. an example of accounts created follow

mozdocalicentaur

Name: A B

Address: C

City: D

State: E

Zip: F

Country: United States

Phone: G

Signature: FurBid-SF sucks ass. Everyone should switch to FurBuy.

Where Did You Hear About Us?: Fucking Aukawa

this led to him being banned.

he also began to use the internal message server to send messages such as:

Tue, 7 Jun 2005 06:57:31 -0400 (EDT)

What the hell is wrong with this stupid excuse of FurBid? I tried to log in as mozdoc and it says my account is suspended for whatever reason, so I create a new one, and now its suspended too. Who the hell is doing the administrative stuff over there? Unsuspend my damn accounts. I've done nothing wrong and whatever stupid issues the administrator has with me, drop it. Me using FurBid doesn't put me into any contact with you, so unsuspend me and let me bid on auctions.

forgive me for choosing the softer ones. even though i keep everything, i prefer to not have so much vulgarity.

this continued for quite a while, which resulted in my locking his ip address, ip range, and eventually his isp. off and on he still manages to find a way on and gets locked when i catch it.

after this he began a long campaign to harass me via aim, yahoo, and livejournal. again, i blocked him from online messengers where he created new accounts, blocked, new, blocked, new, etc. he also started having his friends message me to ask, demand, threaten and so on and so forth.

he started taking images of my avatar and posting altered versions around the internet. this caused the loss of his livejournal, and later of his deviant art account - for images i linked to earlier on another thread.

as you may notice, this is a bit more scattered as it mostly becomes a blur. i kind of stopped keeping perfect records about a year ago. there was just too much happening on a daily basis that to record all of it in a fashion that is legible and post able would have required too much time.

there were numerous incidents which occurred at conventions. out of respect for the conventions themselves, i will not go into detail either.

the tro? it was a conscious decision on my and kaceys part to let it lapse. we could have easily had it reinstated for another three years, which we were advised to do by most persons we knew. however, we decided that he deserved the chance to prove he could behave in a mature manner. i informed fc of this in an email on 12-20-2005 and asked them to handle things how they felt fit. and since then i have left each convention to handle it their own way. which i should note, i have no complaints at all about their methods and decisions.

i really do not feel like writing more on this at the moment. i am quite tired of this whole situation and would like for it to be over. however, i can not allow him to have what he wants or i open the gates or others to do what he has done. --Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 05:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of real name?

Exclusion is out. It's fairly clear that this sort of pattern over an extended period of time is notable enough to be recorded. However, I for one would like to see this series of events peter out rather than continue. It's been five years and I suspect both parties are kinda sick of it. I've read over the above, and it seems like a fairly meaningless feud at this point.

With this in mind, I propose that we keep this article (with all appropriate modifications based on the above) but remove Mozdoc's real-life name from it, on the condition that there be nothing that requires the real name to be used in the public interest going forwards. For the avoidance of doubt, "nothing that requires its use" would include things like the need to renew a non-contact order because unwanted contact and/or threats have continued, either offline or online. If there is further need to remove Mozdoc from conventions then this would also be cause for re-addition of the name.

The only thing that makes me willing to suggest this is that so far I've seen no evidence that he actually has the capability to make his threats a reality. To my knowledge, he has not been charged with a violent crime. There is a lot of posturing and a lot of bitterness there, and I would like to have a way to prevent those being expressed in the future. --GreenReaper^(talk) 09:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

i really have no opinion on this one. after all, his name is on the restraining order, and on many of the pages which are referenced. so removal would be a pointless gesture.

it would definitely be nice to forget all of this. as i said before, i hold him no ill will. i am not capable of holding grudges. i never learned how. i will continue to document however. as it is history and others may learn from it to prevent from it being repeated.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 10:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking purely from a personal perspective, I would urge you to keep Mozdoc's real-life name in this particular page. After following many of the links provided to past and more recent behaviour, they show that Mozdoc has sent death threats to numerous different people. History has proven that such things should never be taken lightly. Having Mozdoc's real-life name on the page would be a useful time-saver for such victims if they wished to go down any legal avenues. --Findra 17:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While it may be true, has it been shown that he's doing any of these recently? Frankly, the arguement that it is a time saver is null and void. In order to persue legal measures, one must feel that his threats would hold merit, meaning that they know who he is and that he has the ability to carry them out, so would be able to legitimately file a claim. Having the name here simply opens a route for harassment, be it due or undue, and is just fueling the fire. If he hasn't done anything in a while, which he hasn't, and if he continues to remain passive, I see no reason to keep the name here. Also, as you've said, if need be they can review the links if they so choose to dig deeper, as they are a matter of public record. The point remains that it is not necessary in the article. --Michichael 00:38, 12 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.166.210.22 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

well, if you get technical, the moment he threatens another, and they have an actual fear, then by law his threats have merit. the law does not look at if they actually carried it out in that case. they look at intent. if a person is in legitimate fear, they have a right for the object of that fear to be stopped.

and, ummm. at the risk of sounding a bit repetitive. but he still harasses me at least twice a week minimum. he knows i can not just shut down my avenues of contact due to customer service issues. he also harasses me and my wife at conventions. and his threats remain constant against myself and others.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you still don't discount my point. This site is for information, not to play tit for tat on a feud between the parties. The real name is not NECESSARY to the merit of the article as it pertains to the fandom. A argument that it aids in legal action is irrelevant as past actions are part of public record, cited, and available on your own wiki. This really seems far too petty for a wiki. -- Michichael 14:18, 14 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.166.210.22 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

please do me th courtesy of not thinking i have anything against him. because i do not have anything for him other than a very unhealthy dose of pity. for some reason i can not feel anything but such for him. and please do not accuse me of using this as a place to get back at him, because there is nothing to get back for.

i am constantly asked by people he threatens about him and what they can/should do. wiki is an information source and people come here for said information regarding jeremy. not for information about me. they deserve to have the same information to find out about him without the legal costs associated with it that i had to go through. because i did not go through it for myself. i did it so the community would have access to information with which to protect themselves from future instances.

and, as a note: here should be more than sufficient to explain his recent behavior.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 21:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You still have yet to discount my point. If it is legal action they require, they can get it by contacting you directly, or by viewing the cited material. The direct posting of his name isn't necessary to the article, and has already been shown to cause anxiety to Mozdoc, which comes off as baiting, which has been pointed out elsewhere in this article. This is a private issue between you and Mozdoc, and it really does seem that you have something personal against him. Granted, I'm not defending his actions. I've told him numerous times that he needs to grow up with some of his comments, and would be happy to be a moderator if you two decided to attempt a discussion online. It seems to be that Mozdoc is trying to get back at you for perceived injustices, such as what's posted on this Wiki with his name, and you are continuing to try to goad him.

It is all well and good to document and keep track for legal purposes, which are cited and referenced within the article, however, the inclusion of his RL name within the article seems irrelevant and really comes off as a personal touch of arrogance and "so there" attitude. I fail to see how the rest of the community cares what his real life name is, and if they do feel threatened by him, how having it here helps, over a freely available source elsewhere, through either you or the referenced sources. It's not necessary to the article, and your link to the talk page looks to me like, cleaning up his language, a request to remove it. So obviously you hit a nerve, and are milking it for what it's worth. This is a childish dispute, and really needs to end. Both of you. I'm not going to place blame on either side. I really could care less, but since seeing it, it does come off as an attempt to goad him. Further, I understand his concern about having his real name out there. I personally don't like having my real name available to people either, specifically due to harassment reasons. - Michichael 21:03 PST 15, May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.166.210.22 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mozdoc has threatened to kill Ayukawataur at Further Confusion next year. Not only would I advise someone letting the FC staff know about these repeated threats (and Ayukawa as well), I once again reemphasize my opposition to removing his name. If he ever followed through on any of his threats, would you still support having his name excluded from the article? Because I'm not willing to take such a gamble in what seems to be a mentally less than stable person. Spaz Kitty 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Spaz Kitty that Mozdoc's real name should remain, for the reasons stated above.----DuncanDaHusky^(talk) 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Moz is truly a "Special Child", but we shouldn't allow a doublestandard to be created, see: Lance Rund's article, which was removed at his request, yet we still leave up articles about Moz and Sibe. If I have heard correctly, Sibe had also asked to not be listed. --Anonymous /b/ User —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.110.228.173 (talk • contribs) 18:30 and 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a single standard, and always has been: The consensus of WikiFur contributors. What you are seeing is that people may come to a different consensus in different situations, just like in real life.

Exclusion is a privilege, not a right. It has, however, historically been granted by default - that is, people have to give reasons why it should not be granted. This is because in most cases there are no such reasons. However, there have been several cases in which reasons were presented, and were felt by the community to be sufficient to deny the request for exclusion, and in some cases even a request to remove a real name. While it's hard to set a precise bound on these reasons, they have generally been along the lines of some kind of illegal action, the cause of controversy, and usually concern a recent or ongoing situation rather than a historical one.

People often consider there to be a public interest which is served by having the article concerned up, too. For example, if an artist has been failing to do commissions, it might be considered wise to have an article about them which notes this, even if they do not want us to. It this case, the person concerned does not wish us to take note of his continued attempts to force members of the fandom to do his bidding by threats of bodily violence. I am not unappreciative of the view that there could be baiting on the other side, but as a practical matter, Mozdoc considers everyone who disagrees with him to be his enemy, and the mere fact that he has been denied access to FurBid as an aggressive act which must be remedied . . . "or else". He is not likely to be satisfied with anything but complete capitulation and removal of all contrary views, and I think the community has made it plain that this is not going to happen. No person's actions are above commentary by their peers except at the pleasure of those same peers, and it does not please us when a person keeps on threatening others with death when they've been told not to.

The situation of Lance Rund is somewhat different. He was excluded without fuss (as there was no such public interest in the material on the page about him), but also wished an item of information about himself to be removed from another article. This was the first time this had come up and there was extended debate, the result of which was "it's generally OK to do that as long as it didn't matter exactly who the actor was". That is, his specific identity was tangential to the matter of fact. When you're talking about personal behaviour, that's obviously not the case - you can't just say "a popular artist" isn't doing their commissions. --GreenReaper^(talk) 20:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to post here, but I agree as well. Insomuch that I am no longer going to attempt to defend his actions. (Read his talk page...) - Michichael 01:19 PST 20, May 2007 (01:55 and 08:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

Considering the long discussion and apparent consensus on leaving in Mozdoc's real-life name on this article, I was very surprised to see that Rat had removed this from the main page. This is apparently not in accord with the 'will of the fandom'. I would like to propose that this change be reverted, unless Rat would like to justify this undiscussed change. --Findra 15:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The general impression I got was that while users were willing to remove it(admittedly with a few exceptions), there wasn't anyone willing to just go ahead and do it. If I've misjudged, I won't enforce removal if it's against the will of the community. --Rat 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Rat. My admittedly brief refresh on this thread suggested that Ayukawataur, Spaz Kitty, DuncanDaHusky, and I seemed to be in strongly in favour of keeping the name, but looking back more carefully I see that Ayukawataur was offering no strong opinion either way. Only Michichael seemed to be strongly against it, although his most recent post (09:19 PST 20, May 2007) seems to suggest that he might have altered that position. Hence, I still feel that there is a consensus to have the name left in the article. GreenReaper's post seems to back up this position, I'd suggest. --Findra 18:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind the removal of Mozdoc's given name, under the provision already suggested by Greenreaper. -- Siege^(talk) 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I vote in favor of removing his real name. Give the poor dude a break. He might be a fuckup, sure, but Wikifur is not a government agency or a public service, it's a privately run fandom resource that in my opinion is exercising authority it does not have by taking it upon itself to try to police the actions of individuals. 24.6.68.79 18:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! That was me. Rootdown 18:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I also vote in favor of removing his real name. In all situations online a real name is far less useful than a list of bannable IP addresses, which has obviously been included, along with his known monikers. The only benefit I can see in leaving this guy's name publicly available is that some sort of revenge might be meted out by allowing his Furry-based exploits to threaten his real-world associations. (i.e. -- airing dirty laundry for a potential employer to find should he google-search the player's name), and I would certainly hope the administrators of Wikifur would not condone the use of the Wiki for that purpose. Since it's clear the player in question wants his named removed, I don't think it does any credit to the Furry fandom, the WikiFur community, or anyone here that that particular request is denied. He could have asked more nicely, granted, but his mode of asking doesn't make the request itself less reasonable or its granting less right. HellcatCordelia 05:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

HellcatCordelia, discussion about the permanent removal of the user's real name is still ongoing on this talk page at the present time. No final decision has been made, hence the revert on the article until some kind of consensus is reached. My opinion on the mater?,... I'm taking a neutral position on this one (not worth the headache.) Will go with the Admin majority's final decision Spirou 06:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there some kind of timeframe in place for this decision? The discussion here seems to be largely neutral or in favor of removing the name. Also, I question the wisdom that lays this man's real name vulnerable during the deciding. It seems to me that it would make more sense to remove it until a decision has been made, given that its presence here does have real-world implications. HellcatCordelia 1:30, 17 June 2008, (CST)

i am going to cast my vote here, which is for the continued placement of his name on the page.

first, it is his name, there is no doubt about it.

second, he continues his harassment against not only myself, but others. including, but not limited to death threats, which happens to be a federal crime.

individuals who are victims of his harassment may find information which may help them in stopping him from placing them in a constant state of fear for their own safety here.

now i am all for forgiveness and giving people breaks. but, i also believe they need to illustrate that they have actually made a change in their behavior to warrant such. he has yet to really make any change.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 02:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) [tired and not really wanting to type any more]

You know, this would be so much easier if you would just shut up and get the hell lost and exit this "fandom". How about that? This article is about me and every time I try to correct something or get something changed that would make continuing my existence in this world much easier, guess who has to show the hell up and fuck with things again? That's right, YOU. How about we all vote to just simply ignore Noriko/Ayukawataur's suggestions and move forward with the removal of my real name? I have ZERO desire to be listed here on WikiFur and if so far its only the outcry of ONE person against many, then tough shit. Move ahead with my name removal so that in the future I can get my ENTIRE article removed and move on. Shut up for once Noriko. --Mozdoc 06:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

so that in the future I can get my ENTIRE article removed

No. Too many voices object on that point. Never going to happen. I am not opposed to the removal of your given name from this article, but there are objections and changes of position involved. Tomorrow, I will summarize the votes as stated, including dates and Admin status. Since there has been an objection raised in the past six days, I'm going to give this another week (to Mon 30 June) for people to comment and acknowledge old votes. -- Siege^(talk) 18:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As stated under Exclusion redux and Removal of real name?, I now hereby summarize the opinions given so far on this page as if they were a set of votes, to help establish consensus among the WikiFur community on this point. Registered users may add or change their position and commentary until this period for comment closes on Monday the 30th of June. On the advice of GreenReaper, I am not noting here who is an admin; you can easily look it up if you want to know. Once we have a fully measured consensus - or its lack, which seems possible, I will have a guideline for what action to take next. Please understand that I am trying not to let my emotions show in this matter, in order to give my actions the appearance of fairness.

Notes

• Regardless of belligerence, this action is due to Mozdoc making a request for the single redaction of his legal name, which places him in the "for" category. My taking any action on this is already exceptional (especially since he has shopped around among admins through all possible means of contact, trying to find someone who would give him more than the time of day - and ended up banned from nearly all such avenues of contact due to his rude, solipsistic, domineering, and harassing behavior); should consensus point to removal of his name from this article, I will refuse to make any other change or allow the removal any other information from the page without a further exceptional reason (such as legal enforcement of a judicial ruling).
• There are two other users who appear to have interest primarily in this discussion and little else on WikiFur: Michichael (whose only contributions to the wiki are two comments to this Talk page and a spelling fix on Jwoulf), and HellcatCordelia (whose only contributions to the wiki are three comments on this Talk page). Because I know of no other reason to refuse it, I will extend full faith and credit to their comments here.

Summary of arguments as of Monday night, 23 June, if all commentary is given one full vote (let me know if I got the interpretation wrong or put you in the wrong category):

+4 for redaction (Mozdoc, Michichael, Rootdown, and HellcatCordelia)

Arguments include: Because he wants it and everyone who denies him is stupid and wrong; because he's changed and is currently harmless; WikiFur has no jurisdiction in matters of public interest; displaying the name is a form of punishment which shouldn't be allowed on the wiki.

=3 neutral (GreenReaper, Siege, and Spirou)

Responses include: Provisional support provided the public interest has no further need of such information; similar provisional support; refusing to take a position and inherit its pain.

-4 against redaction (Spaz Kitty, Findra, DuncanDaHusky, Ayukawataur)

Arguments include: Because he is a threat to others and should be watched; because he has made legally actionable threats, and keeping the name in will be a great time-saver for legal action; reiteration of threat which needs watching; because he has not changed from his prior recorded behavior, and should therefore not receive any greater privilege such as the removal of information.

Balanced, without a clear direction. That's how things stand at the start of this week, as I read them here. If someone wishes to make a clarifying argument, I would be pleased to attend to their words. -- Siege^(talk) 08:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The 30th of June conflicts with Anthrocon. Many users from this Wiki will be at the con from the 26th to the 29, and may not even be aware of this vote until after the 30th due to convention-related travel.

I'd like to ask that the date be pushed back to July 7th, so that all parties may have sufficient time to comment. --Douglas Muth 15:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I'll be out until late on the 30th. --GreenReaper^(talk) 17:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FC Removal

I can attest to Moz getting booted from FC2007 for taking at least one picture of something on Kacey's table. I was there when it happened. (Both the picture taking and getting booted part.) -Ruddertail —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.83.69.143 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (from User talk:Mozdoc)

Yup, that information I can confirm as well. Although he was removed from the hotel completly for being in function space without a badge, as it had been pulled earlier. Not for repeted harassment. I ended up having to help him find a room elsewhere because of all this cuntwafflery. and in my hunble opinion on this matter, both sides are equally esculating the situation. Moz can't leave well enough alone, and the other side has been known to bait him for a response as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.106.8.60 (talk • contribs) 07:00 to 07:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (from User talk:Mozdoc)

I can't see any baiting here. All I see is one individual being completely unreasonable and unhelpful, and disregarding anything anyone else says. --IanKeith 18:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (from User talk:Mozdoc)

I don't know if baiting is the word, but there is definitely a doublestandard going on here, I observed all the assclownery that went on at FC; They were supposedly told to avoid each other, and Moz was the only one being held to that rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.110.228.173 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

FurAffinity Documentation

I would like to note that I have added a screenshot of Mozdoc's "Hate Manifesto" from his FurAffinity user page. We may be deleting all of the content in his account soon, but thought it prudent and wise to document his words here. --blueroo 08:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Army Reserve

The article asserts that Mozdoc was a member of the US Army Reserve. Mozdoc, on the other hand, asserts that he was "never in the fucking military". The direct source for the assertion has been removed, as has the Wayback machine's cache. However, it is still present in Google's cache as of this date.

While I do not particularly appreciate being lied to, I think it is fair to ask what grounds we have for keeping this seven-year-old piece of information in the article. It is not a crime to be a member of the reservists, and it seems like it is a legitimate item of personal information without particular relevance to his actions within the fandom that would require a specific reason not to be removed on request. --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

i have no problems with it being removed. i did not place it there, only corrected it.

the fact of it being a consideration during the issuance of the tro is probably trivial as well.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 07:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

While the post describing him joining the reserves itself is no longer online, a followup is, describing his getting processed in. I think that the big question is how do we handle a situation where someone is actively trying to destroy evidence of past events? 66.74.145.183 14:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why's it of any concern to you whether he erases his past or not? I'd say just shut the fuck up and let him handle his own problems and keep your own nose out of all of this entirely. Everybody needs to just shut up and perhaps listen to Mozdoc for once. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.81.29.204 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

The above message was posted through a proxy. --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Multifurry

Mozdoc was banned from the Multifurry mailing list after being warned by STrRedWolf, the list holder, not to dredge up any private converation and not to contact STrRedWolf again.

Okay, enough third-person talk. Yes, I banned him from the Yahoo! Groups Multifurry list. He was warned once to don't dredge things up in the list. He continued to do so. He says he's changed, but he's said that before to me over IM. But he won't listen. It's sad, an intresting character but a terrible player. STrRedWolf 17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

While Mozdoc may claim to have changed if he has he is still doing a remarkably good impressions of a creepy stalker type by trying to pester other people about their contact with STrRedWolf, presumably to try and get them to relay stuff for him (I can't say for certain as I ignored his attempt to contact me). its things like this that make me wish for a Cluebat Over IP protocol {sighs}. Kirishala 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with referencing

• Some things are cited to spindizzynews.org which has been admitted to be tounge-in-cheek style.[1] My understanding is that spindizzy.org is okay as a reference, but spindizzynews.org is not.
• One reference is cited to http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/User_talk:GreenReaper#Mozdoc but the link doesn't go anywhere. Putting aside whether we should use WikiFur itself as a reference, the link should be to a specific diff.
• Not a good reference "It is generally believed that these allegations are true." By who?

--Rat 05:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, though it might be worth keeping it around as an example of the reaction.
• We should use WikiFur as a reference for actions taken on WikiFur.
• By me, if you want a specific example. By others, too. Can it be proved? Not officially without AAE saying so, and they've said explicitly that they won't. Is it, in all likelihood, true? Yes. --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Tried to clarify the source of the information between the two articles. Based on further looking, I don't think there's a difference between the domains spindizzy.org and spindizzynews.org, just that specific articles may or may not be written in a humourous style.
• Agree, WikiFur can be a source for things that happen on WikiFur. I found the specific diff that seems to be the source. I'm not sure whether it's a particularly good source, since the account has no other edits.
• True, proof is difficult and can be a lot to expect. Even a link to a blog or forum post could be enough to let readers evaluate the sources on their own.

I made some edits based on these points. If there are any mistakes I am happy to correct them. --Rat 07:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have some comments on the SpinDizzy News article cited here. I am the server wizard for SpinDizzy, and held the same post back in 2000 when the events mentioned took place (not hard to check if you want to). I'm not sure if I may use my own knowledge as a reference for Wikifur, but here is my analysis of the factual accuracy of the SpinDizzy News article.

• The majorty of the statements of fact (as opposed to opinions) in the article are accurate. I did, indeed receive numerous emails from Mozdoc of the form indicated in the first paragraph, over a long period of time following his first and subsequent bans.
• The second and third paragraphs about his hacking attempt on Argon's account, and his defence, is factually accurate. I was the wizard who searched through the connection logs at the time, and was present when he was confronted with the results.
• The fourth paragraph is accurate (to the best of my recollection wrt the connection count). Once we noticed the 'Myana' character using an IP address known to have been used by Mozdoc, it quickly became obvious it was being used by the same person, since when the character was blocked and ask to contact a wizard, there resulted another email from Mozdoc full of expletives demanding to know how we knew it was his alt.
• The list of mucks from which Mozdoc had been banned was purely for comic effect, obviously.
• The sixth paragraph is factually accurate about the onslaught of e-mails. The rest of the article is a mix of fact and opinion that probably doesn't have any relevence to the Mozdoc page on Wikifur.

In summary, it would be safe from an accuracy point of view to use the facts detailed above. Whether their use would also be in accord with Wikifur's policies for verifiability, I do not know. Fortunately, there are people in this thread much more well versed in that than I! I hope that this has helped clear up the confusion over the accuracy and satirical content of the SpinDizzy News article. --Findra 19:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit to the main page, Rat. I've edited it to remove some redundancy, and removed some ambiguities that were in there. I think it flows better now, but please feel free to change it further if you wish. --Findra 23:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

analysis of mozdoc at fc'08

obviously i am putting this here because i do not wish to edit the main page. i feel that anything i say there will be biased in one form or another.

i had the honour of working with mozdoc during fc'08. though i can not speak officially for aae, i can give you my personal opinion.

this year, he was not only an excellent gofer, but he was quite well restrained. he did what he could to avoid me, but since he was technically working under me for a while, there was no way he could. even then, until i approached him, he maintained as much distance as he could while still completing his job.

when i approached him, he did seem uncomfortable, and requested the same things he always does, but he was mostly polite about it. almost as if he was unsure of if it was okay to ask.

he did spend some time browsing kaceys table. he did not purchase any thing, and when she asked him if she could help him, he only replied a soft and sheepish 'no' and moved on.

i would like to stress, i am not ready to give him an open book and start over, but i am willing to admit he was an excellent worker who was able to quite methodically reorganize the constore materials so that constore staff could better do their job, he makes an excellent (how ever abrasive) door guard, and i am told by friends who work in the art show that he did an excellent job there as well.

i do not know if my attempt to breech the gap this year will help or hurt yet. though i would like it to be added to his page that he did behave himself quite well. it is only fair that we try to remain objective and point out that he is capable of behaving himself.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 22:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting annoying. Spaz Kitty 08:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A non-admin on IRC gave him the impression that he could edit this page to his liking without knowing the background of the case. He should have known better but I'm responsible for not seeing that there was a problem and joining the conversation earlier. --GreenReaper^(talk) 08:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Exclusion redux

Its about fucking time you people started to get annoyed about this. You know what could make it all better and make it all go away? HOW ABOUT ACKNOWLEDGING THE FUCKING FACT THAT I DO NOT WANT TO BE A PART OF YOUR LITTLE INBRED ASSININE EXCUSE OF A FUCKING COMMUNITY ANYMORE AND ASK THAT I BE GIVEN TOTAL AND COMPLETE EXCLUSION FROM THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF WIKIFUR. I WANT MY ARTICLE REMOVED, EVERY SINGLE MENTION OF MY NAME GONE, AND I WANT TO BE LEFT THE FUCK ALONE AFTER ALL THAT IS DONE.

How much more simple is it to understand? The reason that I continue to be pissed the fuck off at you little pinheaded little shit for brains administrators is that you just blatently refuse to see things my way and that the way I want things to happen will make life a whole lot easier for the rest of you if you just do as I ask and get it over and done with.

I have no fucking idea how my damn name ended up here in this hellish pile of shit called WikiFur, but I will see to it that it will be removed. It shouldn't take every single mother fucking one of you to agree that my article should be removed because it sure as fuck didn't take every single one of you to get my name on here. I demand EXCLUSION.

--Mozdoc 03:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

HELLLLLLOOOOOOO? I'm waiting for someone to get here and fucking talk to me since this place has been brought up again and its pissing me off all over again. Someone answer me and get my fucking name removed from here.

--Mozdoc 03:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, there should be a hundred mother fuckers out there that have decided to watch this page for whatever fucking reason. Why am I not getting any responses at all from anybody? This is complete utter bullshit. Someone better fucking answer so that I can get my name off this "community".

--Mozdoc 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Where are all the fucking people? God damn it already, someone fucking answer me and get my god damn name off of this piece of shit website already. I DO NOT want to be documented on any level at all and you will respect this wish to have me be excluded PERMANENTLY.

--Mozdoc 04:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins aren't on the place 24/7. And you'll get further in life if you learn how to say 'please' and 'thank you'. You've trolled me enough that I'm certainly not going to support any of your calls for exclusion, so you can take this up with someone else now and stop badgering me for the exclusion that I'm not going to grant you myself. Talk to GreenReaper, and try to not go the loud and rude route, and maybe you'll get some actual progress as a result. Spaz Kitty 05:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

He came to me first. The above is the result of what happened when I asked him to explain here why he should now be excluded. --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, "I should be excluded because I want to be", in such extreme cases as this, is not an adequate reason for such. Especially with the way this user has handled it. Spaz Kitty 06:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually S.K., it seems that far too often in this day and age, being nice gets you nowhere. :( That's not to say that it shouldn't be tried, just after the first - or second - time(max) of being polite about it, one should be ready to drop the hammer.

a lot of people only seem to get the point when you slam them into the wall a few times. Being polite about it only gets a rousing "f*** you!" as a response. where the h*** did this country go wrong???

AnthroSamurai 06:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

When will you people fucking realize that your pathetic piece of shit bans don't do a fucking thing beside piss me off worse than I already was before? You sound like you're the assholes that need to grow the fuck up. I DEMAND RESULTS, I DO NOT WANT TO BE FUCKING BANNED.

--Mozdoc 00:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I just can't imagine how anybody could possibly fail to fall all over themselves obeying a capslock-and-profanity-ridden demand -- sorry, "heeding a polite request" -- from such a well-spoken, courteous, level-headed, personable, and all-around respected individual such as Mozdoc! What's that saying -- "insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results"? Sheesh...Cubist 12:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked to give this a review. I have reviewed the article, and the evidence. I see little problem at this time with provisionally removing the personal name, and if no objection has been raised in a week, I intend to do just that; but I recommend that this article otherwise stay, whole and complete. -- Siege^(talk) 18:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

An objection has been raised (see Removal of real name? above). Tomorrow, I will summarize votes, and on Monday 30 June, after one full week for further comment, I intend to close the vote. -- Siege^(talk) 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary has been placed in the appropriate thread. Please see above for further information. -- Siege^(talk) 08:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Mozdoc's love notes via IM

I logged into IM tonight and found that Mozdoc had sent offline messages to me on two different IM services. I am documenting them here.

First, via Yahoo IM:

mozcentaur

8:48:24 PM
YOU LITTLE PIECE OF MOTHER FUCKING SHIT!
8:48:35 PM
ANSWER ME YOU WORTHLESS FAG OF A MOTHER FUCKER.
8:48:47 PM
I'M FUCKING TALKING TO YOU YOU DICKHEADED MOTHER FUCKING CUNT.

mozcentaur
9:28:38 PM
Answer me.

9:31:31 PM

Charming. And via MSN about an hour later, while I was still offline:

mozdoc@yahoo.com

10:22:00 PM

ANSWER ME.

I had to slightly massage the formatting on these, because my client (Adium) saves logs in HTML format. If anyone wants the raw logs, I have them up at http://rapidshare.com/files/115226319/mozdoclogs.zip.html

--Douglas Muth 02:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

After several rounds of blocking Mozdoc and having him bother me under different screen names, I was finally treated to this. And yes, he really did type in all caps.

moz40

I DO NOT GO THE FUCK AWAY YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
12:36:46 AM
ANSWER ME NOW.
12:37:12 AM
YOU FUCKING BANNED ME FROM WIKIFUR FOR A MOTHER FUCKING WEEK YOU SACK OF SHIT. WITHOUT ANY REASON. I WANT MY GOD DAMN ARTICLE ON THAT FUCKING WEBSITE TO GO THE FUCK AWAY. UNDERSTAND?
12:37:24 AM
I WANT TOTAL AND COMPLETE EXCLUSION FROM THAT FUCKING WIKIFUR SITE IMMEDIATELY.
12:37:43 AM
THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU SHOULD BE A LITTLE SHIT AND TRY AND HIDE FROM ME BECAUSE I WILL FUCKING FIND YOU.
12:38:23 AM
ONE FUCKING COMMENT BITCHING ABOUT HOW YOU'VE BEEN TREATING THIS ISSUE I'M HAVING AND I GET BANNED FOR A WEEK? YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT BANNING ME FOR A MOTHER FUCKING WEEK IS GOING TO SAVE YOUR ASS OR MAKE ME ANY MORE CALMER THAN WHAT I AM NOW?
12:38:43 AM
YOU AND YOUR MOTHERFUCKING BANS JUST PISS ME OFF MORE TO WHERE I WANT TO TAKE A FUCKING SHOTGUN TO YOUR HEAD YOU IGNORANT LITTLE PRICKS.

Hmm... comments about how he's going to find me, and taking "a fucking shotgun" to my head... I'd say that's a death threat, or pretty close to one. --Douglas Muth 04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He's been stalking the Fur Affinity staff and admins for the past week, going to anybody and everybody related to the site after he was perma-banned, making the same kind of threats. He used over a dozen IM clients to message and my admins, refusing to accept "no" as an answer and becoming increasingly hostile. --Preyfar 10:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See thread: http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=19666

DAMNIT MOZDOC, COOL YOUR JETS!!!!! The only thing your tactics will accomplish in this is EXACTLY what I outlined! Now calm the hell dowm before I get pissed! (And trust me, you are NOTHING compared to what I'M like when I get pissed!)

All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 01:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ayukawa goading Mozdoc into further aggression?

I'm most likely going to recieve threats (From both sides) over this, but I felt it should be posted as proof of what's REALLY going on.

I recieved this by email this afternoon - it seems that my signature line has made me at least one friend in romania. :))

SpazKitty, you might want to pay extra close attention not only to WHAT your leader has said, but HOW they've said it. ;)

• again, removed under copyright violation *

please do not make this an edit war.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 09:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

please tell mozdoc that he did a nice editing job. also please may i remind him and everyone else, the contents of all discussions of im's with me are not public domain and are subject to copyright and may not be edited, or reprinted without my permission, as per a header in im's with me that has been conveniently deleted.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 17:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, so that's your answer to everything, is it? That Mozdoc did it? I hate to burst your bubble, but unless he suddenly moved to Europe.... he wasn't the one who sent it to me. ;)

Seriously, both of you need to return to your respective corners before someone grabs your head in one hand, his head in the other, and conks them together.

You are actually just as guilty of keeping this feud going, by your constant additions and reworks and comments - I would STRONGLY suggest you take a vacation... as soon as possible.

All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 11:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

i would call your attention to the final line, which states the logff. that is indeed the time i logged, temporarily so that i could reboot this machine. in pacific standard time. the logoff shown is indicative of which machine it came from. if it was from an observer, it would also show his habit of blocking then unblocking, which he uses as a technique to say more without allowing the other party to speak. sort of a power thing.

what ever happened to your boycott?

again i remind you, contents of ims with me are protected under copyright and are not to be posted.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ayukawataur: Are you indeed corresponding with Mozdoc in IM? --Douglas Muth 15:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

off and on i do. i mean i get spammed by him almost daily regarding this. sometimes i actually take the time to answer him, or at least to try and speak with him. or even to try and answer questions he may have.

it never occurred to me that anyone would take the time to seriously edit a transcript between myself and him, and then place it up as supposed evidence against me.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually changed the times(the only thing changed, I can assure you) - to prevent YOU from trying to track down the person I got it from. And yes, after reading that IM, you do strike me as the type to go all out in doing so - even if it's wrong. I'm sure that by now you've already "Yankee searched" me - looking for information to try to intimidate me with. Of course, if you DO try to intimidate me, it will be the biggest mistake of your life - Trust me, you DON'T want to declare all out war on someone like me ;)

And AYUKA, you DO realize that by removing it the IM, you make yourself look guilty as all hell - right???

All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 17:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not post other people's conversations here. You do not have the right to place such materials under the GFDL, nor is it a fair use of copyrighted material.

Instead, here is a summary of the major themes of the conversation, which are not subject to copyright:

• Mozdoc does not like Ayukawataur editing the article about him
• Mozdoc maintains his initial action in posting Kacey's work to a mailing list without permission was legal; Ayukawataur that it was not, and that the claim that he had permission was particularly objectionable
• Mozdoc says that Ayukawataur must be male because lesbians cannot marry; Ayukawataur replies that a legal loophole (involving full faith and credit) permitted her to marry Kacey in Nevada, which in turn allowed her to be a citizen and yet have her marriage recognized in Oregon (nullifying it being impossible since it would deny her citizenship, and remove Oregon's authority to do so)
• Mozdoc insists on being unbanned from Furbid and having his fake accounts removed, Ayukawataur claims that to remove the accounts is not safe under the current database, and that other activities have intervened to delay the move to a new one
• Ayukawataur has collected much information on Mozdoc, some of which is private correspondence, other collected from public records and investigation of Mozdoc's other activities, online and in real life; Mozdoc demands to see the correspondence with his parents, Ayukawataur refuses to give it to him
• Throughout the conversation, Mozdoc was uncivil, making several crude sexual remarks and threats of physical violence. Mozdoc ultimately expresses the wish for Ayukawataur and/or Kacey to die, causing the survivor to suffer

Mozdoc has claimed (as a argument for removal of this article) that he wants nothing to do with furry fandom. His insistence on being unbanned from FurBid suggests otherwise. This is unfortunate, as he has the symptoms of dissocial personality disorder, and as there is no cure, the best thing for all concerned probably would be for him to have no contact with the fandom. --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

GOOD! I FUCKING AGREE! HOW ABOUT GETTING MY FUCKING NAME OFF OF THIS FUCKING DATABASE AND FUCKING EXCLUDING ME LIKE I'VE FUCKING ASKED REPEATEDLY? BUT NO, YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT DECIDE TO FUCK WITH ME EVEN MORE AND MORE AND MORE AND FUCKING MORE! MY DEMANDS ARE FUCKING SIMPLE. REMOVE MY GOD DAMN NAME OFF OF THIS FUCKING EXCUSE OF A FUCKING DATABASE BEFORE I FUCKING FIND ONE OF YOU FUCKING PIECES OF SHIT AND KILL YOU TO PROVE MY FUCKING POINT THAT I'M SERIOUS ABOUT WANTING MY GOD DAMN NAME REMOVED AND WILL NO LONGER TOLERATE YOUR FUCKING GAMES ABOUT KEEPING MY NAME ON HERE BECAUSE IT SERVES AS A FUCKING "WARNING" TO EVERY FUCKING PERSON OUT THERE. I DEMAND THAT MY NAME BE FUCKING REMOVED FROM THIS FUCKING DATABASE RIGHT THE FUCK NOW.

AND YOU, YOU SACK OF SHIT GREENREAPRER, NEED TO FUCKING UNIGNORE ME FROM AIM SO THAT I CAN CONTINUE TO TALK TO YOU. YOU THINK THAT HIDING BEHIND A FUCKING IGNORE IS GOING TO SAVE YOUR SORRY MOTHER FUCKING ASS FROM ME? YOU ARE SADLY FUCKING MISTAKEN. THERE IS NOTHING THE FUCK WRONG WITH ME. WHAT IS THIS BULLSHIT ABOUT DISSOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER? YOU ARE SO FUCKING FULL OF SHIT ITS UNBELIEVABLE. THE ONLY THING THAT IS PISSING ME THE FUCK OFF IS THAT YOU STUPID DICKSUCKING ADMINISTRATORS HERE REFUSE TO SEE THINGS FROM MY FUCKING POINT OF VIEW. REMOVING MY ARTICLE FROM FUCKING WIKIFUR IS SOMETHING THAT I WILL NOT CEASE AT UNTIL I GET IT REMOVED AS I'VE REPEATEDLY FUCKING DEMANDED. THERE IS NO REASON FOR ME TO GET MY GOD DAMN NAME ON THIS FUCKING ASS EXCUSE OF A COMMUNITY AND THERE IS EVEN LESS OF A FUCKING REASON TO KEEP MY GOD DAMN NAME HERE. I DEMAND MY EXCLUSION IMMEDIATELY. GET MY FUCKING NAME OFF OF THIS GOD DAMN FUCKING SITE. THERE IS NO REASON TO KEEP ME HERE AND I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU ASSSHOLES TO KEEP ME HERE AGAINST MY FUCKING WILL. THERE IS NO FUCKING REASON TO WARN ANYBODY ELSE ABOUT ME FOR ANY FUCKING REASON AT ALL AND JUST KEEPING ME HERE IS GOING TO MAKE ME HUNT YOU FUCKING SACKS OF SHIT DOWN UNTIL I GET WHAT I FUCKING WANT.

GET MY FUCKING NAME OFF OF WIKIFUR! <snip> GET MY FUCKING NAME OFF OF WIKIFUR!

Thanks for your cooperation with my demands.

--Mozdoc 19:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Banned again?

Apparently, Mozdoc has been banned again from wikifur... by Spirou, with no notification as to why or any way to find out for himself.

Spirou, would you kindly reply and state the reason for the ban? I would have posted this on your talk page, but it seems that you have disabled the adding of comments on it.

All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 14:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh... Read above? -- Brushwell _{Loves your face.}^{T a l k C o n t r i b s} 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

From the block log: 00:23, 2 June 2008 Spirou (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Mozdoc (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎(Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Take a break)

Spirou's comment was in reference to this statement, which was posted in reply to this edit, which reduced about 14kB of one line repeated, down to its starting and ending lines, as can currently be seen above on this page. -- Siege^(talk) 16:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear explaination Siege.

And Brushwell, the last I checked you were not an administrator here, or even a Junior Admin, so you would not have been able to positively answer the question. With that said, go back to dreaming up alternate histories for your character and shut the hell up.

All hail VLADUZ - the EBAY IMPALER! 02:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh... Brushwell does not need to be an admin to look through user histories and answer a question.

Also, personal attacks do not belong here. Please do not make them. Thanks. --Douglas Muth 15:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The block log is public. You could've answered your own question. And if you respond to answers with such comments, you may well find that eventually nobody will answer ::your questions. -- Brushwell _{Loves your face.}^{T a l k C o n t r i b s} 15:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of real name?

Exclusion is out. It's fairly clear that this sort of pattern over an extended period of time is notable enough to be recorded. However, I for one would like to see this series of events peter out rather than continue. It's been five years and I suspect both parties are kinda sick of it. I've read over the above, and it seems like a fairly meaningless feud at this point.

With this in mind, I propose that we keep this article (with all appropriate modifications based on the above) but remove Mozdoc's real-life name from it, on the condition that there be nothing that requires the real name to be used in the public interest going forwards. For the avoidance of doubt, "nothing that requires its use" would include things like the need to renew a non-contact order because unwanted contact and/or threats have continued, either offline or online. If there is further need to remove Mozdoc from conventions then this would also be cause for re-addition of the name.

The only thing that makes me willing to suggest this is that so far I've seen no evidence that he actually has the capability to make his threats a reality. To my knowledge, he has not been charged with a violent crime. There is a lot of posturing and a lot of bitterness there, and I would like to have a way to prevent those being expressed in the future. --GreenReaper^(talk) 09:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

i really have no opinion on this one. after all, his name is on the restraining order, and on many of the pages which are referenced. so removal would be a pointless gesture.

it would definitely be nice to forget all of this. as i said before, i hold him no ill will. i am not capable of holding grudges. i never learned how. i will continue to document however. as it is history and others may learn from it to prevent from it being repeated.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 10:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking purely from a personal perspective, I would urge you to keep Mozdoc's real-life name in this particular page. After following many of the links provided to past and more recent behaviour, they show that Mozdoc has sent death threats to numerous different people. History has proven that such things should never be taken lightly. Having Mozdoc's real-life name on the page would be a useful time-saver for such victims if they wished to go down any legal avenues. --Findra 17:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While it may be true, has it been shown that he's doing any of these recently? Frankly, the arguement that it is a time saver is null and void. In order to persue legal measures, one must feel that his threats would hold merit, meaning that they know who he is and that he has the ability to carry them out, so would be able to legitimately file a claim. Having the name here simply opens a route for harassment, be it due or undue, and is just fueling the fire. If he hasn't done anything in a while, which he hasn't, and if he continues to remain passive, I see no reason to keep the name here. Also, as you've said, if need be they can review the links if they so choose to dig deeper, as they are a matter of public record. The point remains that it is not necessary in the article. --Michichael 00:38, 12 May 2007

well, if you get technical, the moment he threatens another, and they have an actual fear, then by law his threats have merit. the law does not look at if they actually carried it out in that case. they look at intent. if a person is in legitimate fear, they have a right for the object of that fear to be stopped.

and, ummm. at the risk of sounding a bit repetitive. but he still harasses me at least twice a week minimum. he knows i can not just shut down my avenues of contact due to customer service issues. he also harasses me and my wife at conventions. and his threats remain constant against myself and others.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you still don't discount my point. This site is for information, not to play tit for tat on a feud between the parties. The real name is not NECESSARY to the merit of the article as it pertains to the fandom. A argument that it aids in legal action is irrelevant as past actions are part of public record, cited, and available on your own wiki. This really seems far too petty for a wiki. -- Michichael 14:18, 14 May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.166.210.22 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

please do me th courtesy of not thinking i have anything against him. because i do not have anything for him other than a very unhealthy dose of pity. for some reason i can not feel anything but such for him. and please do not accuse me of using this as a place to get back at him, because there is nothing to get back for.

i am constantly asked by people he threatens about him and what they can/should do. wiki is an information source and people come here for said information regarding jeremy. not for information about me. they deserve to have the same information to find out about him without the legal costs associated with it that i had to go through. because i did not go through it for myself. i did it so the community would have access to information with which to protect themselves from future instances.

and, as a note: here should be more than sufficient to explain his recent behavior.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 21:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You still have yet to discount my point. If it is legal action they require, they can get it by contacting you directly, or by viewing the cited material. The direct posting of his name isn't necessary to the article, and has already been shown to cause anxiety to Mozdoc, which comes off as baiting, which has been pointed out elsewhere in this article. This is a private issue between you and Mozdoc, and it really does seem that you have something personal against him. Granted, I'm not defending his actions. I've told him numerous times that he needs to grow up with some of his comments, and would be happy to be a moderator if you two decided to attempt a discussion online. It seems to be that Mozdoc is trying to get back at you for perceived injustices, such as what's posted on this Wiki with his name, and you are continuing to try to goad him.

It is all well and good to document and keep track for legal purposes, which are cited and referenced within the article, however, the inclusion of his RL name within the article seems irrelevant and really comes off as a personal touch of arrogance and "so there" attitude. I fail to see how the rest of the community cares what his real life name is, and if they do feel threatened by him, how having it here helps, over a freely available source elsewhere, through either you or the referenced sources. It's not necessary to the article, and your link to the talk page looks to me like, cleaning up his language, a request to remove it. So obviously you hit a nerve, and are milking it for what it's worth. This is a childish dispute, and really needs to end. Both of you. I'm not going to place blame on either side. I really could care less, but since seeing it, it does come off as an attempt to goad him. Further, I understand his concern about having his real name out there. I personally don't like having my real name available to people either, specifically due to harassment reasons. - Michichael 21:03 PST 15, May 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.166.210.22 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mozdoc has threatened to kill Ayukawataur at Further Confusion next year. Not only would I advise someone letting the FC staff know about these repeated threats (and Ayukawa as well), I once again reemphasize my opposition to removing his name. If he ever followed through on any of his threats, would you still support having his name excluded from the article? Because I'm not willing to take such a gamble in what seems to be a mentally less than stable person. Spaz Kitty 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Spaz Kitty that Mozdoc's real name should remain, for the reasons stated above.----DuncanDaHusky^(talk) 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Moz is truly a "Special Child", but we shouldn't allow a doublestandard to be created, see: Lance Rund's article, which was removed at his request, yet we still leave up articles about Moz and Sibe. If I have heard correctly, Sibe had also asked to not be listed. --Anonymous /b/ User —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.110.228.173 (talk • contribs) .

There is a single standard, and always has been: The consensus of WikiFur contributors. What you are seeing is that people may come to a different consensus in different situations, just like in real life.

Exclusion is a privilege, not a right. It has, however, historically been granted by default - that is, people have to give reasons why it should not be granted. This is because in most cases there are no such reasons. However, there have been several cases in which reasons were presented, and were felt by the community to be sufficient to deny the request for exclusion, and in some cases even a request to remove a real name. While it's hard to set a precise bound on these reasons, they have generally been along the lines of some kind of illegal action, the cause of controversy, and usually concern a recent or ongoing situation rather than a historical one.

People often consider there to be a public interest which is served by having the article concerned up, too. For example, if an artist has been failing to do commissions, it might be considered wise to have an article about them which notes this, even if they do not want us to. It this case, the person concerned does not wish us to take note of his continued attempts to force members of the fandom to do his bidding by threats of bodily violence. I am not unappreciative of the view that there could be baiting on the other side, but as a practical matter, Mozdoc considers everyone who disagrees with him to be his enemy, and the mere fact that he has been denied access to FurBid as an aggressive act which must be remedied . . . "or else". He is not likely to be satisfied with anything but complete capitulation and removal of all contrary views, and I think the community has made it plain that this is not going to happen. No person's actions are above commentary by their peers except at the pleasure of those same peers, and it does not please us when a person keeps on threatening others with death when they've been told not to.

The situation of Lance Rund is somewhat different. He was excluded without fuss (as there was no such public interest in the material on the page about him), but also wished an item of information about himself to be removed from another article. This was the first time this had come up and there was extended debate, the result of which was "it's generally OK to do that as long as it didn't matter exactly who the actor was". That is, his specific identity was tangential to the matter of fact. When you're talking about personal behaviour, that's obviously not the case - you can't just say "a popular artist" isn't doing their commissions. --GreenReaper^(talk) 20:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to post here, but I agree as well. Insomuch that I am no longer going to attempt to defend his actions. (Read his talk page...) - Michichael 01:19 PST 20, May 2007 (01:55 and 08:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

Removal of real name? (part 2)

Considering the long discussion and apparent consensus on leaving in Mozdoc's real-life name on this article, I was very surprised to see that Rat had removed this from the main page. This is apparently not in accord with the 'will of the fandom'. I would like to propose that this change be reverted, unless Rat would like to justify this undiscussed change. --Findra 15:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The general impression I got was that while users were willing to remove it(admittedly with a few exceptions), there wasn't anyone willing to just go ahead and do it. If I've misjudged, I won't enforce removal if it's against the will of the community. --Rat 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Rat. My admittedly brief refresh on this thread suggested that Ayukawataur, Spaz Kitty, DuncanDaHusky, and I seemed to be in strongly in favour of keeping the name, but looking back more carefully I see that Ayukawataur was offering no strong opinion either way. Only Michichael seemed to be strongly against it, although his most recent post (09:19 PST 20, May 2007) seems to suggest that he might have altered that position. Hence, I still feel that there is a consensus to have the name left in the article. GreenReaper's post seems to back up this position, I'd suggest. --Findra 18:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind the removal of Mozdoc's given name, under the provision already suggested by Greenreaper. -- Siege^(talk) 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I vote in favor of removing his real name. Give the poor dude a break. He might be a fuckup, sure, but Wikifur is not a government agency or a public service, it's a privately run fandom resource that in my opinion is exercising authority it does not have by taking it upon itself to try to police the actions of individuals. 24.6.68.79 18:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! That was me. Rootdown 18:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I also vote in favor of removing his real name. In all situations online a real name is far less useful than a list of bannable IP addresses, which has obviously been included, along with his known monikers. The only benefit I can see in leaving this guy's name publicly available is that some sort of revenge might be meted out by allowing his Furry-based exploits to threaten his real-world associations. (i.e. -- airing dirty laundry for a potential employer to find should he google-search the player's name), and I would certainly hope the administrators of Wikifur would not condone the use of the Wiki for that purpose. Since it's clear the player in question wants his named removed, I don't think it does any credit to the Furry fandom, the WikiFur community, or anyone here that that particular request is denied. He could have asked more nicely, granted, but his mode of asking doesn't make the request itself less reasonable or its granting less right. HellcatCordelia 12:35, 17 June, 2008 (CST)

HellcatCordelia, discussion about the permanent removal of the user's real name is still ongoing on this talk page at the present time. No final decision has been made, hence the revert on the article until some kind of consensus is reached. My opinion on the mater?,... I'm taking a neutral position on this one (not worth the headache.) Will go with the Admin majority's final decision Spirou 06:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there some kind of timeframe in place for this decision? The discussion here seems to be largely neutral or in favor of removing the name. Also, I question the wisdom that lays this man's real name vulnerable during the deciding. It seems to me that it would make more sense to remove it until a decision has been made, given that its presence here does have real-world implications. HellcatCordelia 1:30, 17 June 2008, (CST)

i am going to cast my vote here, which is for the continued placement of his name on the page.

first, it is his name, there is no doubt about it.

second, he continues his harassment against not only myself, but others. including, but not limited to death threats, which happens to be a federal crime.

individuals who are victims of his harassment may find information which may help them in stopping him from placing them in a constant state of fear for their own safety here.

now i am all for forgiveness and giving people breaks. but, i also believe they need to illustrate that they have actually made a change in their behavior to warrant such. he has yet to really make any change.

--Ayukawataur : FurBid-SF Administaur 02:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) [tired and not really wanting to type any more]

You know, this would be so much easier if you would just shut up and get the hell lost and exit this "fandom". How about that? This article is about me and every time I try to correct something or get something changed that would make continuing my existence in this world much easier, guess who has to show the hell up and fuck with things again? That's right, YOU. How about we all vote to just simply ignore Noriko/Ayukawataur's suggestions and move forward with the removal of my real name? I have ZERO desire to be listed here on WikiFur and if so far its only the outcry of ONE person against many, then tough shit. Move ahead with my name removal so that in the future I can get my ENTIRE article removed and move on. Shut up for once Noriko.

--Mozdoc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mozdoc (talk • contribs) 06:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC).

so that in the future I can get my ENTIRE article removed

No. Too many voices object on that point. Never going to happen. I am not opposed to the removal of your given name from this article, but there are objections and changes of position involved. Tomorrow, I will summarize the votes as stated, including dates and Admin status. Since there has been an objection raised in the past six days, I'm going to give this another week (to Mon 30 June) for people to comment and acknowledge old votes. -- Siege^(talk) 18:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)