Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-04 Pro-pedophile activism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sockpuppetry

We appear to have a new sock of a banned user here, ie User:S*** on a Thicket. If this mediation is to work this SPA's comments need to be removed and no new SPAs of banned users should be able to edit. Otherwise forget mediation as I do not mediate with banned users' sockpuppets, SqueakBox 17:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, SqueakBox, please establish that someone is a sock before going off on such a tangent. By now, you're perfectly aware of how to check if someone's a sock. I just looked at this editor's page, and there is no claim that he is a sock, and this individual is currently not banned. So, please go through the proper channels to address your suspicions prior to disrupting the mediation process with comments such as the one above. Honestly, this is getting a little tiring. ~ Homologeo 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not have to do any such thing. What I am clear about is that this mediation (a) can only work with established users and (b) needs to address the issue of socks and your comment, go to RCU, is not a solution to that problem. This is mediation not an article. I do agree that the cheating by banned users using socks is getting more than a little tiring and this is an issue in which we need to have a united front as attempts to blame the issue on me (unbelievable!) and/or ignore socks of banned users is itself disruptive, and unacceptably so. What needs to happen is that we stop the banned users from editing on this subject in any way, shape or form, unless we address this issue then mediation is pointless, and I will not engage in mediation with new SPA socks of banned users under any circumstances. I would also point out that all my suspicions have proven correct so far so i would have thought you would trust my judgment by now (assuming you have no ulterior motive, that is), SqueakBox 19:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, please try to understand that simply stating that someone is a sock is not an effective means of addressing what you see as a sock problem. For instance, clarifying why you believe someone is a sock would be a much better step forward to the end you desire, which I take to be a fair editing process by legitimate unbanned editors. So, if one does not ground their accusations of sock puppetry in evidence, and sock puppetry is not yet established, it is not productive to halt mediation, because the article will never get better this way. Hope you understand these concerns. As for the issue of how legitimate your previous sock suspicions were, that is a whole other issue, seeing as some of the blocks imposed on the editors you thought to be socks have been found questionable by a number of established legitimate members of the Wikipedia community. In fact, I am personally currently inquiring into the nature of two such blocks. ~ Homologeo 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree its not an effective solution, clearly not as the socks return ad nauseam. I made very clear why I think this new user is a sock, ie new user, SPA, supporting the same stuff as the othjer banned users. I suggest we do not allow any non-established users (as of today) to participate in the mediation, that way I will participate. Certainly as long as socks remain editing the PAW articles we have no chance of resolving the problems there, and a number of new socks have been blocked within the last week, including 3 of editors involved in this case, so it is not a historical issue. Claiming that the blocks were wrong is inadequate and IMO we are not here to discuss the validity or otherwise of blocks given by admins (as you all know, I am not an admin), that is outside our remit in terms of what we are mediating, SqueakBox 19:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

here User:S*** on a Thicket has been indef blocked because of his or her inappropriate user name so I am going to remove the comments that user made, SqueakBox 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the user may be banned, this person's comments are still legitimate and acceptable, especially since the ban wasn't related to the comments made. Thus, I have restored the text added by S*** on a Thicket. ~ Homologeo 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

user and certainly banned themselves and such a name was clearly trolling. If you keep restoring this users comments I will withdraw from the mediation. As this is likely a banned user I have every right to remove their comments and you certainly do not have the right to restore comments of a banned user. It is this kind of behaviour that makes me wonder whether we can find a solution as users supporting banned users, as from your comments you and others consistently appear to do, are not demonstrating the good faith we all need to show to work together on this project, SqueakBox 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Do any of you, or do you not, have evidence that this user was or was not a sock puppet? SqueakBox, again, I would like to ask you to back up your claims with evidence. Why do you suspect this user was a sock puppet? If it was because of a corelation of statements, please refer us to previous statements that link a banned user to this S*** on a Thicket. We cannot establish whether we should keep or delete the comments until evidence is provided.

Sqeakbox, how do you propose we prevent sock puppets? justice 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

RCUs on all new users to PAW articles might be a good idea but I have a feeling it would violate our privacy concerns, and I don't have any other proposals. I have no intention of making any public RCU's on this one myself given that the arbcom are dealing with the case off-site, and I am not an admin nor a policeman on this site, just a simple editor.

The problem is the individuals who are doing the socking. There has been so much socking going on that it is reasonable to assume new users promoting the same old banned users line are the same banned users, its not brain surgery, and that is what S*** in a Thicket was doing, even the name expresses this users' anger (at being indefinitely blocked so many times). We are talking multiple abuse of up to 30 socks. And repeat socks get treated the same all over wikipedia, and particularly in sets of articles like LaRouche, which has or has had similar problems.

What I want an answer to is why so many regulars on the PPA page are more hostile to me than to these banned users returning and why they are not actively supportive in ensuring the PAW articles remain sock-free and banned user free. They seem to perceive me as the problem for being super-vigilante while ignoring the problem themselves, and editing in ways that support the edits of these banned users. But it is a very serious problem as these banned users must not be allowed to edit the PAW articles or influence them in any way, shape or form, and really we should go back into the history and remove from the current version any pro-active or restorative (from an earlier incarnation) edits by banned suers such as Mike D78. I suspect such a clean-out would go a considerable way towards fixing the article's NPOV problem. Eg if Rind et al were introduced by a now banned user and then reverted back in by a sock of banned user (multiple times) it might well be an argument for removing Rind et al altogether, as it is really only by removing all the content added by these banned suers who keep returning that we can genuinely fix the problem. Certainly editors supporting the inclusion of these edits of banned users who return as socks is unhelpful in the extreme, SqueakBox 17:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 17:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Produce the evidence, or stick that sock in your mouth. Stop spreading abuse and misinformation. Richard Laube 21:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] arbitration

Regarding the arbitration case you were refering to, SqueakBox, I have been looking for it, but I couldn't find it. Could you give a link to it, so I know whats playing htere? Thanks! Martijn Hoekstra 19:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the arbcom directly as the case is not public, SqueakBox 19:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption

The individual restoring the S*** comments clearly does not want the mediation to work and is thus being disruptive. The mediation can only go forward if the comments of banned suers are promptly removed from this and the project page, SqueakBox 16:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So I will not partake in this mediation process, SqueakBox 16:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)