Allegations against FT2, Should P.D. take them to the Arbcom? Options

[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.

[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.

[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.(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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.(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Not that I'm advocating that of course.(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[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:

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.

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[AB]

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 B)

Intelligence is overrated.

[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."

[Peter Damian]

D'Oh! That's one of them there rhetorical questions — Right?

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.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[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.

[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.

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Jonny, could you translate into something resembling normal, standard English?

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Jonny, could you translate into something resembling normal, standard English?

No, I'm afraid that might be too impolite.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Jonny, could you translate into something resembling normal, standard English?

No, I'm afraid that might be too impolite.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

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?

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache:

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

Much better. Thank you.

[guy]

Nobs ?Çö his/her real name is known but eludes my memory at the moment

Mr. Smith.

[Kato]

<Moderator note> Moved from General Discussion to Bureaucracy forum due to Arbcom nature of the thread

[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 article about Wikipedia on Conservapedia. 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!

[Janron]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

Wikipedia needs to be exposed for this horrible management and the icky "founder" Jimbo "porno" Wales. Sigh.

[Somey]

...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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

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).