Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This Request for Mediation has been closed.

This case was closed at 21:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason given for closure was: Given the issues are resolved, and hopefully Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship should take care of future editing disputes.
Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Contents

[edit] Pro-pedophile activism

view edit delete watch
Filed: 17:35, October 21, 2007 (UTC)
Notified: 07:55, October 22, 2007

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Articles involved

[edit] Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

[edit] Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.
  1. The wording of the introduction should be written from a NPOV. Fortunately, all editors agree on that. Unfortunately, all editors have their own special brand of NPOV.
  2. The treatment of new editors. The page has a long history of banned users and socks, and guidance is requested on balancing good faith with protection from banned editors.
  3. Bringing the rest of the article to an adequate standard.

[edit] Additional issues to be mediated

Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there is more than two parties involved in this case.
  1. The informal mediation was deliberately disrupted by socks and it is vital that this mediation does not undergo the same fate but any tolerance of banned users disrupting this page will guarantee the failure of the mediation, SqueakBox 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Removal of the totally disputed tag, SqueakBox 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Collaboration of all editors in removing the edits of any banned socks, ie no collaboration with known banned users, including the removal of threse edits without dispute on the article and talk page, SqueakBox 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Ensuring that banned users can in no way, shape or form influence the article, including the permanent removal of any material additions to the article made by socks of already banned users, SqueakBox 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. That we stop claiming that any indef blocks of editors editing PPA are unjustified, should be appealed against etc, and particularly any claims that the blocks are wrong, SqueakBox 16:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Assure that all non-disruptive edits by legitimate editors are respected. ~ Homologeo 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Create a welcoming environment, where new contributors are not distrusted, unless sufficient and verified evidence is available to warrant suspicion. ~ Homologeo 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Make sure that allegations of sock and meat puppetry are handled through proper Wikipedia channels and do not unduly bog down discussion on the Talk Page and the editing process of the article. This means establishing an atmosphere where accusations are not thrown around haphazardly, without sufficient evidence being provided. ~ Homologeo 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Emphasis needs to be placed on why seeking consensus is important, especially in controversial articles such as this one. ~ Homologeo 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. That we meet Homologoe's concerns in a way that does not allow any socks of banned users to remain for longer than they are spotted, ie that the burden is not placed on honest editors to out dishonest editors, and that dishonest (ie sock editors) do not misuse our policies to promote their own agendas), this may mean making assumptions about new editors without going through RCU (which would allow dishonest editors to have their edits remain on the site for longer than since they were spotted), SqueakBox 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. That all new editors who edit with the same pattern and agenda as banned editors be assumed to be said banned editors unless evidence to the contrary is proven, SqueakBox 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. That anyone editing PA from an open proxy is treated as a sockpuppet (we can hide a warning in the text and put one on the talk page), SqueakBox 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. That any new user who shows a command of policy not comensurate with their editing experience be treated as the sock of a banned user until proven otherwise, SqueakBox 22:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. I would like it if we could separate conversations about content from conversations about other subjects. What actually happens to the page where the article is may depend on consensus and may be influenced by fairly or unfairly banned users and by disruptive or non-disruptive sockpuppet accounts, and by bad faith users, and reckless users, and the like, and these issues definitely need to be discussed. Nevertheless, I think that, when I start a section on the talk page about what the first line should be like, and I talk about definitions and sources and content policies, it should be perfectly possible for the discussion on that section to be exclusively about content, without any mention of sockpuppets and the like whatsoever. If a sockpuppet account edits that section on the talk page, this doesn't matter for me, and I think it shouldn't matter for anyone else: if the arguments are good, they will help us; if the arguments are bad, we can point this out and ignore possible repetitions of bad arguments which have been previously addressed. A.Z. 01:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. I would like that people paid attention to other people's arguments, and replied to them. For example, someone could point out a reason why a certain edit is wrong. The user who made the wrong edit could not know why the argument is wrong, but feel that the argument didn't convince them anyway. In this case, the reply can be "I'm not convinced by this argument, although I can't explain now what's wrong with it". I think this would make our conversations much more healthy. A.Z. 01:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. The current introduction of the article has to change into something neutral. To call PPA outright child sex abusers is highly POV. The current intro reads like something John Walsh would say. And we all know how little he likes pedophiles. Fighting for Justice 08:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. The image of Frits Bernard needs to be brought back as he is a historical figure and a valid image for the article. I assume responsibility for it should there be any problems because the image was uploaded by a now banned user Fighting for Justice 08:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Make sure the article (itself) does not advocate Pro-pedophile, and the article length should be culled, as it is overly long (longer than the Anti-pedophile activism article. A movement that is much larger than the pro activism. Jeeny (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. The name should be changed to remove the word activism, as no evidence provided that anyone other than themselves uses this term, SqueakBox 19:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. The way we should use primary and secondary sources. A.Z. 18:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. I'd like to propose we extend the range of this mediation to cover other PAW articles such as adult-child sex and anti-pedophile activism, amongst others, SqueakBox 18:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "agree" or "disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed. Comments can be made at the talk page.
  1. Agree. Martijn Hoekstra 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Agree, SqueakBox 16:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Agree, ~ Homologeo 19:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Agree, Fighting for Justice 00:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Agree, A.Z. 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Agree, Welland R 08:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Agree. Pol64 16:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Agree, Jeeny (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section.
Accept.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 03:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)