User talk:Thatcher/Alpha

I am currently busy in real life. I will check here and respond to questions about my own actions and edits, but I may or may not respond to requests for assistance on other matters. Please see the appropriate noticeboard for assistance. Thank you for your understanding.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

Very nice way to deal with the scheduling issue; thanks for coming up with that! Kirill 00:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to see someone with a head on their shoulders is keeping things under control there. I don't envy you the job, but am glad to see you doing it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fedayee and John.

You need to do something, or else the credibility of the admins will go out of the window. John's block of Fedayee is too inappropriate. Even assuming John is innocent, it does look suspicious, and that's bad enough. He didn't as much as chastise Ehud for the insults that he made, he went as far as to justify them. Noone is blocked for not assuming good faith. Especially when Fedayee has some basis for believing Ehud to be a sockpuppet. And noone is blocked without an official warning on the page of the user--simple requests on the ArbCom page don't count. Fedayee's block needs to be lifted, unless you want members to think of administrators as a joke and tools for some users.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Even assuming John is innocent"? Way to go WP:AGF. Orderinchaos 11:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Thatcher. Just to make some things clear. WP:AGF is not a policy. It is a guideline which "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." (WP:AGF). Saying that someone is a sockpuppet is not a violation of AGF--someone may engage in sockpuppetry with good faith (i.e. believing that he is making Wikipedia better).

Furthermore, a penalty should be applied after an official warning is placed on a user's talk page, and the user is told that continued violation will result in blocking. It's spelled out in the ArbCom decision: "Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2. Thank you.--TigranTheGreat (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop

Feedback is requested on what to do with Giano's deleted talk page, since there's evidence included in the history of the page. Users are debating on m:vanish issues, while Jehochman has suggested an alternative regarding the clerk of the case, I guess that means you. :-) Thanks. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded on the workshop talk page. Thatcher 04:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the restoration. I think the history back to July will be more than satisfactory for discussion relevant to the IRC case. --Tony Sidaway 05:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:ANI

Hi Thatcher, I find you comments at WP:ANI where quite rude. :( Also, could you please explain to me why you believe the conversation should be archived so quickly? --CyclePat (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a close call between archiving and simply blanking it, as per recent practice in similar cases. It's really not a good idea to be taking up advocacy for banned users when you don't know why they were banned. There have been a number of recent cases of editors who take the position that adult-child sex is normal, even going so far as to put pedophile userboxes on their user pages. It may even be an organized campaign, since the approach is the same across many articles and by a number of editors. We don't know if they are really pedophiles, or law enforcement running a sting, or just plain trolls. We ban them and ask them to deal directly with Arbcom via private email. If they move on to other topics, they can be unbanned. But most don't--I suspect they are single purpose throwaway advocacy accounts. There is a recent long discussion of this on the wikipedia mailing list as well. We most emphatically do not want to call attention to it with a lot of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth over "bad blocks" and "arbcom abuse." There are about 40 million preteens in the US alone, all of whom have mothers, fathers, or guardians. If they think of Wikipedia at all, it's as a mostly accurate encyclopedia that kids use to do their homework. We do not want them getting the idea that Wikipedia promotes or encourages pedophilia; having 80 million parents and guardians thinking that their children are not safe on our web site would just about kill us for good. This user made a number of article edits pushing the point of view that sex between adults and children is normal, and that adult-child sex relationships are not molestation if the child consents. We don't need to entertain that sort of editor. Thatcher 08:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Thatcher, as you are probably aware, I removed the archive template (edit here). I also find that action, of adding the archive, to be a little rude. The explanation is within the edit summary and discussed on that page (i.e.: reference to WP:Censor). Thank you again for your WP:AGF in my abilities to manage this question. --CyclePat (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. WP:CENSOR means that we have accurate articles on penis, vagina, Santa Claus, and Jesus Christ, and don't worry about the sensitivities of children or atheists. It does not mean that we must welcome users who advocate in favor of illegal activities, especially where such advocacy could bring the entire project into disrepute. Thatcher 08:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thatcher, unfortunatelly the explanation I submitted regarding Censorship is no longer on the page because my last comment (ie.: reference censorship) was removed from WP:ANI. (Here is the link). Given the alleged sensitivity of this subject, per your above comment, I'm debating on whether it should be put back in or not? Anyways... I believe it may be a key element to the conversation. I'm sure some others may ask the same question. In fact I believe this entire conversation should be happening in RfC according to procedures since we are talking about user:A.Z. and his conduct? Again, I point you to WP:CENSOR and conclude my side of this debate, though I wanted to quote the wikipedia policy on censorship, with a list of crimes (in Canada and probably most other countries) in articles on Wikipedia: homocide (222), biammy,theft, poligamy, duelling, forcible entry, piracy, forgery, sedition, corrupting children (Criminal Code 172), even interception of communications (184), sexual assault (271). Interestingly enough, there appears to be a lot of information on this subject of child sex. I pulled open the canadian criminal code and even noticed under section 273.3 it says "removal of child from Canada" (alluding to any sexual intercouse outside of Canada). Again, I don't know what the entire story is with A.Z. but, I do know that the information I looked at which he provided, appeared to be well sourced and simply controversial per your statements... and refutable perWP:CENSOR. Does this really meet the criteria for an indefinite block per our blocking policies? --CyclePat (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are paying attention to what I am saying. We certainly do have articles about sex crimes on Wikipedia. However, we choose not to welcome editors who argue that sex between adults and children is not actually a crime. We choose not to welcome an editor who creates a plot summary for a book about a relationship between between a man and a boy that is so sexualized that it reads like a Penthouse letter and draws an objection from the book's author who complains that the description is inappropriate. We choose not to welcome an editor who objects to the sentence "Adult-child sex is commonly defined as a form of child sexual abuse." And most certainly do not want to give editors with these views a high profile public forum such as an RFC in which to air these views and explain that they are not so bad and that adult-child sex is "misunderstood." I'm sure that if the user contacted Arbcom privately and agreed to edit other subjects he would be unblocked, and (like any other banned user) he is free to create a new account and edit as long as he changes his habits enough to avoid recognition. And we are about done here, I think. Read up on the mailing list posts on the same subject. Continuing to pursue this will not have a happy ending, I think. Thatcher 13:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Cycle Pat, I think Thatcher has been very articulate here and he certainly gets my full support for all his actions in this, such as archiving the AN/I thread. Wikipedia does not block pedophiles from editing even pedophile subjects, its advocacy that is problematic. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like this was a case that required due diligence. Thank you for taking the time to explain the circumstances. What I feared was some sort of discrimination towards the user:A.Z. because of his sexual orientation and strong support (advocacy). Surelly everyone has a POV which they may enjoy and like to advocate. I personnally see nothing wrong with that as long as it is properly sourced and well balanced per WP:NPOV. (minority view points can even be omited!)... mine was electric bicycles when I started on Wikipedia. Anyways, I think we can say that there appears to be some big learning curve for new wikipedians to know and undestand the entire scope of a POV. Perhaps there should be some better explanations on "fair balance of an entire article?" Sourcing issues, other policies, etc... etc... Again Thank you for your time. --CyclePat (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's important to note the difference between reporting (with sources) that there are groups that hold controversial views about sex and children, and actually advocating for those controversial views, through edits, page moves, talk page comments, and the like. The first is good editing, the second is icky and could expose Wikipedia to public condemnation that would be far more damaging than having an admin falsely claim a religion doctorate or having an accountant with a criminal record. And thank you for understanding. Thatcher 07:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

I request: it's possible to reduce ban of user:Giovanni Giove? He is a capable editor in 3 versions of Wiki: Italian, English-third level- and French-second level-! There are few capable editors like as Giovanni in Wiki!!!! I thnink so: 6 months of block is a balanced punishment; I propose 6 months of block then administrators can block Giovanni for 7 months and more but to ban indefinitly Giovanni is damaging action against Wiki!!!! Regards--PIO (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't place the block, and I don't really have time to look into it right now. The Arbitration committee may be able to review the situation. Thatcher 03:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Aftab Ahmed Vohra

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Aftab Ahmed Vohra, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nomination for Deletion: Jeff Rosenbaum

Dear Thatcher,

Please notice the entry here [1], (and the short line on the project page this talk page is about, which just directs people to the talk page). As it indicates, the account User:Jeff Rosenbaum was a one-time creation to post this agreement by the subject of an article with the deletion nomination. I only mention it here, because in retrospect I worry that this may be perceived either by an editor or a bot as a sock-puppet, so I ask you to take note and prevent this from resulting in a block. It is not meant to serve any sock-puppet purpose, just to clearly indicate that the subject of the article is voicing agreement with the deletion nomination, which was intentionally done on the talk page rather than weigh in on the project page itself. No other use for this account is planned. Thank you. Rosencomet (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)