Talk:Frank Gembeck

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

(The following discussion started in User talk: and was later moved here)

Regarding your recent edits to Frank Gembeck‎, we generally include information of that sort only if there is a tangible relevance to their involvement in furry fandom, or if there is a good reason why it is in the interest of the furry community that this information be made public. If you can provide an explanation or additional details or otherwise present a case for why this information should be included in the article, please feel free to reply here or in the article's talk page. --mwalimu 17:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be less 'what does this user do' and more 'what should be in this article', I'd think the article's talk page would be the right place for this, to keep things out in the open. --Broadwing 19:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If you examine Sibe's page, you will see it is a veritable police blotter in great detail. If it is justified to have such information and details on he in the interests of warning the furry community about him, it likewise is also justified to warn people about a well-known artist who has been convicted of possession of child pornography. It is as bad a crime as any of Sibe's and indicates that he may well be a danger to children. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

In the case of Sibe, he has made friends with people and later stolen money and property from them, and has been banned from conventions on multiple occasions. These are acts which would be good for anyone dealing with him to know about. It's quite possible that some of the actions listed in the article could be left out as irrelevant to his involvement in furry fandom, but clearly many of them are relevant.
If Frank Gembeck were a producer of child pornography then it might be more justified, but it's not apparent that simply possessing it makes him a danger to others in the fandom or to their children. To my knowledge (and I'm certainly no expert on the subject), laws against possession of child porn are primarily based on demand-drives-supply, and it's the supply side and the exploitation of children that goes with it that the laws are intended to address.
But I'm just one admin here. Other admins here may have differing viewpoints, so I'll see if I can get some second opinions. --mwalimu 17:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A further thought which occurred to me is that, Frank Gembeck, received a 6 year conviction for his possession of sado-masochistic child pornography. So he will be gone for a long time and may be banned from the internet, on the sex offenders register etc. If someone wants to know what happened to him, where he vanished, they can see in this article why and where he went & Furry fandom/sub-culture contains many young people in, many underage ones, conventions may be attended by under-age people. It is useful for people to be forewarned or be able to be forewarned about him (via a link to the article for example), should he pop up again in future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

If you look here NSFW: You can see in the image description:

"(Anyone know if Frank Gembeck is still on FA?)"

And comments:

"He is one of me favorite artist for male characters, and I was pawing off to his work when I was just starting to discover my furryness :P"

This shows that Gembeck is a well known artist and people have wondered where he has gone. Therefore to include this here is of use to people who want to know where he has gone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

I'm going to defer to others on whether that's enough reason to include the information. It's probably a good idea to let people know he's not currently able to participate in the fandom, but I'm a lot less certain about including the whys and the wherefores. --mwalimu 19:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A few details . . .[edit]

OK, so I've gone into the online court records (doing so theoretically incurs a charge, but not if I don't look at several more cases during the next year).

The summary above is essentially correct, though the conviction was for five years (60 months), not six. A separate charge for receiving was dropped in exchange for the guilty plea (he originally plead not guilty). The guilty plea also appears to have reduced the sentencing period, which is on the low end of the sentencing guidelines.

Note that this is for one count of possession for a first-time offender. U.S. guidelines treat possession of child pornography at about the same level as actually abusing a child, and add significant amounts for aggravating factors (in this case, pre-pubescent minors, S&M themes, and the use of a computer, plus the number of images).

The work was apparently all in one three-DVD collection. For fairly obvious reasons, the precise details of the offending material were sealed, but three DVDs labeled "Y1/2/3 AK 7-28-05" are mentioned in the indictment, along with his computer. There might have been additional material on the computer; I presume the count above was a total. There's no indication that the material was related to furry fandom.

I've just got back from FWA having had two hours sleep today, so I'm not in the ideal position to weigh in on the pros and cons of including this information. With that in mind, WikiFur has addressed a similar circumstance in the past by removing mention of a guilty charge for child pornography. However, it only did so after the sentence had been performed, and in that case there was a significant concern within fandom about the validity of the charge.

I'm not hugely convinced of the "danger to society" argument. The record does not suggest that he was directly involved in activities that harmed minors, just that he just enjoyed viewing them. Still people may be wondering where he is for the next few years (in theory he's only due in jail on 8 May), and it is a matter of public record. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that this discussion should probably be on Talk:Frank Gembeck rather than here. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussion moved. --mwalimu 16:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Is "Controversy" the right name for that section? I don't see there being a controversy at all. He admitted to the charges in the indictment in full, and even handed the FBI the child porn when they asked for it. I'd suggest changing it to "Legal Problems" or "Child Pornography Conviction" or "Arrest and Conviction" I'd also be curious if , since this means the end of his involvement with the internet or furry in a legal sense (due to post sentencing conditions), it might be better to change tenses to past tense and mention that in the section. Redcard 12:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really happy with that header title either. Perhaps the latter? (Although I don't think he was arrested so much as indicted.) The post-sentencing conditions appear to forbid internet use, but not involvement with the fandom per-se. --GreenReaper(talk) 13:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
From what I read, and from unfortunately having an ex-friend who has similar conditions placed on him.. any where there are children, may be children, may be things that appeal to children, may be things that could be construed as appealing to children, and may be people with children.. he'll be banned from those things for life. Likewise, the supervised release has harder conditions, but most of the post-release conditions extend in perpetuity. It's a condition of the crime he committed and the level of his entry into the sex offender database. He's done in Furry and on the internet.. and likely won't be allowed to even draw pornography ever again. Redcard 14:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Banned From FA[edit]

How does one figure out if someone is banned from FA? The cite in question simply points to Dustyn's page. Redcard 12:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It says right after his username that he is banned, next to his avatar. --GreenReaper(talk) 13:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I'm an idiot :) That wasn't there a day and a half ago, was it? Redcard 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy vs ?[edit]

Oops, missed the talk part concerning the use of the word,... How does this name change articles like Paul Kidd, Sibe, Nexxus, Eric Blumrich, Steve Martin, etc,... We seem since Wikifur's beginning to have accepted the heading "Controversy" as a section name for such cases listed here (Paul Kidd's one coming the closest to Gembeck's case).

Are we switching, doing it case by case (do we revisit all articles with it too?), or other,... (signed: Confused) - Spirou 01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. But Paul Kidd contains no "Controversy" section by some agreement made. I still vote that we go with something more concrete. There should be no controversy with regards to pedophilia, and with regards to a guilty plea in which he admitted owning the pedophilia in question. The controversy would be if people were undecided about welcoming him back, but we're not to that point yet.. and the odds are due to his post conviction restrictions.. we'll never BE at that point. Leave it, change it.. it's really no great concern.. I just find it currently confusing. Redcard 12:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually.. replying to myself here.. There seems to be a significant amount of furs who are into pedophilia, and who believe that owning the materials that Frank had is "okay" so long as he didn't cause the children pain himself. They're defending him all over the place.. on FA, in LJs, at cons, etc. So.. apparently due to the significant portion of people who support pedophilia and Frank in this fandom.. controversy probably fits. I'll withdraw my request. Redcard 12:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
You made some valid points, I was just following a non-written rule set since Wikifur's inception =) - Spirou 01:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of legal documents and details on crime?[edit]

I would just like to give my two cents on this whole issue. I believe having his court paperworks and whatnot in his Wikifur profile is extremely low, harsh, insensitive, and sleazy. Wikifur is not meant to be a tabloid. His personal life has nothing to do with his artwork and I believe that having more details about his crime than his contributions to the fandom is a terrible low.

I vote we just mention he went to prison for jail and is slated for release in August. Anything further, or even that, isn't the fandom's business. - sangie

Disagree. The conviction is relevant as Frank Gembeck created pornography in this fandom, and was caught with violent sado-masochistic pornography of children. The people of the state of California paid for his arrest, trial, conviction, and habitation. Given that Gembeck may be a danger to kids in the future, I think having the public record here is important. His crime overshadows his furry fandom contributions. 14:39, 23 October 2013 (EDT)
Actually, since it was a federal conviction, U.S. taxpayers paid for most of it - and in fairness, Frank didn't ask them to do any of that. However, this article is about the person, not just his art, and a past criminal conviction is generally considered relevant information, on the basis that fans may wish to avoid associating with criminals or giving them work assignments at conventions. If anyone wishes to contribute more on his artwork, they are welcome to do so. --GreenReaper(talk) 15:06, 23 October 2013 (EDT)