Difference between revisions of "Talk:Furnal Equinox"

Revision as of 00:13, 28 July 2010

Furnal Equinox was not created by Danskunk, nor was it created by Ontariofurries and was put together by a committe of people who met on Ontariofurries but that was the extent of it, anything added by or about Danskunk was added by him and are falsifications and lies put into his head by his own self.

If Dan Skunk was not the founder, can you please provide online evidence of who the real founder is, so this matter can be put to rest? Silverseren^C 17:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Members of the committe and con as of First Con in 2010.

Co-Chairs: Blindsight_Wolf

          Pakesh_De

Committe: Scani

         Shane
         Crassadon
         ArrowRoot
         ArcticFox
         Morgan(now Deceased)

There was other people who were involved in the beginning months, they either dropped out, were removed or voted out. As the committee developed and became the current group.

Registered corporate members are: Blindsight_wolf, Scani, Pakesh_de, Shane, Crassadon. These are people who are registered Directors of the convention. Legally registered on the NPO.

The list of members and concom is available at www.furnalequinox.com and also the original page creator is Scani, so you can also speak with him.

Shane.

While the list of concom members is not available on Furnal Equinox's website, I can attest that the information Shane has provided is correct for the 2010 concom and can be sourced from our conbook for that year. To reiterate, the claims being made in the article do not reflect Furnal Equinox's stance. I'm open to any questions if desired, though. --Scani 13:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the source information was removed in 2009 as I removed the Toronto Furry Convention forum from Ontario Furries when it fell into dissuse and hadn't yet created a system to archive deleted posts.

There are a number of people that can corroborate my claim of starting Furnal Equinox, and I could cite some of the early conversations I had with people about the convention from the summer of 2008 but it will be impossible to present anything that can not be contested by Furnal Equinox.

I don't want to be associated with Furnal Equinox and I don't think they want to be associated with me, but I believe the community deserves to have an accurate history of events and that people should be credited for their contributions to the furry community.

As there is likely not going to be a consensus in this situation, the only solution I can see is that we have a section here describing controversy over certain facts and present the differing viewpoints people have on it.

--Dan Skunk 16:55, 18 July 2010

It's... very unfortunate that a dispute between Dan and FE has been brought into the public eye once again. I don't wish to bring arguments with Dan onto WikiFur, because this is not its purpose for the articles here to be a battleground for the conflicts themselves... only how they're reported, if seen as notable enough to be.

First of all, I've cleared the "Controversy" section from the article. However, in the interests of good faith, I've copied that section to the bottom of the talk page with two understandings: first, perhaps we can establish a consensus among not just Dan and FE but with the mediation of other WikiFur editors on whether it is needed. Secondly, if there is a consensus that it IS needed, then that section can be collectively edited by not just the stakeholders, but by all in a manner that is satisfactory to all. Personally, I can honestly say that we would rather not see the section there, because it brings forth conflict that, from our evaluation, people would rather just avoid. Moreover, its presence undermines the credibility of both parties.

However, in the interests of disclosure, this is my understanding of the events that have taken place between Dan and FE (perhaps from a more FE-ish perspective)

• A Toronto Furry Convention board existed on Ontario Furries from at least late 2008. A number of the current concom members posted on this forum, where a number of ideas were discussed (though no firm decisions re: the planning of the convention as it is taking place now took place as a result - i.e. we did not enter into any contracts with any party, and as the name will suggest, the name Furnal Equinox was not yet decided at this point.)
• After several months of discussion, a private mailing list was created with the involvement of all those who expressed an interest in serving on the convention committee; their first action was to elect Pakesh De as convention chairman and subsequent decisions such as name, date, and venue were made through here.
• Anthropomorphic Events of Ontario (AEO) was incorporated as a Ontario corporation without share capital on June 11, 2009. Dan's name was included in the application for incorporation as an initial director.
• At a meeting of the convention committee on July 20, 2009, Dan was dismissed from Furnal Equinox's concom by a unanimous vote. His actions were perceived as progressively more erratic and independent of the direction the remainder of concom was taking (I refer to it as "we were moving left and he was moving right"), and the consensus was that his removal was in the best interests of the convention's success. He requested to be dismissed from being a director, due to not wanting to be exposed to the convention's liability anymore. This request was granted.
• Following his removal, Dan expressed his displeasure in a number of ways, engaging in a great deal of public criticism of the convention on Ontario Furries. These criticisms were seen as highly counterproductive, an attempt to erode public confidence in the convention, and evaporated a great deal of goodwill towards him.
• However, in an attempted gesture of good faith, Dan was mentioned and thanked by name in the conbook for the 2010 convention for his contribution.
• The relationship between Furnal Equinox and Ontario Furries (the community forum which Dan administrates) has been quite rocky over the past year, and has sometimes been severed altogether to be later restored. However, following the convention in April 2010, Furnal Equinox's subforum on Ontario Furries was deleted without warning. When it became clear that any sort of diplomacy or negotiations to restore the forum would not be successful, the two parties agreed to mutually sever relations.

It should be noted that I can not attest for any previous research towards the convention Dan may have accomplished. --Scani 23:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Furnal Equinox was not created by Danskunk, nor was it created by Ontariofurries and was put together by a committe of people who met on Ontariofurries but that was the extent of it, anything added by or about Danskunk was added by him and are falsifications and lies put into his head by his own self."

The committee of people that met on Ontario Furries were all members of that web site at the time of their meeting; therefore, it would not be inaccurate to say they were Ontario Furries.

Claiming that I am lieing is slanderous. You should back up that claim, or qualify it by saying it's your opinion that they are lies.

Shane became involved the the project later than everyone else and was not involved in those early discussions and has no first hand experience on the events his claims are about.

--Dan Skunk 23:38, 18 July 2010

"He requested to be dismissed from being a director, due to not wanting to be exposed to the convention's liability anymore. This request was granted."

I did not make that request. I discussed it, but decided not to make the request. Had I done so, there would be no displeasure with the decision to remove me from being a director.

Quorum was not present at that meeting, making the decisions against the articles of incorporation. Others dismissed at that meeting were Sparrow and Danruk both of whom were involved in the convention planning prior to creation of the Toronto Furry Convention Board on Ontario Furries and were working with me and supporting my involvement. They were present at the first meetings with hotels, including the one chosen for the convention and instrumental to the success of the convention. None of us were present at this meeting to defend ourselves.

"His actions were perceived as progressively more erratic and independent of the direction the remainder of concom was taking (I refer to it as "we were moving left and he was moving right"), and the consensus was that his removal was in the best interests of the convention's success."

My experience was that being deliberately left out of planning discussions, not being given information I needed to be able to contribute, and being blamed for mistakes others made as a result of this lack of communication to me. My dismissal directly followed my criticism of this behaviour and recommendation that someone else act as chair.

"These criticisms were seen as highly counterproductive, an attempt to erode public confidence in the convention, and evaporated a great deal of goodwill towards him."

This criticism was considered a gesture of goodwill towards the success of the convention, and to prove my value to the success of the convention.

My predictions of wasted and mismanaged space, time, and resources proved to be correct durring the course of the convention. Had my recomendations been acted on, the convention, and it's members, in spite of my removal, would have saved a considerable amount of money. Instead, the recomendations were met with contempt and derision from the convention's remaining organizers.

The wholesale rejection of these recommendations, to me, showed that the success of the convention and service to the community was secondary to the organizers recieving personal recognition for their efforts.

Following the convention, I made public my complaint of unprofessional behaviour and personal prejudice towards me from staff both directly and through convention security after it was dismissed by co-chair, Pakesh De, as personal issues between me and the staff members and not the responsibility of the convention. Something I considered extremely irresponsible and unprofessional.

"It should be noted that I can not attest for any previous research towards the convention Dan may have accomplished."

That research was provided in the initial public discussions for the convention, and in information submitted to the committee after it was formed.

My original desire for contributing to this article was to add the details of Ontario Furries as the location of the forum discussions mentioned and Dan Skunk as the initiator of these discussions. I was, and continue to be the owner of Ontario Furries and it was in this capacity that I created this sub forum after making research into the feasibility of the project. I believe names of contributors and locations where discussions took place to be relevant to an article on the history of the convention. It is obvious that these discussions took place *somewhere* and were started by *someone*. The original organizing committee that created Furnal Equinox was formed through discussion on the Ontario Furries forum through a series of nominations and public voting presented on the forum

If there is contention to these facts, then I assert that this contention then is a relevant part of the history of the convention and that all sides of the contention deserve equal opportunity to present their claims so long as it is made known that these are claims and who is making the claims.

"Personally, I can honestly say that we would rather not see the section there, because it brings forth conflict that, from our evaluation, people would rather just avoid. Moreover, its presence undermines the credibility of both parties."

Wikifur is an encyclopedia which means it should contain factual information presented from a neutral point of view. I believe this means that if there is a dispute over facts, the nature of the dispute should be described in a way that does not attempt to promote either side of the dispute; Wikifurs's purpose is not to promote the credibility of individuals and organizations but inform the fandom of the facts related to them. Facts should not be deliberately omitted to improve the public image of individuals and groups.

In this spirit, I suggest Scani contribute to the proposed section to elaborate on Furnal Equinox's position on the disputed facts unless consensus can be agreed upon.

--Dan Skunk 05:39, 19 July 2010

Quorum was not present at that meeting, making the decisions against the articles of incorporation.

The assertion that the vote was invalid due to lack of quorum (i.e. a majority of members of the body) is incorrect. While the events in question took place a year ago and are slightly hazy on my part, at the absolute MINIMUM the remaining four directors and/or officers of the convention were present at the time to vote on the matter (which pertained to Dan's removal from concom, as well as from any further staff role with FE. To my recollection, at least five votes were cast; this would be a majority of the concom which consisted of nine members at the time. Moreover, in Ontario, a decision to amend governance would be governed by the corporation's bylaws, not the articles of incorporation. --Scani 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There were 8 committee members at the time. Quorum was decided to be 5 so that there would be a majority. Since there were only 4, then quorum was not reached.

There could not be 5 votes with only 4 members present.

I was never made aware of the articles of incorporation or that they were on the application for incorporation.

I was never made aware of the existence of corporate bi-laws while a director of the corporation.

I was present for an earlier meeting where it was decided by majority vote that quorum would be 5 to constitute a majority of the 8 members.

These are only some examples of the unprofessional conduct of members of the committee. While I was a registered director of the corporation, my inquiries into the financial and corporate activities of the corporation were deliberately ignored and I was not informed of decisions being made that affected business of the corporation. My criticism of decisions behind made was strongly discouraged by the chairman ordering me to stop, by insults from committee and staff members, and by being ignored. I was informed by Blindsight that he was asserting his dominance and that I would need to change my behaviour if I wanted to be in the loop.

--Dan Skunk 00:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all - I said there were certainly at LEAST four votes, and recall specifically that there were at least five (considering Pak and I recall that Shiro was also present at the meeting). As Shane served in a secretarial role for concom meetings at the time, he would have the record thereof, but I am nonetheless confident that the decision represented the desires of the organization of a whole. While I can understand it being controversial if there had been dissent at the meeting, there was none. This is in line with the purpose of quorum from a moral standpoint (if not a legalistic one) where an unduly small number of people on a governing body do not control the decisions thereof.

I was never made aware of the articles of incorporation or that they were on the application for incorporation.

Your signature was required on the application document, and as far as I know, was obtained at a meeting in early June 2009. Presumably, you would have had the opportunity to review the completed application, which included first directors and "objects of the corporation" at any time while the application was in front of you.

I can not speak for these so-called "insults" from concom, but as far as I'm concerned, I did my best to interact with you in good faith, and despite my initial reservations re: your presence, you had every opportunity from me to demonstrate value to us - and I truly believed that because of the quantity of your social network you could be an asset to our operations. Obviously, this did not prove to be the case, and the concom's decision reflected that after several months of working with you.

The point I'm trying to make in all of this really has to come down to the group dynamics that worked themselves out. When we first came together, and one of the concerns was coherency. Bringing people together is one thing, but to actually develop some common goals and common purpose is another altogether. A group of people in the same room does not necessarily equal a team. And... regardless of how much work you DID accomplish in the leadup to this, it's another thing to work together, and that impression in your case just wasn't there. People weren't here to just follow your lead. Had you remained present, a lot more friction would have developed, and probably would have had a negative impact on the convention's success. As it turned out... there was a lot of friction anyway. --Scani 12:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It was my oversight for not reading through the entire application. We seemed in a hurry to get it done so I just trusted I was already told what was in it.

We had a common goal. That was not an issue.

I never expected people to follow my lead or anyone else's lead. I expected them to work together as equals. That requires that people communicate their ideas with each other, accept criticism with each other, and make decisions together as a group. Some where not willing to do that, and that's what caused problems.

Regardless, my contributions should not be deleted from this article.

--Dan Skunk 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional Info: I was a helper to Blindsight at the time and was at the meetings as secreatary and I can attest, after discussions about why to remove Danskunk, the good and bad things he has done for the convention. He was voted out, with Quaorum with a unanimous vote to remove him from the con period.

I may even still have the records as they were transcribed and sent to the list and FE forums that we have of our own.

If Danskunk demands all facts and things should be allowed, then he should freely allow all the "facts" about himself on his wikifur page that pertain to the community and fandom.

Danskunks "Research" was checked out by me and took less then 5 minutes with a quick "wikifur" search, where all his information and research was from. -Shane Nicholson(WolfMist)

I accept all facts to be included in this article; any facts that are in dispute should be clearly described as so.

My research took place over many months of travelling to Toronto to look at possible venues, through discussions with members of the community interested in helping, interviews with people who were directors at other successful conventions, some of it was collected from wikifur, but it was also re-organized to better serve our needs. I also brought observations from many years of attending conventions.

Shane was not involved in this reasearch.

--Dan Skunk 01:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's quite evident that we're not going to reach a consensus on this. Could we start working on editing the proposed section to include what information we all want to provide there?

--Dan Skunk 01:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Primarily speaking, the parties involved here are FE and you. I'd honestly be more comfortable seeking the opinions of neutral parties if possible, to objectively assess what the value of what you're proposing is - as neither of us will be able to do that. Will this controversy, namely, be important five years down the line?

Re: the section that was recently added listing 'founding members' - a few of the names asked to withdraw their involvement quite early, and they may object to their appearance here in this article. The list also fails to acknowledge individuals that came on board after founding whose contribution nonetheless played an instrumental role in the convention's success... and I honestly feel they should not be trivialized (people like Morgan, Arrowroot, etc.)

So I'm not sure if the section as it currently stands is appropriate, but if others say it should, alphabetical would be more appropriate. Perhaps the information is better classified elsewhere, but I'll comment more on that tomorrow. --Scani 03:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made it alphabetical. I didn't know about later joining members. Perhaps we should keep the current list, though rewrite the lead-in to say original founding members and then have a separate sentence listing those that joined in after the fact? They should certainly be recognized.

And if any of the people listed do not wish their name to be associated with Furnal Equinox, then they just have to speak with Greenreaper and he will take them off and make sure they stay off of the list. Silverseren^C 03:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that if needed, the relevant information be placed in a 'current' and 'former' section in the article (perhaps as a two-column table) - or at least other titles that represent those who are still working on the convention and those who have moved on to other projects. There should be no particular stigma associated with the latter. Also, ref. proposed changes below (you can always refer back to previous edits for previous versions) --Scani 11:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe a current and former section is necessary. There is already an origins section there which is appropriate to list the original organizers in, describe their contributions, and when and why they left.

I sincerly appreciate you acknowledging that the discussions began on Ontario Furries, Scani. If there is consensus on that fact, then I believe it can stand in the origins section where I originally placed it as it is most relevant to that topic. I would also like it stated that I started the conversation there. Another contributer has been contesting both though so it may only be able to stand as a contested fact, but it can be stated the we both support it.

I don't believe a description of my removal should be in an Ontario Furries section as it is not relevant to Ontario Furries, but to myself only. My criticism should also not be included there as it was my personal opinion--not that of Ontario Furries.

I think we could put it the description of my and Ontario Furries's involvement in the origins section as it is most relevant there. I don't believe either are important enough to warrant their own headlines.

I disagree with saying there was a lack of shared direction, as there was a shared direction: producing a convention, a goal which all parties made contributions critical to it's success. The only disagrement was over details of how to accomplish those goals and responsibilities of individual members. I may wish to describe what those were.

I also disagree with saying there was a conflict between me and the rest of the concom because that was not true. I had disagreements with only half of the concom. I'd also like it stated that everyone that supported my inclusion was also removed.

I'd like to add my own perception of my criticism's as I saw them quite differently.

I contest that there was no warning, as I made repeated requests of FE to change their behaviour and would like to add my own assesment of why they were removed.

I'll get to adding my revisions later.

--Dan Skunk 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Scani, as long as there is someone that feels the information to be valuable, there is no reason it can not be included. Other parties are free to contribute their knowledge to the article as well, as this is a colaborative effort but no one should be censoring other people's contributions based on their assesment of how valuable they are. Readers should be given the opportunity to have as much information as possible and decide for themselves what is or is not valuable to them.

Whether or not someone wishes to be included in the article or not is irrelevant. Deliberately presenting false information, or omitting information for the purpose of manipulating public opinion for any reason is dishonest and against the spirit of wikifur as being a place to present factual information from a neutral perspective.

Making the list alphabetical sounds good to me. Thank you.

If someone does not want to be associated with Furnal Equinox, it should be added to the article that they do not wish to be associated with it, thusly satisfying their desire for disassociating without sacrificing the integrity of facts. However, I think stating that they resigned, should be enough to indicate their lack of support.

--Dan Skunk 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Relationship with Ontario Furries (proposed)

Discussion for what became Furnal Equinox originally took place on the Ontario Furries forum, operated by Dan Skunk. Though Dan was originally involved in planning discussions, he was removed from the Furnal Equinox organizing committee and board of directors in July 2009 due to lack of shared direction and conflicts between him and the remainder of concom.

Many of Furnal Equinox's concom members have taken the stance that Dan's publicly posted and unsolicited criticisms since his removal have been disproportionately critical of the con and its staff, and negatively affected its reputation. Dan has claimed that his removal was unjustified, and that he has been subjected to negative treatment and insults by other staff members. Both claims are disputed by the other party.

The relationship between members of Furnal Equinox's convention committee and Dan has remained strained, culminating in the removal of Furnal Equinox's subforum and the banning of a number of committee members without warning in April 2010. Currently, Furnal Equinox and Ontario Furries have no formal connections.

Propose addtions to Origins instead of Relationship with Ontario Furries section.

I've been researching more details, so much of the Ontario Furries discussion is redundant.

--Dan Skunk 12:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Origins

Dan Skunk was removed from the Furnal Equinox organizing committee and board of directors in July 2009 over disagreements with some of the other committee members. M-So and Danruk were also removed on this date.

Dan Skunk contests the decision as quorum was not present at this meeting and none of the people removed were given an opportunity to be present to defend themselves. He claims the dismissals were politically motivated because he expressed a lack of confidence in Pakesh De chairship immediately prior to being removed and that the others removed were friends of his.

Scani claims Dan Skunk was removed over conflicts with other members of the concom and a lack of shared direction and that the decision represented the desires of the organization as a whole.

Relationship with Ontario Furries

Furnal Equinox, along with members of the concom, Pakesh De, Blindsight, Shane, Chris were banned from discussions on Ontario Furries in April 2010 for repeated insulting and defamitory comments.

Scani claims it was without warning.

Many of Furnal Equinox's concom members have taken the stance that Dan's publicly posted and unsolicited criticisms since his removal have been disproportionately critical of the con and its staff, and negatively affected its reputation.

Request for Intervention

This situation has become absolutely ridiculous, and I'm not satisfied with it whatsoever. The changes made by Dan to the article over the past couple of years have resulted in a significant decrease in quality in the article, not to mention a significant shift away from a neutral point of view. The changes that were made can only be described as "self-aggrandizing" and disproportionate to the remainder of the article.

Is it possible for both parties to lay off editing and that another party come in to perhaps arbitrate this issue? This is the continued manifestation of a conflict between Dan and Furnal Equinox - and I really don't feel it's fair for Dan to continue to edit the article unilaterally and play up his importance (just as it wouldn't be fair for us to do likewise). --Scani 20:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been following this situation that closely but I will offer a couple of observations:

1. If someone is posting information they claim to be true and others dispute it, then one side or the other needs to provide references to back up their claims. If neither side is able to do so, then it reverts to the level of hearsay, and we have to settle for something like "So-and-so claims X but others have disputed this." Also note that any allegedly deleted websites may in fact be preserved at sites such as The Internet Wayback Machine and those are generally as reliable as the original sites if the material still exists there.
2. We don't need a detailed play-by-play of who said what and what happened when. The only people who care about that level of detail are the handful of people who were directly involved. A summary description is good enough for the other 99% of us, and that's all we need on Wikifur. And it's quite possible that a summary description can be written in a manner that much of the content under dispute doesn't even matter at that level of detail. Try to imagine how you'd summarize something that happened a few years ago, then do it that way.

I hope this helps. Oh, and here in the talk page, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). --mwalimu 21:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think a few notible points in the development and who was responsible for them is reasonable.

If someone thinks they're important, and they're factual and referenced, there's no reason for them not to be included.

It's a fair look at who contributed what in the lead up to the event. If someone happens to have made a lot of contributions, they'll of course be mentioned more. I any case, it's unfair and misleading to remove all reference to someone who made contributions.

Arbitration is unnecessary, you have the opportunity to add anything that was left out.

Please refrain from personal attacks, Scani. If you have something to contest, it can be removed as a fact.

--Dan Skunk 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's more than a few notable points. If you were viewing the article about some other convention that's been running for several years, would you really care to see that level of detail about how it got started, to the level of quotations from the parties involved, assuming you were at most only casually acquainted online with any of the people involved? Most people wouldn't, and I don't think most people do here either. It could be argued that it should be preserved for those with enough historical interest to care, but the main article about the convention here on Wikifur is not the place to do it. (On an unrelated style note, only the first occurrence of each person mentioned in the article should be wikilinked.) --mwalimu 22:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be fine without the quotes, and just a few notes.

The name of the forum mentioned and who started the discussion does not seem to be too much to include, as it only adds five words. That's what I find most important and relevant as the section is about origins and that describes where the organization originated, and who it originated from.

That was contested and removed, so I did some research and found a reference to it, hence the quote and link backing it up. I could replace the quote with a footnote of where the reference is located.

While doing research to find that reference, I found who found the venue and who found the date. Those are at least as notible as who thought of the name, so if originator of the name is included, I think that of the venue and date should be as well.

I thought it was interesting to watch how the idea of the convention was developed from another event, and thought that would be interesting to show. I could be included in a seperate page though describing a timeline for those so interested to view it without hindering the conciseness of the main article. I could also do that without offering all the quotes, but rather references to them.

Linking only the first occurance seems reasonable as it makes the article easier to read. I don't understand signing posts with 4 tildes. What does that do? My appologies for being new to wikifur. I had stuff to contribute, especially to my own article, and am learning how to work with people here as I go. Thank you for the help.

--Dan Skunk 23:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my brusqueness earlier - this process has been tremendously frustrating. From my own personal opinion, the edits which added comments such as "Dan Skunk... made the first visit", "Dan Skunk created a board..." and "Dan Skunk promoted having the convention..." in rapid succession, especially considering the edits were made by Dan, did come across in a very self-promotional manner and rubbed me the wrong way. A significant number of Dan's edits since this issue have had something to do with attributing foundation to Furnal Equinox to Dan and his website, Ontario Furries.

I perceive the basic issue at hand to be "how much credit should be given to Dan Skunk for the establishment of Furnal Equinox in this article". This is also not a fight about "contesting" material; the ideal solution would be an article that is acceptable to both parties, and... well, the unsolicited edits to the page certainly breached my understanding that was something that could be worked towards. Not only one that is based in fact but one that is fair, neutral, and NOT an attempt to dig up dirt. I left a message asking for arbitration because it did not seem possible to do this.

The question, too, is what proportion of recognition is appropriate. A project such as running a convention is collective, not individual. There are a lot of people who saw this work to completion, and I don't think it's appropriate to throw them in the background so that one person can come forth unilaterally and say "I did this and this." Moreover, who's to say there weren't people who looked into the feasibility of a furry convention in Toronto prior to this? (Yes, I know, citation needed.)

My proposal remains a list of current and former people involved in a concom role in the current 'Staff' section, as well as an acknowledgement that initial discussion took place on Ontario Furries. (Honestly, given an opportunity, I'd like to turn back the clock to 19 May but realize that's not likely.)

For the record, signing a message with four tildes will post your current username (or IP address if you are not logged in), as well as the current date and time. --Scani 04:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Scani. I appreciate the appology and forgive that.

I can certainly understand how the edits I made would seem self promotional, especially comming from myself. That's why I was trying to include other names in it as well. I was hoping if someone had something they though should be mentioned about them, that they should add it as well, resolving more of the one sidedness.

Unfortunately, if we are to be honest and neutral, I did contribute a lot of essential information and resources to the convention. To minimize those contributions would be not be honest and neutral.

Scani's proposal.

I think only adding that the discussion took place on Ontairo Furries would be deminishing my contribution. The discussions took place on Ontario Furries, but as is show from the email referenced, those discussions were started by me only after I had gathered the financial resources needed to start the convention.

A more accurate description would be, "After gathering the needed financial resources to start a convention, Dan Skunk, started a discussion on Ontario Furries inviting others to become involved with the project." That will remove the incorrect information that the financial resources were brought together though those discussions. It also shows who initiated the process.

You've mentioned who thought of the name, but if there's anyone, at all, that should be mentioned, it's the person that came up with the idea to start seriously working on the project.

There were others that looked into running a convention Toronto that year. I started looking at venues following the first Islington Furmeet on June 14, 2008. Pyhrra did so as well but he concluded it was not a good time to start one based on economic conditions. M-So did asked me to help him look at venues on November 19, 2008.

M-So and I concluded it was feasible and that we would work together on it.

He should probably be mentioned as founding it as well.

I would certainly prefer to come to a consensus on what to include in the article. But giving my experience with this article, I'm not certain that's possible. You've very diplomatic and professional about things, but you and me are not the only people interested in the article.

We can't turn back time, but we could certainly repair mistakes. If it's something about me, I'm very forgiving. You just need to appologize and undo whatever was wrong.

If it were up to me, I'd have turned back time to December 3, 2008, and not made a post inviting people to help with the convention untill *after* creating an npo and contracting the hotel--thusly completely avoiding this whole controversy and a lot of frustration and heartache to a lot of people.

Thanks for letting me know what the tildes do.

Dan Skunk 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings to this thread which is currently growing to become a small editorial if not soon a book with special guest stars.

The current issue is credit where credit is due. Dan claims to have been *the* original creator of the con based on his board, gathering of folks, and even finding a backer. All said and done, but the *idea* which is being missed is the real idea was well over a decade ago when folks like me, benjamin, deuce, hiker, and many other old furs of the fandom groused about a con local to Toronto which then grew to become as we all know as Feral.

Now Dan was there at the start, had done some work, and did indeed find some folks that got together to make a functional convention yes. However personal issues much less other incidents which need not , or should not, need to be bandied about made such a arrangement intolerable and sadly it was a case of *my way or the highway* and the concom voted to remove what was perceived as the greatest trouble with the least amount of gutting of the con. Now and since then the level of anger from said removed party has led to folks in large numbers banned from his board while he continues to attack the con without any feedback from us as being some of the banned folks in question to simply and repeatedly asking to have issues reopened that were voted closed.

That is fair, and all part of being a open and democratic process. The issue is if this is all being done to simply add credit where credit is due then simply what is being told as * dan, danruk, sparrow* were at the start but were voted out after issued arouse should.. note *should* be enough for most folks. Apparently this is NOT the case and thus after many attempts personally to resolve the issue and being rebuffed I had to delegate any talks about Dan to the PR head Scani. I am only posting now after seeing this topic refuses to fall back into a common thread of acceptance with repeated rebuttals of any and all information we can provide. I wish to stay civil and not fall for the supposed * slander* attempts,and btw, slander is a very easy word to misuse and with the stuff being posted on your own board dan by yourself that others are reporting to us, one should be *very* careful when tossing that word around. I accept giving dan, danruk, and sparrow credit for being at the start and getting a few things going certainly. Claiming basically * if it was not for me NONE of this would have happened* is taking credit well into the realm of tooting ones own horn.

IF this is all that is needed, i will ask that any and *all* talk of the convention is simply kept on topic and in more terms of * yes and we thank you but we had to let you go* as in terms of a employee being let go from the company rather then the slant that is being pushed out as if we all sat around in some plotting basement to overthrow folks and thus hijack the whole convention our-self. That is why we voted in concom to have a legal amount, plus the other staff that was around, voted, and revoted just to make sure the vote was open. I have told Dan this, others have told Dan this, and it refuses to simply sink in. The con did not, was not, and with all the bad blood, will not, have anything to do with Dan period. Note this can change if the lopsidedness does stop but alas many have tried and failed to get the point through.

I thank everyone for adding to the topic and folks for trying to make one side see the light. I wish to thank wikifur for letting us post the con and will hope they will be happy to have us stay. I wish to thank Scani for being PR and dealing with this topic with skill, grace, and civility. I wish to thank dan for continuing to claim credit well after the fact, and as is his right, can and will be mentioned as * a founding member* if so wanted, and IF as mentioned earlier, any and all unwarranted comments, attacks, and shenanigans on his side of the boards will cease and desist. one can hardly ask to be listened to and have demands of any sort treated fairly if only one side is playing the game above board..or one hopes it should be both sides playing fair.

Gaia bless and sorry for such a long winded reply.

Pakesh_De

ChairCritter for Furnal Equinox

I never claimed to be the first person to think of having a convention in Toronto. I even cited other people speaking of it before me to show that. It wasn't however, untill I gathered financial support and sought others to be involved that it came to fruition.

That fact should be included.

"my way or the highway"

I never once made any such demand. Please stop accusing me of it if you can't provide any evidence to support it.

"That is fair, and all part of being a open and democratic process."

That's what I actually asked for, and it was asked for, not demanded.

"...slander is a very easy word to misuse and with the stuff being posted on your own board dan by yourself that others are reporting to us, one should be *very* careful when tossing that word around."

I can support what I said there with citations. I'll do that as soon as I can for you.

"Claiming basically * if it was not for me NONE of this would have happened* is taking credit well into the realm of tooting ones own horn."

I never made that claim either.

I claimed to have got financial support together and started a discussion on Ontario Furries and supported that claim with a citation that showed nothing more than that.

If you wish to be fair, as you claim to be, then you should not have a problem with that being included.

" I wish to thank dan for continuing to claim credit well after the fact, and as is his right, can and will be mentioned as * a founding member* if so wanted, and IF as mentioned earlier, any and all unwarranted comments, attacks, and shenanigans on his side of the boards will cease and desist. one can hardly ask to be listened to and have demands of any sort treated fairly if only one side is playing the game above board..or one hopes it should be both sides playing fair."

I'm pretty sure wikifur articles were not meant to be used as extortion to silence unwanted criticism from other web sites.

People saying what you want them to on other web sites should not be a condition of whether something is contested or not.

Please stop taking my words and infering things from them I never said or meant and making accusations you can't support.

This is why we have trouble speaking with each other, and why I strongly suggested someone else act as chairman before being fired from FE. If someone like Scani, who as we both agree, has the ability to speak with skill, grace, and civility, were chairman, relations between FE, Ontario Furries and I would probably have never degraded in the first place.

The first time I banned FE from Ontario Furries, your discussion with me had me wanting to make it permanent. It was Scani's respectful and professional manner and his willingness to take responsibility for problems and solve them that convinced me to give you a second chance. It's unfortunate he isn't able speak for the rest FE.

Dan Skunk 03:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to weigh in my opinions. As an outside party, I feel it might be worth it.

As I can see, OntarioFurries has been mentioned in the description of the convention. Should every mention of it be scrubbed? No. Should they all stay? No. This is why OF has a stub of its own. If references to the involvement need to be said, put them there.

Dan is mentioned on the page as it is. Please see the above comment regarding OF - All of the same opinions apply.

The page for Furnal Equinox is to give people interested in finding out about it more information about the event. You need only cite a reference and people can choose to go look for themselves. This is the whole reason citations exist.

As for the editing war going on: give it a rest folks. The page is good. it has the info. Leave it be for a while. Nothing will be added continuing to say that things are in contention.

To sum it up one last time: rest the topic and move on. Please? Either leave the article info to the people currently involved with the event, or to outside neutral third parties. Wikifur is not the place for personal grievances. (IMHO, no public forum is)

Feli 21:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Ontario Furries was removed as a reference.

Other people have been named with a description of their contribution. It's only fair that mine be as well.

I did cite a reference, and it was removed as well.

Not continuing to remove facts that are not in contention and supported by citation should resolve the debate.

People who are currently involved in the event should not control what is said about past members.

No, it's not a place for personal grievances, but it should be a place for facts.

I was just trying add my involvement in the fandom to the appropriate articles. Only FE keeps trying to remove parts of it.

Dan Skunk 03:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Meeting Notes

Who just went in and edited the original committee list? That was not the original committee at all. I went to actually meetings with them and have notes from them.

Dan Skunk 04:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Both you and the other user have states to have copies of the meeting notes that verifies their own argument. However, neither of you have produced visible evidence of these notes as proof for your argument. Could both of you please upload them so that we can view them? Silverseren^C 04:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)