statement on my block on 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 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 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 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 ft has pointed to some abusive edits he has made but haven't we all i complained bitterly on ft 's talk page and have also contributed to a thread on paedophilia subjects to the wikipedia review i did not accuse ft 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