Talk:The Astonishing Treehouse of the Secret Moon

The Astonishing Treehouse of the Secret Moon is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the WikiFur community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

(And by "best" we mean "best" in the furry sense, ie "most drama.") -- Tek Skiltaire 19:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See the link above for why it was selected. The drama you speak of actually wasn't a big part of the decision to feature the article (that section was smaller then, anyway) - but it is part of the history of the area. The article would be lessened without mentioning why there was a changeover in ownership. In this particular case I think a simplified summary is likely to be biased towards one particular point of view, so I'd rather we err on the side of giving too much information than too little. As long as nobody feels they've been unfairly represented, I don't see the problem. --GreenReaper^(talk) 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The persons that feel unfairly represented is the side that didn't make the last edit. BOTH sides feel that the edits are unfair and inaccurate from their POV. The complete discussion of the act of toading Crassus with both side represented makes the article no longer about the place, but about a single event in it's history. This is good how? I find it rather sad that this horror was flagged as a featured article. --WhiteFire^(talk) 18:47, 16 May 2012 (EDT)

---

I've made changes to the Dispute portion of the article to clear up some details and give more details on those sections which might be considered ambiguous and/or biased and/or subject to subsequent rumors.

I think it's also important to know that every bit of information I've posted regarding this issue is a matter of public knowledge already.

Do I admit that I was acting like an ass to Ben back then? Absolutely. I've apologized to him since then, however, apparently, there seems to still be a lot of anger on his part, however, I really dispise that he still sees this in such a way where he can alter history and spread disinformation.

The reason why I even bring up this subject is simply because it's always remained unresolved in my mind. I cared for the treehouse immensely and would have still been in charge of the place until this day, had I not allowed others to share the character password. This has affected the outcome of the treehouse since then, and the damaging of my name in many people's eyes. I've made every attempt to write this from an NPOV and historical perspective. I agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and are welcome to make whatever changes they feel is necessary to make this article even more NPOV in those areas I might be biased, however, I will fight to keep this section up, because it DID happen. I WAS part of the Treehouse's history and will not be erased from it because of personal grievances. --Crassus 18:54, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Ben's Dispute

The deleted sections were due to blaring inaccuracies made to stir up drama. They were added by Crassus, who is apparently still bitter that he no longer has a part in the treehouse, and refuses to think that his removal was in any way his own fault. So he decides to add some revised history, in an attempt to reinsert himself into the secretmoon history.

First things first - if you're going to put up a note of this nature, be bold enough to leave it up.

Second of all, WikiFur is not the place to resolve issues of this nature. If you have a problem with Crassus, I'd suggest taking it up with him.

Third, do you have a source showing your statement is accurate? Carl Fox 05:13, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

First. I thought I had responded in the wrong area. Hence, why I deleted it.

You got it right the first time. It's almost always best to debate topics on the discussion pages - that's what they're there for. :-)

Force of habit.. I try to keep drama and disagreements private. I don't deal with public disagreements very well. - Ben (who is using a terminal-based web browser which won't stay logged in)

Second. No, it's not. But airing personal drama is pretty useless, too. 68.15.19.166

From what I've read, it must be at least part of the history of the Treehouse, and probably a significant part - changes between owners are often troublesome. It has meaning for at least two people. Most likely, it has affected other people as well, and is of interest to others. The story of the Treehouse is not going to be complete without it.

Third. Well, yeah. Me. Being the current owner of the treehouse, and very much present during the whole thing, I'm pretty sure I have a pretty reliable source of information. --Bencoon 05:31, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

You are also a person who is directly involved in the dispute that is mentioned. With all due respect, we have to consider that you may be biased (just as we must consider that Crassus is probably biased). See below, but note that as always on Wikifur, presentation of evidence (newsgroup/forum postings and the like) and characterisation of disputes is the appropriate route, rather than removal of ostensibly valid information. It appears that Crassus at least attempted to do the latter. Perhaps you could do the former?

After a while, I got tired of cleaning up after him. But hey, I can do it again. - Ben

Please do not attempt to just remove history because you have (eg) fallen out with another person. If that history is inaccurate, you can correct it, but removing it altogether is not appropriate. Evidently there was a disagreement at one point - so please help us document it, clearly and factually, in a way that nobody can disagree with the account. If there are parts that people disagree over, you should state what one group believes, and what another group believes, and show the evidence of this belief. There are probably newsgroup postings on this topic which you could reference. Ultimately, it may come down to "X says A, and Y says B" . . . and if that's actually their positions, then it's appropriate to leave it there.

The ultimate test is fact. If there is a statement such as "person X did Y", and it is true, then it should be in the article. To remove it without cause is wrong. From what I can see there were many such facts that were removed. Of course, perhaps you have facts of your own to add, or you would like to dispute those facts - you are welcome to do so, especially when backed up with evidence from somewhere else.

If you feel you are in the right, have the courage of your convictions, and trust that other people will agree when presented with the unadorned facts. If you don't think they will . . . well, maybe you should reconsider your position. I am particularly troubled by your statement about Crassus "reinserting" himself into history, which implies that someone - I'm guessing yourself - removed him to start with. You cannot do that here. If he "no longer has a part", then you should specify what that part was and why things changed, not pretend he never was a part. --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:48, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your edits on talk pages with ~~~ for your name or ~~~~ for your name and date/time. - Its very hard to follow all this without names. --Nidonocu - talk 07:08, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Request for Deletion of History

The history posted is inaccurate and contains personal attacks on several people. It is further written by one of the participants in the argument in an intentionally inflammatory way. It states people's reasons for their actions and provides no references to support these accusations. I could easily rewrite the article from my point of view which would end up being equally as unflattering to Crassus. Crassus's claim of writing in a neutral viewpoint is, well, rather difficult to swallow.

Is the time period important to the tree house? Sure. Should it be documented? Sure. In the format of a flame by Crassus? No. I'd rewrite it myself but it would just come out with my viewpoint on it and be no more neutral than Crassus's, though I'd like to believe a bit less inflammatory... or maybe not. I'm not sure.

But leaving what amounts to a flame stated as fact on WikiFur just tarnishes the site's reputation. IMHO. --WhiteFire 18:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm assuming that you mean that you wish to alter the current version's section on the history, and not to request deletion of prior revisions (commonly referred to as the "page history"). The latter would not be granted as it is not an article about a person, and there is no real-life personal information (such as phone number, names or addresses) in the history article.

You are welcome to contribute to the article, as Crassus has done, especially if you feel you feel that it inaccurately represents people's actions or motives. Such things are hard to quantify, although it is often worthwhile stating what the people concerned thought the motives were, in order to explain their subsequent actions. Alternatively, you could comment here on specific factual errors or omissions, or wording you feel is inappropriate (though if it gets to the point where we're talking about wording, it's probably easier for you to show us the wording you feel is appropriate by just editing the article).

As for our reputation . . . well, to be honest I'd rather the site had a reputation for inflammatory coverage of events rather than a reputation for removing such coverage when one side wrote it and the other side didn't like what they wrote. Instead, we try to warn the reader that not everyone agrees with the current treatment, which is why there's a controversy tag on that section. Of course, I'd like it far more if we had the reputation of being a site where people could come to some agreement on such topics of contention, and that is why we encourage discussion and free editing of such topics by all parties.

It is not impossible to write an article that is both inclusive and neutral, as long as people's opinions are represented as such, and all opinions are noted. There may never be agreement on some topics, but it's certainly possible to "agree to disagree" by stating the views of both sides. The issue is getting all those people onto one page. So far, both Ben and Crassus have had a crack at it. I suggest you do so as well, if you have the time. --GreenReaper^(talk) 18:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that I am not referring to the page history. A bitchfest in an article is hardly reason to purge a page history.

I fear that if I were to correct the article, even trying to remain neutral as humanly possible, it would end up causing a cycle of edits. It may be impossible for the three people who are directly involved, Ben, Crassus and myself, to ever come to a consensus on what happened. We each have very different beliefs of what went on, and even more so, WHY. And unfortunately there are very few, if any, outside observers that can give an unbiased view.

On the subject of having a reputation for inflammatory coverage of events rather than a reputation for removing such coverage does that really carry over to what is clearly a personal attack written by one side of an argument? Clearly it is your site, and your welcome to that position, but I question it's value to the fandom your trying to serve. --WhiteFire 19:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The "cycle of edits" is what makes wiki articles better. Over time, these tend to converge to a point where each party is perhaps not wholly satisfied with an article, but can at least live with its representation of their opinions. This usually works best when editors build on each other's edits rather than trying to rewrite the whole thing, although it's occasionally necessary to do so.

We don't want personal attacks. But we don't want to remove valid information, either, and there's a difference between stating an opinion and accepting that information as truth. If there is a personal attack - in particular, a statement of fact that is not true, and which has a defamatory result - rewrite it so that it is not a personal attack, while preserving the underlying facts that made it interesting to read in the first place.

Often, the only problem with an article is that the other opinions are not stated as well. It is possible to represent wildly different beliefs in the same work - e.g. you could say "WhiteFire says that he toaded Crassus's character solely on the basis of breaking the rule of character sharing, while Crassus claims that it was due to personal animosity." Both of these statements may be true at once, because they are statements about differing opinions. That is why a lot of the lines currently start like this: "Crassus viewed WhiteFire's handling of the situation as unprofessional and unfair." - rather than: "WhiteFire's handling of the situation was unprofessional and unfair." The problem is there's no counterbalancing statement of your own opinion. If there is a published statement by you on the topic, then we could refer to that, otherwise editing the article yourself to insert it is probably the most direct way. --GreenReaper^(talk) 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you've not already seen it, there's a large body of information on writing neutrally at Wikipedia's NPOV page. In their terms, Crassus' opinions are probably being given undue weight, because they are included more than your own, even though they may not be presented as fact. --GreenReaper^(talk) 19:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Note in this edit I removed direct quotes other than those I could verify and/or authorize for distribution. Other quoted text (such as what was claimed JadeWizard said) is a violation of the Muck's copyright to post. The two official wizard announcements I do however have the rights to release to this. It's probably not the best comprise, but it's the best I can do in a first edit. --WhiteFire 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts - and, in particular, the addition of the official statements, which were lacking in previous versions. The article appears better now. I would note that while technically a violation of copyright, short quotes of statements made by officials for the purpose of review or commentary are normally taken to be a fair use of those statements (as opposed to - say - copying a room or character description wholesale for use on another MUCK by someone else, which would certainly not be). Given that wizards have specific and separate accounts for their "official duties", they should probably expect that statements made by them might be published elsewhere and commented upon, just as public representatives of a company would expect to be quoted on what they said. Of course, the MUCK may have rules against doing so which could result in internal sanctions, but that is a separate matter. --GreenReaper^(talk) 20:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think having a lengthy discussion about how he was toaded/banned is a bit silly on an article where it for all rights should be a footnote: Crassus was banned from Tapestries at this time and thus not considered for ownership of the area. If anything that sort of discussion SHOULD go into the Crassus page, but that page is locked as per his request for privacy. Airing this sort of laundry elsewhere seems to violate that, in fact... of course, he wrote it in the first place, so *shrug*. --WhiteFire 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is really one of the disadvantages of locking pages about people - it gets hard to figure out what should and should not be included, and where. I don't like locking pages, but it seems to further our goals more than forcing people to covered in depth whether they like it or not. We avoid doing so when we feel it to be a matter of public interest (which is very rare, and even then always contentious). Of course, certain conclusions may be drawn by a person who goes to read about someone and then finds that they have declined coverage; and as you say, if someone decides to bring something up themselves elsewhere, it's fair game.

I think the information does at least help the reader understand why Crassus embarked upon a campaign of protest, though that doesn't mean they would come to the conclusion that he was right to do so. Which is, of course, the point - we want readers to understand the reasoning of others, rather than force them to a particular conclusion. --GreenReaper^(talk) 21:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The number of colons involved here is making me really wish they would finish the LiquidThreads project. Anyway...

Considering the controversial nature of the subject and the fact that he does insist on bringing up his involvement in fandom publicly in other pages I am kinda curious why that request was even granted. Taking Sibe as an example, some people who have had an involvement in fandom you've not even given a choice about their RL information (at least when it's public record.) Crassus has had a notable impact on furry fandom here and there, positive or negative at times depending on one's POV. I mean, it's no skin off my nose one way or the other since the rest of his exploits (other than this and SCALF) thankfully don't involve me personally. It just seems inconsistent to what you do with other people. --WhiteFire 11:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

When I say rare, I mean really rare. There have been two key reasons so far - a history of physical violence (generally to the point where the police have been involved) that makes it seem that they could be a danger to others, or a documented history of serious art commission problems, either on the seller or buyer's side (usually nonpayment or noncompletion). A personal exclusion does not involve excising every detail, just the page about them. Impact here and there can be dealt with on the pages concerned. For example, a comic artist can ask to be excluded, but that would not preclude mentioning their name on the article about the comic (we would use their nickname if they used one). In the above two cases, the person themselves is the subject of note, so they cannot be removed. To the best of my knowledge Crassus does not fit either of these. Now, there may be other reasons that would also convince the community that an exception should be made, but if so that would be better discussed at Talk:Crassus. --GreenReaper^(talk) 14:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, ok, I think I understand how the policy works there now. Cool. :) -WhiteFire 18:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I did cr/lf conversion for quotations.

BTW, this pasting of MUCK logs possibly violates Tapestries nondisclosure agreement. There should be a statement from Whitefire in the article that it is OK.

--Tek Skiltaire 21:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering WhiteFire added those posts himself, I'd say he thinks it appropriate. Spaz Kitty 21:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to add the cleanup template to the page, maybe you should post something to the talk page explaining why? Especially if it's on an article that is listed as a featured article? (Mind you I think half the article should be outright deleted, but that discussion is above.)

One does not question why one should eat when hungry; nor does one question why birds scatter when spooked. Likewise, one does not question why an article should be cleaned up when it is a horrible mess, one simply does it.

Tek Skiltaire 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My approval for the wizard's comment being posted is not only (as noted above) granted implicitly by my posting it myself, but also directly mentioned by me in the above talk-spam that accompanies the article.-WhiteFire 00:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the edits to the width of the board postings is a good thing, it's more in keeping with what users on the Muck would actually see (most users run at around 80 characters wide.) Nice thought. Probably was also forcing the screen too wide on laptops and such. -WhiteFire 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Biased and unprovable subjects

It wouldn't be the first time someone's accused me of being biased in an article; and, it wouldn't be the first time I've admitted TO being biased. But here's the deal: Everyone has a bias, no matter the subject. When addressing controversial topics and articles, all one can do is make a crack at it, and eventually there will be a somewhat mediated article between multiple parties. That's the beauty of a Wiki.

I think that I was unjustly treated by an admin. He thinks that he rid his muck of a pest. Who's telling the truth?

Policy

At the time that Lori'Anne gave me her building character, neither of us knew that the character-sharing rule had changed. To the best of my knowledge, there was no announcement to existing users of policy change. When I registered my character, this is what the registration page looked like: 1997 Registration Page. Somewhere between 1997 and 1999, it changed to this: 1999 Registration Page.

My claim of the in-world policy help file is true. Whitefire is attempting to say that I'm foolish for thinking there was such a thing. Unfortunately, Whitefire has had plenty of time and power to edit and cover up the evidence. All I can say is, there was in fact an in-world policy info file at that time which specifically talked about how it was alright to share characters. It's obvious now that Whitefire had lost track of that obscure policy file, but how the heck was I supposed to know that? Both Lori and I made an honest mistake, but Whitefire thought it better to just @toad me. No group decision was made. No one got to hear my side of the issue.

Whitefire is claiming that he consulted with Blackwizard before @toading me. BS. Blackwizard wasn't even online at the time, and I was @toaded within half an hour of #mailing White. The only wiz I had spoken to before my ban was Jade, and she had lent me a wary warning about Whitefire's temper. The rest of the wiz core was in their eternal sleep-mode. There was no trial, no hearing, and to the best of my knowledge, no group decision. Bam. Toaded. If in the unlikely event that what he's saying is true, it's just more proof that he was attempting to taint an administrative decision with personal grievances. I wasn't there to defend myself.

Site-Banned for harassment?

According to Jade's bulletin post cited on the article: "he took advantage of his ability to remain on Tapestries to continue to harass and escalate the issues surrounding the original administrative action."

First off, I was never told during my @toad that I could return to the muck.

Secondly, in what way does petitioning to the public against unfair treatment constitute harassment?? In the emails sent to me directly afterward, Whitefire conducted himself in a very unprofessional manner, essentially ranting to me about how awful I was and how righteous he was. They were not "private" emails; they were administrative emails. I had not agreed to any form of non-disclosure. If he doesn't want people to see how crappy he treats others behind the scenes, he should watch his mouth a bit more. It's karma, dude.

I made the mistake of thinking that going to the Tavern and posting a bulletin with a link to the unprofessional emails he sent me would successfully call attention to his behavior. No one gave a damn, of course. I mean, it was the Tavern. Half the people hanging out there were stuck-up elitists. Whitefire thought the same. It was his given reason for demolishing the place.

So, what to do?

I'm realizing that my current attempts to further edit and balance this article are virtually impossible. I'm claiming things. He's claiming things. There's no way for either of us to prove any of this stuff. His position of power in this on-going feud is a conflict of interest. He can delete anything on the muck that he wants to and threaten me in any way he wants to. All I know is, I'm far from the only person who's held complaint against him for abusing his power.

What do we do about this article? I'm up for ideas.

--Crassus 08:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

From a policy point of view, if something is disputed and unverifiable, often it's better not to say anything. Taking the reader into consideration, it also makes sense; it's unlikely they wish to read about seven-year-old drama. --Rat 08:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, nobody's forcing our readers to read it if they don't want to. There's a reason it's at the bottom of the page. --GreenReaper^(talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what problem you're trying to state, other than pointing out some areas which are disputed assertions as opposed to accepted facts. You are welcome to edit such assertions to clarify this.

I do think the current version of this section has undue weight due to its size. This might be helped by factoring out the statements into a separate subpage, summarizing them, and using inline references to it. It is right to keep them around, but they don't have to be taking up the space that they do. That alone would cut size by 1/3.

I'm not too concerned about providing an ultimate resolution to an unresolved difference of opinion. Our purpose is not to seek an ultimate truth or even a happy medium in such matters (usually we've got it right when all parties are equally unhappy). Mutually exclusive opinions need merely be stated like any other.

Moreover, you could both be "telling the truth" in the specific case you raise:

• As far as I know, Tapestries MUCK is not a democratic institution, so who decides what is unjust? In that kind of system I would think it falls to those in power to make the rules, and interpret them as they see fit. Naturally those without such power might have a different view.
• Whether or not WhiteFire's actions were unjust in your eyes (or in those of others), it appears clear that in his eyes you were "a pest". If so, it is likely that he viewed his actions as the simplest solution to the problem, and quite possible that he saw it as a good thing for the MUCK as a whole.

Others might agree with these views - or they might not. That's what makes it a matter of opinion. Same for definitions of harassment, elitism, or the appropriate action to take when you have been toaded (in a manner you deem unjust, or otherwise). It seems like you're looking to us to resolve these questions. If so, I regret to inform you that we cannot. We were not there, we are not involved, we are not a jury to determine right or wrong; we merely attempt to report and accurately summarize viewpoints without bias or favour. --GreenReaper^(talk) 11:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that would be silly for me to expect you to know what to do in this situation. I just thought it fair that I leave my comments here with an open-ended question. Those who were around at the time know what happened. There were very few who paid attention. It goes with the nature of a MUCK. Everything happens behind closed doors, and I end up getting a bad rep because the head admin constantly blows his temper. It happened with myself and The Treehouse, as well as others with The Tavern, The Lining, The Mystic Stables, and The Temple of Divinity. Whenever Whitefire does something like this, there's always lots of fallout. I've just finished updating the article once again this morning. I tried really hard to cut out needless lengthy angst portions of the article and shaved it down to brass tacks. I also responded to the areas that Whitefire had edited which seemed questionable to me. I also cleaned up after his bad grammar, ambiguity, spelling, and punctuation. Honestly, I'm one to let dead dogs lie. I just get a little fumed when I come across things by happenstance and see that things are attempting to be altered again. Ohwell. Carry on. --Crassus 23:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

While my opinion of your edits may be equally unflattering, I think I can skip the accusations. Edited again to answer the claims made by Crassus in the article. Also see the note about dropping the ban. --WhiteFire^(talk)

GreanReaper: I would like to argue the part that is entirely about Crassus being toaded should be moved to a page about Crassus, rather than be embedded here. I do not believe that it is on-topic for the page, which is supposed to be about the tree house. The site has existed for many years, yet 90% of the article is about a single day. That seems to me to be rather unfair characterization of one of the most complaint free locations on the Muck. --WhiteFire^(talk)