Talk:Tobias Madison

Tobias Madison Pleaded Guilty to Domestic Violence (previous title: Domestic violence allegations)

Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE and the section WP:BLPCRIME, removal of crime allegations only applies to individuals who are not public figures - and based on the amount of WP:RS news and articles, it seems fair to say this is a public figure within the art world. Happy to discuss this further here on the talk page. Jooojay (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

The blanking of the "Domestic violence allegations" section is now happening from bouncing IP addresses on different days. Adding a note here incase this article needs protections in the future. Jooojay (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

More blanking of this section is happening, often from bouncing IP addresses. This issue started Oct 30th. Jooojay (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: could you please discuss these changes you made here on the talk page since you removed an entire section, not seeing the issues you are claiming about poor sourcing or unreliable sources. Jooojay (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

We don't present allegations. They are unproven and this content is salacious. Only the highest quality sourcing may be used for negative content, and unproven allegations are harmful to the subject. Please see WP:BLP. Please obtain consensus before adding negative BLP.-- Deepfriedokra 12:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: - We do present allegations in a BPL if the person is a public figure WP:PUBLICFIGURE and it is widely publicized like this one - the section WP:BLPCRIME. A fine example of this is basically every BPL article connected to Me Too movement, Weinstein effect, and Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations. Some further examples: Matt Lauer, Jens Hoffmann, Mario Batali, John Besh, and there are many others. We had a discussion happening on this talk page here and you chose to ignore it and delete the content instead, that is what I am finding problematic. Can you please start a vote, if that is what you think is needed here. Jooojay (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to readd the contested content when you achieve consensus to do so. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra 00:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: how are you suggesting I gain consensus? Jooojay (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Noticing there is no consensus issues on these other articles, so I don't know what you are looking for exactly or why it's needed for this WP article example only. If I don't hear from you by next week I will add back the content. Jooojay (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Before that, you need to start a consensus seeking discussion here. You need to place notices of that discussion on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the issue. Or you can start a discussion at WP:BLPN. As this discussion has not resulted in other editors supporting you position, you do not have consensus to put that content back. I can't help the deficiencies of other pages on Wikipedia. Perhaps no one has noticed and challenged content that is salacious and tabloidesque.-- Deepfriedokra 17:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Attempts have been made for consensus through editing (the issue was with bouncing IPs and now with Deepfriedokra), through discussion (both on the talk page and on the WP:BLPN. Thus far nobody is attempting to hold any discussion on this topic, including the editor removing the content @Deepfriedokra:. Seems like a consensus is not the concern at this point in time. Jooojay (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, you've no support to add back negative BLP content that has been challenged and removed. -- Deepfriedokra 11:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I was not the only WP editor adding in this allegation information with sources. I realize you know this since you left messages on @Gorlono: talk page too. As far as I can tell that fulfills a consensus through editing. Jooojay (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

As of January 2020, this is no longer an "allegation" of a crime since Tobias Madison pleased guilty in court. So there is no consensus issues, but adding a note here incase someone needs more discussion. Jooojay (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Dear all, I don't know why the part with the domestic violence is deleted repeatedly. I will redo. TM is a public person; his works are in public art collections and exhibited in museums. Furthermore, it is a fact as he is officially pleaded guilty. To me this information seems publicly relevant. For example, in this moment his work is exhibited in a well known art institution in Switzerland next to an exhibition focusing on feminism. Situations like these are deeply assaulting/disturbing for all women and feminists and I don’t want to see them repeated.Elena Patrise (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The multiple discussions on this page, including the most recent, are "why the part... is deleted repeatedly". Please join in the discussion instead of simply deciding that the text should be re-added. Primefac (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac:Thanks to lead me to the current discussion. I will continue there... Elena Patrise (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Moving image?

I am confused by the use of this term "Moving image" throughout the article, do you mean to say film? Or conceptual film? Is this a proper name to something specific? Please clarify. Jooojay (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources and possible COI edits

Noticing someone added many sources from his various galleries of representation and external links to these galleries, however these are considered primary sources and should all be replaced, see WP:RS. Typically this happens with either new editors, or COI editors such as the gallery representatives trying to edit WP, or editors that are the actual subject of the articles. Adding a note here incase this persists. Jooojay (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the personal section and marriage information since no citations were provided and this is a BPL. Seems like more COI edits. Jooojay (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2019

REINSERT: Domestic Violence Charges and Arrest section.

Madison was arrested in March 2019 after his then-partner filed a criminal complaint against him alleging that he had "hit her in the face, struck her head against a wall, and strangled her" in December 2018.[21] She claimed that the incident caused swelling, concussion and "substantial pain" to her, while a friend of the couple corroborated her story.[21]

Since he was arrested on five counts of domestic violence and assault charges, Madison has become the focus of a letter writing campaign to the Swiss Institute at which he again is showing work.[21][22] As a result of these pending criminal charges and allegations against Madison, poet C.A. Conrad cancelled their 2019 planned appearance at the Swiss Institute.[23]

Sources: http://www.artnews.com/2019/10/08/swiss-institute-tobias-madison-allegations/ https://www.artforum.com/news/cultural-figures-call-for-swiss-institute-to-address-assault-allegations-against-tobias-madison-80999 https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/letter-calls-attention-to-domestic-assault-allegations-against-swiss-artist https://hyperallergic.com/521867/swiss-institute-tobias-madison/ https://hyperallergic.com/522091/poet-ca-conrad-cancels-appearance-at-the-swiss-institute-in-solidarity-with-alleged-victim-of-domestic-abuse/ https://www.lequotidiendelart.com/articles/16189-mobilisations-contre-des-artistes-accus%C3%A9s-de-violences-faites-aux-femmes.html Denniswillantonio (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus to add this text before making the edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2019

Subject is a public figure. His arrest is a public record in the New York State Criminal Court system. Multiple news sources, Art Forum, ArtNews, The Art Newspaper, Hyperallergic, all reported on the incident. Letter writing campaign is a public document. COI attempting to erase public information widely available on the internet about subject's arrest and criminal charges. Consensus. Criminal charges verified here: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcrim_attorney/captcha COI, recent activity resultant in whitewashing of public information about arrest and charges. Reinstate Domestic violence section. The blanking of the "Domestic violence allegations" section is now happening from bouncing IP addresses on different days. Adding a note here incase this article needs protections in the future. Denniswillantonio (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Material copyrighted elsewhere

may not be used on Wikipedia. Please do not add such to Wikipedia. Content copyrighted elsewhere must be rewritten from scratch. Content sources must explicitly say "creative commons", "GFDL", or "public domain" to be added to Wikipedia without rewriting. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra 11:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, you are being vague on this talk page. What are you exactly trying to address re: a copyright issue? I don't see that you took any actions today regarding this. Perhaps the confusion was the quote someone had used in the section titled "Allegations"? Jooojay (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to add domestic violence allegations back to the article

If I am not wrong, we add crime allegations to Wikipedia in such cases where the accused has been to jail? The domestic violence allegations were serious in Madison's case to such an extent that more than 50 artists signed a "letter of concern" [1] [2] [3]. While I agree that the gruesome details of the alleged incident may not be needed, we need to mention the incident briefly due to its seriousness. Gorlono (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing Domestic Violence Paragraph

Hello. I am the subject of this article. I ask to have this paragraph removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobias_Madison#Domestic_violence

The information both in the article and in the sources is incorrect. A year after the initial court case the Criminal Court of New York dismissed the Criminal Case in its entirety, reduced it to a non-criminal violation and sealed the record from the public. I have the documents to prove all that and would be willing to share a redacted version, should this be necessary. I however do not intend to make any public statements.

Also I am a citizen of both the European Union and of Switzerland. The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) prohibits under Chapter 2, Article 10: Processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences or related security measures. Additionally under GDPR Chapter 3, Article 16 I have the right to rectification and under Article 17 the right to erasure.

Lastly, I have been happily married in a healthy relationship for the last 2.5 years. On behalf of myself and my partner, I would just like to move on.

Thank you so much for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.bahamut (talk • contribs) 09:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi T.bahamut, thanks for posting your concerns. I just stumbled upon this by accident and see that you have some concerns about WP:BLP issues. I'm an amateur art connoisseur who is somewhat familiar with contemporary art.

Since you have a COI, please make sure not to edit the article.

Per WP:UNDUE, WP:LIBEL, WP:BLPEDIT, WP:BLPKIND, etc.:

"Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern."

"Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like these by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. The Arbitration Committee established the following principle in December 2005."

As a result, I think it's a good idea for us to follow up on your suggestion and make this a more balanced article. Deepfriedokra should also be supportive of this move.

Thus, I think there is enough of a case for the section to be removed since it's undue and blown way out of proportion. The subject of the article has produced enough notable artwork for us to focus mainly on more encyclopedic content rather than have most of the article focus on WP:BLP1E type coverage. Wadiseasons (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, per WP:BLPCRIME:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

WP:BLPCRIME says, "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article" if there is no conviction, and this case has already been dismissed. Wadiseasons (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As the subject had pleaded guilty in a court (pleading guilty amounts to conviction), this section merits inclusion per BLPCRIME. Dismissal of the case can be mentioned too if it can be sourced to an independent and reliable source. Alleyrubadeau (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wadiseasons:,@Alleyrubadeau:, @Gorlono:, @Deepfriedokra: but we hadve existing RS sources to support this guilty plea. User T.bahamut with a declared COI, has submitted a google drive document, and obviously should not be considered as a source. Why were other people in the conversation not tagged in this discussion? To clarify, I am not of the stance of pushing to add the content back. I am upset with how a unilateral decision was made here with out discussions or votes, and it seems to be a unique handling of this. Joojay (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Alleyrubadeau. This is the subject of this article. The information in the source is incorrect. I have never pleaded guilty to any crime. the case is sealed. attached is the proof: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1omKCAwTeyDsdLmp6GBTeSVef12idC4O8/view please remove the paragraphh. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.bahamut (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a look at both points of view, and am inclined to go with removing the paragraphs per Deepfriedokra. This document, along with some other public records, provide enough genuine documentation and reason for the paragraphs to be removed. The case has now been sealed according to official records. Per WP:BLPCRIME, the paragraphs wouldn't belong here; this is also not a public figure like a major politician or diplomat, and it's undue to focus disproportionately on these kinds of lawsuits and legal cases for minor artists. Of course, T.bahamut, who has declared his COI, should take care not to directly edit the article. Thanks for bringing this up. Wadiseasons (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you wadiseasons. I would like to answer alleyrubadeau: pleading guilty does not amount to conviction in the us. the court still has to accept the guilty plea and the plea has to be consistent with the burden of proof and the standards set forward with that (proofing beyond reasonable doubt). say for example, someone pleads guilty to tax evasion, but the evidence cannot support that, then the person cannot be convicted. otherwise the justice system literally would not work. see for example this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjournment_in_contemplation_of_dismissal — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.bahamut (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to add domestic violence allegations back to the article

Hi,

I would like to propose reintroducing information about domestic violence to the article, in a scaled back form. I would also like to add that I find it highly unusual that the edits to date, have been aggressively monitored and removed, given that the information removed has been:

1. Verified and cited through multiple sources, including in publications like Artforum and Hyperallergic - one of the most highly regarded and one of the most read, respectively. Additionally, the published articles remain active and have not been amended or struck down. It borders on the ridiculous that T.bahamut, with a verified COI, is arguing his case here by suggesting that the information published is incorrect. In fact, a review of the documents provided by T.bahamut, clearly show that he pled guilty, whether or not to criminal charges is irrelevant. The plea was taken as part of a criminal proceeding.

2. The criminal charges resulted in established and internationally recognized artists withdrawing participation from an internationally recognised and influential exhibition, with more than 50 artists signing a "letter of concern". If nothing else, it very clearly marks an important moment in this artist's career and deserves to be noted, either in the bio or career section.

3. Arguments of negative BLP are unsupported, particularly as similar biographical information remains in articles on living artists, such as Jon Rafman, who is arguably a similarly recognized artist. Additionally, the argument made by editor Wadiseasons that Tobias Madison is a ‘minor artist’ is unsupported. He remains an artist in private and public collections with an extensive exhibition history. An argument can be made that he is a public person. Peas frog (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear peas frog, thank you for your contribution.

As the subject of the article I had initially contacted Wikipedia Oversight and was advised to participate in the discussion on the talk page. I intend to do so now:

1

I do not understand why it would be “ridiculous” for a subject of an article to "argue their own case", when they are able to provide legal documentation that proves that the information published is incorrect. WP:BLPKINDNESS provides guidance for this kind of situation.

It is very relevant whether a person pleaded guilty to criminal charges or not. Pleading guilty to a criminal charge results in a permanent criminal record, whereas the dismissal of all criminal charges against a subject result in the sealing of all records of possible criminal proceedings. this is to protect subjects from confrontation with allegations that have been proven to be not true in a court of law.

As per NY state law: A violation is not a crime.

https://omh.ny.gov/omhweb/forensic/manual/html/chapter1.htm

The document provided states: All criminal charges have been dismissed. All information about the proceedings have been sealed from the public.

On a more systemic note on the nature of information in the US: A publication such as Artforum or Hyperallergic will not amend an article it published unless legal proceedings are initiated or threatened. Amending an article would leave the publication vulnerable to possible damages, as it would be its own admittance of having spread false, and possibly libelous information. The financial means necessary to initiate legal proceedings might not be available to the subject.

In Switzerland where the subject is a citizen and the EU, where the subject is a resident the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) prohibits the processing of information about possible past criminal proceedings by non-government entities. Additionally under GDPR privacy rights data subjects have the a.) Right to Rectification and b.) Right to Erasure, amongst others:

https://gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/

None of this is in any way intended and/or to be understood as a legal threat.

2

I do not understand where you sourced the information that any of the artists involved in the exhibition life & limbs at swiss institute withdrew their participation from the exhibition. To the best of my knowledge no one withdrew their participation and I could not find any sources that would indicate otherwise.

3

As per WP:BLP Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

The sourcing in the article is poor, as a an officially stamped US government document provided and a signed document by a NY bar admitted attorney directly contradict the sources.

Therefore I would strongly argue against the inclusion of allegations. T.bahamut (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear T.bahamut,

I am surprised that you have chosen to reply here. Perhaps I was not clear in my proposal? I am interested in challenging the current consensus, with the intent of reinstating the material covering domestic violence. As you are the subject of the article, and can not contribute to edits, your participation either in reaffirming or challenging the consensus is unnecessary. Furthermore, you have already plainly stated your wishes in prior talk posts.

But ok, I will reply because your point by point rebuttal is simply wrong on several counts.

1-A. You are correct, it is not ridiculous for you to state a defense in the talk page. However, what is ridiculous, is the reasoning by which you are doing it. Let’s first take a careful look at the legal documentation that you have submitted. Your claim is that this provides sufficient evidence to both correct the record and establish that many of cited sources are factually incorrect.

You are in fact asserting that the legal document directly contradicts the cited sources and as a result, all information from said sources can not be included. Let’s take a look at that.

You are correct, the document does state that all criminal charges have been dismissed. But shouldn’t we read a bit further? Shouldn’t we in fact take a closer look? The document also says that you pled guilty. This is at the bottom of page 2. For count number #10 you pled guilty. Also counts #6 - #9 are covered by count #10. Now, you have redacted some important information, and we can’t actually see what these counts cover. We can see that you plead guilty to a Violation, and not a criminal charge - a Violation and not a crime. Okay.

But this also isn’t really that surprising. It’s pretty common for a defendant to accept a plea deal in exchange for lesser charges. In this event, I assume the original charges were dropped. That does not, however, mean that the events that originally led to those charges didn’t take place.

So, now we get to the US publications that were cited as sources. The Violation(s) that you pled guilty to, is dated 2021. The articles that were originally cited, date between 2019 and 2020. Importantly, they were published before your charges were dismissed and the case was sealed - before you plead guilty to lesser charges. So, the legal document does not contradict the sources. It is just a more recent source of information. The published sources did not print false information, they simply printed the most current information at the time. And on this note, and it is vital to point out, your legal document does not contradict the reporting of what took place. The legal document provides no information about what did or did not happen. It can therefore not be used as a source to invalidate the sourced articles.

1-B. Let’s address your liberal application of EU law. Actually, I would like to tackle this one in a few ways. First of all, you are not really arguing to be forgotten are you? At best, what you want is a very selective forgetting. Secondly, can you demonstrate that EU law is applicable in any way to the sharing of information about US legal proceedings? And thirdly, if it is not intended as a threat, then stop using it to project an authority that you don’t have. Unless you very specifically cite how EU law can be applied here, and the burden is on you to demonstrate that, then stop using it in a vague way to strengthen your position.

2. It has already been heavily cited in the removed section. All of the sources are there, and can easily be found. Collectively, they corroborate that:

CA Conrad canceled a planned appearance at the Swiss Institute.

50 artists penned a “letter of concern” addressed to “members of the staff and board of the Swiss Institute.”

https://www.artforum.com/news/cultural-figures-call-for-swiss-institute-to-address-assault-allegations-against-tobias-madison-80999

https://hyperallergic.com/521867/swiss-institute-tobias-madison/ Peas frog (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Peas Frog,

I understand your proposal. To be clear from my side: I am not here to “state my wishes”. I am participating in this conversation to protect my privacy as someone who was been wrongfully accused of a crime and who has subsequently been acquitted of all criminal charges. Like I have mentioned before: All legal records of the allegations that you propose to re-establish have been sealed by an American court under current US law.

I will respond to all your arguments below. Before we continue this argument I want to ask you to clarify your relationship to the subject, as it appears that your Wikipedia account has only contributed to discussions specific to this subject.

1-A

I frankly do not understand your argument regarding the redacted parts of the document. It is a sealed document and the purpose of its sealing is to protect the privacy of a defendant that has been criminally charged and subsequently acquitted. In the context of a COD “covered by” signals which charges were dismissed in exchange for which final disposition.

I also disagree with your unfounded opinion that it is “pretty common for a defendant to accept a plea deal in exchange for lesser charges”. The US criminal justice system is one of the harshest criminal justice systems in the world. In fact, the US has the highest per capita incarceration in the world: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country

Yes, you are correct that for the sake of efficiency a prosecutor will offer a plea bargain to a lower criminal charge. But they will only do so when they lack the evidence to prove a certain criminal charge. For a prosecutor to drop all criminal charges in exchange for a non-criminal one is highly unusual, unless they lack the evidence to prove any of the criminal charges.

The defense always has the option to go to a trial to determine the facts. But: There are outside factors that can play into a defendants decision to accept a plea bargain and therefore waiving their right to a fair trial. For example: An immigrant defendant may see their immigration status endangered if they continue to remain in proceedings, as they would overstay their visa, rendering them inadmissible to the US.

I also do not understand your argument regarding the different dates of information. Until a few weeks ago it would have been true to say: Queen Elizabeth II is alive. But today it is false. Similarly it might have been true in 2020 to say TM has plead guilty to a crime (in fact it was not, because the court hadn't delivered a final disposition, which is what the sources you intend to quote misunderstood/ failed to research), it can still be false in 2021, when the court delivered a final disposition.

Since the sources you intend to quote concern a criminal accusation the legal document provided does exactly invalidate the information in those sources, as it shows that these criminal accusations were unfounded.

Also frankly: Your suggestion to knowingly publish information that is outdated and false, while acknowledging the actuality and content of a document in your previous paragraph, is offensive.

1-B

No, I did not argue the GDPR Right to be Forgotten. I merely quoted the GDPR as a comparison to the nature of information in the US. However, upon a brief consultation with a privacy attorney I was told that more than anything else GDPR Article 10 would apply here: https://gdprhub.eu/Article_10_GDPR

It is my understanding that you propose to publish or link to a website that publishes a (false) criminal record of a citizen of the EU, on a website that is widely accessible in the EU.

Again: None of the above is intended or to be understood as a legal threat against Wikipedia or its users.

2

In the context of factual information the “letter of concern” is entirely irrelevant. The signees of that letter expressed an opinion about a topic that they could not possibly have all the information needed to form an opinion about: About criminal accusations that the accusee was later legally found not guilty of. The Swiss Institute did not comment in public and merely responded to the sender of the “letter of concern” stating that it will not comment. The exhibition proceeded with its normal course of action.

CA Conrad was not part of the exhibition Life & Limbs, but of a parallel exhibition by an artist called Michael Wang.

Finally I want to return to your statement or comparison to the inclusion of allegations against an artist called Jon Rafman. It appears to me that those were included because of the institutional response that they generated - the announced cancellation of exhibitions. The case differs on many points. First of all the accusations against Jon Rafman were never part of a criminal proceedings, so there is no way to determine whether they are true or false. Second: There is an actual institutional response and subsequent consequences to the “Career” section of that artist.

Finally, and this is more personal and not part of my argument:

I do not know you Peas Frog. I do not know your background. I am convinced that from where you are standing, you are doing the right thing. And I respect that. But I also ask you to understand that the whole topic of our conversation has caused grave damage to certain areas of my life and is highly emotional. I ask you to see me as a human being and not merely a subject as we proceed with this conversation. T.bahamut (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear T.bahamut,

Thank-you for your thoughtful response. Re-reading my earlier comments, I regret my combative and hectic tone. In my rush to write a response to your response I unfortunately made hasty choices. It was reasonable, and necessary, for you to participate, and instead of acknowledging this I registered your response as an attack.

You have made two requests toward the continuation of a conversation. You are very right to point out that the topic of conversation is not merely a subject to argue over; this is a topic that involves you and is highly personal to you. And to be frank, it may be better to discontinue this conversation. As I have said, I am uncomfortable with the enthusiasm and verve that I first approached the topic with. It is also clear to me now that several of my original points were incorrect. Ultimately, at the conclusion of this conversation, and with your permission, I propose to delete the topic altogether and retract my challenge to the consensus decision of this talk page.

I can also clarify my relationship to the subject. This will be much simpler to do. I first read about the criminal charges in 2020. What I read was highly upsetting. Then, more recently, I read the wikipedia article that we are now in conversation about. I didn't at first understand why the media coverage from 2020 would be absent. And the Talk page, in my opinion, did not clarify this confusion. I can not speak to what motivates other contributors to first become involved with Wikipedia. For me, it was reading through the Talk page of this article.

I will try to resolve the confusion concerning my earlier point about old and new sources of information. I am doing this because I want to make it clear; I agree that it would be offensive to in bad faith publish a link to an outdated article that has been proven to be false.

Maybe I can extend your metaphor a little further in the service of an explanation: It is true to say that as of September 2022, the queen is dead, and at the same time, it can still be true to say that Donald Trump met the queen in 2019. In the same way, the legal document that you provided states that you were acquitted of all criminal charges. The sources that I would have quoted, say that you were criminally charged. In this way, neither contradicts the other. One provides more recent information, but both are true. Together they would establish a timeline of events.

If you were wrongfully accused of a crime, as you have said, then none of the above holds true. But as I understand it, acquittal of criminal charges is not the same as being wrongfully charged with a crime. More often it means that a prosecutor has made the decision that there is potentially not enough evidence to convince a jury that a crime took place. However there can still be enough evidence to make the original criminal charges.

You have said that the legal document that you submitted “shows that these criminal accusations were unfounded.” I don’t see that as evidenced in the document, but I also have to admit that I have already made several mistakes concerning this document. It could be that I wholly misunderstand the significance of the document.

Your characterization of the US criminal justice system is not incorrect. Far from it. It is an extremely harsh system, as evidenced by the sheer number of incarcerated people. It is also harsh because it is an imbalanced system that delivers unequal treatment to the people caught up in it. Having good legal representation can be an advantage in this system.

There are many reasons why a criminal case may not go to trial and it is simplistic to say that a prosecutor will only offer a plea bargain to lesser charges “when they lack the evidence to prove a certain criminal charge.” Prosecutors must weigh all of their options in a calculus of gains and losses. Sometimes it can be about efficiency and sometimes it can be an economical choice to offer a deal that avoids a court trial. Trials are expensive and finite resources mean that cases have to be prioritized. And the same can be said for a defendant. There are many reasons why a defendant may decide not to take their case to court. These too can be financial, or based on the strength of their defense. All of this is to say that it is a complex judicial system and it was a mistake for me to have made assumptions about your case.

I should not have used the artist Jon Rafman as a point of comparison. It was a reductive argument and I agree with you that it was unhelpful.

Before I go on much further, I fear that I am now either making arguments in support of previous arguments, or correcting for faulty past statements. It’s a difficult impulse to fight against and I feel that to continue risks the conversation devolving into a less than sensitive treatment of the topic. For this reason, I would like to propose again that when you feel this conversation is at an end, that the thread be deleted. The conversation has been informative for me, but I am not convinced that other readers will come to the same conclusion. And finally, I no longer wish to challenge the consensus decision, nor do I have a desire to see our conversation remain on the talk page. Peas frog (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Peas Frog,

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response. I am sorry, I somehow didn’t get a notification and only saw your response now. I agree to stop the conversation here and want to thank you for listening. I would really appreciate it, if we could leave this thread open, because it creates a timeline for an ongoing conversation with future editors and might help to create a more nuanced understanding for a complex topic.

All the Best T.bahamut (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear T.bahamut,

I am again restating a request in the hope that the above thread can mutually be deleted.

I recognize in the course of our dialog, that you were able to clarify a position that certain past events in your life not be chronicled, and that some level of nuance may have been brought to understanding what you describe as a complex topic.

However, I suggested we bring our conversation to an end, after I became increasingly uncomfortable with the knowledge that I was engaging with the subject of the article that I had requested to edit. This isn't to say that you did not have good cause to intervene on your own behalf. Only that it was an outcome that I had not prepared for, nor wished to pursue. I remain uncomfortable with the conversation that took place, and for this reason, kindly ask that it be deleted.

All the best, Peas frog (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Dear Peas Frog,

I am really sorry that it causes you discomfort but I can not and I will not consent to having this thread deleted as I believe the information is relevant for future edits to this page. T.bahamut (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)