Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Pro-pedophile activism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation facts[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Articles involved[edit]

Issues to be mediated[edit]

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.

Where to mediate[edit]

Many thanks to everyone agreeing to the mediation. Firstly, the most important thing at this stage is to make sure everyone is happy with me mediating this dispute. Secondally, we need to ascertain where the mediation is going to take place. We can do it on this talk page, on IRC, or the mediation committee has its on wiki, so for more private discussion, I could create everyone an account and we could do it on there. Under the appropriate heading, please state whether you agree with me mediating the dispute, and where you wish the dispute to be mediated. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the mediator? I'm confused. Jeeny (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I am, sorry for not making it clear. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify a little, Jeeny, Daniel accepted that this case be brought to formal mediation, Ryan is going to be our mediator, if we accept. Martijn Hoekstra 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with mediator[edit]

Yes[edit]

No[edit]

  • Jeeny (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He said that WP:DICK currently nominated for deletion complements policy well, when it's actually generally used for personal attacks. I like him, but he doesn't have a great judgement. A.Z. 00:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know[edit]

I had actually turned off my computer and I was going to sleep, but it turns out that I'm not sure whether my reason for not being happy with the mediator is a good reason. I would like to interview him, as I did to justice. A.Z. 05:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on anything else, I'll stick soley to the WP:DICK MfD. Don't be a dick complements WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA because when someone is being a dick, they are generally going against those two policies themselves. When someone is being a dick, as the term suggests, they are disrupting the project. Generally speaking, they essay should not be cited (I've never cited it in a discussion apart from when I'm talking about myself), but sometimes people use it effectively to make people see sense and call a spade a spade. At MfD, a lot of different views come across - if there weren't these views then many more things could be speedily deleted. Yeah, you don't agree with me on this particular topic (which I might add is very minor and in many ways has very little to do with wikipedia) but I'm not sure how you believe this will affect my judgement on the mediation where I am soley here to move things in the right direction and I express no opinion on that actual dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. It wasn't really a good reason to reject you. Thank you for the offer to mediate our dispute, which I accepted now. A.Z. 22:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Chair of the Mediation Committee[edit]

Per our Mediation policy:

There has been discussion within the Committee of various methods for valid rejection of a mediator. At this time, there is no established procedure for declining a mediator's offer to mediate. It is expected that should such a situation arise, parties will state a strong reason for declining a particular mediator, as all mediators are considered highly trusted and capable individuals. Parties concerned about a public statement may make their objections known privately to the Chair of the Committee, via email. Declining a mediator's offer to mediate is a serious matter, and should be reserved for extreme circumstances; if it is determined that a party's rejection of the mediator is a disruption technique or attempt to derail dispute resolution, the mediation may be referred to the Arbitration Committee for binding resolution. Parties should not be concerned about making known good-faith concerns and objections to the involved mediator, but are strongly cautioned against any attempt to abuse the system.

If you have any concerns you wish to discuss about Ryan mediating, please contact me privately, and all emails will be considered strictly confidential. Daniel 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place for mediation[edit]

On this talk page[edit]

  • Since I believe in openness on Wikipedia, I would prefer to conduct all the proceedings here. However, if enough involved parties would like to have mediation take place somewhere else, I would not be against such action. ~ Homologeo 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the cabal mediation was deliberately disrupted, with the unfortunate collusion of certain editors here, and if we did it here the process would clearly be disrupted again. Not everyone wants this process to succeed, I believe certain banned suers are desperate to get this case taken to arbcom so they can have their day in court, so to speak, SqueakBox 19:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference (my opinion mirrors that of Homologeo). Welland R 09:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the MedComs private wiki[edit]

  • Fine, SqueakBox 17:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is OK by me. I would like to know though, who is the mediator, Daniel or Ryan? Jeeny (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the mediation is to take place somewhere other than here, I still would want to use the same venue, meaning I would prefer not to learn something new just for the mediation process - this might hinder participation. Is editing done within the MedCom's private wiki the same or similar to regular editing on Wikipedia? ~ Homologeo 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In essence, it's exactly the same, just with a different name. The only thing is, I would have to register a username for everyone on the site, and you can only edit if you have a username. It would limit who was involved in the mediation to who you guys decide on. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well let's wait for others still but so far this sounds the best option as I am not comfortable with other new people joining in without the prior agreement of all of us, SqueakBox 19:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not my preference, but I will go along with the group's decision in this regard. Welland R 09:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good to me. Pol64 23:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC[edit]

  • Fine (but I don't know how to use it right now), SqueakBox 17:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that if you don't know how to use it, then it's not the best venue to have a mediation on as it's not the easiest thing to learn quickly. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can learn pretty quickly as figuring out how to work computer things is a major part of my work but everyone else would also need to know how to use it. Info is at Wikipedia:IRC channels. I am really up for keeping this off wikipedia, SqueakBox 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well if you want me to, I'll send you a quick "how to" guide and info on a client to use by email. Please be aware though, I'm not the biggest IRC user so won't be the best person to explain things, should be able to get you started though. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, please, I am email enabled, SqueakBox 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've emailed it to you, if anyone else wants the instructions on how to use IRC, I've saved them so I can easily send them to you. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I don't have the time or patience to learn. Jeeny (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I may prefer IRC. It is private, and conversation flows better. A.Z. 22:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I would prefer IRC it is a non-starter if Jeeny doesn't feel able to use it, SqueakBox 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm willing to learn...if it's easy enough. I tried using it before on wikipedia, and succeeded once, but when I tried later I couldn't get connected. ~Jeeny (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The logistics are too complicated ... not in the sense of learning how to use IRC, but in arranging to be online at the same time. (For the last three months I have been jaunting around Europe on my post-MA holiday, and would find this format complicated to participate in.)Welland R 09:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be really sorry if we're not able to use IRC. I really think the "conversation flow" could help us. We have 20 issues to discuss and posts are too slow. I agree that it looks hard for everyone to be online at the same time. A.Z. 02:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever[edit]

  • IRC tends to be an effective place, if enough people can come together. I have no objection to this talk page, but I don't object to the MedCom either. Martijn Hoekstra 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A.Z. 22:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New mediator[edit]

As Jeeny hasn't agreed to me mediating the dispute, then we will have to find a new mediator. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't Jeeny agreed? A.Z. 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's her choise to comment on (or not). Eventualy we'll get things worked out though. No worries! Martijn Hoekstra 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked her to clarify, but it's not a problem, I'll find another member of the committee to mediate the dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, please, don't find another one just because of me. If everyone feels fine about it then I should bow out. It's not fair to the others.... Gosh, I feel like a creep. :( It's me that I do not trust! Not Ryan. :/ I'm removing myself from this mediation. Jeeny (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my above comment. Daniel 06:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward[edit]

I am of the understanding that A.Z. is currently blocked, but as it is yet unclear if the arbitration committee are going to unblock him, I feel it is important that we get on with this. There's a strong consensus to use the medcom wiki, so if you could all email me either by using the "email this user" feature, or sending an email to Ryanpostlethwaite (at) hotmail (dot) com and I'll get you set up with usernames and passwords so we can make a start. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MedCom wiki[edit]

I've created usersnames for everyone who has emailed me their email address and username so far, but I'm still waiting on a couple. The mediation will take place at http://www.martinp23.com/medcom/index.php?title=PPA_talk:Pro-pedophile_activism (you'll need to log in to see it) and I've asked you to make some opening statement there. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those that do watch this page, but don't check the MedComWiki as often, the opening statements are received, and we are moving on. If this remark here by me is out of process, feel free to remove it, or to have it oversighted. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Discussion is continuing on the MedCom wiki. All parties have been instructed to create their ideal version of the introduction, and then differences can be discussed. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to ask all parties again to keep up mediating, even if it is slow. I want to reach an agreement, so we can settle this, and not have it grind to a halt. Most parties still have things to comment on and/or to propose. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to all parties[edit]

Just letting everyone know, the mediations coming to a stop on the medcom wiki. Can everyone please try and pop over there so we can get things rolling again? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New comments on the medcom wiki. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Pro-pedophile_activism&oldid=1079677944"