Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Pedophile topic mentorship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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."[1] Haemo's "broadly pro-pedophile activist standpoint" was supposedly demonstrated by his being opposite Squeak in a merge vote.) See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 ^T/_C 14:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So User:AnotherSolipsist was blocked [2]. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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

Ryan told me that he'd post here a while ago, but it looks like he's still catching some rays. :D The cliff notes version is that AnotherSolipsist is not a sockpuppet, and doesn't control any abusive accounts either. Behavioral analysis, among other things was taken into consideration. east.718 at 18:11, May 1, 2008

Thanks, east. I expected as much, as Solipsist didn't edit in a way that reminded me of anybody. What I've seen of the situation is that the emotional furor surrounding this issue leads to a bit broader application of terms like "sockpuppet," "disruption," "pro-pedophile," and (my personal favorites) "witch hunt," and "censorship." In my humble opinion, we could all do with a nice cup of tea and a sit down at times when dealing with this topic. --SSBohio 20:51, 1 May 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 [protect em from teh troll? I at least haven't been blocked for pro pedophile advocacy and I am far an d away the most neutral of the editors here and you appear to be endorsing the trolling of me. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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.[3] 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 ^T/_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 ^T/_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 ^T/_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.[4] Ztep disappeared (until yesterday) the day before Squeak's block expired.[5] --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.

Wikipedia: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)

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 [girls], as opposed to loving [boys]," 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 [6][7]. 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/w/index.php?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 ^T/_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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia.

OK, so I think we can see how those pedophiles who are out to take over Wikipedia 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[eoplem openly identify as pedophiles and encouraging others to do the same on wikipedioa? Has there been some kind of sea change re the arbcom p[olicy on this one? Because this is what it appears to be. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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[d] 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PPA page un-protection proposal

Comments invited at Talk:Pro-pedophile activism#Proposal to un-protect the page --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Attracting mainstream editors

When I registered for Wikipedia, I didn't intend to spend virtually all of my time here editing paedophilia-related articles. But, after seeing the sparsity of objections to POV-pushing like that of User:SqueakBox, I realized that doing so was obligatory.

Despite the lack of opposition, it's clear that many PAW members have a very fringe view on how paed-related articles should look. The RfC on whether PPAs should be described as advocating the legalization of abuse (a ludicrous view promoted by User:SqueakBox and User:Jack-A-Roe) received responses from Jmh123, Ketsuekigata, Yahel Guhan, SocJan, FrederickTG, WBOSITG, BonesBrigade, EvilStorm, PMC, Luna Santin, Pascal.Tesson, Kesh, and Belovedfreak. All opposed Squeak and Jack.

Similarly, PetraSchelm and SqueakBox are now part of the small minority which supports the deletion of Image:Virgin Killer.jpg.

SqueakBox recently described a point on the definition of "paedophilia" as a "fringe view," apparently not worth any mention at all. Peer-reviewed studies in Archives of Sexual Behavior and the Journal of the American Medical Association were cited for the controversy over the word "paedophilia." If the paed articles were dominated by mainstream editors, I definitely wouldn't have had to be the one to revert that change.

So, how can we attract more of the majority of Wikipedians who would like to approach paedophilia sanely and neutrally?

I think the first step would be to enforce civility more strongly. No one wants to be perceived as sympathizing with molesters, but SqueakBox and PetraSchelm make at least one of these accusations a week (and almost always unjustly). SB's accusations against User:Haemo for voting against him in a strawpoll, or his attacks on those who reverted "PPAs want to legalize child abuse" are illustrative. So is Petra's recent implication that Wikipedians want to keep Image:Virgin Killer.jpg because we enjoy kiddie porn.

I can't see how identifying another editor as a paedo-lover violates our "disrepute" policy any less than self-identifying as one. If more normal editors are to be attracted, we need to take civility more seriously. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'll note that I'm purposely ignoring this because it's full of baseless accusations that merit no response, and which I believe are intended to displace scrutiny from AnotherSolipsist's editing, now that an RFC regarding child sexual abuse/some sort of DR about that is finally in the works. And when I registered for Wikipedia, I didn't expect that I'd be playing a pedophelia-themed MMPORG with an army of sockpuppets...-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• factual error: I was not involved in the RFC mentioned by User:AnotherSolipsist. It was filed by User:Herostratus, not by User:SqueakBox or myself, and I did not enter a comment in that RFC. Also, User:AnotherSolipsist's description of the RFC appears it may be a bit less than precise. If anyone is interested in reviewing the RFC, it's at this link.

• inviting more mainstream editors: yes, indeed, that's a good plan. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think inviting more main stream editors in would be a good idea. AnotherSolipsist, I actually think you're mistaken about what the community view on this would be - I actually suspect there would be a greater proportion going towards the SqueakBox point of view. I think it could be a good idea to see what the communities views are on this area of the encyclopedia. Would everyone be ok with me creating an RfC style discussion about pedophilia related articles? At the moment, we don't really know and I think it would be good to guage community consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Could provide a link here when you create said RfC? I did have a small point of info to raise though: this topic is, to say the least, unpleasant and highly emotional no matter where one stands. Potential mainstream folks may be reluctant to comment due to this, and less so if they are aware of previous disputes. I'm frequently prone to just holding my tongue just because of how stressful this can get.Legitimus (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes of course - I'll also publicise it on T:CENT as well so we get as many people as possible commenting. I think it's important we get a full discussion going about this topic. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Ryan, have you discussed this with Arbcom?-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I haven't actually, but I think they'd appreciate community input into this whole topic. If the major parties to the "topic dispute" agree to abide by the consensus of the RfC, I think many of the problems here could be solved. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
          • • What "topic dispute" are you referring to? You want to start a general/amorphous/unspecified RFC about the whole subject of pedophilia, at the same time as an RFC to resolve the longstanding problem at child sexual abuse about the "coatrack passage"? I don't see what a "general RFC" could accomplish, really, and I'd feel more comfortable if you discussed this with Arbcom first. -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
              • More mainstream editors? Yes please. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Having more editors involved is definitely a good idea, however the difficulty lies in getting users to participate in an area where heated controversy is rampant and edit wars are far too common. If I remember correctly, I think there were already several RfCs filed for pedophilia-related topics, and unfortunately those were not that successful. Also, I have to agree with PetraSchelm on the point that a general RfC focusing on anything related to the subject of pedophilia is a bit too broad and ambiguous of an endeavor. If there is a specific article or issue that needs to be addressed, an RfC is often an effective venue for resolution of disagreement, but specifics are a must, and it looks like the proposed RfC would lack in this regard. Nevertheless, it's worth a try, as long as some focus is directed towards particular issues that have been causing difficulties. Lastly, I don't really see a need to bother ArbCom with this, seeing as this has nothing to do with the role the committee plays on Wikipedia. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, have you read any Arbcom cases? Arbcom has made some very useful rulings which are used not only to resolve longstanding disputes, but to set precedent. The two that I read that seem relevant here are 1) the paranormal case, about the editors who believed in paranormal things 2) the pro-life editor who wanted to include studies by pro-life psychologists out of proportion to their relevance. I really didn't give up hope re discussion at child sexual abuse until I read through the entire talkpage archives and the page revision history. The same dispute has been going on for years. About the same handful of studies. Using the same arguments. In the same words. Pro-pedophile editors are blocked, and new editors take up the dispute exactly where they left off. An RFC is a preliminary to requesting that Arbcom take a case, so we can try that, but I think only an Arbcom ruling will solve the problem at child sexual abuse, because it goes beyond specific editors and has lasted so long. The only alternative I can see to asking Arbcom to hear the case is that their previous rulings on fringe views and tendentious editing re fringe views are applicable precedent already.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the evidence page of the Arbcom case regarding pro-life studies in the abortion and mental health article: [8] I think it might be useful reading for everyone; help provide perspective on how Arbcom views selectively pushing studies, regardless of the pov. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Erik Möller

I just wanted to take the opportunity to commend Squeakbox for working so hard to prevent the Erik Moller article from being recreated. Some may say Squeak is "pro-censorship," for trying to keep information like that out, but I think it is for the benefit of the encyclopedia.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does this have to to with pedophilia-related articles? ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Try a google news search using the header with the German ö. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I now see how this is related to this discussion group. However, I would contend that blocking attempts to recreate the article in question is not necessarily that commendable. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Its because he is not notable enough to have an article about him, and his PPA beliefs do not change that. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I don't think this is helping things. One of the key parts to this mentorship is trying to regain the decorum here, I'm not sure that this is really going to help that goal. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Article of the month

I was wondering what everyone thought about having an article of the month as part of this mentorship? We could work on an article together, that's under the pedophile category of articles. I would suggest that the articles we work on are short, and we aim to bring them up a notch or two with neutral editing. It could help draw everyone together... Thoughts? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm on-board. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical, and what I would like to see first is at least one of the topic mentors actually watching the articles we're already working on. (It doesn't seem to be the case.) I'd also like a policy on mass open-proxy/Tor sockpuppetry--like fast response to semi-protect, and block any editors warring in tandem with socks--that would go a long way to improving the atmosphere. Last but not least, I'd like to see real follow-up on solving the dispute at child sexual abuse once, since it has dragged on forever and so much time is needlessly wasted on circular recurring arguments at that article.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to start a new section for those latter ideas - certainly something to consider though. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the mentorship - I wanted this page created so you guys could report problems here. I've watchlisted a few pages, but it's not possible to keep tabs on every edit that goes on here, so we need proactive reports so we can keep tabs. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if we try we could see how positive is. I wonder if we were to try to get some of these articles up to GA (good article) status that outside input in making that so could be very useful it, and possibly solve the POV problem and the sock problem at the same time, maybe starting wiht child sexual abuse. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we'd be best starting with a much shorter article so we could build it up - building an article often gives less conflict that changing current conflict. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I think this is a great idea. I'll definitely be up for helping with this. hmwithτ 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Has anyone any suggestions for an article? As I've said previously, it would be best if we chose a very short article and helped to build it. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Four PAW articles currently protected or semi-protected

Child sexual abuse--> RFC

Proposed solution: Ryan, did you want to format this/do you have suggestions about where it should go? (I've read a few, but I've never formatted one). -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Child pornography and the Child protection act of 1978

Proposed solution: really need an open-proxy/Tor sockpuppet policy for this project. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course we don't - what I think we could use is a quick way to protect an article, should sock concerns arise. I'd like to see a report of sockpuppetry here, and a quick protection until it's sorted out. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Also, have you talked to East? He had to block 4,000 open proxies. There has been so much open-proxy/Tor sockpupptery/disruption that I think there should be a project-specific rule that when the open-proxies and Tors start, the article is semi-protected and anyone who edits in tandem with a Tor/open-proxy should be blocked. Otherwise it will just happen again/there is benefit for editors to edit war in tandem with socks instead of discussing. We need to de-incentivize that.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Petra, could you give a few examples where open proxies have been used to edit these articles? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• The two articles named above, which are semi-protected, were semi-protected because of Tors/open proxies. Have you looked over the revision history of child pornography for the last week?-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you give some examples of those open proxies? I mean IP's and they're edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• It would take up ten pages--just scan through the revision history of child pornography for the last week and count the IPs. Then click on them to see that East blocked them all as Tors. (That was on top of seven distinct registered sockpuppets in the last 10 days...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly support a ban on any open proxies from editing PAW articles with any editor found doing so (including me) getting an indef ban. The open proxies are tolerated ebcause of concerns that people in certain countries can only edit through open proxies, it is not meant for pedophile activists to evade bans. A commitment from us all to not edit using opemn proxuies would enormously help relieve the poisonous atmosphere that these socks have created by editing here in defiance of their bans. Thanks, SqueakBox

Open proxies should not be used to edit any article, not just articles under this topic. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, there's still a huge problem, specifically at this project, with Tors/open proxies. And two editors here have openly stated "Tor is not a reason to revert" etc. as their justification while they were edit warring in tandem with Tors.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

List of banned users editing from proxies

Her is a place for a list of banned suers editing from proxies, give the block log url and name of editor. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Mike D78
• Richard Laube
• laceibahonduras. Editing from tor nodes

How do you know they're proxy editing? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

With Mike and Richard it is on the block log, with laceibahonduras it was bnased on the checkuser evidence on the check user for SqueakBox. So entirely based on written evidence from the blocking admin or a bureaucrat and not based at all on my own opinions, eg Thatcher confirmed at my CU page that laceibahonduras was operating from a tor proxy. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Check user cases

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Happy Camper II

Proven socks

• User:Voice of Britain has hosted the following socks
  • User:Farenhorst

• User:Kartikabalaji has hosted the following socks
  • User:Drogheda
  • User:00a00a0aa
  • User:Happy Camper II

Pro-pedophile activism

Proposed solution: unprotect per talkpage discussion (but fast action/sockpuppet policy also applicable here). -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Examples of edit warring in tandem with Tor socks

Here's a slice from child porn -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tor sockpuppet reverts without discussion/using insulting edit summary:

• 11:11, 9 May 2008 91.121.202.57 (Talk) (43,679 bytes)

(Undid revision 211177853 - you have been warned about pushing your pov. what's wrong with this version?) (undo)

John Nevard reverts:

• 11:25, 9 May 2008 John Nevard (Talk | contribs) (43,310

bytes) (oh, how good of an anonymous ip vandal to warn a respectable editor about that) (undo)

Jovin reverts to the sock's version (which put OR in the article. Jovin puts the OR back in, then adds a source which does not back it up. Note that he is specifically arguing that the anonymous IP Tor sockpuppet has a "right" to edit, and that he is editing on its behalf--"Jovin Lambton says it's OK"):

• 14:57, 9 May 2008 Jovin Lambton (Talk | contribs)

(43,679 bytes) (You are removing material without consensus and calling the addition "vandalism" because the editor is a (possibly less anonymous) IP. Anyway, "Jovin Lambton" says it's OK.) (undo)

• 15:30, 9 May 2008 Jovin Lambton (Talk | contribs)

(43,701 bytes) (→Relationship with Contact Offences: to that extent) (undo)

• 15:29, 9 May 2008 Jovin Lambton (Talk | contribs)

(43,695 bytes) (backs it up) (undo)

I take out the OR, put what the source actually says in the article):

• 16:19, 9 May 2008 PetraSchelm (Talk | contribs) (43,310

bytes) (rv the last version by John Nevard--you have not addressed talkpage discussion and you keep putting misquote in the article/most recent quote not in yr source) (undo)

• 16:21, 9 May 2008 PetraSchelm (Talk | contribs) (44,576

bytes) (→Relationship to sex offending: + what that doj ref actually said) (undo)

• 16:30, 9 May 2008 PetraSchelm (Talk | contribs) (45,630

bytes) (→Internet proliferation: more from DOJ source) (undo)

• 16:25, 9 May 2008 PetraSchelm (Talk | contribs) (44,940

bytes) (→Collecting child pornography: + more from doj source) (undo)

Tor sockpuppet reverts (with false and insulting edit summary "pov revert"; lies about consensus):

• 21:58, 9 May 2008 http://hemlock.ts.wikimedia.org/~krimpet/torcheck.php?ip=98.196.71.152 (Talk) (47,048 bytes)

(→Relationship to sex offending: Undid pov revert. Talk page discussion had no consensus (50-50) and so a revert was not justified) (undo)

I revert:

• 22:03, 9 May 2008 PetraSchelm (Talk | contribs) (46,441

bytes) (rv to last version by Fremte (due to Tor sockpuppet disruption)) (undo)

Tor sockpuppet reverts me:

• 22:23, 9 May 2008 128.61.100.95 (Talk) (47,048 bytes)

(purported "sockpuppet disruption" is not an excuse for reverting those whom you disagree with) (undo)

Squeakbox reverts the sockpuppet:

• 22:25, 9 May 2008 SqueakBox (Talk | contribs) (46,441

bytes) (Undid revision 211350584 by 128.61.100.95 (talk)) (undo)

AnotherSolipsist reverts to the sockpuppet's version:

• 22:30, 9 May 2008 AnotherSolipsist (Talk | contribs)

(47,048 bytes) (Revert: Better organization.) (undo)

• Talkpage discussion: after the fact, Jovin posted on the talkpage with the subject header "Disruptive edit" (!) to accuse John Nevard of disruption for reverting the IP edit discussed above, which put OR in the article/used an insulting edit summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Child_pornography#Disruptive_Edit Note that he is arguing specifically that Tors/proxies have a "right" to edit, and that he intends to report us all to AN/I for reverting obvious Tor sockpuppets who put OR bs in the article...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Discussion at AnotherSolipsist's talkpage--one of the things AS/JL edit warred over with socks (and refused to discuss) was the insertion of a link to the International Pedophile Child Emancipation website, as well as a link to a journal published by a misogynist homophobic fringe crackpot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnotherSolipsist#Unreliable_sources

More

They use the exact same words.

Tor sockpuppet: "Use of Tor is not a reason for reversion."

AnotherSolipsist: "Tor is not a reason to revert."

Note also that only one of these Tors ever used the talkpage (And he had no point; his edit did not stand. None of their edits have stood...all their edit summaries are pure trolling. And there are three separate Tors just in this example...):

• 17:14, 5 May 2008 AnotherSolipsist (Talk | contribs)

(40,809 bytes) (Edit seems valid and well-sourced. Tor is not a reason to revert.) (undo)

• 17:13, 5 May 2008 PetraSchelm (Talk | contribs) (37,984

bytes) (rv IP using Tor) (undo)

• 16:22, 5 May 2008 81.166.62.12 (Talk) (40,809 bytes)

(Undid POV revert of constructive edits. Use of Tor is not a reason for reversion, nor is your POV. If you have genuine concerns about an edit, please discuss them on the talk page) (undo)

• 12:06, 5 May 2008 PetraSchelm (Talk | contribs) (37,984

bytes) (rv edits by IP editor using Tor--sock disruption) (undo)

• 11:23, 5 May 2008 82.216.101.110 (Talk) (40,809 bytes)

(→Effects on prevalence of child sexual abuse) (undo)

• 11:16, 5 May 2008 82.216.101.110 (Talk) (40,718 bytes)

(→Child sexual abuse in production and distribution) (undo)

• 10:58, 5 May 2008 91.121.76.75 (Talk) (40,035 bytes)

(→Effects on prevalence of child sexual abuse: oops, bad referencing) (undo)

• 10:55, 5 May 2008 91.121.76.75 (Talk) (40,178 bytes)

(→Effects on prevalence of child sexual abuse: more) (undo) -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

One problem here is that the IPs you claim to be tor, aren't tor. 91.121.202.57, 98.196.71.152 aren't tor nodes. Not evertyone who edits with an IP are editing with tor. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the Tor checker only checks for current status. Those two are both certainly past Tor nodes (I didn't check any others). Dmcdevit·t 03:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I just clicked on the IPs when they came up, and in each case it was tagged by a bot identifying it as a Tor node. (They all have like one or two edits, and only to child porn, and their lying edit summaries are all the same: "pov revert! No consensus! Use the talkpage!" :-) So they were flaming socks for sure anyway...-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tors blocked at child porn in the last week

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:91.121.76.75

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:82.216.101.110

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:81.166.62.12

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:98.196.71.152

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:59.39.236.4

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:81.169.168.201

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:80.144.62.108

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:98.215.72.184

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:84.232.166.164

Sockpuppets blocked the week before that at child porn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cocktailexpert

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Onevictim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brian_ribbon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cole_Dealton

...there was a sleeper sock too, uncovered in the checkuser--called thegreatchildpornhoax, but I forgot where the link is. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets at child porn three weeks ago

(fewer, no Tor/open-proxy IPs, some socks edited other PAW articles, not just child porn)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:N1995w

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Bmj4

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Laceibahonduras

Why child porn was such a target?

• I think it's always been a target, but, in the last two weeks we massively improved it, which really made it a target, I think:

• See the difference from scrolling down to the version here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&diff=205646007&oldid=205637539

• And compare to the article right now:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

• So, not to be a bummer, but I'm not that psyched to put a tremendous amount of work into a PAW article if it means going through the experience of being massively trolled by an army of sockpuppets again. I don't see why the proposed rule isn't sensible--anybody who edit wars in tandem with sockpuppets is blocked, and an article is semi-protected after say, the third Tor/open proxy in 24hrs...? -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the critique of this approach is obvious - edits on Wikipedia are generally judged on their own merit, and not according to some predetermined schema. As it happens, some socks and tors may indeed have valid edits to contribute to an article. Whenever a constructive edit by a sock or a tor is undone or rejected, it's quite likely that other editors, including established regular ones, would make an edit of very similar nature. Thus, a blocking policy of the sort you recommend would pretty much disallow almost any kind of constructive editing, because socks and tors exhibit all types of editing behavior, and blocking based on similarity of edits to theirs is not gonna lead anywhere good - some sock or tor could quite likely make an edit that a regular member would contribute on his or her own. We should just stick to the regular policy of undoing nonconstructive and disruptive edits, and of blocking editors that violate Wikipedia policies. No need to bring in excessive censorship that is only bound to produce even more unnecessary paranoia. ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Homologeo, what it would specifically disallow is banned ppa editors disrupting from Tors and proxies at PAW articles, and people edit warring in tandem with them. As long as they can get away with it on some pretense, they will do it to game the system. -PetraSchelm (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, just stating the obvious: any valid edit made even by a Tor sockpuppet (not that there were any) and then reverted could be proposed by another editor on the talkpage, if an editor wanted to propose it, under bold-revert-discuss. There is absolutely no justification for Jovin Lambton or AnotherSolipsist to reinstate a Tor/proxy edit without discussion after it has been reverted once; it's just disruption and gaming the system. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree, PetraSchelm, because edits are supposed to be judged for their own worth, no matter whose editing pattern they resemble. If it's established that an edit by a sock or a tor was nonconstructive or disruptive and it is removed, then, yes, reinserting such an edit may be deemed unhelpful. However, if an edit of a sock or a tor is removed simply because that individual made it, there's no reason to outright reject an edit that is similar to it but is made by a legitimate non-banned editor. All controversial edits should be discussed on the Talk Page if they cause disagreement or multiple reversions. Howbeit, there's no necessity to treat edits by legitimate editors that resemble those of socks or tors any different than other regular contributions to the article. Likewise, if a sock or a tor reverts an edit by an established user, while it's understandable to undo this revert, there's no reason to punish editors who themselves choose to revert the same edit on their own accord. This is important to note, because there is more than one way a sock or a tor can "game the system" (as you put it). ~ Homologeo (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I looked at the edits and judged them on their total crappiness as well--I just put "rv Tor sockpuppet" in my edit summaries so that watchers would know what was going on. You're talking very much in the abstract, and not addressing the specific fact that two editors here have been edit warring in tandem with Tor socks. If there's a Tor sockpuppet, and an editor here thinks the edit was valid, they can bring it up on the talkpage. (What we saw in the last week especially was refusal of those editors to discuss anything, let alone the "controversial edits" made by Tor sockpuppets.) The idea that a Tor sockpuppet could make a valid edit is being used as a technicality to troll, disrupt, edit war, and game the system, and it needs to be removed, especially in the case of Jovin Lambton and AnotherSolipsist. (Those two could be on Tor/open-proxy sockpuppet revert parole--that's another solution.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:I can't comment on the proposed policy per se, as I am not knowledgeable enough. However, I felt I should inform those here that there has been some non-wikipedia traffic recently about the child porn article that could be summed up as a "call to arms" shall we say? And it wasn't from Petra's camp. Legitimus (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, what kind of "call to arms" is this? ~ Homologeo (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't edit the child porn article, but I think he might mean that since Wikipedia/is-Virgin-Killer-pic-child-porn was in the news so much last week that the article might have been a vandal-troll magnet. I didn't see any vandalism or trolling of that type, though--all the Tors had the recognizable voice/editing style of the banned user socks we have seen at so many other articles.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true, I am not getting involved in that, just rumors I hear. Ok, strike my remark then. Legitimus (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Proxies/Tors blocked at Protection of children act

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Britishlaw

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:190.44.220.10

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:216.93.183.68

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:91.46.138.38

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:77.180.136.101

• You can see here also that Jovin Lambton and a sock use the exact same wording:

• Sock: "What matters is the edit, not the editor"
• JL: "The edit is valid. The editor need not matter."

• (cur) (last) 07:02, 5 May 2008 Jmlk17 (Talk | contribs) m (25,184 bytes) (Reverted edits by 216.93.183.68 (talk) to last version by PetraSchelm) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 00:37, 5 May 2008 216.93.183.68 (Talk) (24,950 bytes) (Rv yet another unhelpful edit by PetraSchelm - please check the content of edits before reverting them) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 00:32, 5 May 2008 PetraSchelm (Talk | contribs) (25,184 bytes) (rv edit by IP editor using Tor--sock of banned user) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 00:05, 5 May 2008 190.44.220.10 (Talk) (24,950 bytes) (Undid revision 210211455 by Jack-A-Roe (talk) Undo, but replace with ref to actual court documents) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 23:52, 4 May 2008 Jack-A-Roe (Talk | contribs) (25,184 bytes) (→Pedophilia: newspaper ref does not use the term "nudist" or report "playing on the beach"; also, copyedit per the newspaper report of the appeal case) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 23:38, 4 May 2008 Jovin Lambton (Talk | contribs) (25,107 bytes) (→Paedophilia: americanize standard) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 23:32, 4 May 2008 91.46.138.38 (Talk) (25,108 bytes) (What matters is the edit, not the editor. The previous version used the word "pedophelia" and removed relevant text from old article. (reverted pov rv by (redacted--trolling))) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:41, 4 May 2008 PetraSchelm (Talk | contribs) (24,964 bytes) (rv edit by IP editor using Tor) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 21:42, 4 May 2008 Jovin Lambton (Talk | contribs) (25,108 bytes) (The edit is valid. The editor need not matter.) (undo)

Seriously

SqueakBox described this edit as removing "pedophile pushing." Some kind of statement from the mentors condemning this kind of inflammatory, patently absurd scare rhetoric would really be nice. SB uses it, along with general incivility, to scare off opposing editors new to the paedophilia-related articles. Observe what happened to User:Ave Caesar yesterday: here and here --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusing other contributors of being pedophiles is equally disruptive as self-identifying as one and is grounds for a ban. east.718 at 11:13, May 24, 2008

And what of accusations that other editors support the paedophile agenda? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess you should take that up with Herostratus, who blocked you for tendentious pro-pedophile editing? -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is accusing anyone of being a pedophile, I was pointing out POV pushing, which is completely different, supporting the agenda is completely different from being a pedophile and there is clearly no consensus to ban anyone from wikipedia for claims of POV pushing. Since yesterday AS and Lambton have yet again engaged in trolling good faith users, if this isn't stopped I will Mfd this page ans being a joke, and not one in good taste. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that complaints should be addressed here, if this is supposed to be the alternative to AN/I, else this page should be Mfd'd and complaints addressed to AN/I. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling content pedophile pushing is not calling a contributor a pedophile (if he did do that, I would take it very seriously). Is there a wider concern with SBs editing? I'll happily look at some more diffs if there are some. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's ambiguous. "Pedophile pushing" sounds quite like it would mean pushing by paedophiles, and at the very least, SqueakBox should have avoided that by saying "pro-paedophile pushing." Even that, I hold, would be inappropriate, because his change in no way removed "pro-paedophile" statements. Anyone who reverts him risks implying that they support paedophilia; I think SqueakBox knows that, and that's why he describes even his most frivolous edits to these articles as correcting paedophile bias. Who wants to be seen reverting such nobility?

As for specific diffs, check [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] In these, SB unjustifiably accuses Lambton and I of deliberate trolling. These are all from today and yesterday; if you check virtually any batch of 50 edits by Squeak, you'll find similar incivility. Also from today is this series of edits, which demonstrates SB's absurd idea of neutrality: He says PPAs "want to legalize child sexual abuse" and advocate the legalization of child porn "in order to deliberately humiliate publicly the children they sexually abuse for the rest of the child's life." PetraSchelm actually undid my reversion of this (!), and then SB registered the sockpuppet account User:Blowhardforever to undue it again (Evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SqueakBox). It's of note that a large consensus has twice determined that our article should not claim that PPAs seek to legalize CSA; first at Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_17#REQUEST_FOR_COMMENT, and then after Squeak disregarded that, at Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_17#Edit_request. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You were, separately and together, deliberately trying to upset both Googie man and Squeakbox yesterday (not unfair for SB to call it trolling): [15] [16] Also, makimg disruptive, baseless complaints against Squeakbox at AN/I.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The admin involved in that affair did not agree with you. J*Lambton ^T/_C 20:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

His recent accusation that I was having fantasies about children being easy to abuse abroad, combined with the peripheral nonsense accusing me of advertising for pedophiles, etc was particularly disgraceful -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=prev&oldid=205455669 J*Lambton ^T/_C 20:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Jovin's IP sock

What's going on with the complaint re JL and AS edit warring in tandem wits socks, and the outstanding request for a checkuser on JL and the IP sock? Also concerned that if complaints are supposed to go to this ghetto and not AN/I, that JS and AL are not respecting that/trying to create disruption, and JL is starting a forest fire by cross-complaining to AN and AN/I at the same time, in fact--with baseless complaints. If complaints are supposed to go to this ghetto, they should be addressed here--our complaints re JS/AL are just being ignored here (which they interpret as a license to ill, I'm afraid.)-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd. Please give me evidence of the last time that I knowingly edit-warred with a sockpuppet. J*Lambton ^T/_C 20:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• At least you admit you were knowingly edit warring in tandem with sockpuppets (why you weren't blocked for that makes no sense). Meanwhile:
• Jovin Lambton (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 82.25.179.169 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Jovin's IP, revealed while he was logged out, geolocates to the same place and the same ISP as the IP: [17] The IP "admits" that it is "forgetting" to log in:[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.25.179.169&diff=prev&oldid=213798615]. Both Jovin and the IP agree with AnotherSolipsist, on the same day, creating illusion of greater consensus for AS' version: [18] [19]. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

When an editor actually acknowledged me, I told them to ignore my edits under that IP and not assume that they contributed to the consensus. I would have ideally not wanted to reveal my IP at all, but the automatic log in was not working. That you see this as a manipulation of consensus betrays your bias more than it does anything about anyone else. J*Lambton ^T/_C 20:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, where is your evidence that I was knowingly engaged in edit warring with sock-puppets? J*Lambton ^T/_C 20:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. All you claimed as IP was that you weren't a new editor, which was obvious anyway--you didn't make any correction to the child sexual abuse talkpage viz consensus/try to mitigate abusive sockpupptery. Or to Swatjester's talkpage, where you were harassing me (and trying to make it look like someone was complaining other than you). You also edit warred in tandem with yourself-as-sock at child pornography with that IP. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have no actual evidence that this was deliberate. Editors very often fail to sign in, and some just don't like to reveal their IPs by "claiming" their edits. It was an unfortunate mistake - one that you want to mink for all it's worth.

If any of the small number of edits I made did lead to false consensus (considering the way that numerical IPs are dealt with, I doubt it), I do apologise for that. J*Lambton ^T/_C 20:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmmhmm. And why did you log back in to cover over your IP at the PPA article, and not at any other time. It's abusive sockpuppetry, and you're busted. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this right. For anyone else, it's an editor failing to log in. For someone you don't like, they're "busted"?

I decided to log back in and claim my edit, because that is when I fixed the automatic log in option, and it had happened too many times to risk changing consensus. I had already admitted (using my numerical IP) to being a regular editor, making the connection quite obvious anyway.

Also, would I have used my numerical IP to sock the same articles that I was editing with my account? Please - I'm not that dumb. Would you have preferred that I continued to forget to log in, and risk deluding others? J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

And If I was intending to sock articles, why would I have used my numerical IP to admit to being an editor who failed to log in, and then my account to claim an edit, after I had failed to log in a number of times? It makes no sense. Its crazy a priori reasoning against an editor who you have a proven agenda against. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bull. You thought no one would notice. There's no way to evade the abusive sockpuppetry charge, not even a lame post-facto attempt to admit it--your post on Swatjester's page proves malice (against me). You used the IP to appear to be two accts. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would I admit to the hypothetical abuse of the account, when there was no "danger" that it would be discovered? J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Because you know you're busted, so you're trying to lie your way out of it. How do explain posting to Swatjester's talkpage to antagonize me here, on May 6: [20] and then "innocently" forgetting to log in to post this character-assassination screed three days later on May 9:[21] and then failing to admit that you were the IP? If one "forgets" to log in and makes a very controversial edit, it stinks of sockpuppetry. Especially for one who on the same day, May 6, was sticking up for another obvious sockpuppet, who was blocked as a sock of banned user Voice of Britain (whom Squeakbox thinks you are): [22]. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I knew that I was busted ...... despite the fact that no one had raised any suspicion that I was misusing an account? So I decided to engage in abusive behaviour, continued it for many days, and then suddenly came to the realisation (totally on my own, you see, as no one else had the faintest suspicion) that I was no less than "busted".

Go away, troll me another day. J*Lambton ^T/_C 21:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're busted and you know it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Jovin - there is clearly something problematic with your editing using IPs. Here (using your IP) you claim that Petra insult IP editors, implying that you are solely an IP editor. This is a clear breach of WP:SOCK, as have a number of edits with your IP. I can understand that someone may forget to log in, but it's not acceptable to claim you are an IP editor when you have an account, and are clearly in dispute with Petra with that account. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the context, I think he's talking about Petra's attitude towards IP editors on Child pornography (mostly Tor users), not himself. Btw, could you take care of Squeak's disruption of my userpage? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan - I have made exactly the same argument about Petra's baiting of numerical IP editors, on CP, using my account, and it was this account that I intended to log in with. Is there any way of diagnosing when my IP accessed the site, for that would show that all instances were at the start of a session. The reason that I was complaining against Petra was because that has been a common argument of mine, considering the number of arguments coming the other way. J*Lambton ^T/_C 22:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As AnotherSolipsist notes, as I was talking about TORs, not ISPs, I was not referring to myself "as an IP editor" ...... when I made that comment, I had no such conception, as I thought that I was signing as Jovin Lambton. You may be enlightened further on this issue by contacting Swatjester, who was heavily involved in those proceedings, and knows how controversial the issue of "anonymous IPs" was. J*Lambton ^T/_C 22:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, when you make a controversial edit--like trashing somebody--you have to claim the edit, or else it's abusive sockpuppetry. The fact that you edit warred in tandem with Tors and proxies and tried to justify it just adds to the evidence that you should be indef blocked for disruption. (You probably are those Tors and proxies).-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Jovin Lambton idefinitely for making a legal threat ([23]). This is not acceptable anywhere on the project and something that Jovin had previously been warned for. AS - I'm looking at your userpage disruption next. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Block was undone after I promised to redact the misinterpreted comment. Thank you.

Just to be clear, I am not into making legal threats, although I do feel that some arguments made against me amount to lawyering ("how best can I present my agenda"). J*Lambton ^T/_C 23:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You've made two sideways legal threats in the 48 hours (neither of which you apologized for-all you did was make excuses). But what you should be indef blocked for is abusive sockpuppetry, disruption, incivility, and edit warring in tandem with Tors. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

And he blanks his talkpage whenever he is warned about anything: [24] [25] [26]. Let's also note for the record that I emailed East with a request that that IP be blocked as a sock as soon as it appeared, and that I emailed him days ago with a checkuser request. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I will only apologise for non-deliberate misinterpretation of either of my non-legal-threats. I remain unblocked because neither were actual threats, and in fact one was a warning that accusations of pedophilia are likely to be incitatory (I myself shrugged off an accusation of "fantasizing" about vulnerable children by telling a frequent accuser that he safe as long as he does not meet me!).

Your accusations continue to be unfounded, continue to disrupt the project unnecessarily and the sour grapes over my talk page is a mere distraction. I have total jurisdiction over what I delete from that page, and I always make sure to provide archive links above the ongoing discussion, however embarrassing the warnings are, however blatant the baiting is.

I have no more time for Wikipedia today, so bye for now. J*Lambton ^T/_C 23:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan *blocked* you for legal threats, and he unblocked you for redacting, not because he decided you didn't make one. Hopefully he will see unblocking you was pointless and unwarranted, because you just lie about it (and will do something similar again soon, since you don't think you did anything wrong). And it is curious that you delete all warnings from your talkpage--you actually don't have the right to do that, if it's very misleading. I continue to hope you will be indef blocked for abusive sockpuppetry and general disruption, for the good of the project. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695

Petra, please enhance your calm! Really, calling it a legal threat when it was just a sarcastic way of saying smells like wikilawyering, a charge, given your almost every other day posting to ANI of some violation or another, something that seems to be accurate. Also, wiki-sleuthing is highly frowned upon these days; just ask Durova why she had to resign her adminship. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You get the big whatever. And take it up with Ryan if you don't think it was a legal threat--Ryan *blocked* him for making a legal threat. Also, JL is the one who posts to AN/ANI everyday lately--about Squeakbox. Not sure what "sleuthing" means, As JL has admitted the sock is his. Last but not least, I just glanced over your contribs--here's a nasty, nonsensical anti-Squeakbox rant: general anti-Squeak rant: [27] And here's an extremely uncivil statement about Arbcom on PPAs--they "have a stick shoved up their ass" [28] Nice! I think it's obvious you have some longstanding grudge re Squeakbox, the PPA issue, and Arbcom that certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with me, or JL's many policy violations. Nor are your comments even vaguely constructuve in any way. So now that we've established that, I suggest you cease and shove off, as you'll be ignored anyway if you continue. Thanks for understanding! -PetraSchelm (talk)

Petra - we have a two way pull here. On the one hand, we have an editor engaging in extremely rude and suspicious behaviour - accusing other editors of pedophile allegiances or worse. On the other - his popularity with some, perceived agenda and intentions are so whiter than white, that it seems he is untouchable. This is obviously going to cause a great deal of annoyance, whenever anything SB/Pedo related is brought before administrators, because the feelings are strong on either side.

If you would like to defend his behaviour, I'm all ears. J-Lambton ^T/_C 02:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no "two way pull"--there is only your disruptive attempt to forum shop/start a forest fire/make baseless accusations against Squeakbox to deflect scrutiny from yourself. That is part of the reason you should be indef blocked for general disruption/bringing only negativity and drama to the party--you started a thread on AN/I and AN at the same time, when you know complaints are supposed to be brought here, and you did so after AS did the same thing (which he also should not have done) and you did it only hours after I pointed out that your misdeeds have piled up to critical mass, and that I had a pending checkuser request (to East) regarding your IP sock. You made a lot of noise and tried manipulate people like Dragon695 into thinking there is some Squeak drama going on when there's not, and your complaints against Squeak were utterly meritless-- a sarcastic comment he made six weeks ago? You scrounged at pathetic fragements in a blatant attempt to shift focus from yourself, because you knew your sock was about to be exposed (and that the evidence for your general disruptive and negative actions has really stacked up in the last week in particlular). Why you are not blocked yet mystifies me, but when you are gone there will be a bit more peace and people will be able to focus on articles instead of fending off your constant negative disruption. -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Petra - You have continued the behaviour that Swatjester said he would block you for. So you are one to talk. J-Lambton ^T/_C 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see a single diff. (last I checked SJ ignores all your attempts to manipulate him.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jovin's wikilawyering on behalf of obvious sockpuppets (of VOB)

• FarenhorstO: [29]

• Cole_Dealton: [30] [31]

• Louisa Petit-Ladoumegue: [32] [33] [34] [35] -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't improve your case. Nor does your increasingly inflammatory comment fulfil the purpose of mentorship liaison. J-Lambton ^T/_C 06:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is overwhelming that you are not here to create an encyclopedia; you are here to disrupt and cause conflict. Meanwhile, weren't you going to provide diffs that you have ever added a reference to an article other than less than a dozen pro-pedophile sources? Oops, except you can't, because those are the only references you have ever added... -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jovin Lambton in the 24 hours after his IP sock was discovered and he was blocked for making a legal threat

Tendentious fringe editing

Here Jovin refers to the mainstream publication Psychology Today as "Motivational CSA literature" (and deletes it, in spite of talkpage consensus that it should remain): [36]. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And this hostile, fringe characterization of mainstream sources is a continuation of inappropriate disruptive advocacy, for which Jovin has already been warned by Herostratus: [37]. (Further, he is aware that the Psychology Today cite was added by User:Googie man, who was so upset that it was deleted without explanation that he considered leaving Wikipedia after 7 years as a worthwhile contributor, during which he has added many, many images to the commons). -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rudeness

Here Jovin is called out for contributing to the talkpage of Child sexual abuse solely to be incivil/because he hopes to provoke: [38]. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here Jovin is grossly incivil/argumentative/insulting and personalizes his comments/directs them at another editor following a polite request from Squeakbox about content: [39] -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Here Jovin follows me around the Wiki, attempts to inflame disputes, and makes false accusations and vague threats: [40] -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Baiting/goading Squeakbox, making hostile comments directed at contributor, not on content: [41] -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Makes hostile, personalized comments towards Jack, who gave a 3RR warning to an 8 day old contributor who may not have been familiar with the policy:[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarionTheLibrarian&diff=215153109&oldid=215143521] -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

Here Jovin receives a response from User:Haiduc, to his blatant attempt to "recruit" Haiduc to Jovin's cause of being a general disruptive pov warrior/troll: [42].

It seems my "response" was the result of a misunderstanding on my part. Consider it retracted. Haiduc (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

More canvassing, tendentious fringe pov pushing

Here Jovin refers to reverting as an entitlement--he has "used up" all his reverts. He also refers to the Mayo Clinic as a "child savers" organization. And he is very much pushing an us. v them Wikipedia-as-battleground mentality to AnotherSolipsist "Jack is at it again," etc. :[43].

All unfounded and opinionated accusations by an editor who is generating a lot more heat than most of her opponents, and has already been told to tone down her dire treatment of other editors, or risk an indefinite block. J-Lambton ^T/_C 22:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Lies, as usual--these all have clear supporting diffs. You've done nothing but continue to disrupt since you were unblocked for making a legal threat. Even your language attempting to exonerate yourself betrays you "opponents""--you see Wikipedia as a battleground/game. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to cause conflict. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly not from the UK. Such irony would almost always bee seen as deliberately comedic. J-Lambton ^T/_C 23:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you claimed you are entitled to revert up to a point (the point of course being 3 in a day). many users have been blocked for such a blatant gaming of the system). Jovin acts to me like he does not care if he is blocked or not. And why should he? He knows he can come back, it wouldn't be the first time, and unlike some of us he does not appear to have the project's interest in mind23:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox 23:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to count the number of times you have reverted three times in a day, or do you want to retract that comment?

And you can strike the nonsense about recruiting Hadiuc, as per his comment on my talkpage. J-Lambton ^T/_C 23:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please show some respect. I thought you were claiming to bve a brand new user whereas I ahve been here years and know a vicious personal; attack when I see one. You appear to be framing other users (your blowhardforeever sock), trying to out other users (your laceibahonduras sock), disrupting mediation (your Richard Baude sock) and yet you still act like you own the place. The idea that I should strike my comments to Haiduc seems like an endorsement of sexism, as your inappropriate posting of my comment re child pornography at AN talk seems like an endorsement of CP. As your legal threats have us all seriously preocupied that you are about to trying and sue everyone for every penny they have (and unlike you I am a human being with plenty of resources and money and workers) at the least. Can you please reconsider or go away. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please show some respect. J-Lambton ^T/_C 05:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What I would like you to do is accept that you have been indef blocked already and go away. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, wisely, doesn't want to be involved with this at all, but it's obvious you were clearly attempting to exploit the situation/inflame a dispute by injecting yourself into it/recruit him to your "side"--as the diffs above show, all you have done in the scant time since you were unblocked is negative, pointless, destructive, and hostile. (Which is not different from what you usually do). You are not here to build an encyclopedia, you are here to cause conflict. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No. If you look at the history, you will find that he misinterpreted my response to yourself as an attack on himself. The issue is now cleared up, we agree that your behaviour (continuously launching unfounded attacks on other editors, etc) is unacceptable, and we are on good terms. Now please leave it alone, and stop escalating conflicts over nothing. J-Lambton ^T/_C 05:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying anything about anyone, because I have not been involved directly. However, let me ask an honest question. Jovin, have you added anything to any of these articles? Any journal articles, literature or textbook sources? I'm not being sarcastic, I really have not looked. I'd really like to see diffs where you added something useful and reliable to a pedophilia related article that had not been part of it in the past.Legitimus (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an edit count report: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=Jovin_Lambton&site=en.wikipedia.org The vast majority of his mainspace edits are reverts. He often doesn't use an edit summary, and when he does, it is an argumentative one/not an informative one. I can only remember him adding references twice--he added pedophile activist Frans Gieles to the pedophilia article, and he added the pedophile blogs Newgon and darestospeak to the pro-pedophile activism article. -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from clearing up the general flow of articles, removing unnecessary material, providing resources and book/article sources (including those that most would not even dare to find), suggesting methods of reaching consensus and better informing editor groups. I will not provide diffs, as that would be to act as if I am defending myself against a suggestion of inproductivity, and a question that could fairly be asked of any editor here - all of whom have been particularly active in reverting edits. J-Lambton ^T/_C 05:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You "will not provide diffs" because you can't--you are not a productive editor, and you are not here to build an encyclopedia. -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is built on the assumption that I criticised just before - i.e. that I have anything to defend myself against at all. The only reason why I take part in your bizarre contrivances is because of the harm in not responding. Some readers may actually believe this rubbish before investigating it - an one just might be an admin on a power trip. J-Lambton ^T/_C 05:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And believe it they should--let's see a single diff to support your outrageously false claim that you have ever "suggested methods of reaching consensus" or "better informed editor groups" (!). Also, what references have you ever added to any article in your entire Wiki career of several months except less than a dozen pro-ped cites? -PetraSchelm (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just the other day, I suggested listing academics of Pedophilia to better frame consensus. *yawns* J-Lambton ^T/_C 06:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where was the diff for you ever making a constructive edit? And what reference have you ever added to an article other than less than a dozen pro-pedophile cites? -PetraSchelm (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's your contention, dear. J-Lambton ^T/_C 07:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's the truth. Where is the evidence to the contrary? There isn't any. You have added less than a dozen references to articles, and they were all pro-pedophile cites. -PetraSchelm (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a false contention which I do not need to defend because (a) You made it. You prove it. (I admit that if you had any clout whatsoever, I would provide the diffs). (b) Well, it's kind of obviously wrong.. see, the link is coming up in my sig right now. J-Lambton ^T/_C 12:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't defend it because it's true. It would be so easy to prove me wrong--just show 12 diffs that you added a cite that wasn't a pro-pedophile cite. But you can't. Because you've never added any. You don't build articles/add references. You add self-published pro-pedophile websites once in a while. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your contention, not my work, look harder. J-Lambton ^T/_C 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone look twice at the handful of self-published pro-pedophile cites you have added to articles? If I were you, I would have added a few non-ped cites in the last 24 hours--what you have done instead is 1) uselessly deny the truth like a broken record without providing evidence, as if that would convince anyone 2) create a sockpuppet to say you are a "real cool editor" on your talkpage! -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Broken record does not apply - as it does with your behaviour in contending that pedophiles cannot possibly propose ethical models or codes of ethics, despite being faced with contrary dictionary cites. You are strictly throwing a tennis ball at mesh. Because your lazy and unfounded claims are not fit to pass, they inevitably bounce right back in your face. Why should I do your work?

Futher allegations of sockpuppetry will lead to reporting at AN/I, requesting administrative coercion for you to cease, or provide rationale to SSP or CU. J-Lambton ^T/_C 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You've already been reported to CU, and I'm going to post this to AN/I and Jimbo's talkpage myself, since no one has blocked you.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to tell everyone how lazy she is when you make your AN/I thread. After all you have the right to be as uncivil as you like because you are a victim, of society etc. But I do agree that pedophiles cannot propose ethical models and more than murderers can. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jovin Lambton: extensive disruption and incivility

This comment is entered here to provide supporting information for the AN report: Community ban discussion - Jovin Lambton.

I had been preparing the following information to send to ArbCom, but since the community ban discussion is already underway, I'm posting it here on the topic mentorship page for use by the community.

User:Jovin Lambton has caused significant ongoing disruption, with incivility and tendentious editing from the moment the account was created. It's been a single purpose account from the start, engaging in rudeness, sarcasm, baiting, trolling, edit warring, and inserting pro-pedophile fringe theories with undue weight in many articles; and as has been pointed out already, adding nothing of value to the text of any article. The disruption caused by Jovin Lambton has wasted many hours for many editors and created a generally unpleasant, contentious and unwelcoming atmosphere on every page he's edited. Representative diffs follow.

disruptive from the very start

• Jovin Lambton (talk · contribs · logs · block log) account created on 8 February 2008.
• After only 6 days, Jovin Lambton made his first pedophilia-related uncivil comment at the AfD for List of Kid Nation participants, where he wrote "I can almost smell the ephebiphobia here."
• By his 8th day, he posted to complain about SqueakBox at AN/I, on behalf of VigilancePrime (talk · contribs · logs · block log) who was later banned for "Pedophilia-related disruption".
• In that AN/I post, Jovin Lambton refers to a "a (now deleted) subpage of VP's" -- that subpage was deleted ten days prior to the creation of the Jovin Lambton account.
• After a 6 week break with no edits, Jovin Lambton resumed editing on 28 March 2008 shortly after User:AnotherSolipsist was blocked for 72 hours for "Tendentious pro-pedophile editing", - for his first edit upon his return, Lambton asked for AnotherSolipsist to be unblocked.

continual incivility and sarcasm

• Thanks for completely fucking my contributions to this thread.
• Smell the biomass.
• Try Reisman. She has a thrilling tendency to poison the well.
• any quack who can puiblish a paper
• Reismanesque smear of the advocate in question. ... previously unheard of facts whose relevance was conceived by an unknown wiki editor.
• vast list of neutral terms that you see as POV.
• Thanks for wasting ten minutes of my day
• Editors should not engage in mind-reading, however attractive it is for the prevailing opinion.

insults, accusations, trolling

• I am lead to question the motivations for removing it more than the policy justification for adding it
• You are attempting to foist off your subjective bias as scholarly prudence
• You have advocated some of the most hideous introductory sentences that force-feed the "truth" to readers
• stop butchering my words to suit your own agenda.
• I question the motives of anyone who does that
• you are distorting the issue and using semantics to step around the issue
• What a misrepresentation.
• (trolling of SqueakBox re troublesome sockpuppet)
• (emotional nonsense)

support of editors blocked for pro-pedophile editing

• VigilancePrime
• FarenhorstO
• Voice of Britain (context: [44])
• Roman Czyborra (context: [45])

misquoting & misrepresenting references

direct misquote of refs:

• [46] direct misquote: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
• [47] edit summary indicating the Mayo Clinic peer-reviewed journal is unreliable because it's "commercial"
• [48] removes Psychology Today Diagnosis Dictionary using edit summary "Motivational CSA lit"
• [49] changes meaning of text in direct opposition to the footnote, even though footnote includes a clear quotation from the reliable source

tendentious pro-pedophile mainspace edits

In reviewing User:Jovin Lambton's 200-some mainspace edits, I was not able to find more than a few that added new text with references. Most appear to be reverts or changes to words that undermine the meaning of existing text related to prevalence of abuse of children by pedophiles and the harm resulting from child sexual abuse in general. I can't show diffs to prove a negative, that he has not added productive content, for that his contribs must stand for themselves.

• [50] In this example, User:Jovin Lambton used a clearly pro-pedophile source as a footnote to undermine mainstream information from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and the Mayo Clinic peer-reviewed journal. The fringe theory he added is based on a supposed "study" written that includes the following blatant statement by its author:

Eventually children will be increasingly seen as little adults, which the rise in their sexual activity itself indicates - more and more and ever earlier. ... New interpretational models change one's view of the world; then children are seen differently also. And the secret eye, always looking out for erotic qualities, may awaken desire. In the current catalog of any mail-order company, I will find any number of little Lolitas and Rambos, from age six on up. ... Pedophilia as sexual form, as opposed to individual slip-ups must, as something historically new, itself be seen as evolving.

Is that the quality of collaboration Wikipedia intends for its editors? Is that the quality of information and reliability of source that Wikipedia wants to provide for its readers? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mentor input on talk page archiving?

A lot of topics, like pro pedophile activism have talkpages that really need archiving. I'm nervous about doing it myself though because people might think I'm censoring them or something, could some of the mentors archive the old stuff that's not seeing any action to make room for the newer discussions to be edited with less hassle? Tyciol (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a mentor, but I've proceeded with archiving of the PPA talk page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tyciol, what talk pages do you think are specifically long? I'll take a look. hmwithτ 21:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)