Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Passive smoking/Premediation discussion

message: I am uninvolved in this dispute, or with any of the disputants or articles. However, I had an opportunity to look into the edit histories of the related articles and users, and have determined that there has been a history of sockpuppetry involved. I also believe that there is still sockpuppetry, including "straw man" sockpuppetry, afoot here, related in some way to this past case. I have compiled some evidence, and am still investigating, but I won't post it unless requested, as I am not sure if "outside views" are welcome in mediation, hence my posting here on the talk page. - Crockspot 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Interesting. MastCell Talk 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love to see the evidence, though I must admit that I'm mostly interested because I think you are talking about me. Forgive me if I am wrong. (Despite his hopefully honest mistake in saying that "I am uninvolved in this dispute, or with any of the disputants," Crockspot and I have recently butted heads over at Matt Drudge and Think tank.Yilloslime 01:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My mistake in overlooking the Drudge thing. I have to admit ignorance on the substance of the edits, but from just looking at edit histories of users and articles, 71.72.217.102 seems to be a probable sock of someone involved. But with "straw man" socks, the substance of the edits can be misleading. I don't really know for sure who, I just smell socks. - Crockspot 19:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so it's not me, huh? You seemed pretty sure it was on your talk page. Why not just be up front about it? I'll note that yesterday you also accused 24.7.91.244 of sockpuppetry, though you seem to have recanted. Is this is common strategy of your's when you clash with a new editor? I also think it's a little out of line to nominate for deletion the essay on policy shopping immediately after User:Eleemosynary quoted it to you on my talk page, and then not even give him/her the courtesy of a message noting the nomination Yilloslime 19:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not that it's relevant here, but I used WP:TWINKLE to file that Mfd, and it automatically notified the appropriate editors. I've had an issue with that essay for much longer than Eleemosynary has been on my radar screen. It's amazing that two incidents within two days constitutes a "history". I am very careful about not making outright accusations. If I have suspicions, it is not improper for me to express them. If you want to see a real "history" of sock accusations that are unfounded, and are recanted in a less than sincere way, perhaps you should examine Eleemosynary's edit history. - Crockspot 20:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also just curious: If it wasn't the "Drudge thing" that got you interested in this RfM, then what is it? Seems like a fairly big coincidence that the day after you and I have our first run in, you "just happen" to weigh in this page, claiming to be "uninvolved in this dispute, or with any of the disputants or articles"....Yilloslime 19:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's curious that you appeared to track a couple of articles from my edit history just to revert me. Don't flatter yourself too much. My edit history is broad and deep, and I often happen onto things tangentially. We are veering way off topic here, so if you have more to discuss about this matter, take it up on my talk page. As I said on your talk page, sock hunting is an inexact science, and often what appears to be well supported by evidence turns out to be just a coincidence. - Crockspot 20:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think my IP is listed above...if not, it's very a close number.  But I'm not a sock, or whatever you call it.  I have never contributed under any other identity. Chido6d 22:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view of Crockspot

message: I've added User:Chido6d to the mediation list, since s/he is quite vocal and involved in the article. MastCell Talk 04:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think User:Dessources should also be added to the mediation, as an editor who's been highly active on this article over its entire development and is currently involved in the editing dispute. MastCell Talk 22:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We find outselves in 100% agreement on something at last! Chido6d 22:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be surprised if we agree on a lot of things. So far, though, passive smoking hasn't been one of them. MastCell Talk 02:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding editor 

message: I have added ad hominem exclusion of evidence to the subjects of mediation because I believe that most of the rational for excluding pro tobacco evidence is the semantically illogical ad hominem argument that the substantive findings of tobacco funded research are invalid because they were found with tobacco funds.
I further assert this exclusion has been beyond the substance of the tobacco funded findings and rests nearly entirely on the person of the argument. Mickeyklein 20:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Ad Hominem Exclusion of Evidence 

message: Is anyone familiar with this process?  Does someone from Wikipedia come into this talk page and try to help us iron something out? 
I suggest that a Wikipedia administrator read the article's talk page to get an idea of the nature of the dispute. Chido6d 22:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now that we "bit" on mediation, the case becomes active, a mediator will sign up, and you can get started on the "official fight to assert scientific integrity over advocacy". Basically, the best idea is just to watchlist this page (using the "watch" tab up at the top) and check it over the next few days - the Mediation Committee will let us know what comes next. MastCell Talk 04:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what happens now?