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.

[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.

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

[Janron]

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.