User talk:Qirtaiba

Update on appeal

I have been wrongly blocked from editing Wikipedia. This page will document the current status of my request for unblocking.

  1. I first requested unblocking via this talk page (see below), but in violation of Wikipedia policy, the request was dealt with in collusion with the administrator who had blocked me. When I tried again requesting an independent administrator's review, my request was declined without explanation less than two hours later, suggesting that collusion was still ongoing (most unblock requests take days or weeks to receive attention).
  2. Unhappy with this, I next turned to the Arbitration Committee; not only due to the apparent collusion, but because the insinuations that were made about me in justification of my block made it unsuitable for public discussion in any case (which is one of the grounds that enlivens ArbCom's jurisdiction). However, they declined to hear the appeal for unclear reasons, and suggested I appeal via UTRS system for block appeals instead.
  3. I duly made an appeal through the UTRS system, which initially received a response (visible in the history of this page), "I think user's comments have been misconstrued, but as a laymen in that area, I can understand how he came across the way he did." But this comment was quickly reverted and replaced with the suggestion that I contact Wikipedia Trust & Safety instead, "due to the complexities therein".
  4. While the appeal seems pretty simple to me – either I violated the Wikipedia:Child protection policy or I didn't – I have gone ahead and reached out to Wikipedia Trust & Safety as requested, and that is where the matter currently sits.

Indefinite block

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advocacy in violation of the Wikipedia:Child protection policy (it doesn't matter if it's nuanced and incremental when the overarching aim is the same, as with your so-called "child protection" organization).
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 05:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Qirtaiba (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for disruptive editing in violation of Wikipedia's child protection policy. This is completely baseless. My job is as a trust and safety professional, and protecting children from sexual abuse is part of that job. El_C, the editor who blocked me left a comment suggesting that he has an issue with the child protection organization I previously worked for, Prostasia Foundation. Although it has been attacked with misinformation by the far-right, the organization is a legitimate charity that is well respected by peers in the field. It has received grants from major charitable foundations, given presentations at major conferences including a plenary presentation for the Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse (ASTA), has raised over $70,000 for prevention research, and is about to announce its new Executive Director, a renowned university professor and child protection researcher. I look forward to the speedy restoration of my account. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your CV is irrelevant. As explained in our child protection policy, we have zero tolerance for paedophile advocacy, broadly construed, and El C's grounds for blocking you are plain to see in your editing history here. – Joe (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Qirtaiba (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My original unblock request was improperly dealt with in concert with the administrator who originally blocked me, in violation of the guideline that appeals should be dealt with independently. I would request that an independent administrator review the block this time.

Next, let's look at the actual allegation that my editing has been "disruptive" in violation of the child protection policy. The simple fact is that I have never, either on or off Wikipedia, done anything in contravention of the policy. The policy relevantly prohibits the use of Wikipedia to:

pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles.

To reiterate, I have never done any of these things, on or off wiki. In all of my child protection work, I have consistently maintained that there is no excuse for child sexual abuse, and that adult-child relationships are never acceptable because they always carry a grave risk of harm to children.

Simply discussing the mental condition of pedophilia in terms that avoid stigmatizing persons experiencing this unchosen condition, is not the same as excusing or downplaying child sexual abuse! On the contrary, this is a mainstream best practice[1] of public health professionals working on the prevention of sexual violence. If anything, the fact that society is more concerned with sexual deviancy than sexual violence is a sad reflection of rape culture.

I have made hundreds of edits to Wikipedia over 18 years on topics on which I have direct professional expertise, including Internet governance, consumer protection, copyright, international relations, and child protection. I understand that Wikipedia is attempting to weed out editors with a covert agenda for the normalization of child sexual abuse. I agree with that position, and can affirm that I am no such editor. Again, I look forward to the speedy restoration of my account. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Levenson, Jill S.; Grady, Melissa D.; Morin, John W. (29 May 2019). "Beyond the "Ick Factor": Counseling Non-offending Persons with Pedophilia". Clinical Social Work Journal. 48 (4): 380–388. doi:10.1007/s10615-019-00712-4. eISSN 1573-3343. ISSN 0091-1674.

Decline reason:

Upon review, I believe that the block was correctly made. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Consult history for archive

I removed some content from this page intending to put it in an archive, then discovered that I can't even make an archive of my own talk page while I am blocked. So for now, please consult history if you want to see it. I'll restore it to an archive once I am unblocked. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #74743

is closed. Due to the complexities therein, it would be best for user to email Trust and Safety. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DFO, I don't understand why WP:UTRS was even involved — TPA was not revoked at the time (though now it is). Oh well. Thanks. El_C 02:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UTRS can be used for appeals where non-public information might be relevant, regardless of TPA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Whatever public information campaign about this failure of process at Wikipedia will have to happen outside of it. Talk page access revoked. For legal: legal@wikimedia.org. El_C 02:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

already gave 'm ca@wikimedia.org Now there are choices. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS abuse

User has continued to deliberately abuse UTRS via requests, UTRS appeal #78066, UTRS appeal #85744, and UTRS appeal #86026. I have requested UTRS access be permanently revoked. --Yamla (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]