Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:41, 28 March 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

Freezing Effect

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

Pages

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

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)