Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-04 Pro-pedophile activism

Who are the involved parties?
I might be missing a few parties, feel free to add those that I still miss. I listed the involved parties above: user:Fighting for Justice, user:A.Z., user:Pol64, user:Welland R, user:Homologeo and user:Martijn Hoekstra.

What's going on?
accusations of POV editing from two sides. Users user:Pol64 and user:squeakbox on the one side claim that most of the other editors on the list try to push the article to reflect a pro-pedophilia POV, while most others, notably user:Dyskolos indef blocked for pro-pedophilia troll on anonymous proxies - likely sockpuppet/reincarnation, user:Lundiaka indef blocked for pro-pedophilia tendentious editor on anonymous proxies - likely sockpuppet/reincarnation , and user:Fighting for Justice listed believe that Pol64 and SqueakBox push against pro-pedophilia activism as a whole. This leads to edit warring over statements that imply that pro-pedophilia activism wants to abuse children, amongst other problems

What would you like to change about that?
I would like to reach a consensus version in which no undue weight is given to any viewpoint, that all editors can find themselves in at least partialy, and that complies fully with WP:V

Comment from SqueakBox
The unmentioned problem is multiple sockpuppets, mainly from the one side but clearly both sides have engaged in this and a mediator is going to need to find ways to deal with this issue if it is to be successful, SqueakBox 23:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Further background
Hmmmm. A more accurate interpretation is that we are suffering from the problem of socking accusations, by two editors (SqueakBox and Pol64) who I in turn have accused of being the creations of one man, but at the appropriate venue. Meanwhile, these two accounts have filled the article discussion (and archives) with accusations of socking. The last anti-SqueakBox account to be be blocked for multiple accounts merely admitted to having another inactive and unrelated account on the website (which is generally allowed). As my friend acknowledges, both "sides" have recently seen editors blocked for this type of infringement.

We should agree not to discuss sock issues on the talk page, but to report them to the appropriate boards. Such a message has been repeatedly sounded in resistance to the accusers. Dyskolos 02:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Like, i reckon it's good if people work together to make stuff like better for everyone, because that's like what we need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross22 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 October 2007


 * Comment Absolutely not. Socks are a critical part of this mediation and it simply will not work unless we get some resolution re socks. otherwise someone like you can claim 7 editors support you but if many of them are socks of banned users then it means nothing as banned editors have no rights whatsoever on wikipedia and merely engage in cheating the system. Dyklos claims that the problems is my accusations and yet the long list of banned socks clearly contradicts this claim and makes me wonder whether Dyklos himself are indeed a sock of a banned user, as his edit patterns certainly indicate this is so as does his wantting to avoid the sock issue that is aty the heart of this dispute. I hope this comment is not an attempt to escalate the conflict, SqueakBox 19:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So the solution is to continue with this sock-paranoia??? Fighting for Justice 19:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sock paranoia? Nope, don't know about that. The solution definitely means resolving the sock problem which is undisputably an existent problem as we know from the sheer number of editors banned as socks of other users in this dipute, for instance I was unblocked the other day when it turned out that the person edit warring against me, Mike D78, was the sock of a banned, and of course mwe are all empowered to revert any all edits of any blocked or banned user. Thus the problem is undeniable and needs fixing, and hopefully this emdiation should address the issue, SqueakBox 20:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop deliberately misinforming the editors. The user who was implicated with D78 was cleared of any connection after a checkuser, and the blocking admin wrongly refused to re-instate the ban at my request due to the fact that I was lodging a whole lot of complaints against you at the time. You know this full well, as you have already been informed.


 * Secondly, talk pages are not for throwing accusations around. Mediation can not take into account sockpuppets that have not be proven. All that a mediator can (and will) do is inform you to lodge a complaint at the sock/checkuser board and shut the hell up if it returns a blank. Accusing others in an arena where no one has the final power to resolve the accusation does nothing but poison the well, prolong and lower the quality of the debate. But as you are a minority editor, pushing multiple anti-pedophile advocacy edits against consensus, using only unsupported and unsupportable accusations to back yourself up, this is obviously the best that you can do. And no, before you say it, six or so largely unsupported bans for multiple accounts does not support your nausiating claims about today's editors, or your right to fill the article talk pages with well-poisoning bile. Dyskolos 23:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Just a note that Pol64 is currently serving a weeklong block for sockpuppetry on the article concerned, and is therefore not available to represent himself. Dyskolos 17:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One other thing that I'd like to add is that I personally dispute and oppose pushing of excessive criticism and value-laden languague in spite of the fact that the article already contains a "Criticism" section where all the significant criticism of the movement should be directed. I also oppose removal of sourced content without consensus as well as moving the criticism section above the history section by Pol64 and SqueakBox. --Equilibrist 19:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Awaiting mediation, it is often a bad idea to start discussion before a mediator could have a look. I understand that you are eager to start mediation, Equilibrist, but let's wait untill there is a mediator to take on this case (which I believe is not a very easy one), then define the points where everyone differs in oppinion, establish some common ground, and work from there. If we start emphasising what we disagree on before any mediation has started, it will only make it that much harder. Martijn Hoekstra 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I am new here so I am not well-versed in Wikipedia policies. I didn't mean to start a discussion, only wanted to add a few more things that some of us might oppose in this case. I wanted to incorporate my objections into the "What's going on?" section but since I don't know what the rest of you think I can only speak for myself at the moment. Equilibrist 20:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am happy to participate in mediation and don't wish to add anything else until this is accepted by a reasonable number of editors, SqueakBox 23:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto. ♥ Lundiaka  01:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am onboard with this as well. Welland R 06:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto for me. Fighting for Justice 07:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SquekBox, please cease reverting to the disputed version until the Mediation is over. Equilibrist 20:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think mediation looks like a good idea, but I don't really know how it works. a.z.


 * Any Wikipedian can volunteer to resolve the differences between SqueakBox and the other seven editors. Dyskolos 08:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am up for mediation, I hope you don't include me as a pro pedophile activism suporter in conflict with SqueakBox as the opposite is true.Pol64 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dividing people into sides is not useful. a.z. 19:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But it is why we are here. We are looking for a member of the mediation cabal that both sides can trust, which is not the same as "any wikipedian", SqueakBox 20:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not here to be labeled. There should be as many sides as the number of people involved. a.z. 20:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's hard not to have sides, when certain parties actively take them. Unlike Pol64, I am not an activist editor with a stated Anti or Pro pedophile bias. I am simply an editor who aims to uphold neutrality on articles that are being targedted by activists, and to challenge administrators who cynically frame it in the opposite direction. Dyskolos 00:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that just having a bias means you're on a side. You could have a personal bias and still aim to uphold neutrality and verifiability. a.z. 00:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm in. Hopefully we'll make some headway in improving the article this way. ~ Homologeo 03:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A problem
We have a problem in that Dyklos, who initiated this meditation request, has been indefinitely blocked and right now its come from him and states what he wants to see out of mediation so really if people want to go ahead the whole thing needs rewriting. What do others think? SqueakBox 04:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the issue, as presented by Dyskolos, still stands. For that reason, I think the points made should be addressed, just as they would have been otherwise, if this editor was not blocked. Furthermore, although the block against Dyskolos is currently set as indefinite, this situation could change if the editor requests unblocking and the block is either reduced or completely removed by an admin. ~ Homologeo 04:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well lets give it a couple of days first but IMO if he remains indefinitely blocked then the first sections have to be rewritten because that is his view of the problem and the solution and not anyone else's or we could start again which I would recommend, but if he remains indefinitely blocked his views are not valid as I, for instance, will not be mediating with him. Do others still wish to go on with the process given the turn of events today? SqueakBox 04:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because Dyklos's account is no more does not invalidate the dispute; as noted above (see "What's going on?") several editors have issues with your edits. This is a contraversal subject, which is why WP:NPOV needs to applied with extreme care, as undeserved as such respect to the subject may deserve.  70.123.189.59 05:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, I initiated mediation, not Dyklos, though he has been active from the onset, more than me. Martijn Hoekstra 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that was my mistake and why I modified a "me" of yours to give your name, SqueakBox 22:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and WP:NOR
Although I am not listed as one of the parties, I think it is important to follow Wikipedia guidelines in this article just as for every article on Wikipedia. It is a controversial subject, and therefore needs to follow these and other Wikipedia guidelines to the letter. This project is not to allow a minor view, and should, despite the name of the article, contain other views to follow Wikipedia's non point of view. I have more, but will keep it short for this case, as I am not listed. Am I, I guess, considered an "outside view"? I don't know. Jeeny (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe everyone here agrees with me that you can list yourself as involved, if you wish. I'm not sure what the rest of your post above means, and why you are talking about NPOV and NOR. a.z. 01:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to be "involved", per se. My only stance is that it conforms to Wikipedia guidelines, so that is the reason I used NPOV and NOR policies as a heading, and to consider those policies in this "case". Wikipedia is not here for those to use it as a forum either. That's my problem with the article as it is. Jeeny (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeeny. The article is not called "Public consensus on pro-pedophile activism". It is there, just like any other article that discusses a minority viewpoint, to focus on the minority viewpoint as subject matter. Some of these articles contain large criticism elements, but this is because those movements have faced widespread criticism. As pro-pedophile activism has garnered very little outside attention, I actually see fit that the criticism is thinned out to reduce the size of the article and help it conform to Neutral point of view (notice the correct name for the policy - we do not exclude points of view from the encyclopedia, but aim to treat them neutrally). ♥ Lundiaka  20:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm well George W. Bush isn't called "Public consensus on George W. Bush" either but that argument will not allow editors to ignore public consensus on this issue. While we focus on the minority PPA viewpoint obviously that is a million miles from an article promoting that viewpoint, Nazism isn't a polemic defense of anti-semitic murder and PPA should not defend the PPA stance either, nor will it, SqueakBox 21:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nor does it! I am not justifying the ignorance of public consensus at all. But it is most important that this does not equate to "how would they react if faced with PPA", which would justify a very large criticism section based on speculative and subjecive judgements. In reality, the public is largely unaware of PPA, leaving what criticism there is to activist groups and academics. ♥ Lundiaka  21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the publicity re this issue on programmes such as Larry King Live I think the US public at least is not so ill-informed as you might think, SqueakBox 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the problem I have with this article, after thinking more about it. Why is it not just merged into Pedophile or Pedophilia? As the subject of the article is a very minority view, but has a large anti view. I am now a bit suspect of the naming of the article. It seems to take advantage of Wikipedia's policies. As it is, it's almost like an advert for the pro movement in order to get the message out to a wider audience without the wide criticism it gets in other media, amongst other groups, law enforcement, and other agencies. Jeeny (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeeny, these are logical arguments, but work within an (understandably) limited knowledge of how the various articles on WP:PAW relate to each other. The anti-pedophile activist view has already been accounted for in an Anti-pedophile activism article, which treats its subject in exactly the same fashion. It's lesser size is because of a number of reasons, including the relative newness of the AP movement, lack of verifiable sources, and if the lack of comment on talk is to be used as a guide, the newness of the article itself.


 * Considering the status of some of the people who have contributed to the article (see the PAW discussion), the article may very well act as an advert. However, this does not make it biased, nor does it make it unlike any other unbiased article about a minority POV. In fact, this is what Wikipedia does. Wikipedia eliminates bias and makes available verifiable information on diverse subjects. ♥ Lundiaka  00:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeeny, anyone can add all the criticism they want to the section "criticism". If the section gets too big, there could be an article called "criticism of pro-pedophile activism", just as there's a page on "criticism of Wikipedia" and "criticism of the War on Terror". A.Z. 01:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tehjustice
Tehjustice has volunteered to mediate the case. Thanks to her for that! As SqueakBox said, "we are looking for a member of the mediation cabal that both sides can trust". I think we all should check Tehjustice's contributions and see whether we trust her, and we could also ask her questions. Since Tehjustice started editing on April, and has only 123 edits, there's unfortunately not much to learn from her contributions. I would like to ask Tehjustice why she thinks she is qualified for this task. I think this mediation case is really important, and I would like us to have an intelligent person to mediate it. A.Z. 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick response, A.Z. I think that's a fair and valid question, and I'll try to answer yours and those of others as they come along. As you pointed out, I have few edits, unfortunately, making it difficult to get a better idea of me over an extended period of participation. The fact that you have these questions proved that you're dedicated to this topic. To answer your question (why I'm qualified), I find it extremely important to understand as best I can all sides of an issue, and retain respect and appreciation for people and opinions I disagree with it. It's also very important for me to reach conclusions based on evidence and reasoning. (I'm a CX debator ;)). As to whether I'm intelligent or not *grins*, that's all relative, and probably difficult to define. I'll refrain from making statements about my IQ, and allow you all to form your own opinions.


 * Anyway, I was about to post a few questions for pre-mediation, but I think I'll refrain from that until we've established whether or not I'm qualified to be a mediator, or if you need to find someone else. Thank you for your interest and dedication to civilized resolution of conflict. ;) justice 22:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply, justice. Why are you interested in mediating this particular case? How much will you dedicate yourself to this case? What is your opinion on pedophilia and pro-pedophile activism? A.Z. 22:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not so much that I have particular interest necessarily in this subject, so much as that I noticed it seemed to be on the list needing a mediator longer than most cases, and upon looking at the issue and case, it seemed like something I would be better suited to handle for these reasons:


 * everyone seems to want to find a solution to this disagreement - no user is refusing to work with others, from what I see
 * everyone has so far been polite and respectful of others
 * it seems to be a dispute of finding a way of including information in such a way that is not heavily biased to one side


 * Because of this, I feel this case would be easier for me to handle starting out as a mediator than a case with some particularly explosive contributors debating the merits and validity of complex scientific research. That kind of case requires more knowledge of the subject, and more practice working with 'difficult' people. ;)


 * It is my every intention to be timely and detailed in my response and follow-up to discussion on this issue. If I do mediate this case, I will make efforts to engage in individual conversations with people on talkpages if necessary, or anything else reasonably requested, to ensure that everyone gets fair input, and the solution is workable for everyone. If, for some reason, I felt I would not be able to invest this time in the mediation at some point, I feel it would be my duty to inform everyone of that, and continue to work with people as best I could until another mediator is found. Obviously, however, I do not forsee this happening.


 * I hate to box myself in to a specific opinion on the issue, but I understand the need for a statement on this. Please understand that it is important to me to approach mediating conflicts with an understanding that I should set aside any of my own biases as best as possible. That said, all of us have bias, and we can't get rid of them all. Anyway, my personal opinion is that at a point when a child can make a conscious and informed decision about his/her sexual acts and choses to enter into a relationship with someone, it is not 'wrong'. (but of course, 'wrong' is a difficult word) I believe it becomes abusive if a child is used against their wishes, for money, violently, is too young to make an informed choice, etc. I do not have particularly strong feelings on this exact issue, but if it becomes child abuse, I'm afraid I'm very much in opposition of it. I don't really have an opinion on the 'activism' part of it. Feel free to ask for more clarification. justice 22:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your very complete answers. I believe you could be a great mediator, justice, but, in my personal opinion, this case has "some particularly explosive contributors debating the merits and validity of complex scientific research." As you said, "that kind of case requires more knowledge of the subject, and more practice working with 'difficult' people". To be more to the point, my personal opinion is that SqueakBox is explosive and a very, very difficult person. I wouldn't say that a great amount of knowledge about science is required, but, in my personal opinion, SqueakBox either doesn't have the small amount of knowledge it takes to understand that his proposed version for this article is plain wrong, or is acting in bad faith. Do you still want to be our mediator? A.Z. 22:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Such a personal attack is distinctly unhelpful, A.Z and I suspect the only thing you find difficult in me is my commitment to NPOVing these set of articles contradicts what you would like these articles to be like, SqueakBox 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't a personal attack, SqueakBox. My post is about me, not about you. It's about how I feel, what I think, and how hard it will be to solve this case. I'm sorry my way to put it in words was so terrible, as I'm seeing it was indeed. I hope this explanation I just gave make you view things from another point. I said before that I thought you were evil, then I stopped seeing you as evil. I started seeing you as stupid, then seeing you as acting in bad faith. I am just trying to find some explanation. I need an explanation to understand why in the world would a person act like you do. It's a cognitive dissonance that I experience when I see your edits. I want to believe you are a normal person with whom I could have rational conversations, but I see those edits and it's just too hard. A.Z. 03:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your confidence vote. :) I did notice evidence of a 'squable' of sorts on SqueakBox's page, and noted it. However, 'difficult' is a relative word, and I don't believe SqueakBox falls under what I categorize as 'difficult', necesarily, though maybe stuborn (no offense, SqueakBox), given the reverts he's made. I do still want to be a mediator, and I hope we can work things out with him. Also, on a side note "plain wrong" is definitely an entitled opinion, and not really rude, or anything, but remember, mediation is about compromise. ;) Anyway, unless you have more questions for me, which I will be happy to answer, I think now we need to wait for other people's input, and see if a general concensus can be reached about my eligibility. Again, thanks for the vote.


 * One last thing I almost forgot-- I'm a student, and the pedia is blocked at my school, so I probably won't be on until later afternoon/evening/weekends (for anyone who might want to contact me and wonders why I don't answer right away) justice 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Though you are not that experienced, I'm willing to give it a go with you as mediator. Do note, however, that dificult seems to be quite the word you are looking for in this case. Really. Martijn Hoekstra 23:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I liked justice as a person, but I don't think she's the right one for the job. I disagree that "plain wrong" is just an entitled opinion. I think SqueakBox's version of the article is wrong and that's it. I don't think the content of Wikipedia's articles should be determined in the following manner: "I'll let you write that, as long as you let me write this". Article content is either 1 or 0, either yes or no, either right or wrong. It shouldn't be determined by politics, nor by personal reasons. What I expect from this mediation case is SqueakBox to say "my version is wrong".


 * Something else that mades me think justice is not the appropriate person for this is that she said "I think now we need to wait for other people's input, and see if a general concensus can be reached about my eligibility". I think I'm entitled to make as many questions as I wish, and I want a dedicated mediator. It may not have been her intention, but I felt that she was saying that was enough from me.


 * SqueakBox is stubborn and difficult. I have explained to him the same thing on the article talk page many times: that his version is not referenced. You can see that for yourself. There are at least four posts on the article talk page, and one on his talk page, where I'm saying "your version is not referenced", and he didn't reply to them. He did reply to me once, saying he had added a referenced sentence. It turns out that he didn't even read the source. When I asked for him to post on the talk page the relevant part of the source, he just told me to go to the talk page of that other article from where he had copied the source.


 * Besides not being referenced, his version implies that pro-pedophile activists wish to allow pedophiles to abuse children, and he hasn't addressed this yet, even after I pointed that out to him. His version is wrong. He either tried to add that to the article in the first place because he lacks intelligence or because he lacks good faith. The only reason why he continues adding that version is because he is either stupid, acting in bad faith, or so stubborn that he doesn't even want to consider that he may be wrong. I would never volunteer to mediate a case in which SqueakBox is involved, because I am not capable of dealing with him. A.Z. 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A.Z please explain how it is that my preferred version has 6 refs and the version preferred by the banned users has none. The discrepancy between what you claim and actual reality is often so large and this is a classic case. I have 6 refs added, all of which I have read, while the other version has no references to read. Your continuously muddying the waters with false statements is frustrating and makes you very difficult to work with. You complaint that I am stubborn and difficult is a borderline personal attack and I am not here to listen to your personal attacks that clearly will not resolve anything. PPAs clearly do want the law to be changed to allow them to have sex with children, sex with children is child sexual abuse sot he statement is both reasonable and logical. Calling me stupid is an uncivil personal attack, claiming I am acting in bad faith is a bad faith statement which I believe you know to be untrue and you claiming I am wrong is not to make me change my mind. banned users claiming I ma wrong when they have been banned for pro-ped pushing gives me faith i am on the right track in terms of NPOVing the PPA article, SqueakBox 23:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Undent. SqueakBox, what you are discribing sounds a lot like Synthesis of published material, which falls under original research. The first line there sums it up pretty well: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. Martijn Hoekstra 23:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not OR to explain how things are. Its the A.Z version that falls apart unless one assumes that adulkts having sex with children is not CSA, as son as it is seen as CSA there is nothing controversial in what I wrote and to claim adults having sex with children is other than CSA is what is OR, SqueakBox 23:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's look at this from a different perspective, not from the situation where you defend an edit you want, but one from where you can live with some version, and where we me reach consensus: What is wrong with: 'PPA's want laws that prohibit sex with children relaxed', or something of the sort? Martijn Hoekstra


 * I don't think we should be dealing with the details of content disputes here but how we can find a way to work together as disparate editors in order to be able to resolve content disputes, SqueakBox 23:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly. I made some suggestions for the introduction on the articles talk page, by the way. Martijn Hoekstra 23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, you think SqueakBox is just "plain wrong"? Jeeny (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I have made that quite clear. A.Z. 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I will stop arguing about 'difficult' now, (I guess I'll find out as we get going ;)) Again, thank you. justice 23:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood. I want to explain what I meant, before you pass final judgement please.


 * I personally think SqueakBox's version violates policies, and in that respect, I do agree with you about "plain wrong". What I was trying to say, was that as far as his actual statements go, whether you agree with them or not is an opinion. I'm afraid I must have misunderstood you. Please accept my apology. Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you think all the articles should be written by wikipedia policy standards, and not based off personal bias, etc. If not, please clarify.


 * Also, when I made the statement about other people's input, I was not intending to imply that you should stop asking questions by any means, and I had hoped to have made that clear earlier, but obviously did not. I merely meant that while both of you seemed to agree, we can't actually proceed with mediation itself until more people have weighed in and had a chance to ask me questions about myself. Again, I apologize for what that may have implied to you. I didn't mean it that way.


 * I understand your concerns, about SqueakBox. They are valid, and I appreciate that you are specific and provide evidence for what you say. As a mediator, I feel I should not take 'sides', but I do acknowledge that I think SqueakBox's version is not a neutral POV, and needs to be modified. I agree appropriate citation needs to be found. I also think it's important not to get to far into this until we've involved SqueakBox. If he continues to refuse to work with others as you point out he has done in the past, and continues to revert war with people instead of engaging in constructive resolution, then that needs to be dealt with by an administrator.

Thank you for being specific and detailed in all your complaints, and please feel free to continue to ask questions. Please be reminded that I am not the actual mediator yet, and if you continue to feel strong on this issue, there are other mediators out there. You are not doomed to me. ;) justice 23:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The only people I refuse to work with are banned sockpuppets, an attitude we all need to take, indeed it is the failure of other users to adopt this approach that is a big part of the problem. If you don't think my viewpoint is NPOV, Justice, you are taking sides which I am afraid confirms that you are not going to be able to mediate this situation with any degree of success, and you should not be making such comments, SqueakBox 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify the following sentence for me? "What I was trying to say, was that as far as his actual statements go, whether you agree with them or not is an opinion." I take that this means "whether you think that adult-child sex is necessarily child sexual abuse or not is only your opinion" and "whether you think that the intention of pro-pedophie activists is to allow for deliberate child sexual abuse or not is just your personal opinion". Please, tell me if that's what you mean, or what you meant, if that's not what you meant, so I can reply to you. I feel this is an important point. A.Z. 00:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's an important point too, and I think you were correct in your last interpretation. "I think adult-child sex is ( or is not) abuse" is an opinion, for example, and I thought you were originally refusing SqueakBox's entitlement to his opinion on the subject when you said it was "plain wrong". From your response, however, I took it to mean that you were speaking of how he incorporates his opinion in the article, and in that respect, I do agree with you that such blatant bias is "plain wrong", given wikipedia's guidelines for neutral POV, etc. Hopefully that clarifies things on this topic more thoroughly. (I have to leave for a little while to eat, so I won't reply right away) justice 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to learn that. It was just a miscommunication that we have had, then. Yes, I think SqueakBox is entitled to have his opinions about all issues. I merely meant that his version of the article was a wrong version, regardless of how he or I or anyone feels about pro-pedophile activism. A.Z. 00:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. I'm glad it was just a misunderstanding on both of our parts. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask them, but I probably won't be on much more until tomorrow. justice 00:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have concerns that you are not experienced and this is an extremely complex case relating to a number of policies we have as well as an arbcom case that is being conducted off wikipedia. I would rather have somebody with more experience though I have no other issues with Justice as a mediator so I am not opposing just expressing concerns. Is this your first case as a mediator, Justice? and how aware are you of the background (eg the arbcom case, the sockpuppetting etc)to this case? SqueakBox 22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We could have more than one mediator. A.Z. 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * @Squeakbox: I understand your concerns about my experience of course, and I think they're valid. I'm not sure if I previously stated it, but yes, this is my first case on wikipedia. Please understand that I do have experience with mediation in general on other sites I have been active on, mostly informal. Obviously, experience is a component of eligibility that should be given a good deal of weight, and I am sorry I cannot point you to past cases I have worked with- though I must say, you have to start somewhere. ;) I was familiar with the issues raised over sockpuppetting, and knew that some users had been banned for various degrees of time. One of the listed involved parties is currently banned, I believe. I was not so much aware of the arbcom case you mention, I admit. However, so you know, I have already written out pre-mediation questions, and one of the questions was adressing issues perhaps not pertinent to the case at face-value, but important because of the complications they create. Before any mediation could take place, I feel it would be very important to adress these issues. Again, I want to thank you for obviously caring enough about the successful resolution of this case to be thorough in your examination of me. Everyone I have encountered so far has been quite dedicated to this.


 * @ AZ and Squeakbox: the suggection of muliple mediators is a good one if my inexperience makes some of you uneasy. There is a system in which I can handle the majority of the mediation, and have a more experienced mediator step in to add advice and help out with more complex issues. justice 00:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Although justice is not the most experienced editor to have mediating this case, I think her intentions and approach to the situation at hand make her an eligible candidate. As long as she commits to mediation with an open yet critical mind, and upholds and promotes the key standards of Wikipedia, she has my vote to be the mediator in this case. However, I do not think it would be appropriate for her to take on this role if editors that are the most heavily invested in the current disagreement do not think she is fitting for this mediation process. ~ Homologeo 00:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish to add my support to Homologeo's statement. If you have any strong negative feelings about my abilities to contribute as a mediator, please make this clear, either in the interest of clearing up questions, or for the sake of expressing your reservations. I cannot be effective if people are not willing to work with me. Remember, there are other mediators out there, and we can have more than one mediator work on the case, even, if it is a question of my experience. Thank you Homologeo. ;) justice 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly a crucial element of being a psychotherapist is to have a supervisor for thew work one does. If you can get a more experienced mediator to supervise you (so you talk to them re problems etc) that person wouldn't need a direct involvement, just an involvement with you. So I am okay for you to be in this role and I guess I want to gfet on and move this along to the next phase, SqueakBox 17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then- (the label psychotherapist made me laught ;)) since both parties seem to be represented and willing, Squeakbox, I have arranged with a more experienced mediator, and I believe we can move on. If someone who has not commented expressed concern upon entering this mediation soon after we start, we can freeze our other work for a short while to work out any concerns. I'm going to move the next part to a new section, since this one has grown so long. If anyone has any objections they feel they had not had time to voice, I apologize in advance, and I'm certainly willing to continue to work these out, so don't hesitate to speak up. justice 01:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is the more experienced mediator? A.Z. 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we getting somewhere near starting mediation yet? Ofcourse, I believe the page is protected in the wrong version. And I would really like to see this come to a good end, where I can finaly step away from the whole issue altogether. I think it's about time we really started mediating, instead of talking about the mediation. Martijn Hoekstra 13:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Pre-mediation
Quick ground rules (please either state you agree with the rules, or explain why you object)


 * 1) Always ask for clarification before passing final judgement- it might have been a miscommunication
 * 2) Assume good faith if there's room for it
 * 3) Don't attack other users personally
 * 4) Respect everyone's right to an opinion
 * 5) Remember that regardless our opinion, we need to follow wikipedia guidlines
 * 6) Try to be detailed and specific while discussing things, and provide as much evidence to back up your claims as possible. If you're right, your arguements should hold out.
 * 7) Don't forget the users on the other end are real people who can make mistakes, can be hurt by the things you say, and have an interest in the successful resolution of this conflict.

Just for clarification:


 * Are there any changes to the listing of involved parties other than Lundiaka, who I noted has been banned? Are the most deeply involved parties accounted for?


 * Can everyone who feels they are involved please make a statement about their opinion on the issue, or make a statement that they agree with the statement already given, or they agree with someone else's statement? I think it's important for everyone to clarify their opinions on what is happening.


 * Can anyone who disagrees with the statement made about what needs to change comment.


 * If the issue of sockpuppets needs to be addressed further, (I see you've already discussed it), or the arbcom Squeakbox mentioned, please comment on it.


 * Lastly, please note anything not addressed by me that you feel is important.

Once people answer these things, we can get started, hopefully. Feel free to contact me on my talkpage if you have an concerns. Just as a reminder, please be respectful of everyone involved, and make an effort to understand what other people are saying, even if you disagree with them. Assume good faith, and try to stay humorous if possible and appropriate. justice 02:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Squeakbox, I feel I should apologize for the statement I made before you had weighed in about thinking you were wrong. While it is my personal opinion that some of your edits have violated wiki's policy, the statement I made, especially in the way it was phrased, made it appear I was 'taking sides', which is certainly not my place as a mediator. While I do retain my opinion personally, please understand I will make every effort to set it aside as we sort through all this, and I believe everyone should have every opportunity to provide evidence in their favor. I will make every effort I can to ensure that your side of the issue is examined carefully, and all evidence you bring is gone over. The same goes for everyone else involved. Please remember, though, I'm human, and it's impossible for me to not come to a conclusion about this ;). I have already stated my current opinion, but it was made on a face-value judgement, and it will change if reasonable evidence is brought against it. Thanks. justice 02:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a few comments I would like to make on the layed down ground rules and the other notes.


 * 1) Remember that regardless our opinion, we need to follow wikipedia guidlines There is some discussion about this, but I do believe that consensus on an article trumps Guidelines. Note that a Wikipedia guideline is not a Wikipedia WP:Policy. This is however mainly theoretical, in case of a dispute, it's by far the easiest to stick to the guidelines.
 * 2) I am still very willing to attemt this mediation, but I can't guarantee I won't pull back from mediation - and this article - altogether if I have the idea that my oppinion might get me banned indefinately, somthing that doesn't seem to be as unlikely as it sounds.
 * I'll list my personal view of how I would like to see the article below in a seperate section. Martijn Hoekstra 09:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Martijn Hoekstra's views on the article
My general view of this article, is that it is too verbose, and would benefit from integration of many sections, accompanied by some removal of content. Content should be in direct relation to pro-pedophile activism, and sections that for the most part discus pedophilia rather then the activism should be integrated into other sections. The article should have a neutral tone, and weasel wording should be avoided. It should not pass judgement about the activism (let alone pedophilia, this article is not about pedophilia), nor should it pass judgement about anti-pedophilia activism. I propose a rough structure as follows:

Introduction
The introduction should hold a definition of pro-pediophile activism, assert the notability of pro-pedophile activism, note the controversy around pedophile activism, and establish a rough history of pedophile activism.

History
Should note the history of pedophile activism, it's developement, to where it stands now. There could be sub sections about key works and movements, but I don't think that that would be nessecairy. I support the structure the current artciles history section, with the caveat that the current sections 3.6 and 3.7 should be moved elsewhere, probably to their own sections, possibly merged with other sections including the introduction.

Activities, perspectives and scientific claims
Should be merged, probably to Activities and perspectives. This would detail the activities undertaken by Pedophile activist(s) (groups), and their perspectives. It should be properly sourced. I believe primary sources are acceptable as examples here, though secondary sources are prefered. Scientific claims are only important in relation to activities and perspectives, and should be used to further illustrate perspectives. No papers should be used to push a POV, and care must be taken that papers are not given any undue weight. This might be the hardest thing to accomplish in cooperation on this article.

Criminal cases
should in my oppinion be dropped altogether.

Further notes from Martijn Hoekstra on the issue
Further I would like to note to all working on this, with the mediators permission, that when working on this article, I don't think we will ever reach an article that everybody fully agrees upon. Therefore I don't think that we should try to reach that point. If we get an article that all editors can live with, we are much further, and when we reach that point, improvements can be made more easily. I would also like to note that in a direct discussion about content, it is often more productive to prevent overly long discussions about the content, but focus on searching for a version that all parties can live with. That often involves watering down a version to something you can live with, but largely leaves the others version intact. That way you are not going back and forth between two versions, but you might actualy reach a version that reflects consensus. Martijn Hoekstra 10:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Shambles
The article introduction as it stands is a shambles. It reads like a tabloid editorial and violates the policy that was set out to avoid such nonsense and make the encyclopedia uniquely neutral. The editor who defends it claims that his sources back up the value assertions, but all they do is show that one or two "authoritative" sources hold the same prejudices as him, Pol64, the majority of editors and indeed myself.

Recomms
Now, considering that no one is willing to oust multiple violators from editing this article, as they have done with the elusive "pro pedophiles" what are we to do? Firstly, we should downgrade reverts on the article to one per editor per day. This would calm the situation and lead to an open debate of issues before an editor uses their one revert. Secondly, we should ban all accusations of sockpuppetry, pedophilia and pro-pedophile views from talk and edit summaries. As this is already largely against the rules, complains of disruption should be pursued by both sides, and fully backed up by the mediator. Mediator backing is required because anyone who does not support the media-crazed moronic "kill the peedoes" line is effectively commiting suicide by reporting the violations of "pro kiddy"(!) editors. When a potential sockpuppet has been identified, the mediator must also support the reporting and checking of that user. Lastly, CONSENSUS should be final, goddamnit!

Rest of article
Unlike Martijn, I am for keeping the crims in.

Errrrrr...
I would also like to add that although he claims only to be unwilling to edit with banned users' sockpuppets, SqueakBox often rejects unbanned users by accusing them of being the very same thing! Thus, HE IS FREE TO CHOOSE HIS ENEMIES!!! Peace. s#!T? oN a tHIcKeT 18:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is now my comment. Previously banned after I used an inappropriate name. There is no evidence that I was banned for any other reason, so that was just the usual rubbish passed off as respectable commentary. Richard Laube 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
What I see would be the best course of action, is to keep good faith, and if editors start showing problematic behaviour, possibly call for a checkuser. If edits were problematic or disputed, and editors are banned, their edits can be simply undone. We will have to accept that there will be times that an article is in a state where it is edited by a sock of a banned user then, but on Wikipedia, there is no guarantee that any article is in a perfect state at any time. Blatant vandalism can always be easily reverted, even if a user isn't banned. Martijn Hoekstra 17:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that as an adequate proposal, and what I particularly disagree with is that "We will have to accept that there will be times that an article is in a state where it is edited by a sock of a banned user", this is simply unacceptable and certainly not a proposal that will ensure successful mediation, it is also completely contrary to the wikipedia spirit of openness, etc.


 * How about we all agree to revert the edits of any banned users when new users try to reinsert them and if any new user edits a talk or other non-Main space page in a way that appears to be similar to a banned user that we just remove their comments and those established users who try to reinsert comments of suspected banned users or who reinsert their edits into the mainspace be treated as meatpuppets? This to me seems a much more appropriate way of dealing with this issue, SqueakBox 17:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And how do you see this as addressing the concerns expressed by Martijn Hoekstra, myself, and others? This approach is exactly what we disagree with, and find to be contrary to Wikipedia ideals. SqueakBox, why don't you want to deal with socks and meat puppets on a case-by-case basis, and through proper channels? If it is established that someone is a sock, doesn't the individual get banned? On the same note, if someone's edits are found to be inappropriate or an act of meat puppetry, don't these edits get reverted after necessary evidence is provided and a decision is rendered? Also, whatever happened to good faith towards other Wikipedia editors and their edits? ~ Homologeo 17:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes but your solution doesn't address the fact that these banned suers are profoundly affecting the PAW space and the PPA article and talk page and that your proposal fails to address that as once RCU and socks have been done the damage has been done. And who is willing to go to RCU and checkuser, a number of editors have taken me to RCU and socks and I am not a banned suer but have failed to take action against obvious socks of real banned users, so what you are proposing is do nothing different, and if we do that the problem will not be resolved as the primary problem we face is these banned users returning as socks. I hope at least we can agree on that, SqueakBox 18:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I actualy don't see much of a problem with reverting edits of new users if they are identical to edits made by previously banned users. In general, I don't see much good in reverting to older states, but I believe each new edit should seek some consensus with another edit. Going back and forth, isn't going forward. Martijn Hoekstra 18:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just made a good start here, obvious sock of previously banned sock based on his appearance and copmmentaries. He and I will not mediate so if people insist on meatpuppeting him in or he insists on returning I will not proceed any further in the emdiation as I will not mediate with banned suers, their socks or their meatpuppets, SqueakBox 22:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, are you now asserting that User:S*** on a Thicket was banned, or should have been banned, because he or she was a sock? If this was true, this individual would not be allowed to come back under a different name, which currently seems to be the case. On another note, how is what you just did different from what you have been doing from the start - reverting the inclusion of commentary by the editor in question on this Mediation Page? Furthermore, for the last time, we cannot simply assume that someone is a sock, basing such claims solely on perceived similarities in viewpoints and/or editing style. If you haven't noticed, numerous established editors have expressed points of view very similar, if not identical in some respects, to perspectives of now banned editors and various socks - are you going to start calling these editors socks or meat puppets too? What is so hard about going through the proper channels to address sock and meat puppet problems you're worried about? Finally, how can any new editor get involved in this article, if everyone who hasn't been here for a while is to be automatically distrusted? ~ Homologeo 23:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Could Squeakbox please refrain from reverting all the edits of a user who he dislikes, based upon the fact that he legitimately came back after being banned (see rules for inappropriate names), or is otherwise assumed to be a sockpuppet. Thanks in advance for your inevitable cooperation. 82.45.15.121 15:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Formal Mediation?
I believe it might be time we stepped this up a bit, and maybe moved to formal mediation. I have little trust that the process we are in at the moment will bring us closer to a possible solution. How do the other involved editors feel about this? Martijn Hoekstra 16:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no point mediating with meatpuppets of socks of banned users, and I will not do so under any circumstances. I suggest you sort the problem out, otherwise this case is closed, SqueakBox 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox has just thrown a fit because I restored a few legitimite comments that he deleted, by a user who reincarnated himself after being blocked for using an inappropriate name (Richard Laube/S*** on a Thicket). According to him, the user is a previously banned sockpuppet, although there was never any evidence of that, with SqueakBox just claiming that it was clear to him.


 * He has also taken the liberty of "closing" this case. If only he and his similarly inclined friend would stop editing all of these pages, the process would not be required. 82.45.15.121 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see much of a point however continuing without SqueakBox. So I suggest that the mediator closes. Martijn Hoekstra 16:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Just because there's one editor who refuses to cooperate doesn't mean everyone else should stop trying to figure out a constructive way to move forward. If this mediation process closes, then there might be no other choice but to take more drastic action, seeing as SqueakBox has consistently refused to follow consensus and unilaterally reverts any productive changes that are made to the article. ~ Homologeo 22:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I would like to apologize. I wrote a response to some of the arguement going on above, but I think I forgot to save the page. In light of the apparent inability of certain users to cooperate with mediation, I suggest someone open a formal complaint. I would be happy to comment. The reason for this, Homologeo, is that SqueakBox will probably continue to change the page even if everyone else reaches a resolution. Before the mediation can continue to progress, you may need to bring this case forward so that will not happen.


 * SqueakBox, unless you can lay out a list of reasons why you feel mediation cannot proceed, back them up with evidence, and suggest how your fears could be put to rest, it will be impossible to work with you. You say you refuse to work with sockpuppets, etc. Fine, what do you want us to do about it? If you can do this, informal mediation can probably continue, otherwise, I'm afraid it can't. This kind of mediation requires a certain willingness to work with others. Do you want this process to become formal? justice 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A request for formal mediation has been made Martijn Hoekstra 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, in what ways would Formal Mediation be different from the informal version, and what impact would the consequences of the former have on the article? ~ Homologeo 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe formal mediation is (obviously) more formal, with very specific steps. Also, I'm sort of volunteer, so I don't have the power to back things up with action. I can only make suggestions. If it escalates further, it will be refered to arbitration, I believe. If it turns out the real problem is a user (consistent sock puppeting, NPOV, something like that), the user can be dealt with. I can't ban anyone, or take other disciplinary action, but eventually, it could reach the point where that happens if you continue to climb the mediation ladder. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. justice 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's OK, justice - we know you tried your best. Thank you very much for giving this mediation process a shot. ~ Homologeo 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Best of luck. If you need my input on anything later on in formal mediation, drop a note on my talk page. justice 02:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi justice. You left me a message asking me to explain my side of this situation concerning the article.  Here it is.  My biggest concern is with the introduction.   The current intro is extremely POV.  It almost sounds like it was written by John Walsh.  And if you are familiar with him, you'll know he holds great hatred for pedophiles.  Wikipedia article's should be neutral and blanking pedophilia that it is abuse is highly POV.  The introduction must change.  The current section is misleading in that it suggest all pedophiles will offend.  This is absolutely untrue.  Some pedophiles can live their entire life celibate.  Neutrality is about taking neither side.  How can calling something outright abuse be considered neutral???  We need to get emotional words like abuse and predatory.  We are not tabloid journalism here.   That's the gist of my problems.   Fighting for Justice 09:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)