Statement on my block 

On 27 June I was asked by Thatcher to help deal with pro-paedo bias historical articles.  

I read your post on WR. I have just dealt with a rampant sockpuppeteer User:Burrburr and friends, whose main activity is to remove such pro-pedo edits from dead historical figures. I suspect he was correct on substance but the abusive sockpuppetry (80+ accounts) was unacceptable. It would be a good thing for a knowledgeable, non-sockpuppet using editor to perform the same sort of review, as long as it is done civilly etc. The pro-pedos will find it much harder to revert someone of relatively higher status (most of Burrburr's accounts edited for only a day or two, so it was easy to label them as vandals or "single purpose accounts" and deprecate their edits). This is, of course, harder to do with an established named editor. Thatcher 

For example, it was being claimed with very little properly sourced evidence that Jules Verne was a paedophile.  I did so with the help of an editor called Phdarts whose contributions I looked at and judged worthwhile.  I made a considerble number of edits to the 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset;=20080629&limit;=200&target;=Hinnibilis

"rm politics reference - wrong chapter and is misquoted anyway"
"rm absurdly general and unverifiable statement"
"rm original research"

in which I was helped by PhD.  There was no opposition at all from the pro-paedo editors.  

Then I caught this edit to Haiduc's page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haiduc&diff;=222250643&oldid;=221444762

"Like you, I am much pressed for time, though I think that matters have gone beyond personal intervention - however well-authenticated - and now demand third-party intervention (as before). "

This 'third party intervention' was not long in coming.  Phdart's account has been blocked for sockpuppeteering.  He was, as I suspected, a reincarnation of the banned Headleydown, but I did not have a problem with that.  He was editing under my supervision, and had made many strong contributions to the encyclopedia under other accounts.  (FT2 has pointed to some abusive edits he has made, but haven't we all).

I complained bitterly on FT2's talk page and have also contributed to a thread on paedophilia subjects to the Wikipedia Review.  I did not accuse FT2 of being pro-paedophile, I said that he was 'in effect' enabling the pro-paedophile lobby on Wikipedia.  I do not see how editors with expert knowledge of this subject area can possibly continue to work under these conditions.