Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-11 Order of the Arrow

Who are the involved parties?
JGHowes, Rlevse, Gadget850, evrik, ahoalton1, Padillah, FisherQueen

What's going on?
Editors and a number of administrators who are also members of the Order of the Arrow are violating conflict of interest policies by prohibiting verifiable OA “secrets” from being included in the Order of the Arrow entry.

What would you like to change about that?
Verifiable information should not be prohibited from inclusion in any wikipedia article simply because a biased group prefers that it be excluded. That is censorship. The consensus should be recognised as contradictory to wikipedia policy and invalidated.

Administrative notes
Case opened by a sock-evading, indefinitely blocked user. Dreadstar †  22:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dreadstar’s accusations are true. Can’t deny it. However, that should not detract from the veracity of my argument. Look closely at the consensus banning “safeguarded” materials. Can you honestly say that this does not amount to censorship? If you let biased admins get away with the small stuff, how are you going to maintain authority when the big stuff starts getting censored? --VivaAhoalton (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
It's my first mediation cabal case! I hope I am formatting my comment correctly. The user sometimes known as User:Ahoalton is certainly guilty of sockpuppetry, and I have no problem with his being blocked on those grounds. However, I don't think that the username is a violation of Wikipedia's username policy, unless the username policy has been expanded to include forbidding the secret password of a children's club. Moreover, I have been troubled by the discussion happening in Talk:Order of the Arrow. In my opinion, this user kind of has a point about the discussion being dominated by editors who are motivated as much by the promise of secrecy they made to this organization as by Wikipedia policy. Maybe they're right that the details of the ceremony should remain private for the good of the organization, but that isn't a reasoning that is grounded in wikipolicy, and their current argument, that the details are unverifiable although they have been published, doesn't seem strong to me. I'm also troubled that, although I've seen several people say that there's a clear and established consensus against including these details, the talk pages as I reviewed them didn't seem to establish a very clear consensus at all. I think there are significant WP:CENSOR issues which have not been addressed, and which should be. While I think that User:Ahoalton needs to stop making sockpuppets and work within Wikipedia's structures for appealing a block, I also would like to see some editors who are not members of the Order of the Arrow bring neutral voices to this discussion. If the case against inclusion of these details is valid, there is still a need for that to be confirmed by editors with no conflict of interest. I have no conflict of interest; as a lesbian, I'm banned twice from the Boy Scouts. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I acknowledge that this username might be interpreted as potentially disruptive. There's still a need for some help from neutral editors over there, in my opinion, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the requester has been indefinitely blocked, I've closed the case. Addhoc (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I had already considered that the issue of "safeguards" needs to be revisited. I plan to give it a week for some cool down time and start a new discussion on the talk page.  I wish this had played out  with more civility.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be interesting to see how many more socks are created by that time:. Dreadstar  †  01:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am at my wit's end. I have tried to intervene on behalf of Ahoalton. I posted on his (several) talk pages about his hurting his case and to stop the sockpuppetry. I posted on a neutral editors talk page requesting advice on his behalf and advised him to walk away and sit tight while I see what I can do. Then, b y the time I got home from work, he had made yet more sockpuppets and done yet more damage. On the other hand, I disagree with Addhoc that simply because the user is being a hardcase that the mediation has no basis. It should not be closed, it is pretty clear that there is some level of collusion going on. Heck his first user name was blocked before he made a single edit! As soon as one of those admins saw this guys user name they blocked him, and they had the nerve to all but admit it was because his user name is a secret word they are trying to protect. I guess there's little I can do for the user, I've tried as much as I can and they are either too impatient of too foolhardy. But the WP:CENSOR case is pretty strong and needs the review of outside editors. Padillah (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true, Ahoalton's first edit was as 14:18 and the block did not occur til 23:33, both 10 Mar — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those weren't mainspace edits, they were talk page contribs only... at least according to Interiot's wannabe tool. Regardless, I felt sorry for him back then but after the stuff he's pulled since I can't find any continuing reason to support him. Thanks for trying to keep me honest, every little bit helps. Padillah (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)