The thread stays and I suspect everyone will get to the truth here, even though it is being covered up at Wikipedia.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Berry, Glenn" <Glenn.Berry@pega.com>
To: "Buckner" <d3uckner@btinternet.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:39 PM
Subject: RE: Wikipedia e-mail: The FT mess


Why I don't want to see the stuff: While Wikipedia is not censored, it
is not good for me if I go swimming in the sewage. As an admin, I'm
primarily a deletion specialist. I won't (knowingly) touch a deletion
discussion about a "porn star", except when I'm covering as the primary
DRV closer while Xoloz takes a break and thus have accepted a
responsibility to close the discussion. Similarly, I don't do image
deletions because there are too many images of that type flowing through
there. Bestiality is another part of the sewers that I'm better off
staying out of.

----- Original Message -----
From: Family
To: Will
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:34 AM
Subject: Next steps: change of name


Will,

1. I think it is possible to organise a change of name to my account, as there are instructions on how to do this in WP. Can you confirm you can do this please. I just don't want an account that so resembles my actual name.

2. On the other matter, I still want to understand more about how and why the two records were deleted from the database. Obviously our discussion proceeded on the basis that I would provide diffs as evidence. It is therefore unfair to delete any of these. It doesn't particularly matter as the editor of those records refers to them later on as his edits, but it raises the question of who else is involved. What is particularly odd is that the other diff deleted had never been mentioned. Why was it deleted?

The two records are these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4557792

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4559833

Perhaps you can make some enquiries? Thanks

Edward

Sorry, Peter kept implying that it was WJScribe that oversighted those edits. In this case, who did oversight them?

Sorry for not spelling it out. I was implying, indeed saying, that he knew about the oversights. Therefore he was complicit. You shouldn't challenge someone to produce evidence, then stand by while they are deleted.

Who did delete them? That I would dearly love to know. Actually, I'm pretty sure it was FT2, because he did have oversight then.

I'd like to hear that from a moderator. The thread is quite simple.

1. The outing makes it quite clear Scribe really is a lawyer.

2. Late last year he blocked me, and challenged me to produce evidence of certain allegations I had made. He kept taunting me about this as though I were a liar.

3. I produced 2 diffs (I have many more in my secret store).

4. Withing 24 hours, the diffs were oversighted

5. I wrote to complain about this (see email above) to Scribe and Berry. Scribe denied all knowledge. The point is, there and then he should have admitted that I had the diffs, and that they were substantial (otherwise they wouldn't have been oversighted). This is bad faith, at the very least.

6. Note Berry knew about this. He was decent enough to make a sort of apology, but still washed his hands, like Pilate.

This is a different issue really to the subject of the thread- "who is WJBscribe?" Your points are good IMHO and maybe need their own thread.

No he didn't. See this. He got it on 29th December. He didn't have it at the time you mentioned.

This is a different issue really to the subject of the thread- "who is WJBscribe?" Your points are good IMHO and maybe need their own thread.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Berry, Glenn" <Glenn.Berry@xxxx.com>
To: "Family" <the.xxxxxx@btinternet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:26 PM
Subject: RE: Wikipedia e-mail: The FT mess


I prefer to let WJBscribe be the sole point of contact, if possible. My
final email of Thursday 12/6 explained the reasoning. One reason is
that I think that my original email to you may have contributed to your
making the blog post and otherwise taking it outside Wikipedia. A
second reason is that it gave me the freedom to discourage others from
intervening, including those who I am completely certain did contribute
to your taking the matter outside Wikipedia. I've used that freedom
once already.

I think what has since happened is that the relevant edit was
oversighted. I can't prove that for certain as a developer could have
directly twiddled the database, but that is less likely. Read
[[Wikipedia:Oversight]]. The list of those with the ability to do this
is on that page, and includes both Jimbo and Cary Bass to whom Will has
said he sent a synopsis of the mess.

Has discussion with Will reached an impasse? Is he responding at all?

GRBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Family [mailto:the.xxxxxx@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 4:52 PM
To: Berry, Glenn
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail: The FT mess

Glenn,

Was never one for conspiracy theories but there is a very big one going
on here. Do you still not want to talk? Why can't you talk? I refused
to speak to any of the other lot.

E

Oh I forgot Scribe was communicating with Wales at the time. Does he have oversight?

Excuse please...temporary section break...for clarification... because someone chose to tarpit the question of whether or not "Master Scribe" is a real live attorney?

He is not, by U.S.A. standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer#Terminology

The fact that Wikipedia resides in California, a U.S.A. jurisdiction, does, in fact, allow for those of us in the U.S.A. to excercise our right to certain standards.

In the U.S.A., in order to be a practicing attorney, you are required to have gone through 7 years of training...undergraduate, and J.D., followed by a clear passage of a state bar exam for each state.

"Scribe" is not an attorney by U.S.A standards and should not claim to be one at this time.

Further, if he made such a claim, prior to even getting a Masters degree, he should step down.

Excuse please...temporary section break...for clarification... because someone chose to tarpit the question of whether or not "Master Scribe" is a real live attorney?

He is not, by U.S.A. standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer#Terminology

The fact that Wikipedia resides in California, a U.S.A. jurisdiction, does, in fact, allow for those of us in the U.S.A. to excercise our right to certain standards.

In the U.S.A., in order to be a practicing attorney, you are required to have gone through 7 years of training...undergraduate, and J.D., followed by a clear passage of a state bar exam for each state.

"Scribe" is not an attorney by U.S.A standards and should not claim to be one at this time.

Further, if he made such a claim, prior to even getting a Masters degree, he should step down.

----- Original Message -----
From: Will
To: Buckner
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail

Jimbo Wales's email is <jwales@wikia.com>. It can be found on his userpage.

I think it must be obvious that as FT2 is the screen name of an individual person, you are making accusations against that person. You are suggesting that:
(1) he has improperly edited Wikipedia to promote a controversial POV
(2) that he is involved in the zoophile community (the logical inference of which for many being that he has engaged in sexual activity with animals). Sexual activity with animals is not only extremely distasteful to most people but illegal in most (and I suspect all) jurisdictions. In the UK, it is contrary to s.69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and carries a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment.
(3) that this person (by whatever name) is already a controversial figure for these reasons with those involved in anti-zoophilia activism

The distinction between "being involved in the zoophilia community" and having engaged in "animal sexual abuse" is a narrow one. I recognise that someone could be involved in the former by merely supporting legalising the activity in question, not engaging in it before it was legalised, but I think you will agree this is not a distinction that would be apparent to most people.

In [[pornography]], zoosexuality is occasionally referred to as "'''farmsex'''" or or "'''dogsex'''" . The comment is "added "dogsex" to "farmsex", being the two terms commonly used in pornography)".

Separate from those whose interest is curiosity, pornography, or sexual novelty, are those for whom zoophilia might be called a lifestyle. A common reported starting age is at [[puberty]], around 9 - 11, and this seems consistent for both males and females. Those who discover an interest at an older age often trace it back to nascent form during this period or earlier. Lifestyle zoophiles often share some or all of the following common traits:Some form of social individualism. This can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Zoophiles tend not to be people who unquestioningly follow a peer group.An emotional respect for animals. Examples of human emotion towards animals in everyday society are common (google: pet memorials); in some cases this will become akin to a partnership, or become sexual. Belief that animals and humans are not so different in many ways, similar to the way that homosexuals feel the gender gap is not a major issue.A sense that humans can be deceptive and manipulative (even if only white lies), such people respect animals and their company is sought for not having this trait and for not requiring protective social barriers.

A "romantic" nature, the desire to have a bond for life, and a partner to devote oneself to fully. (Relationships of this quality are hard to depend upon with humans, as human partners often come to demand heavy compromise of the romantic relationship over time)Above average awareness of feelings ([[empathy]]). This may be cause or effect, it isn't clear which. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. Either way, zoophiles are often described by those who do not realise their sexuality as being caring individuals aware of others feelings.Loneliness, insofar as others of like kind are hard to find.An open view on sexuality. Sex is commonly seen as "just part of life".
Zoophiles tend also to be highly accepting of bi/homosexuality, but less accepting of abusive activities.

A higher proportion than average of zoophiles appear to be engaged in supportive work for animal welfare, SPCA, conservation organisations, etc.That the ideal life would be an animal as lifelong mate, and a human as a companion (with or without the possibility of sexual relationship). Lifestyle zoophiles often experience the biggest issues of their chosen life as the inability to be open or accepted in their relationships. This is not usually [[religion]]-oriented, as many zoophiles find religion and zoophilia to be compatible. Another difficulty is the loss of loved ones, in a world that dismisses animals as secondary species.

Animals and humans differ in sexuality. For most animals, sex carries less importance, is burdened with fewer social and conceptual barriers, and is more an immediate than a conceptual experience. Therefore there are 3 trends amongst zoophiles, depending whether the human partner feels inclined to human-style relationships (human remains monogamous), animal-style relationships (both partners trusted to make own sexual choices, humans role is primarily as protector), or tries to blend the two in various ways.

Zoophiles may or may not have human partners. In some cases the human partner or family knows. As human partnerships are often seen by society as desirable and there is social pressure to be in them, both male and female zoophiles often marry and this forces many to keep their other lifestyle as a private affair.

The edit by FT2 clearly promotes a positive view of zoophilia, I would be interested in what people here think.

Scribe disagrees, presumably, since it is certain he has seen the two diffs.

Uh, yeaaahh? :dizzy: I think you're putting it rather mildly! It reads more like a @$#&%!! advertisement.

Thanks for that. After the attacks by Scribe and Postlethwaite 3 months ago I felt I was losing my sanity. It took that long to recover. Now, I'm on the warpath, as you can see.

so that it doesn't matter to them what the person actually targeted has done, as long as he's inside that circle.

Uh, yeaaahh? :dizzy: I think you're putting it rather mildly! It reads more like a @$#&%!! advertisement.


Hmmm... Maybe, but we've all seen how WP'ers are willing to completely suspend or ignore any notion of morality (if they even recognize the existence of such a concept) when trying to protect the "project" and its key players from the unpleasant effects of their actions. That is to say, there are other explanations for Mr. Scribe's apparent support of FT2... it's just that I don't know which of them is scarier.

I so no reason to assume that WJBscribe disagrees. A cursory examination of his edit history showed a strong interest in sexual identity politics. I don't know enough about his particular ideology to gauge where he'd stand. Or perhaps WJBscribe identified FT2 as the next ArbCom member, and so curried favor? We don't know.

I don't understand....

"Them" = Wikipedians... Sort of like the movie "Them," only the giant ants were much cuter...

I'm just saying that their support for FT2 doesn't necessarily mean they also support bestiality or "zoophilia," or whatever they choose to call it. It just means they're circling the wagons - they do that all the time, for practically everybody. You almost never see them throwing one of their own under the bus, unless the person becomes the focus of Massively Bad Publicity™ or something like that - which almost never happens.

And in this case, the sheer yuckiness of it probably works in their favor, because the media usually doesn't like to spoil people's breakfasts with stories about subjects like this. I mean, this is grotesque. The mere fact that they would do any wagon-circling around someone who would write something like that speaks volumes in itself.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Buckner" <d3xxxxx@btinternet.com>
To: "Will" <wjbscribe@gmail.com>
Cc: "GRBerry" <Glenn.Berry@xxxx.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:49 AM
Subject: Recent deletions from Wiki database


> Will,
>
> I checked this morning and this user's first edit to the Zoophilia article
> has disappeared. This takes the affair to an unprecedented level and I can
> have nothing more to do with it. Clearly I can't discuss with Wales unless
> the edit trail is public domain.
>
> The deletion was a rather inept thing to do. The edit is still there but
> now has apparently been made by a different editor. And more than one edit
> has been removed. I made a list of the entire edit trail to this articles
> 'Zoophilia', its talk page and the user-in-question's talk page, so it is
> completely obvious to me where this has happened, or where further deletions
> will be made.
>
> As your organisation needs to think carefully how this is handled, and as I
> want to enjoy my gardening leave and Christmas period in peace, can I
> suggest we all leave the matter until the New Year.
>
> Will, as you are a volunteer and as you work for a law firm yourself can I
> suggest you also take no further action. You should hand this over to a
> third party who is employed by the Wikimedia foundation and who can deal
> with the matter in a way that is conflict-free. There is no point in you
> getting any further involved. I have agreed take no further action myself,
> indeed, have no reason to take any action given some of the evidence has
> been removed, and for the other reasons stated.
>
>
> Sincerely
>
> Edward
>
>

> The deletion was a rather inept thing to do. The edit is still there but
> now has apparently been made by a different editor.

Yes, this is a sock puppet account. You don't expect me to touch topics like the ones this account edits, using my regular account, do you?

They were clever, I'll give them that - they found an AnonIP to blame that edit on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...5&oldid=4555850

They were clever, I'll give them that - they found an AnonIP to blame that edit on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...5&oldid=4555850

…that leaps out at me is that they're completely unsourced. Similarly, his lengthy pro-bestiality screed. There is no indication that he's drawing this from anywhere except his own head.

You missed the one where they went to the 'beastforum' (DO NOT EVEN THINK OF GOING NEAR THIS SITE) to elicit some views as'research' that went straight into the article. Not only that, they used it as further evidence to ban Ciz, the anti-zoo who they bullied and then blocked.

I'll see if I can find that one.

... the dog enjoys it, the woman enjoys it and there are no consequences in the long term for either one of them. I do not see how this is abuse. It can't really be properly compared with pedophilia, as children will grow up to have the same ideas as most people about sex and sexuality which are likely to turn even a pleasurable experience at the time in to an experience they'll resent later. Besides that, a child is not sexually mature and an animal is (assuming sex with a mature animal obviously). That makes a big difference as a dog will know what to do when a woman bends over for him and a young boy will not. [[User:BabyNuke|BabyNuke]] 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a nice one, still intact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...7&oldid=8469920

FT2 removes "There are others who respect and care for animals but still believe that having sex with animals is abusive, no matter the reason." with the comment 'revert vandalism'.

What??????

An informal poll of a group of zoophiles has shown that most agree with the traits listed under 'Zoophilia as a lifestyle', and there don't seem to be any remaining POV issues. (I'm a zoo, and I don't have any particular issues with the page content.) So I'm removing the NPOV tag. Everyone fine with this? --[[User:Zetawoof|Zetawoof]] 07:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

----- Original Message -----
From: Buckner
To: jwales@wikia.com
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia: - Will Scribe's email refers


Dear Mr Wales,

Here is the copy of the email I sent you January 6 2008.

----- Original Message -----
From: Buckner
To: jwales@wikia.com
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:52 PM
Subject: Wikipedia: - Will Scribe's email refers

Dear Mr Wales,

Will said (email of early December 2007) that you would be prepared to listen to a complaint I had about some of the articles in Wikipedia. In the first place, could you confirm this is the correct email address? I enclose a list of the contributions I have made to Wikipedia since 2004. Stressing that these are mostly complete articles, and not the usual edits of formats, links and full stops that usually pass for edits in that place.

Thanks

Edward Buckner

------------------------------

Edward Buckner: contributions to Wikipedia

I have been editing Wikipedia since September 2004. I’m not in the 10,000 edit category of editors, but that is because I typically work carefully on off-wiki drafts, then edit into Wikipedia in one go. As an example, here is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo_set_theory

on Zermelo's original version of set theory, which is pretty much as I left it, as the diff from the original September version and the current one shows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...9&oldid=1456543

I was complimented by Professor Randall Holmes on the quality of this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=32607017

Here are other ones which are largely or entirely my work – mostly in the area of philosophy or philosophical logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence originally from scratch, though since been considerably modified by people who don’t know much about the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_%28Aristotle%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume%27s_principle Hume's principle, that equinumerosity can be defined in terms of 1-1 correspondence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_of_opposition The square of opposition - everything except the inaccurate bit at the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_and_object Frege's distinction between concept and object.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy I suppose, though this was constantly the subject of edit wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_philosophy Medieval philosophy, though never got as far as the Fathers and high period of 12th-14th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_the_proposition The logico-philosophical problem known as Unity of the proposition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_logic Aristotelian logic - since much tampered with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_name This and next two on fundamental concepts in Phil-logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connotation_and_denotation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skolem%27s_paradox The so-called Skolem paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_quantification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_commitment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_Analytics (One of Aristotle’s works in logic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_%28Aristotle%29 (Another of Aristotle’s works in logic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_form
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_thesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sum_of_Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell%27s_Christian_Singers

Biographies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Auriol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Sherwood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Schr%C3%B6der
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Geach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Wright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kenny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Black (sadly the picture that Black's son sent me has been deleted under the fair use - not sure why).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Faversham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Lowe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Prior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox (Russell paradox, since modified with a lot of silly rubbish).

:Your block is indefinite - you tried to derail an editor's ArbCom candidacy with absurd accusations and when that didn't work, you harassed him through posts to multiple websites. You misrepresented to me the extent of these postings, and suggested they had been removed when they have not. You also did not contact Jimbo Wales with the evidence you claimed to had, despite his offer to hear you out. If you want to negotiate an unblock, you need to contact Jimbo Wales as he invited you to. Alternatively, you could contact Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>. And btw, this [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16662&hl= sort] of remarks on other sites really isn't the way to persuade me to extend you the benefit of the doubt... <font face="Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</font> 17:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

----- Original Message -----
From: Buckner
To: jwales@wikia.com
Cc: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:30 PM
Subject: Wikipedia

I wonder if you could reply to these emails, please. The block made on 6 December clearly specified that it was a matter for the Foundation. I am copying this to the Arbitration Committee. This is my fourth email to you. Thank you

Edward (see link below)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...4#User:Dbuckner

“I have blocked Dbuckner indefinitely. In an email to me he makes it clear that he has in fact carried out the threat he purported to withdrawn and has posted what interpret as a vicious personal attack with serious legal consequences to a number of what he termed "activist websites". Given that this has gone beyond what can be dealt with on-wiki, I am emailing the Foundation with a summary of events for their review. WjBscribe 15:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I received a similar email last night. I support leaving this situation in WJBscribe's hands unless the Foundation staff takes it over from him. My assessment is that well intended but poorly judged comments yesterday pushed the dispute off-site, and we may well have lost one or more productive editors here. I think the damage is likely to be most limited if only one person manages the situation than if several of us are getting in each others way. GRBerry 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)”

----- Original Message -----
From: Buckner
To: jwales@wikia.com
Cc: Angela Beesley ; arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:07 AM
Subject: RE: Wikipedia

Dear Mr Wales,

This is my fifth email to you. I am copying it to the arbcom list, and to Angela Beesley, whom I know has been able to received emails from me in the past. The reason I am writing is about material that was removed from the Wikipedia database on Dec 8 2007. On Thursday 6 December I was asked by WJBScribeto provide diffs of edits made by FT2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4557792

(Revision as of 08:23, 11 July 2004 (edit) (undo) FT2 (Talk | contribs))

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...v&oldid=4559833

(timestamp lost, probably between 12:37, 11 July 2004, corresponding to edit #4559831 and 15:31, 11 July 2004 corresponding to edit #4559834)

When I provided these, as requested by Scribe, they were deleted. I would like to find out who deleted ('oversighted') these edits, as they are crucial to a block appeal I am making to the arbitration committee. I would also like you to restore these edits. They contain no personal information, and are simply edits to an article. The email copied below makes the details clear.

Yours

EDB


----- Original Message -----
From: "Buckner" <d3uckner@btinternet.com>
To: "Will" <wjbscribe@gmail.com>
Cc: "GRBerry" <Glenn.Berry@pega.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 11:49 AM
Subject: Recent deletions from Wiki database

> Will,
>
> I checked this morning and this user's first edit to the Zoophilia article
> has disappeared. This takes the affair to an unprecedented level and I can
> have nothing more to do with it. Clearly I can't discuss with Wales unless
> the edit trail is public domain.
>
> The deletion was a rather inept thing to do. The edit is still there but
> now has apparently been made by a different editor. And more than one edit
> has been removed. I made a list of the entire edit trail to this articles
> 'Zoophilia', its talk page and the user-in-question's talk page, so it is
> completely obvious to me where this has happened, or where further deletions
> will be made.
>
> As your organisation needs to think carefully how this is handled, and as I
> want to enjoy my gardening leave and Christmas period in peace, can I
> suggest we all leave the matter until the New Year.
>
> Will, as you are a volunteer and as you work for a law firm yourself can I
> suggest you also take no further action. You should hand this over to a
> third party who is employed by the Wikimedia foundation and who can deal
> with the matter in a way that is conflict-free. There is no point in you
> getting any further involved. I have agreed take no further action myself,
> indeed, have no reason to take any action given some of the evidence has
> been removed, and for the other reasons stated.
> >
> Sincerely
>
> Edward

----- Original Message -----
From: <arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: <d3uckner@btinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:32 PM
Subject: Your message to Arbcom-l awaits moderator approval

> Your mail to 'Arbcom-l' with the subject
> Wikipedia
> Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
> The reason it is being held:
> Post by non-member to a members-only list
> Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
> notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel
> this posting, please visit the following URL:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/confirm...fc69f5c92c25dcb

Anyway, given that they probably wouldn't be able to identify FT2, and that they couldn't claim directly that he's "zoo" himself without better evidence (which is most certainly not forthcoming), there's clearly a shortage of juice there... particularly since it wasn't really his article to begin with. That honor should really go to Erik "Eloquence" Moeller, who destubified the article all the way back in April 2003. FT2 didn't get involved until July 2004, at least via that user account - unless they've oversighted edits from even earlier than the one previously referenced...

If the diff was no big deal, why was it oversighted?

And why was this done during the elections?

Even if you think it wasn't a big deal, they thought it was, and abused oversight privileges - and blocking privileges - to address it.

That's the fourth point I should have added:

4) the whistleblower was silenced with an indef block by the very same WJBscribe who appears to have abused the oversight privileges of his newly-won office (bureaucrat.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e=User:Dbuckner

"17:50, December 6, 2007 WJBscribe (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Dbuckner (Talk) ‎(softblock by agreement)"

And WJBscribe doesn't have oversight, nor has he ever had.

Buckner asked WJBscribe to change it to a softblock at his request, as the hardblock was causing him embarrasment at his workplace. WJBscribe then renamed him to a generic username to avoid identifying him as "Dbuckner", which seems out of character for an evil, abusive, censoring oversighter.

Oh, and another minor point: WJBscribe doesn't have oversight. Hrm, that's that theory out the window.

This quote clearly shows, as does Radiant's earlier block message, that influencing the elections was a motivation for the indefinite block. "Derailing" is just another way of saying "defeating."

:Your block is indefinite - you tried to derail an editor's ArbCom candidacy with absurd accusations…

1. Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
2. Removal of potentially libelous information either: a. on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b. when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
3. Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy

I don't find the fact that a user was blocked for repeatedly repeating such absurd, attack-oriented accusations of impropriety without a single scrap of evidence, with a clear intention of bad faith (to unfairly derail a persons' ArbCom election page), to be inappropriate in the slightest.

I don't find the fact that a user was blocked for repeatedly repeating such absurd, attack-oriented accusations of impropriety without a single scrap of evidence, with a clear intention of bad faith (to unfairly derail a persons' ArbCom election page), to be inappropriate in the slightest.

That's another thing that irritates me, together with Postlethwaite's claim that my allegations were 'crazy'. Get real: my allegations were simply that FT2's edits were 'slanted' and 'promoted a positive view of zoophilia'. The same claims have been made by people here, some of whom are still unblocked editors. What is absurd and crazy about that?

‘Without a single scrap of evidence’????? The diffs were the evidence and that is the whole point. Why were they deleted if they didn’t prove something. Get real.

Because you also said this:

"I put it to you: if an author makes significant NPOV contributions about paedophilia, and another set of significant contributions about young boys or girls, do we not get a little disturbed?"

To even suggest anything along these lines is so wildly inappropriate and the connection so attack-oriented that I cannot do anything but endorse the block.

Whoever did the oversight would seem to have abused it:

Unless it was a copyvio?

How are you supposed to have fair elections if negative information about a candidate is suppressed?

Good point. I suggest you take that up with the Foundation, rather than trying to conduct a trial by Wikipedia Review.

Because, as with elections in the real world, it is prohibited from engaging in behaviour which unfairly discredits a candidate by use of inappropriate, inaccurate insinuations.

Because, as with elections in the real world, it is prohibited from engaging in behaviour which unfairly discredits a candidate by use of inappropriate, inaccurate insinuations.