Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Reason I may be slow in response substantively 2 Note to Mediation Committee 3 Can Someone Please Fix My Number 4 Given that all parties have agreed to the mediator... 5 Opening the Mediation 5.1 Accepted 5.2 Declined 6 Process 7 Servant Sabre 8 Initial comments 9 Note 10 Process 11 outside wikipedia activity related to yarrow 12 Next steps

[edit] Reason I may be slow in response substantively

But my 10-yr-old had a playground accident today. 4-hrs in E.R. No lasting damage but visits to hand surgeon and pediarition in my near future. May take me a lot longer than my usually quick trigger finger gets me to type substantively on this David in DC (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sort of makes this kind of dispute seem inconsequential, doesn't it? Best wishes for the poor guy's recovery, David. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure does. Thanks. There's a bit further info on my talk page. I felt funny putting it here, but I'm usually overquick to post and didn't want my slower response here to be misunderstood. (And for the suspicious of mind-bent, this is not a ploy for sympathy I'd rather have my own pinky tip and nail crushed.) David in DC (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note to Mediation Committee

The last party, User:John celona, has agreed to sign on to this on Wednesday (see here), which would put us beyond the time limit for parties to sign on. I'm going to try to convince him to sign on sooner, but I'd ask that, if he doesn't, the deadline be extended to Wednesday. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I add my voice to the request that this stay open long enough for John to sign on. David in DC (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can Someone Please Fix My Number

For some reason, although I'm #3 to accept this mediator, the program is starting all over with 1 after SI's agreement and disclosure. Can someone make me #3 please? David in DC (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, SI David in DC (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Given that all parties have agreed to the mediator...

Can we start the process of posting our initial positions, with the understanding that the process won't begin in earnest until Saturday, when John's available? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We will begin the initial statement phase before Saturday. However, I will be creating the subpages and formatting areas this evening (+7 hours from now) so please hold off posting until then, or I'll have to start moving statments, splitting, statements, etc. MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good - thanks. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening the Mediation

Welcome to this mediation. The topic of it is various content issues related to the Peter Yarrow biography. I'd like to remind all parties to remain civil during the mediation, keep an open ind to compromise, and avoid making points that would disrupt things.

Firstly, I've reworded some of the issues and declined to include others for various reasons.

[edit] Accepted

1.What weight should be given to Yarrow's conviction for taking improper liberties with a 14 year old girl?

2.Should the length of the sentence (three years, all of which except for three months was suspended) be provided in the article?

3.Should the incident result in the article being placed in any categories (e.g. Category:American criminals, Category:American sex offenders, etc.)?

4.If mention in the article is not undue weight, is inclusion of the categories?

5.What weight should President Carter's grant of clemency have? How should it be dealt with?

6.Does the word "groupie" belong in the article at all?

7.Does the article's shortness cause a problem with any mention at all, giving the incident "undue weight"?

[edit] Declined

• Should the consensus version which was thoughtfully reached by many opposing editors through compromise be honored?

• WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, so it can't be mediated around. Consensus can change, but otherwise should be honored.

• In the word "groupie" belong in encyclopedic text? In Yarrow's quote?

• This is a mediation on a single biography, it cannot be used to set a content guideline for the encyclopedia as a whole. Also, WP:NOR would seemt o prohibit us from changing his quote.

• When the sources clearly show that a child molester's victim was forcibly molested should the article censor that fact while allowing the convicted molester's self-serving statement labeling his victim a "groupie"?

• Wikipedia is not censored, equal, neutral, and factual terms and descriptions should always be used.

• Should well-sourced prison sentences which were highly publicized campaign issues in a presidential election and the unseating of a 12 term Congressman be censored from an article even though they have been on the article by consensus for over 3 years?

• Wikipedia is not censored, equal, neutral, and factual terms and descriptions should always be used.

• Should a convicted and imprisoned sex offender be deleted from the "sex offender" category because friends or fans of the subject don't like him placed there on vague "weight" rationales?

• Covered by #3 and #4. And non-editors such as fans, other sites, or friends cannot be the basis of on-wiki consensus.

• Should the controversial stuff be dealt with in a wiki fork where Blp becomes less of a factor ?

• BLP applies regardless of if its in the article or not. POV-Forks are discouraged and cannot be used to get around BLP or other policy.

[edit] Process

Second, I've created several subpages, grouping the issues into broad topics of discussion. Please do not edit the struck pages until I open them for discussion. To begin, I'd like each party to make an opening statement at the first page below. There are specific directions there as to what the statement should include.

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow/Opening statements

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow/Mention of the conviction-issues #1, #5, #7-OPEN

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow/Use of categories-issues #3, #4-OPEN

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow/Mention of events after conviction #2, #6

[edit] Servant Sabre

I'd like to suggest that we remove Servant Saber (talk · contribs) from this case. As he indicated in his acceptance of Mbisanz as the mediator, "Expect no participation from me unless asked for", and I don't think that he's been such a major player in this dispute that his participation is critical. This is not intended as a slight on him; I'd welcome his participation if he was still active, but it looks like keeping him on as a party is only going to slow things down. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, 100%. Aleta ^Sing 01:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well I'm not gonna drop him from it, he is free to comment or submit anything he wants. But I am currently reviewing the submitted statements and will have further instructions on this page in a bit to keep things moving forward. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good, as long as nothing's being held up by his inactivity. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Initial comments

So I've reviewed the talk page and the submitted statements, and thank the parties for promptly submitting them. A few general comments I'd like to note:

1. Mediation is the last step in content disputes. The Arbitration committee only hears cases involving user conduct and explicitly will not rule on matters of article content.

2. Mediation is not binding. It cannot issue rules or decisions that the parties must abide by. It can only offer advice and try to help the parties find a neutral middle ground.

3. Mediation is privileged. So any user conduct that occurs within the mediation, may not be used later in another forum.

That said, I've looked at the issues and think we can find a common ground. To begin with, lets start with the category issue. I'm going to open the page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow/Use of categories and ask the parties to go there to discuss that aspect of the issue. MBisanz ^talk 07:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

If possible, can you please inform members of the mediation party when a new section to make a statement is made available? I don't think that all parties are watching this page closely enough to be aware of that? Thanks --Jkp212 (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll send out a message later tonight. If possible watch this page, because I'd like to avoid spamming everyone's talk pages, maybe I'll just do it for people who don't respond after five days. MBisanz ^talk 04:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've actually watchlisted the redlinks - you might want to try that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now watchlisted the redlinks, too. D'oh. I never knew I could do that.David in DC (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Process

Hey MBisanz - if we want to rebut something said by another editor, do you want us to add that rebuttal to our section, respond in their section, or hold off on responding until a different phase of the mediation? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nothing yet, I was waiting for everyone to get their comment in, then I'll make some general statements, then I'll open a discussion section at the bottom. This should all happen in the next 12 hours or so. MBisanz ^talk 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good - thanks. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to move the process forward? I think the category discussion (at SI's RFC on its own talk page) has pretty much been retired. Thank youi--Jkp212 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been a few more days, and I second Jkp212's request to continue this discussion. Can we move ahead? Aleta ^Sing 16:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I am hoping John and Albion could comment more at the category discussion. The talk level is rather thin to build the situation for a compromise at the moment. MBisanz ^talk 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My initial position was that there should be no category of that nature. Some others have argued for the presidential clemency category. I would think that even that is a compromise, or at the very least, the overwhelming consensus? --Jkp212 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both sides seem to be working towards a compromise, but I'd like them to talk more to move that step closer to conclusion. MBisanz ^talk 19:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to hold one of the other discussions concurrently with the category one? While I'm definitely on the same page as Jkp, David, and Aleta on the category question, I think I can contribute an opposing point of view to the other discussions, such that we wouldn't have to rely so heavily on John and Albion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as everyone understands that the category issue is not finished and that the current catting does not reflect the agreement of all parties, I'll open one of the other sections later today (+16 hours). MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, new set of issues open to discuss, jump right in! MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] outside wikipedia activity related to yarrow

Discussion concluded, not relevant to mediation
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
User Celona has repeatedly threatened to "make public" what he calls a "cover up" of Yarrow's past. In this posting on a google group, David Codrea asks people to comment on the Yarrow talk page -- here is a direct quote -- "that you don't want this pedophile's past covered up" -- http://groups.google.co.il/group/tx.guns/browse_thread/thread/6141c8f8a80f86cc -------------- Codrea then links to this blog that he wrote: http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/03/kennedy-consorts-with-child-molester.html -- I think that this information raises serious questions about the ability to have a fair and balanced process. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Gah, Mediation on hold until I have a chance to review this. MBisanz talk 19:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC) I should add that, in looking further, there are numerous posts of that nature. Please see: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22david+codrea%22+yarrow+wikipedia&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&filter=0 --Jkp212 (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Yikes. Aleta Sing 23:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC) This is obviously the work of Celona. He is the only editor involved in the discussion who uses that type of inflammatory rhetoric, verbatim. He has disrupted this project long enough, he has made holocaust-denial edits, he has been blocked several times, and this egregious violation of policy should have him permanently banned. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC) This could not possibly be less the place to discuss a ban of John celona. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC) It isn't, but as an uninvolved administrator, I'd certainly like to hear the details. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Agree with SI. Mediation is not for discussing bans, indeed nothing said in mediation can be used elsewhere.David in DC (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Just out of interest, how do you know this is Mr Celona? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Because the language in the offline postings are exactly the same language he has used on the Peter Yarrow talk page repeatedly. He is the only editor to use such language, and he has threatened to expose to the world what he sees as a "cover up." In his mediation opening statement, this is his quote "Here, a far-Left and anti-choice for gun owners activist is being given special treatment by having well sourced information concerning his pedophilia conviction and the effect it has had on major political campaigns censored from the article by vague cries of "weight" from fans and/or supporters of his fringe political beliefs." It is more than obvious that it is Celona. If there is a better forum for this discussion, can you please start that discussion on that forum? --Jkp212 (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Should it go to WP:ANI? I agree this isn't the place for it, though the call for editing is (most obviously) relevant to the mediation. Aleta Sing 04:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC) No, wait for Ryan to respond further here. No ANI at this time. MBisanz talk 04:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC) I'm actually not sure that the apparent canvassing is relevant to this mediation. It's relevant to John's status as an editor, but that's not what this mediation is about. Even if John were immediately indef-blocked, we'd still have all of the same content issues to work through as we do now. I'd suggest that we do whatever we can to prevent this sideshow from overshadowing the content issues that brought us here in the first place. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC) I like the use of the word sideshow, but I think it is more appropriately titled a freakshow. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Call it what you like, it's not why we're here (which is not to denigrate the importance to Wikipedia of the issues you raise, just their importance to this mediation process). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC) I understand, was just kidding. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Actually, the blog in question [[1]] is dated March 2007-months before you started your jihad to censor the prison sentence of child molester Peter Yarrow . Oops.John celona (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC) That's not the blog in question. The blog in question is dated from the time that we were having discussion on the talk page, and "someone" went out and canvassed for support on numerous forums. This "someone" used the same language that you used on the talk page. This "someone" also thinks that there is some sort of connection between the Peter Yarrow article and guns..Hmmm???? --Jkp212 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Folks, Ryan is reviewing the matter at the moment. Please everyone, remember that WP:OUTING is a guideline we all must follow. The situation is being handled and the mediation will continue when it is resolved. MBisanz talk 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC) This behavior coming from David and Jkp212 is reprehensible. Those 2 have been harassing John since he first dared disagree with them. They have been trying to get John blocked for months now. I for one find their behavior to be as appalling as Johns attitude toward Yarrow. I think that this matter needs to resolved in arbitration. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC) excuse me, Albion, but you are not looking at the facts. User Celona deserved to be blocked long ago, period. He has been blocked by different admins, for good reason. There have been tons of editors who have "disagreed" with me on many issues, but none has been so disruptive, attacking, uncivil, and flat out bigoted as Codrea. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Hey, I AGREED with SI that this didn't belong here. I posted to Ryan's page with a diff I thought would help him and opined that there was no proof to connect the posts with with John. You can look. Please tell me what about that behavior is reprehensible. David in DC (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC) In the context of this mediation, I think everybody's behaviour has been appropriate. I have thoughts about some editors' behaviour outside of mediation, but I'm not going to drag it into mediation, because mediation is still our best hope of resolving the content dispute, and as long as all parties within mediation seem to be showing interest in resolving the dispute - as is the case right now - I think substantial discussion of outside of mediation behaviour is unhelpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC) All I know is that Ryan blocked John and therby made me quite suspicious of his motives for doing so. This dispute will not be settled by getting John barred indefinitely. So please stop bringing in new parties such as Ryan and thereby allow this process to proceed. Albion moonlight (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Why would his block make you "suspicious of his motives"? The block was warranted, and a ban would be warranted. --Jkp212 (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

[edit] Next steps

So if I could get everyone's attention back at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow/Mention of the conviction to the discussion section. MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)