Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:07, 15 August 2007

Haemo

Voice your opinion (talk page) (52/2/0); Scheduled to end 06:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Haemo (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentleman, I present Haemo. His first edit came on 22 July 2005 and has been very active since January of this year. In 2007, Haemo has amassed nearly 9500 edits. I first encountered Haemo in the 9/11-related articles, and have been impressed ever since. He remains remarkably civil during conversations that can often become quite heated. His talk page edits are always extremely intelligent and thought out very well. When Haemo noticed that many of the same topics had been discussed on the main 9/11 talk page, he suggested that we write a FAQ for the talk page. Since, he has worked hard to write the FAQ while insuring that the FAQ is being written to support consensus. This symbolizes many of the qualities which have made Haemo a valuable editor: a fantastic work ethic, intelligent and well-thought out responses, a value of consensus, and the willingness to discuss important changes. All of those qualities will make Haemo a solid administrator.

As Shalom notes below in his co-nomination, Haemo has familiarized himself with several areas in the project space with which administrators ought to be familiar. His edits to the project space have shown him to have a great understanding of Misplaced Pages's various policies. Haemo has become a well-rounded editor, contibuting to many important areas of the project. If the community responds by giving Haemo the administrative tools, Misplaced Pages will be a better place. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Shalom

Haemo joined Misplaced Pages in 2005 and has been an active editor since January 2007. I reviewed him in May and advised him to expand his efforts in building the encyclopedia. He has answered the call beyond what I expected, with 50 or more edits to Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, StarCraft II, and 4Kids Entertainment - all fine articles. He also has made 50 or more edits to an alphabet soup of administrative pages: WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:AIV, WP:UCFD, WP:SCV, WP:HD, and WP:AFC. Haemo has involved himself in a few minor conflicts, but he has maintained a clean record of civility, and will have no trouble adapting to the additional responsibilities of adminship. Shalom 12:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you, I accept. --Haemo 06:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: As an editor, I've tried to have have as broad a range of experiences as possible, going where there are problems, or backlogs. I would like to keep the same spirit of expansiveness going when I am an admin; going where my experience and expertise can be of assistance, while learning a few new things in the process.

Right now, I can see myself helping to discover and eliminate copyright violations; Suspected Copyright Violations, a page which I have had experience with as an editor has recently added two very productive new bots. As a result, we've found lots of copyright violations which need to be tagged, and then deleted if appropriate. I feel that my experience in this respect will be an asset, and admin tools will help in this regard. I also take part in watching the recent changes log, especially the edits of newly-registered and anonymous editors, who (statistically) make a high number of editing tests, or accidentally (one hopes) violate Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines. I've definitely had the occasion where admin tools would help in this respect, as my edits to administrator intervention board show.

I have also tried to have a broad and open-minded experience in the different deletion debates; including less-frequented sections like miscellany for deletion, templates for deletion and the consolidated user categories for discussion. I believe that my experience here and understanding of our policies and guidelines would assist me in determining what the consensus in the debate was, and making an appropriate closure decision.

Beyond that, I think I would be an asset in helping with many of the backlogged pages which are causing stress to editors due to backlogs; for instance, I know that the three-revert rules board often has a serious lag, to the extent where I have actually refrained from reporting users since by the time a request would be processed, it could very well end-up being punitive, rather than preventative. I would offer my assistance on this, and other pages, like requests for page protection and sorting speedy deletion candidates; especially attack pages and copyright violations. While these pages have not been my primary focus currently, due to the limited amount of help I can provide without admin tools, I have some experience with them already and would be able to help out more if the community accepts me.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A:

As Shalom mentioned, for a while I was having a bit of a puzzle deciding where I fit in on Misplaced Pages. However, I got some good advice from other editors, and now feel that I've surpassed that hurdle — in fact, I discovered that (what I feel to be) my best contributions to Misplaced Pages come about as a result of interactions with other users.

For instance, I greatly value helping Hildanknight copy-editing I Not Stupid and Singapore Dreaming, which helped bring them up to good article status. While all credit goes to Hildanknight and Goh wz for those articles, I still feel that the experience I gained, quality content I helped with, and fun I had really rank highly among my contributions.

This also spurred me to being editing more concertedly, and I've written several different articles with the encouragement of other editors. For instance, I've been writing about National Historic Sites of Canada, creating the article for Emily Carr House and Craigflower Manor and Schoolhouse (which is a good article candidate). I'm also currently writing about the fascinating Craigdarroch Castle; you can see my draft here. Beyond that, I've totally rewritten K'naan, Market failure, Sweatshop Union, and Harold Keke; expanding and sourcing them. In what is probably the weirdest thing, I wrote the article for Leslie Satcher, despite having never heard of her before I almost nominated one of her articles for procedural deletion. However, I did some poking and found out, hey, she was notable!

All of this has also led me to reach out to other users, by editing on a number of boards, including the help desk, administrator noticeboards, and the reference desk — especially the miscellaneous one, which is endlessly amusing and thought-provoking. I still get a kick when a user thanks me for helping them with a problem, or offering an opinion/suggestion they found particularly useful — I also enjoy it when I help settle down disputes, and meet interesting (and sometimes famous!) people on Misplaced Pages. Basically, in a phrase, we cannot make a good encyclopedia without making a good community of editors as well, and I do my best to make both of these a reality in every way I can.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A:

I'm a pretty mellow and reasonable person, and as I recounted on my editor review, the only conflict I can remember which caused me any actual grief was with User:Shoons on the 9/11 article. Basically, he made a point about a certain way the article was written, and the inclusion of certain material. I, and a number of other editors discussed this with him in a number of respects. This is not uncommon for this talk page, nor is it uncommon for there to be no real "conclusion" ever reached. However, Shoons felt that this was a systemic bias issue, and raised it on the talk page for that WikiProject — a number of editors, including myself discussed it there and largely reiterated the points made on the talk page. Most then left, but I remained to discuss it with Shoons. We basically went around in circles, until I felt it had basically become an interrogation session and was getting very uncomfortable; since I felt that wasn't a systemic bias issue in the first place. Shoons is not a native English speaker, so it was very frustrating in a number of respects even though I always tried to maintain good faith. Eventually, I just gave up and walked away from the page — initially, I felt bad about that, but after some good advice, I realize that it would have been better for all to have disengaged sooner in a civil fashion.

Other than that, I can't really recall that much, other than sometimes in the past I have argued too concertedly in some deletion debates than is probably helpful; some good advice has helped me to really curb that side of me, in this respect. I do have a bit of a habit to try to convince people a bit too hard sometimes, but I always try to maintain good faith, keep a level head, and be civil; even in sometimes hot situations like on Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and 9/11. I've been working diligently to keep this tendency in bounds, and I seem to have been largely successful. When I do make a mistake, I always try to set things right as soon as I can, and apologize to anyone I have wronged, even inadvertently. I'm always open for discussion, and try be to honest and forthright with other editors — and to remember to try and see things from their point of view, too.

I hope that you will find me trustworthy as a administrator candidate, and I look forward to your constructive comments, questions, and criticism! In addition, I would like to thank Shalom, and Pablo for their nominations and kind comments.

Optional question from J.L.W.S. The Special One

4. Why is it important for admins to have experience in article writing?

A: I know I've discussed this with you before, but article writing, and editing is important to an administrator because Misplaced Pages is, at its heart, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy, and not a battleground — all of our policies and guidelines go towards the central premise of making the encyclopedia function properly, and effectively. Articles form the backbone of this process; without articles, the encyclopedia ceases to be. Other tasks, like counter-vandalism, deletion debates, and maintainance serve to preserve the level and quality of the articles which currently exist. Tasks like clean-up and wikifying improve the quality of articles which already exists — however, it all of these are predicated on the creation of good, expandable articles. For an administrator, writing articles is key not only to contributing to the encyclopedia, but also to really understanding the rationale behind many of our most important guidelines and policies — it's hard to say you know the reason behind something with getting some good, first-hand experience with putting it into practice. It also allows administrators a sense of perspective when it comes to making decisions about articles written by other users — it allows them to put themselves in their shoes, and be more sympathetic, even when they feel there is a problem there. In short, writing articles is fundamental to understanding how the encyclopedia functions and it's important to have experience in that respect when granted admin tools.

Very optional questions from L

5a. Your comments above are rather lengthy, can you give a cliff notes version? Remember, 'brevity is ...wit'.

Point form:

1. I am a trustworthy editor.
2. Administrator tools will help me, and the encyclopedia.
3. I enjoy writing, and helping other users.
4. I have had no major conflicts, and deal with conflict in a reasonable and calm fashion.
5. Writing articles is good for admins, and the encyclopedia.

The bottom discussion in the oppose section amounts to:

1. The attacks leveled are ridiculous.

Perhaps not witty, but it is brief ;) --Haemo 06:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

5b. Given your lengthy replies, do you feel this is reflected in your writing, and if so how do you feel about people shortening it? Have you ever been in an edit conflict because someone thought that your writing was too wordy, or you thought another's was too ambiguous?

My lengthy replies tend not to be reflected in my editing; I try to studiously proof and copyedit everything I submit as article text. I have never, to my knowledge, been involved in a conflict where someone felt my editing was too wordy, or another's was too ambiguous.

Optional question from VanTucky (this is in response to Squeakbox's ridiculous attack in the Oppose section)

6. What is your position on dealing with suspected and admitted pedophiles on Misplaced Pages?

I cannot stress how much I disagree with the below editors enough. My involvement with pedophilia on Misplaced Pages largely amounts to a handful of edits the discussions regarding the merger of pro/anti-pedophile activism. I have never had a strong opinion in any respect, beyond my assessment that pro/anti-pedophile activism was probably notable enough to have its own article and not be merged. I also chimed in on the naming, and opined that blanket assertions of a pedophile cabal were not productive, and probably not the in best of faith. I had no idea who the anonymous editor on that page was, but I assumed it was in good faith. In fact, as one will note, when it was shown that the user in question was soliciting votes I on my own imperative struck my comments in the discussion and recused myself entirely. I strongly oppose pedophilia, having been personally involved with people affected by the horrific damage it can cause to its victims. I think these attacks are completely without merit. --Haemo 05:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't answer your question clearly — I have no truck with pedophiles. I appreciate the work users like Squeakbox and the Pedophilia-article Watch do, and strongly support it. Misplaced Pages should not, and cannot, become a haven or sanctuary for pedophiles in any way, shape or form. While I appreciate the vigor with which Squeakbox approaches his duties, I cannot stress how incorrect he is about me, my point of view, and my editing. I never thought it would be necessary for me to state as much, but I want it to be crystal clear to those editors who are not familiar with me. --Haemo 06:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded a little more in the oppose section. --Haemo 06:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

7. Optional Question by Mattbroon 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC) - :7. Why is it, that in question 6 you say that you are not pro-pedophile, however, your edits, deletions and merging history clearly show that you are? So, you are therefore either pro-pedophile, or you are not honest on your edits and dealings on Misplaced Pages. Which one is it? No matter which, it makes you an unsuitable candidate, and there is an active campaign against the Rfa

General comments

• See Haemo's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Haemo: Haemo (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Haemo before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Beat the nom Support - why not. I'm familiar with this editor and see no issues here - Alison ☺ 06:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Support, I've seen him around, don't see any causes for concern. Seraphimblade 06:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Brian | (Talk) 06:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Support as nominator. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Yes - seen around, seems good. -- Anonymous Dissident 06:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Dfrg.msc 07:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
7. One of a small handful of users I genuinely believed was "already an administrator". On that basis, I see no reason not to support. Daniel→♦ 07:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Support 1) Answers to the questions, in particular Q1. 2) Stunning work at WP:XFD including template and categories 3) Extensive work on copy-vios 4) Civility 5) Helping newbies 6) Personal interaction - For all those at RFA who like a "well-rounded" editor Haemo is a metaphorical Michelin Man! Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  07:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
9. Support Top notch editor, good answers to questions, communicative. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. Impressive. —umdrums 07:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Per obvious qualities. Jmlk17 07:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Very able. Recurring dreams 07:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
13. Don't see anything to worry about... --DarkFalls 08:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. - Zeibura 10:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
15. Definitely. –sebi 10:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

    Support per above. --84.45.219.185 11:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

    *Please sign in to your account or leave comments in the general discussion area above. Many Thanks. Pedro |  Chat  12:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

16. Super strong support Haemo has done excellent work on 9/11 pages, as well as working on the talk pages with constant queries and discussion which can be frustrating. Yet, he remains civil and polite, and works constructively. His involvement on the page has allowed me and other long-time editors to step back from the page, and do other things (or in my case take a wikibreak) without concern for the 9/11 pages. I also notice his helpful involvement on the Barbaro family page, which was a big mess in June-July with problematic editor, User:Tiki-two. Haemo would definitely be an excellent admin. --Aude (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
17. Support fine work on WP:SCV - a quality which has so far been a solid indicator of people who need the tools and will make good admins. --W.marsh 13:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
18. I Support this level-headed, constructive editor. Looking at contributions shows me nothing but reasons to support, one after another. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
19. Support - The answers to the questions were superb. You have done some good work in both maintenance and article writing on Misplaced Pages with no civility issues - I am sure you would make a good admin. Camaron1 | Chris 14:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
20. Support I've seen this editor around, and I believe he can be trusted. J-stan _Contribs 14:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. Working on the 9/11 conspiracy theories probably indicates being a glutton for punishment, so he'll fit right in. OK, maybe I'm being a little facetious, but from all appearances, Haemo seems to do very well at conflict resolution and keeping calm in the face of controversy, and experience dealing with copyvios will definitely help. --Elkman 15:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
22. Support fine user, comprehensive answers to questions, nice edit count, can be trusted. Melsaran 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Strong edits to 9/11 pages, and with a solid edit count, time for the mop! Politics rule 15:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
24. Support per above. Well-rounded. I found nothing alarming in contribs. Lara♥Love 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
25. Support--MONGO 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
26. Support - I've seen him around, always has good comments at WP:AFD, even if we disagree. Haemo can be trusted with the mop.Bearian 16:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
27. Support - Patient and logical. --PTR 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
28. Strong Support. Dedicated, and nominated by two users! Very impressive edit count. No danger in trusting this user. •Malinaccier• /C 16:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
29. Support My experiences with the candidate have proved sufficiently to me that he will make a fine sysop. VanTucky 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
30. Support per AFD interactions Corpx 17:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
31. Support a fine user. Acalamari 17:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. Sensible, reliable and experienced. Axl 18:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
33. Support, an experienced user with thorough knowledge of policies and consistently sound judgment. --Muchness 18:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
34. Support per Pedro. Using the bandwith of wikipedia, this user definatly needs the mop. --Hirohisat 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
35. Support -- I honestly can't see anything wrong here, and the candidate is unlikely to abuse the tools. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 21:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
36. Support. A very well-rounded user, lends his hand in AFD's as well. Singularity 21:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
37. Support. I've seen this user regularly in various discussions and even if we are not always in agreement I am always impressed with the quality of the arguments and the level of familiarity with policy. Easy support. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
38. Support This editor has impressed with contributions and demeanor. Keep it up! — Scientizzle 22:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
39. Support as a formality at this point. Shalom 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
40. Support Wow. A great user in every way. -Lemonflash_(chat) 23:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
41. Support a fantastic editor who really deserves the mop! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
42. Support. We need someone who can keep their cool no matter what. bibliomaniac15 00:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
43. Support If his devotion to the page StarCraft II is sign of his ability to handle complicate situtations then he should do just fine with admin tools. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
44. Support needs the mop. --Tbeatty 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
45. Support Probably long overdue.--Húsönd 02:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
46. Support - A solid editor with a strong grasp of the policies and guidelines. I have no concerns about you abusing the extra buttons.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Oh my gosh, this is a big "RfA cliche" moment! Extremely-qualified, gifted candidate. Thank you for taking up the mop. :) Xoloz 05:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
48. Support I would make this a strong support, but you're letting the trolls get at you a bit too much. WP:DGAF and WP:DENY might be good reading here. Other than that, I have no problems with you as an admin --Lucid 06:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    The problem is, Squeakbox is not a troll; he's an editor whom I have previously disagreed with, but nonetheless respected. When comments of the type made come from a source I respect, and who I believe does valuable work here, I feel that I cannot help but reply in as strong and clear as fashion as I can. --Haemo 06:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

49. Support A fine and subtle editor with a level head. CIreland 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
50. Support has done an exceptional job as an editor on Misplaced Pages with sound and thoughtful judgment▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡ 07:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
51. Support great contributor, do not believe this user will do anything to harm Wiki. Dureo 11:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
52. Support and somewhat appalled at the exceptionally weak justification given for some serious accusations. --Dweller 13:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
53. Support. Valuable editor who could do some good work with the mop. Seraphim 13:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very strong oppose I have no trust in this editor re pedophile issues and serious concerns that he would abuse adminship based on this issue. He appears to support a broadly pro-pedophile activist standpoint and at this point it would be disastrous for the encyclopedia to endorse his candidature. Examples. Here he collaborates with the sock of a known blocked identifying pedophile. Here he strikes out a comment of his that attempts to dismiss well sourced claims of pedophile infiltration on wikipedia. I am truly shocked to see his name here and hope people will re-consider, SqueakBox 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   Comment Oh come on! No significant percentage of Haemo's edits are even remotely related to pedophilia. Just because you're obsessed with hunting down the secret pedophile cabal doesn't mean that Haemo should or did know the history of that user, nor do I find his comments to be patently "in collaboration" with the user you call a sock. This stinks of "I don't like you because you opposed me in content disputes." VanTucky

   (ec)Doesnt need a significant percentage, an admin can do serious harm with just one or 2 edeits. And I am far from obsesssed with hunting anyone down, I'd made my judgement re Heamo at the end of June and its a series of edits that deeply concerns me when I see him up for adminship; as someone with experience of these articles (I know you do but who else ont his page does?) the second diff comment when he knows that the facts strongly indicate otherwise (boy and girl chat site links from reliable editors etc) indicate to em he can no kopre be trusted than people who support the holocaust, rascism etc. Pedophilia is a serious issue, its not like cheese, SqueakBox 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I agree. This oppose !vote is completely ridiculous. I have removed some of it per WP:BLP. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC

   Dont tamper with my resonable comments, SqueakBox 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   While his comments are just plain absurd, I don't think the BLP supports refactoring them as yet. Let's wait until this has played out, and then if Haemo wishes it, we can blank. VanTucky 02:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   SqueakBox: if you want to make a serious accusation such as this user supports pro-pedophile activists, you need to come out with more substantive diffs than that. How is the first one indicative of anything? He's replying to an invitation to participate in a debate. Is everyone who disagreed with you about this merge a pro-pedophile activist? Having myself been accused by you of passively collaborating with pro-pedophile activists, I think this is getting way out of hand. People who disagree with you are not necessarily evil. If you think Haemo is a pro-pedophile activist, why don't you substantiate these claims and submit your evidence to the ArbCom instead of expressing vague suspicions in the RfA? Pascal.Tesson 02:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   I concur with Pascal. The diffs provided do not come close to supporting the assertions made; when accusing some of something this incendiary, the highest standards of sourcing apply, whether one is in the mainspace or elsewhere. Either defend better your suggestion, or I strong urge you to retract it. Xoloz 06:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Very strong oppose I am agreeing with the issues raised by SqueakBox. If there is even a hint of of pro-paedophilia activity, the user must not be given admin staus. Even a delay until further investigatio would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbroon (talk • contribs)

   Note: This account was created August 14th .

I've replied to these assertions above, in the question section, and I am deeply hurt by these accusations. --Haemo 05:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To expand, if you view my edits to that talk page you can see that I was:

1. Requested to comment on a merger by an anonymous editor, due to earlier comments about the naming of these articles. I had no idea who the editor was, or what his history or background was.
2. I opined that a merger was inappropriate because these seemed to be notable and legitimate daughter pages. I also stated, which Squeakbox seems to object too, that "I think that the incessant fear of "infiltration" is getting out of hand. I don't have the time, energy, or incentive to track who believes what about what every time I edit; instead, I look at what has been produced", referring to some assertions that content had been written by covert pedophiles. Indeed, when Squeakbox replied to my statement of fear, I clarified to say "I was just remarking that people have previous expressed concerns over the provenance of the content; I'm merely support Samantha's assertion that it's too complicated for us to go around judging articles on that basis."
3. In a related discussion on the same page, someone pointed out that the anonymous editor who had asked for my comments had only contacted people who he thought would be opposed to the merger. I then struck out my comments opposing the merger, stating "If I've been solicited by a stakeholder, and not someone acting in good faith, I'll be striking my comments. I can't even implicitly support that kind of behavior"

Apparently, Squeakbox feels that my response to a request to comment, which I believed was made in good faith constitutes "collaboration" with this user, who was later shown to be a banned user. Oddly, then, that he also cites my striking of those same comment when it was explained that I might have been solicited by a stakeholder to be further evidence of collaboration; I would think it would say the exact opposite.

To summarize, I have never and will never support or enable pedophilia. My involvement with this topic extends to the merger and naming of a handful of articles. Squeakbox has disagreed with me on these points; fair enough. Squeakbox has never contacted me to try and clarify my position and I feel that the accusations made here are in poor form and urge all editors to use their heads when dealing with this opposition. --Haemo 05:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw this discussion which I found odd in a RfA, so I decided to see if these allegations had any merit or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Haemo&limit=5000&from=0 After checking through what links to User:Haemo I found that this user had been in many AfD discussions Of them the word pedophile came up two times in AfD the first was on 24 February 2007

• 1.) Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_with_a_pedophile_theme
• User:Haemo voted to Delete

Without any evidence of any pro-pedophile view point The second was on 02:56, 10 May 2007

• 2.) Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Anti_Pedophile_Activism
• User:Haemo voted to keep

Without any evidence of any pro-pedophile view point

In two talk pages

• 1.) Talk:Anti-pedophile_activism#Redirects 10 May 2007

Without any evidence of any pro-pedophile view point

• 2a.) Talk:Pro-pedophile_activism#Merging_Pro_and_Anti_Pedophile_articles

About a Agree to Merge discussion, User:Haemo voted Neutral 25 June 2007 about a Proposal to merge Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism into Pedophilia

Struck his comments after User:SqueakBox lead with the headline "Vote seeking" with this message

"User:86.131.41.244 is writing to others asking them to vote on this and thus trying improperly to affect the vote. This is likely user:Voice of Britain, and we will have to take his tactics into consideration when deciding about consensus, SqueakBox 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)" User:Haemo responded "If I've been solicited by a stakeholder, and not someone acting in good faith, I'll be striking my comments. I can't even implicitly support that kind of behavior. --Haemo 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)"

Without any evidence of any pro-pedophile view point before or after striking

In the course of doing this found Haemo in various participation throughout Misplaced Pages and has shown to be an outstanding editor in many respects, I found the allegations to be without any merit whatsoever, and I strongly feel that an injustice has taken place and an apology is in order.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡ 07:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your summary, and support — it is more complete than even my recollection of the events has been, since I never really thought they were of any serious import; rather, a minor disagreement over notability and naming, of which I've been party to thousands. --Haemo 07:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome, the allegations were of a serious issue that I felt needed to be looked into, the two Articles_for_deletion Votes mention above defies logic for someone purportedly to be a pro-pedophile, with that said even if your votes were the opposite it still wouldn't establish or suggest it that was your point of view anyways▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡ 08:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral