Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:42, 30 April 2008

• WP:PedMen

This page in a nutshell: This is a discussion page for mentorship related issues regarding pedophilia and child sex abuse articles.

This is a message board for discussing problems associated with pedophilia related articles. Any user is welcome to request help here if they believe there is an editing dispute that needs to be brought to the attention of the topic mentors. Please make your comments concise.

Mentors

The following users have been appointed mentors to pedophile and sex abuse articles. They are the first port of call should any disputes arise in these areas. The mentors are expected to promoted decorum on the pages and mediate disputes related to the articles in the topic. They are able to make enforcements via blocks, protections and short article bans should they be required. A primary issue they will look at are concerns brought to their attention of new users and IP's who may be socks of more established users editing the page. If you suspect someone of being a sock, please report it to this page and the mentors will advise on the best course of action.

• east718 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• hmwith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Using this page

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

For each report, please provide the following information:

• A link to the article in question.
• Diffs showing the dispute.
• A brief summary of the dispute and any concerns with particular users.
• Sign and date your report with Misplaced Pages's special signature format (~~~~).

Please notify the users involved in the dispute on their talk page.

To add a new discussion, start a new section at the bottom of the page.

AnotherSolipsist

AnotherSolipsist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be the sock of a banned user who has appeared as many users/socks in the past, including Voice of Britain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mike D78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and many others. This user has been known to use open proxies to avoid RCU but it is clearly the same user from his verbal style, his arguments and his knowledge. There can be no real doubt about this and he is doing the same reverting of material he doesn't like, and which does not fitting his own beliefs re pedophilia activism. If he is Voice etc he needs to be indefinitely blocked and besides we should expect this user to return given his stubborn returning time and again after multiple indefinite blocks. The pattern of first editing outside the pedophile area is also characteristic. This user started in January and is now pursuing the identical path pursued by these other socks. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet, and I unequivocally deny holding "pro-paedophile beliefs." SqueakBox has a history of making groundless accusations of pro-paedophilia: against, e.g., User:VigilancePrime and User:Haemo. (Squeak initially opposed Haemo's WP:RFA because "I have no trust in this editor re pedophile issues and serious concerns that he would abuse adminship based on this issue. He appears to support a broadly pro-pedophile activist standpoint and at this point it would be disastrous for the encyclopedia to endorse his candidature." Haemo's "broadly pro-pedophile activist standpoint" was supposedly demonstrated by his being opposite Squeak in a merge vote.) See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive371#SqueakBox_and_Personal_Attacks.

I should also take the claim that my verbal style resembles User:Voice_of_Britain's as a personal attack. Judging from his last few edits, he has a very primitive grasp on English. Do I? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have a long history of making correct claims. Your ploy to blame me fort eh multiple socks is further evidence that you are indeed the latest. Basically this needs serious investigation, IMO, as we will never have a decent article while a certain banned user keeps returning as new socks creating the same old, disruptive pattern in exactly the same way. Right now we see AS edit warring to retain the same point of view as all the other socks, the viewpoint of the master, and this will be a good test case of whther or mopt this mentorship is goping to do any good whatsoever. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Leave this with me - I'll take a look at it. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I find it HILARIOUS that SqueakBox would accuse someone of being a Sock because they edit in a similar manner and on similar articles. He has faced the exact same type of accusations and been all riled up about their total illigitimacy. But it's okay for Squeak? Maybe you're right and it is a sock, but let's not have a double-standard of "I think he's a sock because he edits the same articles." The old "SqueakBox and Pol64 make identical spelling mistakes" was more convincing.

On that note, Ryan, I don't think it is appropriate for anyone to bring sock suspicions to this page... that's what the actual sockpuppet arena is for. What does that have to do with mentoring? Let's mentor A.S. instead of accusing him. If he turns out to be a sock through the use of legit evidence, such as is required for any other sock investigation, then that can be handled in the normal way. This should not be a place for accusations.

• VigilancePrime • • • 01:41 (UTC) 27 Mar '08

Firstly, it should be mentioned that these blocks were never handed out for 'tendentious' editing. Administrators have made clear that the reason for the said actions is the possibility of bringing this website into public disrepute, thus rendering the severe and condemnatory reactions mere rationalisations of prior aversion, an aversion backed up by Jimbo's/the lead administrators' invitation for administrators to follow personal prejudice, so that others' similar prejudices are satisfied.

Now, on personal merit, I feel that this editor should be immediately unblocked. The public face issue is another argument altogether though, and would (apparently) run along the lines of 'what does Misplaced Pages want to be seen as?'. Possible characterisations that correspond to blocking what WorldNetDaily etc... would (in most cases innacurately) term 'pedophile villains', i.e. editors with a more balanced, scientific outlook on these things, would include 'organ of the establishment' and 'respectable family information resource', and would roughly correspond to right-wing, patrist political beliefs, which are not yet embraced here, but are certainly our relative direction of travel at this time (i.e. 'legitimisation', mainstreaming). The traditional, non-censoring approach would be to present ourselves as a free informational resource, with freedom of expression, speech etc. But this seems to be under threat from the mainstreaming and family-orienting of the internet and more specifically, wikipedia. Lambton /_C 14:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So User:AnotherSolipsist was blocked . This is certainly not the place to discuss this block, which it is apparently not permitted to do on-wiki anyway, but this may be an appropriate venue to raise concerns regarding the ever decreasing standards required for blocks around these articles. In this case, what we have is an editor who was blocked without warning by an involved admin for making a civil (and, I believe, sensible) comment an a talk page that is somehow construed as trolling (an interesting characterization, considering the editing practises of some other regulars on those pages) and as supportive of a point of view that brings the encyclopedia into disrepute. My not very informed impression is that anywhere else on Misplaced Pages, a block like this one would not stand if brought to AN. Those pages are special of course: an unwritten rule (or is that just IAR?) makes it ok to block editors indefinitely with no prior warning nor even a notice on their talk pages when you don't like their edits (irrespective of whether those edits are supported by reliable sources), and even makes those blocks practically unappealable. If comments on talk pages are now subject to the same regulatory measures imposed by overarching circumstances, we're well beyond chilling effect—it's more like freezing effect or something. Bikasuishin (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a completely legitimate concern. A.S. was blocked because the admin did not like the comments. They were perfectly civil. They were made in perfectly good faith. RYAN, Can you perhaps look into this admin action? This is totally ridiculous. Some admins are out of control. I do not believe Hero is one of them, but he is, in this instance, way off-base. Not long ago I was blocked for making a general statement that was claimed to be a personal attack on an editor under "investigation" (whatever you call it) for obscene language directed at multiple editors. But he was an admin. I was blocked by another admin supporter for less than 1% of what our own admins are doing.

There is clear ownership of these articles. I think and hope that Mentorship can alleviate that. The vilification of others is sickening. I have a literal laundry list of personal attacks made regarding these sort of pages, many of them directed toward me. This has got to stop. Discussion of serious topics with good faith and civility does not bring the Misplaced Pages project into disrepute (a phrase Hero is very fond of using, especially when attacking someone with whom he disagrees), but such lopsided and irresponsible (conflicted-interest as well) actions destroy whatever credibility we, as a community group, seek to build.

A.S. should be unblocked immediately. HoloKitty... I didn't even know she had been banned from Misplaced Pages, but that's far too extreme as well. Yes, her edits sometimes have a clear POV, but no moreso than SqueakBox's edits, only in the other direction. Most of Squeak's edits are in good faith and slightly more than half his comments (including edit sumaries) are civil. HoloKitty and Squeakbox are, at minimum, two sides of a coin of WikiBehaviour. And A.S. doesn't even come close to their mutual level of contempt-of-others that sometimes is felt.

I find all three to be good-faith editors - some more than others of course and some days more than other days - but none of them should be banned for life. That is ridiculous.

Ryan, as "fearless Mentor/Leader", please take a look.

• VigilancePrime • • • 02:49 (UTC) 28 Mar '08

I would hold that, for AS's actions to this point, permanent blocking would not be proper. He knows his material (sometimes ONLY his material, but still he reads the sources thoroughly) and he can make an informed argument. However, I think this short term block is a suitable slap that he needed to get back on track. His editing has been rather aggressive and uncompromising, and he repeatedly came close to violating 3-revert rule with several articles. I left him a note when he did this reminding him of policy, though I don't know if he read it. As a mentoring action, I think it would beneficial for him to learn to compromise, rather than being so insistent, an to avoid using Loki's Wager in the name of NPOV. Legitimus (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys - can we just chill this out a bit please? I've been looking over the claim for a few days now, and I'm going to continue looking until I'm certain either way. Just leave it with me and the other mentors and we'll get back to you ASAP. It's not easy going though so many contributions, hence why it's taking a bit of time. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As it's beeen about a month, what was the outcome of your looking this over? --SSBohio 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll poke Ryan on this one, but he's on break right now. east.718 at 14:59, April 27, 2008

Pages

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

What pages do we want to include initially? • VigilancePrime • • • 01:46 (UTC) 27 Mar '08

Any PAW pages which fall under this dispute. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute? I thought this was for MENTORSHIP. What disputes? To quote you, "you're not making any sense." • VigilancePrime • • • 02:56 (UTC) 28 Mar '08

We don't need a list of pages. Any page/topic related to pedophilia that develops disruptive editing is a candidate for topic mentorship. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see the connection between Mentorship and Disputes. Why can we not mentor editors of non-disputed (but touchy) pages?

And the list is for what pages we want to include vis-a-vis place the header on initially. I think putting all PAW articles to mentorship would be ridiculous (as you pointed out elsewhere, Nudity and children is not pedophilia-related, but does suffer pedo-related vandalism, and thus is part of the PAW)... so where to start? Those two below seemed gimmes as they are complementary to each other and difficult to edit as well.

My thoughts. I'd like to hear more. • VigilancePrime • • • 04:12 (UTC) 28 Mar '08

This page isnt dealing with vandalism, its for dealing with banned socks and POV pushing on any ped articles including nudity and children. Thanks, SqueakBox

Uhm, no... if you read the page title, it's for mentorship of pedophilia-related topics. That much seemed pretty clear. Banned socks and banned users are dealt with elsewhere as well. POV-pushing is something that you're exceptionally good at as well (think "number 2" as an example). And Jack and I are in agreement that Nudity and children is not a pedophile topic... why do you think that it is? • VigilancePrime • • • 04:28 (UTC) 28 Mar '08

POV pushing? I take it you are referring to either Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia or perhaps my edit summaries re Iranian gays and the UK asylum system. Nudity and children is not for here unless the problems dealt with here erupt there, which till now thye never have. And of course the socks of banned suers are for here, I mean that and that alone is what has created the problem that results in us being

part of SqueakBox's comment was lost here or never finished

This discussion is off-topic and should be closed out.

The "nutshell" of this page states its purpose:

• This is a discussion page for mentorship related issues regarding pedophilia and child sex abuse articles.

The intro of the page following the nutshell, elaborates:

• This is a message board for discussing problems associated with pedophilia related articles. Any user is welcome to request help here if they believe there is an editing dispute that needs to be brought to the attention of the topic mentors.

Nothing else is needed. If there is a problem with disruptive editing, it can be brought up here for attention by the mentor-volunteers.

If the dispute or disruption happens to be about whether or not a particular page is related enough to pedophilia to be discussed here, I'm sure the mentors will be able to handle that kind of question when it comes up. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

i agree, this page is for the relevant editors not for particular pages. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You said it best, Squeak: The "nutshell" of this page states its purpose: This is a discussion page for mentorship related issues regarding pedophilia and child sex abuse articles.

Nowhere in that does it speak to disputes or sockpuppets. What I see is an attempt to subvert the normal sockpuppet procedures. I find it particularly odd coming from you as you have so very often been erroneously accused of sockpuppetry... It is the process that exonorated you, and I would think that the process would thusly have your full support. That's one major thing that's not making sense.

And lastly, this page was designed, as it reads above and as I understand Ryan, to help newer editors with editing on these sensitive pages. Not for socks (we have an established process for that), not for vandalism (we have established processes for that), and not for disputes (we have processe - that sometimes work! - for that).

MENTORSHIP. Say it with me: MENTORSHIP. Having been a mentor my entire life, I know what it means. It's not to tear people down (which it sounds as though you want to use this page for), it's to build people up.

MENTORSHIP.

MENTORSHIP.

MENTORSHIP.

• VigilancePrime • • • 05:03 (UTC) 28 Mar '08 <-- the Mentor (but not for these pages)

VP, please take a look at the introduction of this page. There you will find these words:

• first port of call should any disputes arise in these areas.
• mediate disputes related to the articles in the topic
• If you suspect someone of being a sock, please report it to this page

The two issues you asked about, "disputes" and "sockpuppets", are listed right there in the instructions for posting on this page. Perhaps that answers your concerns about the discussion of sockpuppets on this page, one of the uses for which it was created. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I grant that much. I think that the end-around attempt regarding sockpuppets still has no place here, as evidenced by SqueakBox's attempt to go fishing in the exact same way others have fished for him in the past. This is NOT the proper place for sockpuppet fishing expeditions.

Can we bring disputes here? Sure. But is this group only interested in disputes? That sounds a lot like organised trolling! How about we focus on the MENTOR part and that way we can avoid disputes!

Just a thought... Proactive... Mitigation... ya know, all that good stuff.

• VigilancePrime • • • 05:36 (UTC) 28 Mar '08 :-)

The purpose of this page is to try and bring all pedophilia related disputes to one page - it can cover most topics including socks. The idea is that if discussion can occur here first, hopefully editing can continue normally and the mentors can be left to investigate any claims. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that reasoning, Ryan, which is proactive rather than reactive or, worse yet, punitive. I do fear that sock-fishing could become a huge nightmare. As I've pointed out, the weak "evidence" SqueakBox has asserted above is less than that given against him in the past. But here's the difference: His "accusation", which was erroneous and possibly bad-faith, was properly handled and Squeak easily exhonorated because there was no REAL evidence and the proper procedure explicitly said "no fishing expeditions". My concern is that using this as an avenue to do a runaround of that process could result in fishing expeditions, bad-faith accusations, and general animosity and antagonisation all around. No need to subvert the process. The above that Squeak used as "evidence" would never pass the test from what little I've seen at the real sockpuppet noticeboard. That's my concern. • VigilancePrime • • • 01:22 (UTC) 29 Mar '08

This page is silly

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Nobody gives a monkey amongst you alleged mentors, you guys are all asleep and this is not acceptable whenm really people are being trolled in ways that damage the projerct. If you care so little about the project I expect your resignations in the morning. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually do care Squeak, I did thoroughly investigate your claim of sockpuppetry, but I found no strong evidence, especially not enough for a block. Please by all means reports concerns here or my talk page and I'lll try my hardest to solve them. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Will you then block User:Laceibahonduras as a troll, it is this to which I object, and more strongly than you perhaps realise. Thanks, SqueakBox

Blocked - clearly here to push an agenda. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits

SqueakBox is once again attempting to alter the article's introduction without seeking consensus. Also, just as before, he's pushing for a very controversial version of the intro that is laden with POV. The text he is proposing has been rejected a number of times, and he knows this perfectly well. Could someone please remind him that there's a reason there was mediation, admin intervention, and protection of this article in the past. Starting another edit war, and bringing back text that has been proved to be inappropriate according to community consensus is not the way to improve this article, and will likely only lead to further stalling of article development. Please remind this editor of how controversial changes are to be approached in regards to this article, especially given its volatile past. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the relatively small number of people involved in the mediation constitutes community consensus per se. Could I suggest an RfC on this? I think it could help and put new ideas out there. I would imagine that there are some other thoughts out there regarding how to sort the intro out, and more voices could really move it forward. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed more than once, and every time the version SqueakBox is suggesting has been rejected. It's just that he doesn't seem to want to accept the opinion of the majority of editors involved. Besides, it's pretty clear that his edits constitute a POV violation. Furthermore, there is no reason for making a change like this without attempting to discuss it first on the Talk Page, especially since this editor has been with this article for a long while, and knows quite well that such hot topic issues cause edit wars. There is no excuse for claiming ignorance on his part. He's been involved in far too many disputes to pretend not to know that his edits would cause controversy. What's more, these questionable edits are identical to what he has tried to pull off a number of times before. If anyone wants to start yet another discussion or mediation process for this issue, they're welcome to do so, but the intro should stay as it is (as least in respect to the hot-button issues) until community consensus establishes that it needs to be changed. Lastly, if SqueakBox is worried about the state of the intro, why didn't he voice his opinion when the mediation was still taking place? He was a part of it, after all. Truth be told, he did present his version then, and he eventually agreed to the current version. Thus, he needs to offer a really strong reason for why his opinion should outweigh everything that has happened in the recent past. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note for Squeak asking him to consider an RfC rather than reintroducing these edits. I'm not convinced that you guys are going to be able to solve this yourself, so an comments from outside users would be a better way to proceed, rather than hashing out the same points over and over again. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I would be happy if qualified outside editors would weigh in on this situation. As long as those getting involved take the article seriously, consider past discussions and decisions, and approach the situation from an NPOV stance, then the more people involved the better. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mine are good faith edits that actually NPOV a highly disputed article. How can anyone seriously claim otherwise. We are not here to present the PPA view but to report it. the day the like of Homologeo show good faith towards me by supporting the removal of all trolling accounts with no hesitation 9which you once again have knowingly failed t6o do)m is the day mediation will work. looks like mediation has failed abysmally to me and we are going to ahyve to ramp the consequences up as what happened today is a complete disgrace, the kind of trolling that could seriously damage the project,a nd this is the issue we should be talking about. Homologeo's failure tom emntion the trolling but all too wiling to attack me when I am kicked down leads me to believe he is not acting in any kind of good faith towards me and I urge him to retract his comments and to address the issue of pro pedophile trolls and how we as a community are going to deal with them. Why have you not addressed this sisue, Homologeo. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry - I call em how I see em. Just because some other editors may be doing something wrong doesn't make your edits less disruptive. Besides, I have personally undone several recent edits by other editors to pedophilia-related articles that looked dubious. Just because I'm not as quick to shout "witch" - or, in this instance, "pedophile" - as you are, doesn't mean I do not worry about the quality of the article. Lastly, you've been around for much longer than others, and you never fail to remind newbies of that. Thus, you are supposed to know better than to start another edit war, especially surrounding edits that have been deemed controversial and inappropriate in the past. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

Squeakbox needs to restricted from editing this topic, as he clearly finds it impossible to keep a cool head, respect neutrality and obey consensus. The RFC on the "promoting child sexual abuse" issue received unanimous agreement from outside editors that the position Squeakbox attributes to "pro-paedophile trolls" was, in fact, correct.

Most of Squeak's comments on Talk:Pro-pedophile activism are aggressive and extremely offensive in that they imply other Wikipedians are paedophiles or paedophile-sympathetic. For instance, his most recent says: "Lambton, please can you stop wasting our time with yoiur inaccuarate assertions such as that PPAs can do what they want (ie abuse) in Namibia, Thailand, Cambodia our elsewhere even when they are British citizens such as you and I. This is not the place for you to state your fantasies as if they were real." This is particularly concerning because SB's victim appears to be using their real name. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What you mean I should be banned to reward the troll? Or to allow ther trol? or because you want to

Oh look, User:Ztep, whose last edit (of about 25 total) was 28 January 2007, has stepped in and began reverting where Squeakbox left off. He's even interested in SB's other favourite subject -- Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia. He's edited List of Rastafarians, too, another Squeak favourite. Should we checkuser or will someone just skip the rigmarole? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who this editor is but it sure ain't me. Bit cheeky for an obvious banned user like yourself to be accusing an honest user like me all the same. I cant break 3rr with you because you are a banned user as is Lambton. You think trolling is so easy, don't you. But lets facer it, all teh sock you ahve been piling on of late are atytracting serious attention. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But to be honest I think LCH and Ztep are pro pedophiole socks trying to frame me, though an RCU would clearly clear my name. This attempt to frame me is the most pathetic so far. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I usually don't do this, and will not push this issue too much, but there is a possibility that Ztep is SqueakBox's sock, considering Ztep's editing pattern and the fact that he or she jumped in right around the time it was becoming obvious that SqueakBox was violating the 3RR rule. Where should one go to investigate this sock allegation? ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a set up, like laceibahonduras, in order to try and frame me with bad edits I have no part in. And I would clearly not use an account like ztep or one like laceibahondutras as using weither would get me blocked, and I am not stupid enough to get blocked whereas a number of use4rs seem obsessed with nothing other than getting me blocked, an RCU should clear who controls these 2 socks though. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that they aren't socks. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Guys, let's drop the sock accusations and get on with the issue at hand. Could somebody do the honours of filing that RfC please? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to a subject-specific block of the user, if that is possible in any way. This would not be intended as punitive, but simply remedial, and should lead to the de-polarisation of the issue which incites so many to edit with one agenda or the other. Lambton /_C 12:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. I would support a sock report on this user, specifically because of his being logged on at roughly the same time as SqueakBox on the 23rd and 24th of January 07, and exactly the same over one year later! Not only this, but the account has only served to support the SqueakBox agenda on SqueakBox articles, and waits over a year to jump in virtually the minute after Squeakbox uses four of his three edits under a core policy. I would like RP to suggest how he knows that both are unrelated. Lambton /_C 12:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox's framing allegations are ludicrous. Unless this was a one-year plus project to frame him over activity on an article that he had apparently not even edited at that time, of course.

P.S. these are not allegations. A sensible approach would be to get an admin to look into this before reporting. Lambton /_C 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The smoking gun: SqueakBox was blocked for one week on 22 January 2007, the day before Ztep was created. Ztep disappeared (until yesterday) the day before Squeak's block expired. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This ztep account like laceibahonduras is clearly a malicious sock puppet designed to attack me, some RCU would help clear the air though, I guarantee neither account will be located near me and suspect both will be located near one of those protagonising edit wars with me last night. As we saw with tlato etc there have been many sleeper accounts created while the idea that I evaded that ban is merely further trolling on the part of certain individuals, AS and Lambton amongst them and both dodgy accounts look like nothing more than an attempt to frame me for which the sock should be indefinitel;y blocked for troling. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And I find the fact that 2 accounts, one blocked already for pro ped activism and a likely sock of many of the banned users from the past and another who is an obvious SPA and likely sockpuppet from the past are trying to frame me and get me blocked for the huge resentments they feekl towards me and literally spooking me out indicates one thing alone, ie that we have to block any manifestation of these idef users at the first sniff. that these folk should feel that they have the right to set me up and shoot me down shows that our current mentorship has completely failed. I will not mediate with socks and suggest another sollipsist and Lambton remove themselves from this page, which they are not anyway a part of and go and do some encyclopedia writing, which in all the socks you have created you have never done once. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suport an immediate indef block on ztep, Lambton and Bmj4 though, that we we could move on but with lambtopn and ztep and Bmjk4 here purely to troll honest editors we cannot move on. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bmj4 (talk · contribs) and Laceibahonduras (talk · contribs) were both created on the same day: Laceibahonduras 18:06, 15 February 2008 & Bmj4 03:18, 14 February 2008. They were both mostly inactive until April 13 when they engaged in tag-team reverting and other related actions. It's highly unlikely that they're not be the same person. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC) PS. Update: Since there is already an AN/I post relating to this thread, I added this info to the AN/I report.

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_by_User:Squeakbox --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is rich. Squeakbox fights against people who want to violate the law and you want to ban him? Who cares if has fifty socks? He is against people who want to have SEX with CHILDREN. What ever else he is he is a Rasta- Hero!ThoughUnlessUntilWhether (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right and I am just paranoid, but I got very spooked by this laceiba character and it seems so suspicious coming on top of it. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-pedophile activism

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

I've protected the above page. The history in such a short period is quite frankly disgraceful. There's blind reverts going on from numerous parties. We need to compromise on this if we're going to keep the editing decorum. I urge you to start an RfC on this - you're not going to solve this on your own. I'll take a good hard look at the history over the next few days and issue some final warnings for edit warring because that was simply unacceptable. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's already been an RFC: Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#REQUEST_FOR_COMMENT. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to try something different then and invite a few admins to pop along and offer their suggestions for the article - the previous RfC seems to be a continuation of arguments between the same participants with few outside views. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

k, but for the record, Jmh123, Ketsuekigata, Yahel Guhan, SocJan, FrederickTG, WBOSITG, BonesBrigade, EvilStorm, PMC, Luna Santin, Pascal.Tesson, Kesh, and Belovedfreak were all previously uninvolved in the issue. I don't think your characterization holds. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You are uninvolved, are you, AS? You know your contribs are public, do you. And what about your block for tendentious pro pedophile activism, none of the other people you mention have such a block. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

PPA page protection

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Pro-pedophile activism page protection expires at 01:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC).

This is a request for the topic mentors to take a look at this section of the talk page at the PPA article:

Talk:Pro-pedophile activism#Go-forward consensus process suggestion

Based on the positive results of page protection, progress on the talk page, and the history of long protection on that topic page in the past, it might be appropriate to extend the protection a while longer. Even if the protection is not extended, the procedure for editing I've suggested in that talk page section could be useful.

The concern is that when protection expires, the disruption may quickly resume. Whether protection is extended or not, I suggest we need to find a way of going forward with that article that can help to avoid the kind of time-consuming and energy-draining problems that have happened in the past. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, applaud the last sentence of Jack's. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree also, especially with protected-edits-after-discussion-only.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Update: thanks to the help of topic mentor Jmlk17, page protection has been extended. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While edit warring is never beneficial, do we have to presuppose that it must necessarily break out? If everyone just agrees to edit in a respectful and conscientious manner, and to discuss any controversial changes on the Talk Page before implementing them, there's really no need for further protection of the article. This is important to note, because many editors are discouraged to edit when an article is fully-protected, especially new users and anons. Fully protecting an article this way somehow seems very unwikipedian, to tell the truth. So, how about it, ladies and gentlemen - could we edit in peace, and have this page back open for hassle-free improvement? ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Homologeo, you agreed with me in a comment elsewhere that the recent disruption by SPAs has been annoying to you as well - and, I agree with you that what we want is an unprotected page with positive collaborative editing in peace.

I'm not suggesting the page be protected forever. But it's only been a week since the protection was re-instated. Previously, over many months, the page was only unprotected short times before edit wars resulted. The most recent unprotected period went a couple months before disruption. That's a good sign; but the problem's not solved yet - what happened last week wasted a lot of time and energy for many editors.

Unfortunately, there are some who have other ideas - there were at least 3 SPA/socks involved in the mess last week. We haven't yet figured out a way to defend against that kind of attack other than page protection.

Since the page was protected again, the talk page has become more calm and productive. Let's use this time to come up with an improved article. Perhaps as the text is based more and more in real consensus there will be less vulnerability for disruption; or at least the disruption will be more clearly identifiable when it begins.

There's no reason this is more of a problem for new users or anons. They can read the discussion and join in if they wish; we can make the procedure very clear and welcoming. Part of learning to edit Misplaced Pages is learning how to work in areas where there is disruption due to POV-pushing edit-warring SPA's.

For now, a cool down period is needed. I've suggested a procedure on the talk page for editing based on a subpage copy of the main page:

• Talk:Pro-pedophile activism#Procedure recommendation

I think that procedure can work effectively. If anyone wants to fine-tune it or suggest alternates, all comments are most welcome.

You know my take on the situation, and that I disapprove of this approach. Howbeit, I don't mind editing in this manner, if this is what most involved editors will agree with. Let's see if this works. ~ Homologeo (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User:VigilancePrime

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

VigilancePrime blocked, unblocked, then reblocked by ArbCom, comments or questions should be directed to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. east.718 at 21:42, April 28, 2008

I wish I had the time to politely ask involved parties for a rational explanation. I need to get some sleep and prepare for a 15-hour flight, though, so to keep it short and with all due respect, what the fuck? Bikasuishin (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The userboxes mentioned were at User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Girllover and User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Boylover.Until Dmcdevit stepped in, they had created zero disruption. As I remember, they said "This user loves , as opposed to loving ," where "girls" linked to young woman, and "boys" to young man. That doesn't sound like paedophilia to me.

Dmcdevit is not an arbitrator, so I assume this was his decision alone. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

When were these templates created and deleted? Was this a recent affair? ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

According to VigilencePrime's contribution page, this user added the templates on April 1 . There are no records after that visible. Also, while "girl" links to "young woman," that redirects back to girl, indicating a person underage.Legitimus (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:VigilancePrime/Templates/Meds&diff=prev&oldid=202718916

This is a complete over-reaction. Even if the templates were intended to link to pages such as girl, and indicate some form of love, the worst we can do is jump in and shout "PEDOPHILE!!!!" as loudly as possible, especially for a user who appears to have a habit of satirising what he most probably sees as hysteria. At the very worst, tese userboxes were a joke, worthy of deletion and no further implications for their creator. It all smells of those child abuse cases in the early 90's. We need a rational approach as opposed to one that creates problems out of nothing and draws attention to something from nothing. Lambton /_C 13:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like such a good decision, I am baffled why anyone would think otherwise. Espousing personal beliefs on wikipedia that espouse serious criminal activity has to be treated with a scorched earth policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There were four deleted userboxes in question; all of them were of the form "this (male/female) wikipedian loves (girls/boys), as opposed to loving (boys/girls)." Dominic's actions are correct here: the creation of userboxes self-identifying as "loving" children is particularly unseemly and doing so inherently carries a significant risk of bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute. I frankly don't see VigilancePrime ever being unblocked for this one, especially since it's standard operating procedure to conduct all reviews of blocks concerning pedophila-related disruption in camera. east.718 at 14:53, April 27, 2008

Bikasuishin, this situation needs to be taken seriously. While I do see share your view that we do need to be rational here, Jovin Lambton, it's important to the project for this type of behavior to be discouraged. In general, no one should be condoning criminal offenses in userboxes. I don't see how any good to WP can come from doing so. hmwithτ 15:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What situation? Is there any place in the world where "loving young women" (or even girls, for that matter) is considered a criminal offence? Not Florida I hope. The whole business is an appalling strawman sparked by an intellectually horrifying moral panic. I understand how the name (as opposed to the actual text) of those userboxes might be construed as mild trolling on the author's part, but an indef block? Of a courteous editor with 6000+ edits? That's just outrageous. What is important for the project is that we keep cool heads when dealing with touchy issues, instead of waving torches and shouting "Burn!". Bikasuishin (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not the issue at all. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in free speech and personal expression. Our aim is to produce neutral representations of article topics. Identifying with a particular POV or revealing personal information, therefore, is typically tolerated to the extent that someone is not simply here soapboxing. However, it is not a privilege. This isn't about banning pedophiles (regardless of the merits, we must admit that it's entirely possible that any of our editors are anything and not telling us) and while you may dismiss it as a moral panic, there is no need to cause disruption by identifying as a pedophile publicly, which is an inflammatory identification, to say the least, as well as one likely to bring the project into public disrepute. Dmcdevit·t 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly accept that people should not be permitted to self-identify as pedophiles. But as far as I can tell, that's not something VigilancePrime has done, and a statement to the effect that he "loves young women" is by no means a confession of pedophilia (most heterosexual male editors of wikipedia, as well as most homosexual female editors, could say exactly that!). Actually, I believe there has been several occasions where he has vigorously denied any such characterization, as thrown at him by some editors with a long history of taking WP:NPA lightly.

As for "not banning pedophiles", I guess the AN discussion that resulted in the expeditious block of User:Daniel Lièvre is saying something (as in "Misplaced Pages: the encyclopedia anyone can edit, except when we don't like how you behave off-wiki"), but then again, I can understand the overarching circumstances (although I can't help to believe that that's a dangerously slippery slope).

The block of VigilancePrime, though, reminds me of that guy on AN/I who cried "CHILD PORN" over a user page containing a picture from Commons depicting a shaved female crotch. Even SqueakBox commented that the reporter was out of line on this one. If shaved pussies are not a problem, then why should "loving young women" be? Bikasuishin (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think we can compare a user who posted a pic of an adult woman's shaved genitals with what has happened here. VP started the Girlover article very much using the pedophile activist definition of a girlover. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested that the choice of that name might have been a mild piece of trolling or point-making, a reasonable reason to delete the template and issue a proportionate warning. But that still doesn't say anything about VigilancePrime admitting to being a pedophile (something you, more than anyone else here, should be quite aware is not the case), or bringing the project into public disrepute.

Let's consider that last assertion for a moment. We would have some hypothetical journalist, say, stumbling over a page with that userbox saying "This user likes young women". As a cunning investigation journalist, this piques his interest, he clicks the link, and notices that it redirects to girl. Nevermind the fact that "girl" does actually mean young woman in a good number of case, he thinks something fishy is at work there, and being an experienced wikipedian, he takes a peek at the source of user page where he notices the template is called "Girllover". "Uh-ho!", he exclaims, and digging through the contribution history of VigilancePrime, he finds out that the guy used to edit the article about Girllove. He then goes on to write an article explaining everything and concluding that pedophiles are out to take over Misplaced Pages.

OK, so I think we can see how those pedophiles who are out to take over Misplaced Pages can learn a thing or to about bringing the project into disrepute from the likes of Rachel Marsden. Bikasuishin (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime had been previously warned avout this sort of thing. Herostratus (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked. A quick review of the user's contributions shows that this is a normally-productive wikignome who also sometimes edits pedophilia-related articles. An indef block is a massive over-reaction to something that looks like an April Fools joke. --Carnildo (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean we now have tio tolerate p

Maybe. --Carnildo (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please expand on my statement. Are you specifically saying we must now accept people identifying as pedophiles? Are you specifically saying the arbncom has changed their policy and you are enforcing the new one? Or are you not saying these things. Clarity would be very helpful. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The userbox has been deleted. That may be an appropriate reaction, but an indefinite block is certainly not. I strongly doubt VP is going to return from his block and go on a paedophile-self-identifying spree. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime did not self-identify as a paedophile or encourage others to do the same, and the userbox has been deleted, anyway, so not even that is being tolerated.. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

By creating those userboxes he did both. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Loving young women or young men is by no means paedophilia. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the admission of pedophilia you're referring to, Squeak, as I don't see it. The worst I see is phrasing that, if interpreted with no assumption of good faith might hint at the edges of pedophilia.

Before the ec, I was going to say that there's a fine line between tweaking propriety to make a point (not a point, however) and being on the receiving end of what is effectively a permanent block for these userboxes created on April Fool's Day. Then again, it's not actually a fine line at all. We do use the terms boy and girl to refer to legal-aged people, particularly in a romantic context. Also, even if the meaning of boy and girl were limited to those so young as to be illegal to have sex with, the userboxes didn't advertise or exalt having sex with boys and girls, but the more ambiguous verb "love."

The hyperbole advanced in support of this block is unwarranted. Claims that this user "espouse serious criminal activity" and calling for a "scorched earth policy" raise the temperature in this discussion to the point of hysteria. Helen Lovejoy could remind us to "please think of the children" at any moment, the way this discussion is going.

Another case this is reminicent of is the case where one Wikipedian (an adult male) posted a GFDL image of his restored classic car, which was incorporated into another Wikipedian's (a young teen male) userpage. Wikipedian #1 left a message for the second, explaining that he was the owner of the car and offering to let Wikipedian #2 see it, since they both lived in the same (Detroit?) metro area. This rapidly escalated to an AN/I discussion about an adult attempting to pick up boys on Misplaced Pages, a block of Wikipedian #1, and calls to alert the local police, until an admin contacted Wikipedian #1 and got the story from him, which led to rapid unblocking and deescalation.

It's fine to have a hair trigger in the interest of protecting children (and Dmcdevit took the side of caution), but we need to be similarly able to reverse such decisions. This business of considering a block untouchable as long as the blocking admin uses the p-word doesn't allow room for reconsideration. I don't know of any Wikipedians whose blocks for this have been reversed by ArbCom, nor have I been able to discuss any of these many cases with an ArbCom member. Because this process can be abused (as a convenient way to remove inconvenient editors), I think more caution is called for than we're currently exercising. --SSBohio 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

These boxes have never been seen by me but if responsible admins say that is what they are I trust their word, obviously, and I hope you do too. And in this case there can be no "innocent mistake" as, say, in a user who had never edited this controversial area. And scorsched earth policy was me quoting a (now former) arbcom member, it certainly was not my invention. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Knowing something is true and being told something is true occupy different levels of veracity. Can you point to any language that is a problem and the policy that forbids it? As far as scorched earth policy goes, it's a technique of military aggression against civilian populations (now a war crime) that predates Misplaced Pages by thousands of years. It just didn't seem destined toward resolving conflict to use it here. --SSBohio 19:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

yes the ex-arbcom member is very aware of what scorched earth policy means historically, specifically in terms of events like Operation Barbarossa. As you know I am not an admin so i have to trust those who are on this one and certainly an admin like Dcmdevit is trustworthy, if they say it was promoting pedophilia then given the history of this user I have no hesitation in believing them. if someone accused you I might want more verification as it would be out of character and not entirely credible but in this case it certainly seems credible. And if it was an april fool's joke that is absolutely nor eason not to block as april fool's day is no excuse for that kind of behaviour. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to talk to someone as well-read as you, Squeak. For the purposes of Misplaced Pages, I believe in the balance of power. If I, as an editor, took at face value that these userboxes promoted pedophilia, then what point would there be in my having independent judgment? The rational approach is one of skepticism (which is different from disbelief). Assuming nothing of the content of the userboxes, I have to evaluate the situation as though they could be interpreted either way. Based on that presumption, it seems more likely for one to have erred on the side of caution and block, assuming the worst. I'd like to see us take a step back from concretizing that assumption when we don't have the evidence to consider. As St. Thomas More is reputed to have said, "I would give the Devil himself the benefit of law, for my own safety's sake." VP strikes me as more righteously indignant than evil or pedophilic, and should be treated accordingly. Like in the case I related above, we need to be cool-headed until we know the facts, rather than either side's interpretation thereof. --SSBohio 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The exact wikitext of one of the deleted userboxes:

(removed by east718)

Hope this helps the discussion. --Carnildo (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reblocked

I have reblocked the user. Dmcdevit's block was valid and supported by the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be emailed to the AC. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that any questions mailed will be ignored, if precedence holds. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, your bad faith assumptions are becoming tedious. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not worth trying to fight, since the user hasn't edited recently. --Carnildo (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have closed this discussion as it has devolved into mudslinging and because I can't forsee any more productive conservation coming from it. east.718 at 21:42, April 28, 2008