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

1. I'd like to see a stable version developed upon which all agree that lays out the basic facts of the situation, but is not terribly long, and for edit wars to cease.
2. I enjoy Peter, Paul, and Mary's music, and I think his political work is commendable. I think he acted badly in this instance, but don't know enough of the details of what happened (and no one has ever, to my knowledge, tried to put that level of detail in the article) to say more based upon it.
3. Mostly that it is so unstable. The back and forth revert warring is ridiculous.
4. Not everyone is willing to compromise. I think that is the root of the problem.
5. Almost everything that has happened is on the talk page, or in the edit history. If you read both of those, you are up to speed.

Aleta ^Sing 02:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The creation of an article that focuses on the relevant facts of the subject's life, and does not hold a scarlet letter to an individual for a one time incident from almost 40 years ago.
2. I enjoy folk music, among many other types of music, and I feel the quality and impact of Yarrow's music is noteworthy.
3. The undue weight of the incident in question. I'd also like to see the relevant parts of the article expanded (ie. his music).
4. A compromise was reached after the RFC, and was disrupted by one user.
5. There was also a discussion of this topic on the BLP noticeboard.

--Jkp212 (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

2. I think he is most notable for his folksinging, activism, and the encouragement he has provided to less well-known folk artists. I agree with his quotation that his conviction for taking indecent liberties with a 14-year-old fan was the worst thing he ever did in his life. I think his subsequent work on Operation Respect is notable.

3. Hard to talk about any particular version as current, with all the edit-warring. I oppose any categorization based on his conviction other than "Recipients of U.S. Presidential Clemency". I oppose an article more focused on the conviction than on his folksinging, activism and Operation Respect. I think "a short sentence" is sufficient to describe his plea-bargain.

4.(A) Quarrelsome, rancorous, self-aggrandizing and tendentious editing; and B) Also an off-Wiki effort to tar Democrats who Yarrow supports by creating a Wikipedia article that Republican opponents can point to as neutral. This, from a very recent post to the article's talk page:

"since Yarrow is much better known for being a leftist extremist activist and a convicted child molestor whose pedophilia has caused major problems for his leftist politician friends than his single 45 year old pop hit, I feel the attention paid to his music, stolen guitar, etc. give undue weight. However, unlike you, I have not tried to censor these facts from the article. That may change. Also, the facts of Yarrow's felony child molestation and prison term and how that influenced the 2004 Presedential election and the unseating of 26 year Congessman Martin Frost by Pete Sessions needs to be, and will be, added to the article. John celona (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)"

And this, from about three-and-a-half months ago:

"...In the spirit of compromise I have so far refrained from calling him a "child molestor" or "pedophile" in the article. I would prefer to leave the original language which non-judgementally states he "served a 3 month prison sentence" I would prefer to have this unspectacular language rather than starting an edit war which may become a cause celebre in conservative media and re-hash this sordid episode for millions. John celona (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)"

5. Nope

2. I like Yarrow. I do not feel the need to protect him though. He has the option of asking Jimbo and or the foundation to delete the article altogether. I think it would be nice if he would join us.

3. I think others should be allowed to edit it without fear of retribution from those who have been fighting to 'save Yarrows reputation '. I think that expanding it so we can include the incident in its entirety would be nice.

4. Tendentious editing, trolling and an apparent unwillingness to get along with other pov's.

5. Forum shopping has been a problem as well.

Albion moonlight (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

2. I am a small l libertarian. I despise hypocrisy from both the Left and the Right. 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. No such favorable treatment is, or should be, accorded conservative political figures such as Jack Abramoff, Adam Kidan, James H. "Jim" Brown, Buddy Cianci, Buz Lukens, Richard Scrushy, H.R. Haldeman, Italia Federici, Richard Kelly (politician), Egil Krogh, Betty Loren-Maltese, David Safavian, George Ryan, Donald Segretti and dozens of others or sports and entertainment figures like Ronald Isley, Gary Glitter, Tommy Lee, Chuck Berry, James Brown Scott Stapp and dozens of others.

3. Yarrow should be included in at least one of the categories which his child molestation prison sentence properly places him. He should not be given special treatment because he has an ideology shared by some users. The well sourced information regarding the effects his pedophilia conviction had on the 2004 Presedential election and in the unseating of 26 year Congressman Martin Frost by Pete Sessions in what was the most expensive of 435 House Of Representatives in 2004 should not be censored from the article.

4. Because there are 2 users who have adamantly attempted to censor well-sourced and highly relevant information. 2 administatrators have reviewed this information, found it both well-sourced and germane and ruled it should STAY.

5. This information has been on the article over 3 years, since it was a stub. The 2 pro-censorship users are the ones who have upset the consensus. Also, these 2 users have REAPETEDLY attempted to have me blocked and labeled a sock puppet by filing slanderous allegations against me in bad faith, including posting to Jim Wales personal page! They have been shot down at every effort.John celona (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)