User:THF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RETIRED


This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.
  1. I have learned that Wikipedia enforces the heckler's veto. User:Cberlet is doing fine editing articles about subjects in which he is paid to write about his opinions and in which he has a strong point of view, in part because when people repeatedly accuse him of COI without addressing content, they are blocked. The question is whether the same principles can also be applied to permit right-wing editors to focus on editing an encyclopedia instead of defending themselves against people violating WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. This was never treated as a close question before (the BabyDweezil CSN ban !vote was 11-1), but it has become a debatable proposition when a right-wing editor is attacked.
  2. [WP:COI] is also straightforward, and I haven't violated it. Are controversial experts welcomed at Wikipedia, or not? I've only "violated" a version of the COI guideline that doesn't exist, has been consistently rejected at WP:COI when people try to expand the scope of that guideline to include attenuated allegations of COI, and isn't applied against Cberlet, or WMC, or any of the multitude of other non-right-wing editors who attract people unfairly accusing them of violating COI when there isn't POV-pushing. I'm here as a hobby. I've been a productive editor, and I've been careful to participate in a number of Wikipedia administrative tasks, and cleaning up articles and mediating disputes like Andijan massacre and Richard Rossi where I have no interest so that there is no question of me being a SPA. (Compare Cberlet's or WMC's edit histories to mine: Cberlet (talk • contribs • count); William M. Connolley (talk • contribs • count); THF (talk • contribs • count)). Am I wrong to expect that a right-wing thinktank fellow who writes about trial lawyers should be treated the same way and with the same courtesy as a left-wing thinktank fellow who writes about the Christian right (and makes 103 edits to Christian right) or the same way an opinion writer for Environmental Media Services is permitted to edit controversial articles about subjects he has written for EMS about? If I am, I'm happy to leave: what attracted me to Wikipedia was NPOV, and if that core principle is just spin and there isn't any intent of enforcing rules neutrally, I don't want to be here.
  3. Not only is Wikipedia not a battlefield, but I don't want it to be one: if I am going to spend time writing legal briefs, I want it to be on a more important subject than whether I should spend time on a hobby--I just turned down an opportunity to write a Supreme Court amicus brief on the dormant commerce clause because of other deadlines, and I'd have trouble looking in the mirror if I was instead spending weeks at an Arbcom when no one can identify a single mainspace diff that violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I'm not a neo-Nazi or a Velikovskian: I have political views well within mainstream American political thought. And if that fact means that whether I should be treated with civility is a debatable proposition that I need to spend time defending in an arbitration against full-time harassers, then that speaks far worse about Wikipedia than about me, and I'll get more real-life writing done instead.
  4. I find it fascinating that Newyorkbrad has recused himself from the arbitration, but Raul654, who prejudged the case before the case even existed based on the false premise that my employer is a "political advocacy organization", and has publicly called for the banishment of editors who have politically incorrect views, has not. While I had no illusions that the systematic left-wing bias of Wikipedia would permit there to be a fair hearing, even I am surprised that Wikipedia isn't even trying to avoid the appearance of a kangaroo court. This is especially ironic given that Raul654 is accusing me of violating a nonexistent "conflict of interest" policy, and makes ludicrously POV-pushing edits in violation of Wikipedia's alleged NPOV policy.
  5. I find it fascinating that correctly identifying Hugo Chavez as a dictator is considered unacceptable discourse on Wikipedia, when it is a position taken by John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, the US State Department, and several human rights groups. This is especially fascinating when the arbitrator who makes that claim defends it by calling Hillary Clinton a "vote whore" for pointing out Chavez's dictatorial tendencies. That is apparently acceptable discourse: anything as far right as Hillary Clinton's positions is not. So much for Wikipedia's vaunted NPOV policy.

Relevant precedent

Wikipedia Arbitration Committee precedent

  • 5) Knowledgeable users, including those who have been engaged in controversial activities, are welcome to edit on Wikipedia, provided they cite reliable sources for their contributions and respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and Wikipedia is not a battleground.
Passed 8-0
Passed 8-0

Additional precedent

  • 6) A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.
Passed 6-0.

Identity spoiler

I work at a conservative Washington, DC, think tank specializing in legal policy. Some even claim I do so notably.

I edited here as a hobby. My edits were in my spare time and in no way represent the views of my employer or any of my former employers or any of the clients of my former employers. Nor do they represent the views of any of my colleagues, many of whom I disagree with on a number of issues. Because of the Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy, my edits probably don't even represent my views, but, rather, a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia articles.

Awards

The Editor's Barnstar
For helping improve the NPOV status of Andijan massacre. Djma12 (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar
Okay, you melted my heart. Let's bury it (the hatchet, not my heart). David Shankbone 03:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Civility barnstar.png Civility Award
I'm impressed with your ability to remain calm, rational and civil in the face of personal attacks. This seems to be an uncommon trait around here sometimes - Wikipedians surely could learn from your good example. 70.110.239.244 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)