Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ FT2 _ Allegations against FT2
Posted by: Peter Damian
Since Ryan Postlethwaite has raised this issue on the forum, I would like the opportunity to say that I am NOT alleging that FT2 has engaged in criminal activities of any sort. The burden of proof required in criminal court is very high, and there is consequently an equal burden on anyone making any criminal accusation or allegation. My allegations are rather
1. That FT2 has engaged in highly slanted editing of the Zoophilia article and other related subjects. I.e. while he is not provenly a zoophile, he is a 'pro zoophile'. A pro zoophile is one who maintains in a visible and public way that sex with animals is not inherently abusive (similarly to the way that pro-paedophiles argue that while child abuse is wrong, what paedophiles do is not of itself child abuse).
2. That he is one of a group of pro-zoophiles (most of them open zoophiles, who have publicly admitted their 'orientation' by linking to their accounts on openly zoophile site), who have conspired to edit this and related articles in slanted ways, i.e. they have prevented anti-zoos editing the article by bullying and by abuse of admin powers such as blocking, banning &c. Note FT2 has not publicly admitted being a zoophile (as opposed to pro-zoophile). But he is a member of a pro-zoophile group. His tag-teaming with these individuals, the fact he has admitted to being friends with some of them, the fact of emails and so forth, his frequent allusion to use of 'serious' zoophile sites is ample evidence of that.
Note the distinction between 1 and 2. I have no specific objection to pro-zoophiles editing articles about zoophilia, any more than (as it happens) I object to pro-paedophiles editing articles about paedophilia. I do however object to a pro-zoophile being elected to the Arbitration Committee. By contrast I utterly object to 2, because I equally support the right of anyone to edit the Zoophilia article, not just pro-zoos. This is mostly what is at issue. By selectively banning or indefinitely blocking editors who support an anti-zoo line, FT2 and others are skewing the whole principle of Wikipedia, namely anyone can edit.
Indeed the fact I am arguing this here, blocked by pro-zoophiles because of an entirely trumped up and vacuous charge, is enough proof of that.
Should I take this to Arbitration Committee? Arguments against
1. This is an emotive issue, and all logic would be clouded
2. ArbCom has an idiosyncratic membership, and the fact that
3. My original username would be brought up
4. It's a long and tedious and exhausting process for everyone.
Posted by: guy
Should I take this to Arbitration Committee? Arguments against
1. This is an emotive issue, and all logic would be clouded
2. ArbCom has an idiosyncratic membership, and the fact that
3. My original username would be brought up
4. It's a long and tedious and exhausting process for everyone.
And most importantly:
5. FT2 is a member of ArbCom and there are few precedents for ArbCom wanting to investigate itself.
Posted by: wikiwhistle
I have no specific objection to pro-zoophiles editing articles about zoophilia, any more than (as it happens) I object to pro-paedophiles editing articles about paedophilia. I do however object to a pro-zoophile being elected to the Arbitration Committee.
Why? It doesn't effect any ability he might have to be an arb, unless it's an arbcom about zoophilia, in which case he should of course not play the part of an arbitrator.
FT2 is an Arb. You would stand no chance, mate.
You could rite to Arbs directly, although I think you said you have already.
Your best bet would be to contact any of the numerous reporters interested in wikipedia, such as the site that published the article on Sue Gardner and Jimbo.
Not that I'm advocating that of course. Posted by: Jonny Cache
Since Ryan Postlethwaite has raised this issue on the forum, I would like the opportunity to say that I am NOT alleging that FT2 has engaged in criminal activities of any sort. The burden of proof required in criminal court is very high, and there is consequently an equal burden on anyone making any criminal accusation or allegation. My allegations are rather:
- That FT2 has engaged in highly slanted editing of the Zoophilia article and other related subjects. I.e. while he is not provenly a zoophile, he is a 'pro zoophile'. A pro zoophile is one who maintains in a visible and public way that sex with animals is not inherently abusive (similarly to the way that pro-paedophiles argue that while child abuse is wrong, what paedophiles do is not of itself child abuse).
- That he is one of a group of pro-zoophiles (most of them open zoophiles, who have publicly admitted their 'orientation' by linking to their accounts on openly zoophile site), who have conspired to edit this and related articles in slanted ways, i.e. they have prevented anti-zoos editing the article by bullying and by abuse of admin powers such as blocking, banning &c. Note FT2 has not publicly admitted being a zoophile (as opposed to pro-zoophile). But he is a member of a pro-zoophile group. His tag-teaming with these individuals, the fact he has admitted to being friends with some of them, the fact of emails and so forth, his frequent allusion to use of 'serious' zoophile sites is ample evidence of that.
Indeed the fact I am arguing this here, blocked by pro-zoophiles because of an entirely trumped up and vacuous charge, is enough proof of that.
Should I take this to Arbitration Committee? Arguments against:
- This is an emotive issue, and all logic would be clouded
- ArbCom has an idiosyncratic membership, and the fact that
- My original username would be brought up
- It's a long and tedious and exhausting process for everyone.
Peter,
I was just about to lower my esteem of your intelligence by several notches — but then it hit me —
D'Oh! That's one of them there rhetorical questions — Right?
Jonny
Posted by: AB
D'Oh! That's one of them there rhetorical questions — Right?
Jonny B)
Intelligence is overrated.
Posted by: The Joy
Even if FT2 recuses (as he should), his colleagues will find it difficult to be objective and impartial when their fellow arbitrator is "under attack."
Posted by: Peter Damian
You will have then to lower your estimate of my intelligence, wherever that stood, because it is not rhetorical. There is a need for a ‘test case’ of this kind, and indeed FT2 sees the whole point of Arbcom as being about ‘test cases’. There are all sorts of issues involved.
But could someone help me out with what actually happens. Is there a proposition that is argued and proved or disproved, as in a court of law? Who represents me? Can I represent myself? If so, do I need to be unblocked?
Can I challenge the decision that it must go to Arbcom? I can’t see FT2 and co would want that at all, for the reasons I have mentioned. Who actually decides? What it the rule on indef blocking? I thought there was banning, which is final, and blocking, which is a temporary restraint for bad behaviour, never permanent.
Ryan Postlethwaite has said here that I will never return to the encylopedia. That amounts to a ban. In which case, why aren’t I banned? Why the indef block?
These are not rhetorical questions. I spent most of my time in the backwater of the Philosophy department at Wikipedia, and never bothered with these things.
[edit] e.g. from WP:BLOCK
Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only, and once over and learned from, unless repeated, they are in the past. Wikipedia and its administrators and arbitration committee have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing.
Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter pass and be learned from.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block"
Important note – Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.
The last one contradicts Postlethwaite's assertion here, that the block was backward-looking, for something I had done (or rather, he claims I did - the 'continued harrassment' is in his mind only, the incidents in question lasting a very short time).
[edit - yet more]
Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable.
Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking.
Particularly pertinent. I was aware of the legal threats thing, but I imagined the threat had to be explicit. I learned later that making a remark that could be interpreted as a legal threat is enough. Also I wasn't aware that it was quite so serious (one person, not an admin, did warn me by email but that was too late).
Had it been clearly explained that my remarks constituted a legal threat, and that I could be indef blocked (i.e. banned) if not retracted, I would immediately have clarified the remarks, explaining they were not intended as a legal threat.
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
"Test case"?
You're labouring under the mistaken belief that wikilaw, like actual law, aims to provide certainty and respects precedent. Neither of these are true.
Posted by: Peter Damian
"Test case"?
You're labouring under the mistaken belief that wikilaw, like actual law, aims to provide certainty and respects precedent. Neither of these are true.
No, I don't believe that. It's clearly different. But I do believe there are a number of reasonable people still involved in Wikipedia, and that there would be some attempt to ensure a reasonable process. I haven't got a link to my ANI but there were a number of admins who were strongly supportive of my case, and who opposed the indef.
Including (I might say) SlimVirgin who has always been supportive of my edits, both on and of wiki and of my constant battle against the troll-infested thickets of the metaphsyics section. I know a lot of people have it in for her here - don't know the details at all - but no complaints there.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
No, I don't believe that. It's clearly different. But I do believe there are a number of reasonable people still involved in Wikipedia, and that there would be some attempt to ensure a reasonable process. I haven't got a link to my ANI but there were a number of admins who were strongly supportive of my case, and who opposed the indef.
Including (I might say) SlimVirgin who has always been supportive of my edits, both on and of wiki and of my constant battle against the troll-infested thickets of the metaphsyics section. I know a lot of people have it in for her here — don't know the details at all — but no complaints there.
¤ sigh ¤
I went rummaging through my collection of really despondent Leonard Cohen quotes, but couldn't find one despondent enough to fit.
We used to have a whole sub*agora devoted to Nobs' Excellently Excruciating Adventures In REFARB Madness, but I think it all got expunged or sealed for 75 years or something.
So you're on your on, like a rolling stone, till you are a bone, &c, &c, read my …
Jonny
Posted by: Peter Damian
No, I don't believe that. It's clearly different. But I do believe there are a number of reasonable people still involved in Wikipedia, and that there would be some attempt to ensure a reasonable process. I haven't got a link to my ANI but there were a number of admins who were strongly supportive of my case, and who opposed the indef.
Including (I might say) SlimVirgin who has always been supportive of my edits, both on and of wiki and of my constant battle against the troll-infested thickets of the metaphsyics section. I know a lot of people have it in for her here — don't know the details at all — but no complaints there.
¤ sigh ¤
I went rummaging through my collection of really despondent Leonard Cohen quotes, but couldn't find one despondent enough to fit.
We used to have a whole sub*agora devoted to Nobs' Excellently Excruciating Adventures In REFARB Madness, but I think it all got expunged or sealed for 75 years or something.
So you're on your on, like a rolling stone, till you are a bone, &c, &c, read my …
Jonny
Jonny, could you translate into something resembling normal, standard English?
Posted by: Jonny Cache
No, I don't believe that. It's clearly different. But I do believe there are a number of reasonable people still involved in Wikipedia, and that there would be some attempt to ensure a reasonable process. I haven't got a link to my ANI but there were a number of admins who were strongly supportive of my case, and who opposed the indef.
Including (I might say) SlimVirgin who has always been supportive of my edits, both on and of wiki and of my constant battle against the troll-infested thickets of the metaphsyics section. I know a lot of people have it in for her here — don't know the details at all — but no complaints there.
¤ sigh ¤
I went rummaging through my collection of really despondent Leonard Cohen quotes, but couldn't find one despondent enough to fit.
We used to have a whole sub*agora devoted to Nobs' Excellently Excruciating Adventures In REFARB Madness, but I think it all got expunged or sealed for 75 years or something.
So you're on your on, like a rolling stone, till you are a bone, &c, &c, read my …
Jonny
Jonny, could you translate into something resembling normal, standard English?
No, I'm afraid that might be too impolite.
Jonny
Posted by: Peter Damian
Jonny, could you translate into something resembling normal, standard English?
No, I'm afraid that might be too impolite.
Jonny
No I was afraid you don't do ordinary English. Nevertheless, what is
Nobs' Excellently Excruciating Adventures In REFARB Madness
Presumably is code for something?
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Nevertheless, what is:
Nobs' Excellently Excruciating Adventures In REFARB Madness
Presumably is code for something?
Nobs — his/her real name is known but eludes my memory at the moment — was a former active participant here who really, in my view, took ArbCom way too seriously, writing ream after 10×14 ream of long and winding quasi-legal case presentations for our utterly reluctant review, until the Mods finally gave him a roll-up forum of his own, which no one had the patience to read, until he/she finally went off to greater glory in Conservapedia or somewhere. Just what I remember of the story.
Jonny
Posted by: Peter Damian
Nevertheless, what is:
Nobs' Excellently Excruciating Adventures In REFARB Madness
Presumably is code for something?
Nobs — his/her real name is known but eludes my memory at the moment — was a former active participant here who really, in my view, took ArbCom way too seriously, writing ream after 10×14 ream of long and winding quasi-legal case presentations for our utterly reluctant review, until the Mods finally gave him a roll-up forum of his own, which no one had the patience to read, until he/she finally went off to greater glory in Conservapedia or somewhere. Just what I remember of the story.
Jonny
Much better. Thank you.
Posted by: guy
Nobs ?Çö his/her real name is known but eludes my memory at the moment
Mr. Smith.
Posted by: Kato
<Moderator note> Moved from General Discussion to Bureaucracy forum due to Arbcom nature of the thread
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
I'll defend Rob Smith (Nobs). He tried too hard on WR and became tiresome, but then he grew wings and went on to add a lot of stuff to the http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia. I count 446 edits by RobSmith on that article. Frankly, Conservapedia's article on Wikipedia is fairly good.
It needs updating because so many new scandals have happened lately. But who can blame anyone for not keeping up with all the scandals? It's hard work and requires lots of reading!
Posted by: Iamlost
Oh, this is the stupid "arbcom" member who asked for personal information from me in order to "maybe" check on another user who was treated badly and remove the insulting banners from her pages, yet signed HIS name as "FT2" after I gave my full name attached to the email I sent to this person. I asked for the upper management, and this "FT2" wrote back saying s/he was part of the upper management, but signed with "FT2" while asking me to provide my phone number, employer information and other personal information in order to change the false charges made against a deceased friend and co-worker. 
Wikipedia needs to be exposed for this horrible management and the icky "founder" Jimbo "porno" Wales. Sigh.
Posted by: Somey
Seriously? That's outrageous.
Is that a common practice on the part of arbcom members? I don't believe we've heard many stories of that nature, but then again, what you have there sounds like a rather unusual situation (though you'd think they'd have seen just about everything at this point).
Posted by: Iamlost
Yes, I have the emails to prove it, but I do not know who I can trust to send them to. I don't know if Wikipedia administrators have "spies" here acting as agents to get more information to use against others who question them.
Ooo, I am so angry I could spit. lol.
Posted by: Peter Damian
Seriously? That's outrageous.
Is that a common practice on the part of arbcom members? I don't believe we've heard many stories of that nature, but then again, what you have there sounds like a rather unusual situation (though you'd think they'd have seen just about everything at this point).
FT2 in particular is given to this. It was so in my case, but didn't realise until Giano mentioned this, that this is common practice.
I might add the charge against me of 'off wiki harrassment' mainly relates to something I said in an email reply to FT2. But why not? He initiated it by unsolicited communication, on an account that is used by my children. I objected to the revolting links he was including and said he was 'sick'. He reacted very badly to this and the rest is history.
Yes, I have the emails to prove it, but I do not know who I can trust to send them to. I don't know if Wikipedia administrators have "spies" here acting as agents to get more information to use against others who question them.
Ooo, I am so angry I could spit. lol.
Yes there are spies here (e.g. Postlethwaite who will not hesitate to personally attack you here, if he wants).
But there are many people who can be trusted with a PM. E.g. Somey, for one.
Posted by: Moulton
You can acquire some lightly used +1 Blowfish Armor on eBay.
Posted by: wikiwhistle
I might add the charge against me of 'off wiki harrassment' mainly relates to something I said in an email reply to FT2.
I thought it was more that you had the audacity to have a blog expressing your opinions, that annoyed them
Posted by: Peter Damian
I might add the charge against me of 'off wiki harrassment' mainly relates to something I said in an email reply to FT2.
I thought it was more that you had the audacity to have a blog expressing your opinions, that annoyed them
The blog was about the Zoophilia article, not FT2. There was one link to a diff that he happened to be the author of, which he immediately oversighted, and then I deleted the blog 18 hours later, in return for a promised unblocked. Then they indef blocked me. Fact.
Posted by: Amarkov
I dunno. Maybe if you combine anti-bestiality, anti-WR, anti-punishing-of-arbitrators, and anti-process, it all works out somehow.
Or not. I can't for the life of me understand people who think that due process should be ignored to get the "right" result.
Posted by: Moulton
I've spent the past six months trying and failing to understand the prevailing mentality of the Wikipedia power structure.
To paraphrase Forest Gump, power is as power does.
Posted by: Peter Damian
Oh yes and I have opened a 'Peter Damian' account at WP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_Damian
and left a message on Flo's page. Had another mail from Angela saying Wales was too busy and why not try the arbcom. So here goes.
I am trying to find the policy that says you are allowed to have an unblocked page so long as for the purpose of preparing defence. Does anyone remember this?
Posted by: Moulton
Yes. See the remarks of AGK on my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&oldid=177737621#Unblocked. He outlined that very policy to me, under similar circumstances.
Posted by: Peter Damian
Yes. See the remarks of AGK on my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&oldid=177737621#Unblocked. He outlined that very policy to me, under similar circumstances.
Thanks for that.