Talk:Pedophile movement

This is messed up...

See, Wikipedia thinks the only articles that are neutral when talking about controversial issues, are the ones written by the ones on the hated side. In this case, an article written by pedos. ForestAngel 07:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As already discussed, Wikipedia actually blocks pedophiles, pedophile sympathisers and suspected pedophiles from editing any articles. Would you call this article biased? If so, in what way is it? Samantha Pignez 07:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Forest, we dont all think that, but its an uphill struggle. Wikipedia blocks self identifying pedophiles it doesnt block people fopr making pro pedophilia edits, SqueakBox 22:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find the policy about blocking pedophiles? Martijn Hoekstra 22:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to write to the arbcom. Drop an email to Fred or another emmber of the arbcom as this policy is not openly stated anywhere but based on a behind the scenes arbcom case, SqueakBox 22:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a specific ArbCom case I could have a look at concerning these decissions? Martijn Hoekstra 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledage there isnt such an available case, its all been done behind the scenes, for reasons that appear reasonable to me; ie I dont think self identifying as a pedophile, by which I mean someone who says "I am a pedophile" on their user page, is acceptable and as far as I know nobody has ever been blocked for what one could call pro pedophile activist edits to the main space. There is a long discussion in one of Jimbo Wales archive talk pages that could shed some light on the issue, SqueakBox 23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I read some discussion on Jimbos talk page archives, which at least shed enough light on it to show it is a controversial issue, with a lot of discussion around it. I'll see if the questions I have regarding it can be cleared up through email. At any rate this is not the place for a long discussion about it. Martijn Hoekstra 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well feel free to mail me or drop a note on my talk page if you want further clarification, SqueakBox 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good lord could someone edit this becose this is not neutral,but pro-phedophilic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord feanor (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh! I asked for unprotection as you were writing the comment. great minds and all that....and we have the totally disputed tag because it isnt neutral. While I fear the banned users who think it is neutral will crawl back out of the woodwork if it is unprotected that is no reason not to unprotect, SqueakBox 23:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection #1

Right I applied for Page protection to be unlocked. it was declined with the following explanation

This article had to be protected twice last month due to edit warring. Looks like edit warring just resumed once the protection wore off last time so it seems likely that will happen again. Discussion on the talkpage seems needed so that a consensus can be reached before unprotection - perhaps avenues of dispute resolution could be explored. WjBscribe 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What will it take for us all to be inagreement? Do we need dispute resolution. Your comments are urgently required, all of you, SqueakBox 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A number of people including myself seem to think that the current state of the articles (barring the size of the now growing anti pedophile article, etc) is fine; fair and balanced. Others, I'm less sure about. Others including yourself and two now banned editors, unlike the majority of recent voters, seem to be constantly in disagreement with the mere existence of some of these articles. It is very hard to defend what is clearly a neutral article against people who think that it is an abomination that the issue concerned even be discussed. And I don't think that anyone is going to change their minds anytime soon. ●Farenhorst 15:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything productive happening between now and two weeks time that will improve the fortune of this article. I think that it should be unlocked. Samantha Pignez 17:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Sam. Farenhorst has also been indefinitely banned now and Mike D78 hasnt been around for 2 weeks so I think an unlocking would be entirely appropriate, SqueakBox 01:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think my inability to spend as much time at Wikipedia as of late is going to enable you to carry out your typically disruptive and out-of-process edits on this topic, then think again, Squeak. Mike D78 06:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I have applied for unprotection. Given I dont make disruptive or out-of-processe edits I am somewhat bafled by your comments but will point out that consensus never includes indefinitely blocked users, and the possibility of any new editors being socks is a real possibility given the problems this article has had and continues to have, SqueakBox 23:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Given I dont make disruptive or out-of-processe edits"

I think several fairly objective observers have pointed out that this is not the case. Mike D78 02:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reorganized draft

A few editors are already aware of this, but I have been working on a draft version of this article for sometime now. I initially intended to enlist the help of a few other editors in working on this draft before I presented it to everyone else, but few others have seemed to have the time to do much with it, so I'm going to go ahead and seek everyone else's opinions.

This draft reorganizes the information in the article in a few places, the most significant change being the merging of the currently seperate claims and scientific views sections. This draft at this time is a bit longer than the current article; I added some more sources that I thought were of relevance, with the intention that others could help me make everything more concise (I have trouble doing this).

While we are discussing the future direction for this article after it is unlocked, I hope everyone will consider the substantial amount of work I have put into this draft. I believe the reorganization of information, as proposed by another editor, really improves this article, and I hope that others can help in fixing any problems some editors might have with this draft. Feel free to edit as you wish on this draft, as I have another copy saved elsewhere. Just try to make sure that all edits are constructive and keep the general ideas expressed in the article intact. Mike D78 08:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The draft is fine. It's just that I don't know what else can be done to improve this article without going against consensus. ●Farenhorst 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

obsession causes uselessness

Reading the original - now blocked - article and all the discussion it provoked I can only conclude that the incredible obsessiveness to this subject which started in the USA and now seems to have spread worldwide makes any kind of normal objective description impossible.

People tend to forget that through the centuries sexuality tended to be linked to the process of maturity, or better said, being of child bearing age. This is/was still true in lots of cultures that aren't linked to our western civilization. Let's remember that Marie-Antoinette was 13 years of age when she married; this was quite normal for those days and it's not a very long time ago. Nowadays in many western countries kids have their first intercourse at age 14 or 15 even though we, their parents, would have preferred it to be different.

If we were capable of separating pedophilia more clearly from hebephilia, I think many of the senseless discussions would stop. For now I would suggest an honest but simple and factual description of the points of iew of those who violently oppose the existence of this phenomenon (in as much as you can oppose something that seems inbred in some people, similar to homosexuality and a lot more diversions) and those who feel that these sexual preferences have a right to exist.

In any case the topic should be concise and objective. If you make a total mess out of it that lastst many ages, only those who are totally obsessed with this topic themselves would take the time to read it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.42.204 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GLogo.png

Image:GLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One rule for yourself

Scenario:

Editor 1 has made a number of changes to the article after unprotection.

Editor 2 reverts a couple, accepts a couple and tweaks a couple, providing detailed explanations.

Editor 1 reverts the whole lot in one go, using only a hominem argument.

Editor 2 reverts this, asking for a better justification.

Editor 1 reverts yet again, and accuses Editor 2 of edit warring (apparently another unjustified revert is just what the doctor ordered).

To me, this all stinks. I hope it does to others as well. I might provide further justifications for my editing, if I have the time. But for now, I'll let the opening paragraph speak for itself, much like Nancy Grace. 86.150.128.67 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that your explanation for why your reverted my changes? which werere good changes. And whose sockpuppet are you? I predicted some socks of banned users would return the moment the article was unlocked and it appears I am right, SqueakBox 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you attacking me with superstition? It's my edits that you disagree with, right? 86.150.128.67 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Superstition? I beg your pardon? What has superstition got to do with anything. The sockpuppet suspicion is reasonable because it is a constant pattern on this article of previously banned users returning. You are in the same location with the same ISP as 86.131.37.130 and that ISP changes their static ip addresses every few months or so, so likely they have just given you a new IP. And that IP is associated with Farenhorst and other indefinitely blocked users. And your edit patterns, trying to keep the article POV in a way that sheds pro-pedophile activists in a good light, is the same pattern.

In the opening I have tried to make it more balanced, ie describing PPA's in a way that fits common usage and how society as a whole perceieves them and the broader issues. I am unhappy to see the admittedly youthful photo of Bernard in this article because of BLP, as he is a pedophile and they can be the subject of hate attacks in the real world, and we dont out people here, it should be in his bio and isn't needed here. I feel to put the criticism right at the bottom is to put it out of the way and NPOV demands that it have a more significant place in the article, SqueakBox 22:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if most people hold that 'pro-pedophile activism' exists only to break down the barriers preventing child sexual abuse, stating their position as fact still violates our NPOV policy - though you're welcome to point out that it's the majority POV (provided you can find a source that meets the relevant WP:RS guideline: "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources..") Please explain how and why you wish to change this article here, on the talk page, so we can discuss it. Dyskolos 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Dyskolos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sock, he was aiding Farenhorst on CSA before. It seems this article merely has to be unlocked and for anyone to come and try to striaghten out the POV issues even a bit and the socks come out of the woodwork, this is a highly predictable, highly repetitive and extremely disruptive pattern by people who are SPAs, ie they care about the articles and their POV re these articles and not at all about the project, hence the continuing and repeated use of abusive socks, SqueakBox 00:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet or an SPA, and I don't recall aiding Farenhorst on Child sexual abuse. This page is on my watchlist. Dyskolos 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we get an admin to move this to the talk page of the respective authors? This is really quite disruptive. 86.150.128.67 02:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

British Telecom is a very popular ISP. You may have noticed that another such IP was used to revert against the NPOV policy on this article! And regardless, this is superstition, as opposed to constructive criticism. If you have a complaint about an editor, please take it elsewhere - not on the discussion page of an article.

You should not be seeking to represent lay opinion. We should not make the article reflect public consensus by way of tone, but rather its content. The content itself should be discussed objectively, i.e. none of the rubbish about sexual predation and falling into the hands of pedophiles, etc.

Frits Bernard is dead. 86.150.128.67 02:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring and Call for Discussion

Unless the goal is to get this article indef protected again, editors really need to discuss significant changes before making them. We all know how heated debates about this controversial topic can get, especially here on Wikipedia. Making radical edits to the intro and throughout the article is not a good way to proceed, when we all know what happened last time people kept edit warring. This is my call for everyone to openly communicate their concerns and ideas about this article. I'm sure together we can come up with a reasonable approach to editing this article. If anyone has constructive ideas, please voice them on this Talk Page first. The only way we can avoid edit warring is if we clearly present the issues and collaboratively work towards improving this article. ~ Homologeo 01:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I really don't want to get into an edit war myself, I feel obligated to undo unconstructive and/or POV-permeated edits. Such edits do not add to the quality of the article, and only seek to advance a single point of view. What's more, it is obvious that some of them are made with full knowledge of their bias and the reaction that they would ensue from certain other editors. This is why I have undid one such edit already, and will likely undo several others. If you believe my undoing of any particular edit is unjustified, please feel free to discuss the matter on this Talk Page. I really do think we're capable of coming to a reasonable consensus on how to proceed in editing this article. Sincerely yours, ~ Homologeo 01:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse your edits. 86.150.128.67 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you do but we have to create a neutral article and ensure that no banned users edit here. Reverting to the editors of banned users is evidence of meat-puppetry and those who are trying to promote a pro-pedophile agenda within the article need to read NPOV and stay with it. We simply cannot have socks creagting a pro-pedophile agenda article and no established editor should be supporting that. NPOV means all viewpoints are reflected and yet the pro-pedophile agenda folk are insisting that only the pro-pedophile view is mentioned. This is a violation of NPOV. I also note that while I am bringing my reasons for editing here those who opopose myu edits do not bvring any arguments here, SqueakBox 15:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It was me who edited late last night but forgot to log in but comparing the disputed versions I fully endorse Squeak's edits in this case. The article is very one-sided and while I don't really understand all this stuff about sockpuppets (ahh it means a user with 2 accounts, okay) I do think we should stay with Squeak's version. After all this is not a boy or girl chat site but an encyclopaedia and I certainly think that while the article is about so-called pro paedophilia activism that doesn't mean it has to be a pro paedophile article.Pol64 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

These are not reasons. They are dirty, unfounded accusations that do not belong here. There are endless facilities for you to make complaints about editors. If you believe them to be of any merit at all, please pursue them down such avenues. 86.150.128.67 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, tens of socks have been blocked for editing this article already. Thus my assumption is reasonable and your defence unreasonable. Sure if this article had never suffered sock attacks it would be different but this article is no different from any other that suffers multiple ongoing sock attacks, and then when others come repeating the same old patterns as the socks...well its a reasonable conclusion and I do not have to pursue other avenues every time a banned user creates another sock, that would be an entirely unreasonable expectation to put on any user, the burden is on you to prove your innocence, SqueakBox 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Excuse me, tens of socks have been blocked for editing this article already."

Did DPeterson have that many sockpuppet accounts? :-) Mike D78 02:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Having just spent half an hour reading and checking up on this page I see that there have been many users who were here and who have been indefinitely banned by wikipedia, presumably for their editing in the way that they do. This anonymous user seems to be pushing a point of view that glamorizes paedopohiles and, worse, makes them out to be the victims whereas they are in fact perpetrators of many horrendous crimes. The fact that others are so willing to join in does, I agree, look extremely suspicious.Pol64 17:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is the case that tens have been banned (which I very much doubt), it does not justify you defaming me in your edit summarys (note: you assume that I am a banned editor). In effect, you are using a history (be it revised or not) to outright condemn to insignificance anyone who has a certain attitude towards editing an article, which is grossly unfair. I'm also sure that you could apply such logic to disruptive "pedo killer" vandals and editors, and those who have socked (Such as DPeterson). As for me having to prove my innocence, that's just insane. I have done nothing wrong, and you have all the tools at your disposal to prove me guilty if you see it as possible and so wish. 86.150.128.67 17:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also your extensive knowledge of wikipedia (even down to DPetersen alleged socks) as pointed out by an admin on your user talk page and actually your claim that the asssumption is unfaitr given your editing andf your editing pattern fails to understand the burden of proof needed in such a sock case where enedless socks, many of whom sound just like you, have been banned while editing with the same pattern you are editing with. It is you who are being unfair by not accepting your ban by not returning to edit these articles on wikipedia ever again, and that is completely unfair for the honest editors here, SqueakBox 17:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if editors are going to revert edits they find questionable, be their course of action justified or not, there is no reason to blindly revert everything another editor has contributed to the article. Why have numerous legitimate and non-controversial edits, such as the ones correcting poor grammar, those dealing with a site that is no longer operational, and those placing the outside links in alphabetical order, have been reverted without justification? Please be careful what you revert, and provide reasoning to each and every reversion. I'm more than happy to discuss points presented by all sides, but I do not feel it is appropriate for editors to revert edits simply because they're made by a certain editor, especially when it's pretty obvious that these edits are constructive and non-controversial. The instances I named are just a few of the many useful edits that have been reverted. Others include the addition of a "citation needed" tag and various stylistical edits, all of which have also been reverted without justification. If such blatant disregard for the work of others does not stop, this situation will be reported to an admin. If disruptive reversion of edits does not stop and edit warring continues, admin intervention may very well result in yet another indef protection of this article. This is the last warning that editors engaged in such action will get. Please justify any and all significant edits and reversions. Let's actually make some headway here, instead of taking one step forward then two steps back. ~ Homologeo 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We are duty bound to remove all edits by banned users and if you want good editsd to remain and yet are removing gopod edits with no justification, well you arent being logical or reasonable. The opening is fine as it is now awhereas before it was a pro-ped POV mess. NPOV means we also incorpiorate criticisms of pro-peds and this sate of affairs where banned users and theuir supporters keep teh artiocle free of any criticisms of the pro-ped movements simply cannot last, SqueakBox 20:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"We are duty bound to remove all the edits ever done by people my project has gotten indefinately blocked and if you don't think my edits are the only good edits, well you arent being logical or reasonable. My project thinks the opening's POV is fine as it is now. NPOV means we incorporatate criticisms of pro-peds and this state of affairs where paedophiles get to edit the article in defense of pro-ped movements simply cannot last. Ban them all."

There, fixed. Now, the point I'm making: Just like the NAMBLA article I just read the talk page on, the intro is supposed to be especially NPOV. Calling organizations "defunct" and pointing out "To consider pro-pedophile activism as a valid political or civil rights activist movement is also unpopular." strikes me as, substanciated or not, VERY POV. Save it for the criticisms section, and no independent research, find a source and reference it, it shouldn't be hard to do. Also, ". . . activists advocate social acceptance of adult sexual attraction to minors. . ." That's not the point, they want sexual relations accepted. If you think sexual attraction to minors is strictly a paedophile thing, then look at an Abercrombie and Fitch catalogue some time, or at the recent story about Australia's 13-y.o. runway model. Now do everyone a favor and put away the torches and pitchforks. 75.9.210.253 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As for your protectiont hreats, you are not an admin nor can you guarantee that iif it is relocked it will be to your version and your indef lock comments after edit warring strike me as trolling and very similar to those of banned user Farenhorst (ie youy appear to be a meatpuppet). The hypocrisy in telling me to be careful what to revert when you and your buddies revert every attempt by myself and others to NPOV this article shows an appaslling a[pplication of bad faith when you know full well I am not a banned user. Wikipedia does not support the dedits of banned users over those of regualr users, however much you wish that were so and I advise you to take your own advice and stiop reverting every single edit I ever make to this article. That is a blatant disregard for the effots of others and you are doing it, claiming I have to justify rverting your trashing my good work but you fdont have to justify your own reverting, trashing my good work is palin silly. Your behaviour wont result in indefinite locking but in an arbcom case which, on La Rouch precedent, would likely result in the baning odf pro-ped POV pushing, SqueakBox 20:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, please justify claims before making them. I have not reverted all edits by you (as you claim), and please do not pretend that is the case. I made individual reverts of edits that were either unconstructive or POV-permeated, justifying each action in the edit summary. Your constructive edits remained intact - please feel free to check the article History. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly reverted all edits made by several editors, including edits that were non-controversial. How is correcting the misspelling of the word "pedophilia" (or "paedophilia") a disruptive edit? Likewise, why have various useful stylistic edits been reverted without justification? On the same note, if a site is shut down, like Ashford's is right now, why revert an edit that removes the reference to it? Plus, it seems appropriate to place a "citation needed" tag on a paragraph that lacks citation. ~ Homologeo 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the edits of yours and of others that I did revert, please actually look at the edit summaries before claiming that my actions were unjustified or POV-based. For instance, an article dealing with pro-pedophile activism should not be going into an explanation of what anti-pedophile activism entails, especially not in the intro. It is reasonable to provide the name of the main opposing movement and a wikilink to the appropriate article - information that has long been present in the intro - but going into detail should be saved for the actual article dealing with that particular subject. This is why that particular edit was reverted. Likewise, stating in numerous places that deal with the perspectives of pro-pedophile activists that the movement aims to "abuse" children and engage in other illegal and/or morally-corupt actions is folly at best. Where have you seen activists who advocate perspectives contrary to their own views? It makes total sense to state that the majority of the public, most politicians, and the bulk of the medical community disagree with the goals and ideals of pro-pedophile activists. It is also quite appropriate to point out the flaws that these groups see within the pro-pedophile activist world view. However, all of this is already covered briefly at the end of the intro, and then in full in the Criticism section. On the other hand, blatantly disregarding the viewpoints presented by the movement that is the focus of this actual article and rephrasing its objectives and viewpoints with a clear negative connotation is quite unbecoming of an encyclopedia. Statements of any particular group should be identified as such, be it the pro-pedophile activist movement or the majority of the medical community. Stating something as inherently true, despite evidence that contrary opinions exist is not what Wikipedia is about, especially in cases of articles that deal with the minority opinion in question. This is the logic that I seek to follow when editing this controversial article, and this is why I felt obligated to revert edits that did not uphold the Wikipedia standard of NPOV. ~ Homologeo 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally, to address your persistent weariness that puppets (be they sock or meat) are ever-present and out on the prowl, I have to remind you that groundless accusations don't carry weight in Wikipedia. I am an established editor, and always aim to maintain NPOV when editing articles, especially those of such controversial nature. Please do not accuse me of being a puppet, unless you have legitimate reason to do so. If you honestly believe I am a puppet, please follow the appropriate Wikipedia means for investigating the matter further. I do not take kindly to groundless accusations being thrown my way. I thank you in advance for refraining from further incivility of this sort. ~ Homologeo 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, you seem to have misread my comments above. Never did I claim that I am an admin, nor did I ever assert that this article will indeed be indef protected. My only assertion was that, if admin intervention was once again requested and deemed appropriate, judging from what has happened in the past (on at least a couple of occasions), protection could very likely be the solution that will be pursued. The reason why I mention this possible outcome to admin intervention is that indef protection of an article stops constructive contribution from established and new editors alike. No headway can be made, and controversial articles such as this one freeze in time and cannot be improved. In my personal opinion, there's always room for improvement, and this article definitely has a long way to go - this is evident from the reactions that the current version is getting from a great range of Wikipedia editors and users. Lastly, I think many would agree that I have been pretty patient in notifying an admin of what is happening within this article. An edit war is never constructive, and evidence of POV-pushing (from whatever standpoint one takes) deserves careful investigation. A warning has been given and editors provided with an opportunity to change their behavior. Since it's obvious that the edit war continues to persist, I will be shortly reporting this matter to an admin. Hopefully admin input will set this article on the right course to constructive improvement. Sincerely yours, ~ Homologeo 22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Homologeo, I was never under any illusions that you are an admin, and indeed that is the best way to be, IMO. When I checked the edits since POl64 edited it wes just a revert of everuy edit I made and I couldnt see anything else. To see all my edits reverted like that is not really acceptable especially as I am trying to get to a piont where the tags can be removed. Why are you removing any criticisms i add of the pro-ped movement, I dopnt remove any praises of them, and the openiong in your version isd tghe most blatant POV it has been my misfortune to see on wikipedia. Why do you revert to it. That is what I mean by meatpuppet but I dont think you are a sock though there are cleasrly 2 sock swroking the article right now. Making an admin report abvout edit warring in which you are engaged is probably not a good idea, and that is why I imagine you are not doing so, neither you or I are impartial here, and any admin will see thaty. I would suggest mediation cabal dipute resolution os the way to go, going to an admin and saying "help me, i am in an edit war" is not a solution, especially givent eh banned users involved. Some would argue that reverting to or supporting the edits of a banned user should be a bloackeable offence [1] though i dont [particularly agree with that, SqueakBox 22:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I am happy to be finally conversing in a contructive manner. It is fortunate that we are both simultaneously online at the moment. This way, maybe we can figure some stuff out. I will not be able to stay online for too long, but am happy to voice my concerns and respond to any of yours while I'm here. So, let's get to it! ~ Homologeo 23:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Child grooming

While my link to this article remained in the revert there was a claim that it doesnt happen on the internet, a strange claim as most grooming occurs in the interent. can whoever is clainming that please bring their sources and arguments here, SqueakBox 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no such claim. Please look at the reverted edit. 86.150.128.67 05:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

gay rights

the claim that there are allies to PPA or were int he gay rights movement needs sourcing. This issue has proven controversial in other articles, though, SqueakBox 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? The reference was to NAMbLA. NAMbLA started off as a gay rights campaign, and was a member of gay umbrella groups up until the schism of the late 80s/early 90s. This should be basic knowledge for anyone who has edited the article as long as you have. The fact that you want something so plainly obvious sourced suggests that you have a revisionist agenda. 86.150.128.67 05:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Really, SB, you should STOP removing stuff that you disagree with. Tag it as per your comment above. This will allow someone (ideally yourself) to find the obvious link to IPCE or other historical reference to ILGA members. 86.150.128.67 05:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of Sexual Liberation in the Eighties / Paragraph on the Impact of the AIDS Epidemic on Pro-pedophile Activism

This is such a sweeping and profound claim with no basis in fact that it would need both multiple good sources and for the obverse to eb expressed for that paragraph to be restored. Somebody thinking so and that bneing one reliable source is unacceptable. Promiscuity rates down, people rejecting sexual liberation in large numbers, less teenage pregnancies et al might be acceptable, SqueakBox 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The following paragraph has been deleted from the article:

During the same time, public morals concerning sexual matters were affected by the discovery of HIV and AIDS, throwing into question the social changes wrought by the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. "Pedophile emancipation is no fun for me anymore. The virus has destroyed everything", wrote German activist Wolfgang Tomasek in 1988.

This is the reference that went with it: Tomasek, Wolfang (1988). "Verständnis für unsere Gegner? - Aids und die Unterdrückung der Pädophilie ("Sympathy for our opponents? - Aids and oppression of pedophilia")". In Leopardi, Angelo (ed.). Der pädosexuelle Komplex ("On the topic of pedosexuality") (in German). Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Foerster Verlag. p. 202. ISBN 3-922257-66-6.

This paragraph is not too wordy, and relays a legitimate sourced interpretation of the impact the AIDS and HIV epidemic had on pro-pedophile activism. Unless there's a reason why this information should not be in the article, I think we should put the paragraph back in, since it's quite pertinent to the subject at hand. ~ Homologeo 23:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I just moved your section as I already opened a section on this. As is it states something ridiculous and supported by fact which is that the sexual liberation of the sixties after neasrly 2000 years was reverted in the eighties. This is patent nonsense and the paragraph must be re-written to stand. As I said above one source will not do for such a sweeping statement that violates common sense (AIDS encouraged condoms nopt chastity), SqueakBox 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops... didn't realize that we were talking about the same paragraph in different sections. Thank you for merging our comments into one section. I was actually about to inquire what you were talking about, when you merged the info. ~ Homologeo 23:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, onto the topic at hand - I personally am not well versed in the history and development of the sexual revolution, so I cannot contribute much in this respect. If you believe that this info is unfounded and poorly sourced, let's let the paragrapoh remain deleted, unless someone comes around who knows more about the subject and can provide evidence. ~ Homologeo 23:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The section would be uncontroversial if not for SB. It should be reintegrated as opinion as opposed to fact. 86.150.128.67 04:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Age of consent article

Why was this delinked? its an internal and highly releavnt article, SqueakBox 23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Age of Consent article was previously not linked (or delinked), it is currently wikilinked within the Activities section. Do you think there should be a wikilink to this article earlier in the text? If this is the case, this can easily be done. ~ Homologeo 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Organization of External Links

Could some editors weigh in on how the external links section should be organized. We previously had Pro and Anti sections, but these have just been combined into a single section. I personally think that having two sections, each dedicated to resources applicable to one position, would be the most effective method of relaying information people may be looking for. The thing is that, if we're to mix the links together, we have to be very careful in the link description, because users wouldn't want to end up on a site that they're not interested in or may be upset by. What does everyone think? ~ Homologeo 23:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This argument has happened before, it was now banned user Jim Burton who organised it inot the opposing sections but this is a violation of our NPOV policies and always a source of contention (we finally removed it from the cannabis article and it really helped). I think any links to PPA sites that users might not want to go to should be removed and if not then flagged as such in the individual tags, SqueakBox 23:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether a banned editor brought up this argument before or not, why is it inappropriate to organize links according to their type? Mixing all the links together is only bound to confuse the reader. It's not like we're promoting any of the links by placing each in its appropriate group. Howbeit, if we're to keep the mixed format, an explanation will have to accompany each link, so that users would be able to know what the link leads to before clicking it. ~ Homologeo 23:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Homo is correct. I find the idea that organising links into sections is inherently POV to be most irrational, and probably a result of one editor's dislike of another. If we are to compromise with him, there must be full descriptions. As for deleting potentially offensive links, that just wont go. In case you forgot, we don't censor. 86.150.128.67 04:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Order of Sections

Which section should go before the other - "Scientific Claims" or "Criticism?" It seems to make more sense to put the scientific claims of the movement that is the focus of this article first, with criticism to follow. Generally, criticism goes after the detailing of the claims advanced by the movement in question. ~ Homologeo 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But NPOV demands a balanced article which is why the criticism section needs more prominence, as I expalined above, and buried at the bottom favours the PPA viewpoint in what is an already totally disputed article, SqueakBox 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The topic is indeed very controversial and the nature of this article has been disputed ad infinitum, but that is no reason to treat the article differently in terms of what section should go where. It does not seem logical to interupt a line of thought - in this case, the presentation of the movement's perspectives - and then to come back to it at the end of the text. Why should this article be treated differently from all other articles that have Criticism sections? ~ Homologeo 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Homo. Regardless, has SB never heard of the recency effect that would actually benefit the POV he is here to promote? 86.150.128.67 04:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Assertions Made in the Intro

SqueakBox, could you possibly address my concern over the edits you made to the intro? My comments can be found above. If you want, I can copy/paste them here. I mainly would like to inquire why the intro states that pro-pedophile activists aim to "abuse" children, among other things, when no pro-pedophile activist would ever openly advocate such goals. This is indeed how the goals of the movement are perceived by others - among them, politicians, the majority of the public, and the bulk of the medical community - but pro-pedophile activists themselves would certainly never make such claims. This simply wouldn't make sense. It is completely appropriate to include criticism within the intro, but it should always be identified as such. Assuming that any given position is inherently true is inappropriate and factually incorrect. As it happens, the existence of the pro-pedophile movement alone attests to just that. The following sentence is clearly biased towards one side, since no identification is given to the claim about abuse: "Pro-pedophile activism or Pro-paedophile activism (Commonwealth usage) encompasses pro-pedophile organizations and activists that argue for certain changes of criminal laws and cultural response in order to allow pedophiles to abuse children" (emphasis added). If at all possible, please review my other concerns above. I would very much appreciate a response. Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the heart of the matter. If PPA's arent trying to abuse children (legally and with society's support) what are they trying to do? I respect that PPA's say they want to keep within the law and it is the law and society's attitudes that they want to change but they want to change them with the aim of what we would currently consider to be to abuse children sexually. And yeas, the fact that this is hjow PPA's are viewd by the great majority is why this edit should stand. Just because this is an article about PPA's does not mean we should only express the viewpoint of these folk, NPOV demands we also express the viewpoint of the politicians, medical community and genral public re PPA goals. If you want to suggest a change whereby we make it clear who thinks what that sounds good, ie that the majority think this but PA's themselves do not. I'll see what I can think up (but maybe not tonight as there is lots going on here where I am). And, hey, I am hapy to discuss these things point by point, SqueakBox 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The word "Neutral" is used for good reason. "Neutral" means that we disassociate ourselves from any point of view, as opposed to taking a stand in favour of what could be seen as the centre ground. As we are discussing child-adult sexual contacts in its philosophical and sociological as opposed to taxonomical or presently unitary-conceptual sense, it would be most certainly biased to state that PPAs want access to abuse children. That would be to say "it's wrong now, and will still be wrong if it is legalised". We do not make such judgements concerning other forms of legal advocacy, nor do we state that current jursdictions in which the age of consent is 12 or 13 are inductive to abuse. So why tar a future possibility with our present judgement in this most unencyclopedic of manners? 86.150.128.67 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that it is not a future possibility, but your comments on the lack of neutrality are very correct. Perhaps a more neutral way to rephrase that lead would be "in order to allow adults to have sex with minors, an act which is considered child abuse in most nations." ...or something like that. Reading further I see "protect children from predatory pedophiles," which is also quite POV (I think it's the word "predatory" that does it there...). No need to color this article with POV on child abuse... I'm sure the readers can make up their own minds. Let's keep this encyclopedic. My two cents. WDavis1911 05:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've re-written the intro, paying close attention to the said requirement for impartiality. 86.150.128.67 05:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoever redid the intro did a good job! Without changing the main points, I copy edited the text, with the goal of making the intro easier to read. In the process, I reworded some portions, removed repetition, simplified sentences, and corrected grammar. Hopefully, we're now on the right track to making this intro as encyclopedic - meaning easy to read and grasp - and NPOV as possible. I would appreciate any and all feedback you may have on the edits I made. ~ Homologeo 04:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess we're back to reverting each other. SqueakBox, could you please tell me what was wrong with the new intro? It seemed to incorporate neutral language, the main viewpoints expressed by pro-pedophile activists, a brief mention of anti-pedophile activism, and a summary of the dominant lines of criticism, including the public, medical and political attitudes towards pedophilia and the pro-pedophile movement. Is there something else that should have been included, or is the language used not up to par? Please share with us why you reverted the new intro. ~ Homologeo 02:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and needs to read like one. To say outright that pedophiles abuse children is plainly POV, and I would even say it's on the verge of sensationalism. Fighting for Justice 09:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line

I will keep this brief, because I'm short on time right now.

SqueakBox, you have no consensus to repeatedly insert the kind of blatantly POV language you are trying to push into the introduction of this article. Homologeo has pointed this out, 86.150.128.67 has pointed this out, FightingForJustice has pointed this out, WDavis1911 has pointed this out, and now I am pointing this out. So if this were to go to a procedural vote, the majority of users editing this page would be against the edits you are trying to push. In the spirit of cooperation, you and Pol64 need to quit reverting this edit and attempt to discuss the changes you wish to make here, so you can attempt to gain agreement beforehand. Your current actions are only provoking edit wars and are likely to eventually require admin intervention... again.

You have made your personal feelings about pedophile activists clear, and many people here agree with your stance. But we can't let our personal opinions regarding the subject of this article improperly influence how we handle an encyclopedic topic. Besides, as WDavis1911 said, readers are quite capable of making up their minds about this subject without the use of such highly-emotional language in the introduction. As I said in the summary of a previous edit, referring to these people as predatory abusers in the intro of this article is really no more proper or encyclopedic than referring to pro-choice activists as "baby killers" in the intro of the pro-choice article.

So, I'll repeat this again, in case you glossed over it the first time: a majority of editors here have calmly and intelligently expressed disapproval of these changes. So unless your aim is to simply stir up trouble and provoke arguments, you need to quit reverting this edit. Mike D78 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A majority of editors have not done anything. People who promote the crime of paedophilia are not welccome on wikipedia which is why so many of the editors have been removed. If you are a paedophile promoting your perversion on wikipedia you should be banned too. I have read the NPOV article and I agree with Squeak that we should be offering both the pro and the anti viewpoints on this article but you, sir, seeem to only want a viewpoint that promotes paedophilia and that is against the policies of wikipedia. The bottom line is that you are not an admin so do not have any special rights here and so to try and dictate how this article should be is overreaching yourself. Your claim that it is me and Squeak who are edit warring implies you and your followers are not, which would be laughable but I do not see anybody laughing. A majority of editors have not calmly and intelligently expressed anything and if you think your shrill hysteria is calm and intelligent, well go and tell it to a judge. You are the one being angry, disruptive and tyrying to promote a viewpoint that says "I have a right to abuse children and fuck you".Pol64 00:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pol64, please be civil in your discussion of this topic and the editors that contribute to the editing of the article. Some editors may not take kindly to the accusations you are throwing around. Mike D78 makes a valid point when stating that significant changes to the intro of such a controversial article should be discussed beforehand. The editors that he named as being opposed to the recent changes by SqueakBox and you have indeed expressed such viewpoints. Building a consensus is an established policy on Wikipedia, especially when dealing with articles such as this. Furthermore, numerous reasons have been provided on this Talk Page and in edit summaries as to exactly why the new edits to the intro are unconstructive and could be deemed POV. I personally have listed a number of concerns I have with the new intro. Up to this point, most of these concerns have gone unaddressed or have not been responded to directly. If you truly believe that the intro SqueakBox and you are promoting is the best and the most appropriate, please address the issues brought up by other editors on this Talk Page and in edit summaries. Also, please explain why the other intro that was recently proposed and added to the article - the one that aimed to strike a balance in both pro- and anti- stances and to utilize NPOV language - has been reverted and labeled as unworthy. I eagerly await your response, and look forward to the end of this persistent edit war. ~ Homologeo 01:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not an d cannot trump policy, ie a consensus to have a pro-ped articvle ignoring NPOV will not stand regardless of the alleged consensus. We work to policies and removing the other viewpoint is unacceptable to policy. Given the completely disputed tag etc I strongly disagree that any changes to the opening need to be consensualised, indeed I would say quite the oposite, that if we can get a good NPOV introduction then that should ber imposed on the article without any need for consensus or discussion until after the event as consensus does not ever trump NPOV, SqueakBox 17:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Squeak, that would be easy if "NPOV" were some perfectly objective standard with no potential for disagreement. But since one person unilaterally getting to decide what constitutes NPOV is clearly problematic, we have to be democratic about these things. So when you've got five different users telling you your edit is a problem, Squeak, you need to realize this is not a battle you're going to win. Mike D78 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle, Mike? This is not a war. And I am afraid 5 not very experienced users or 50 still wouldnt trump policy especially when there is a reasonable suspicion that some are the socks of banned users. We decide things based on our policies anmd our policies have been written to stop POV pushinmg. i am no0t a POV pusher on this subject which doesnt interest me and about which I do not have strong opinions. When you say it is a battle I am not going to win you sound like you believe the propaganda of the boy/girl chat sites who have stated very clearly that they will not accept NPOV for these articles and especially this one. You, bering an SPA, only have an interest in thios subject and an obvious agenda to push and you are sadly mistaken if you think the PPA POV will stand on wikipedia as it is contrary to policy, SqueakBox 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Battle, Mike? This is not a war.'

I wholeheartedly agree. You're the one that seems to think it is, though, with your bickering and your combative stance regarding this whole thing. I've tried to reach out to you several times and offered to work with you on these articles, but you seem completely disinterested in considering any criticism of your edits. You simply cannot consider that you might be wrong, and you always come up with some excuse to justify your actions, whether it be misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy or accusations that other users are sockpuppets or not as experienced as you. Mike D78 00:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually all you have ever done is wholesale revert my edits. We know there are many socks here, you can't deny that any more than i can, and Farenhorst and Samantah were just 2 in a long line. You think I show bad faith towards you but i have never requested a sock check on you and every user whom I have requested a sock check on editing this article or talk page has ended up being indefinitely blocked, not because I asked but because my intuition was right, I spotted the socks. And this is exhaustively disruptive, which is why i consider the extraordinary insensitivity of A.Z to be far worse than anything you have done here. We all have the right to edit in a peaceful, non-disruptive atmosphere, not just those whose viewpoint A.Z supports, as he states and appears to believe. I dont believe you can give one example of where I ahve misinterpreted policy. in terms of reaching out, my persuading you not to remove the bot-tagged image that you uploaded was entirely for your own benefit as that is the kind of thing that gets users banned. I very much want to create an article which all are happy with but more importantly one which follows POV. If the banned users were to stop launching sock attacks I believe it would greatly help improve the atmosphere here, its deteriorating into a troll magnet as the events earlier today proved, SqueakBox 00:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Actually all you have ever done is wholesale revert my edits."

Not so; there have been edits by you that I've had no problem with, and ones that I have. But I don't think you can portray me as being particularly vindictive toward you since your edits that I've disagreed with have always been disputed by a majority of other editors.

"Farenhorst and Samantah were just 2 in a long line."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the given reason for these particular users being blocked was because they were socks. In fact, I'm having trouble finding any reason why they were blocked, but that seems to be the way that these sorts of things have been handled lately.

"You think I show bad faith towards you but i have never requested a sock check on you"

Are you ready to concede then, here and now, that I am not a sockpuppet, as you have accused me of ever since I got here? Or do you simply not request a sock check on me because you've preferred to hound me with these endless accusations without being forced to confront the truth that I'm not a sockpuppet, which is what I've told you from the beginning?

"i consider the extraordinary insensitivity of A.Z to be far worse than anything you have done here"

Sorry, but A.Z. is right on. You should clearly take the blame for edit warring when the edit you're reverting is disputed by a majority of users here. Moreover, your instances of unilaterally deleting and redirecting articles in the past have been even more serious, not to mention your namecalling and other repeated attacks against me.

"I dont believe you can give one example of where I ahve misinterpreted policy."

You're doing it right now if you continue to insist that the NOPV policy justifies you trying to force massive edits against the majority of other editors, then repeatedly edit warring over these disputed edits.

Again, I'm willing to reach out and cooperate with you, but you're going to have to fess up and admit that your conduct has been out of line in the past.

"If the banned users were to stop launching sock attacks I believe it would greatly help improve the atmosphere here"

Well, do you believe anyone who's editing here right now is a sock? If so, perhaps you'd find it more useful to go through the proper channels to resolve that, instead of repeatedly complaining about sockpuppets in order to justify yourself. Mike D78 01:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Pol64, many users have been banned for their conduct related to these articles, including people who took stances similar to yours. If you don't believe me, see the example of XavierVE, the head of a prominent anti-pedophile group in the U.S., who was banned because he couldn't stop insulting other users and accusing them of being pedophiles. Similar action will be taken against you if you disrupt the editing of these articles with similar conduct.

Referring to the subjects of this article as predatory abusers is blatantly POV to anyone who isn't some crusader intent on making this article into some biased screed. Even if many people share your viewpoint, an encyclopedia entry isn't the place for this kind of editorializing.

"...to try and dictate how this article should be is overreaching yourself"

I'm not trying to dictate anything; I merely pointed out that several users here have taken issue with this edit that you seem intent on repeatedly restoring. If you plan on accomplishing much on Wikipedia, Pol, you need to learn to cooperate with other users. Dividing everyone into opposite camps as either supporting you or being against you isn't a constructive way to accomplish anything. Several very reasonable people have explained why they disagree with you.

So far, your antisocial conduct has been similar to that of SqueakBox, and I might suspect that you are simply an alternate username of his, except that your spelling seems to be better. Mike D78 04:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike wont be banning anybody as he is not an admin and his sharkish coments about how Pol wil be banned have no basis whatesoever in reality. Mike doesnt have any influence here other than as an inexperienced SPA editor with a a bad track record opf POV pushing, incivility, etc, and he is not an example of an editor to emulate. Mike's trolish comments re my own impeccable behaviour show this to the light. When he diversifies and gets some experience under his belt then he can criticise more experienced editors who are not SPA's but not until, SqueakBox 17:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I ever claimed I would be banning anyone squeak. Administrators have shown that they will not hesitate to take action against disruptive users, regardless of their stance. So don't think the fact that you identify as some anti-pedophile crusader is going to excuse your actions if you continue to insist on forcing major, unagreed upon edits on everyone.

"with a a bad track record opf POV pushing, incivility, etc,..."

Again, you were the one that's been served up temporary bans for your incivility, not to mention your tendency toward name-calling. Don't know what you're talking about when you accuse me of incivility.

"my own impeccable behaviour..."

lol

"When he diversifies and gets some experience under his belt..."

I might have more time to do that if I weren't constantly forced to waste my time defending myself against against stuff like this.

"then he can criticise more experienced editors"

I'm sorry, can you refer me to the Wikipedia policy that justifies your arrogance toward users who haven't been here as long as you have? Mike D78 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, Pol lives in London in the UK so how he could he possibly be my sock as I am 5,000 miiles away. Thism kind of accusation from a user with the track record of Mike is simply unacceptable, SqueakBox 17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, quit faking outrage. That comment was obviously in jest, and moreover, you've accused me of being a sockpuppet ever since I've gotten here. And you've been quite serious about it. Mike D78 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Faking outrage? You think I fake outrage towards your attitude here? Towards the endless socks of banned users whoa re the real disruptive force here? I have good reason to believe you are a sock, the best you can come up wityh is that a user 5,000 miles away is my sock. Doh, SqueakBox 00:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What reasons do you have to believe I am a sockpuppet? Simply because I oppose many of your disruptive edits, as have many users? And weren't you just insisting that your refusal to request a sock check on me demonstrates good faith? As I've said many times before, if you think I am a banned user, go through the proper channels to handle that. Otherwise, quit making groundless accusations. Mike D78 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For what? So you can come back next week with a clean track record and claiming we must disoplay good faith towards you as a new user. That serves no purpose to me though it perhaps does to you. The reality is this article is plagued with banned users and socks and the issue we all need to address is how ot sytop them unduly influencing this article. How do you think we shoud deal wit the Samantha Pignez's and the Farenhorst's, Mike? Do you have any ideas, any solutions? SqueakBox 23:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, was it ever proven that Samantha Pignez and Farenhorst were the sockpuppets of banned users? I'm having trouble finding a reason for why they were banned.

Secondly, it's clear to me that you're using the occasional interference of sockpuppets here to justify your out-of-process, unilateral editing of this article without consensus. You've been whining about sockpuppets for months now, and it's clear that you're going to continue to do so as long as you feel it justifies your ignoring the thoughts of other editors. But this is inexcusable. You have to learn to get along with the other editors that are working on this article if you wish to accomplish anything.

You want to hear my solution for the problem? As I've said countless times before now, go through the proper channels to resolve this issue! If you truly have good reason to believe a user is a sockpuppet (and you're not just using the accusation to marginalize editors you disagree with), report it to the appropriate places. Your constant whining about sockpuppets accomplishes nothing. You've been editing this encyclopedia for a while; surely you know the proper route to take if you believe any of the users currently editing this article are sockpuppets.

But I think you will find that the majority of users who have opposed your edits are not sockpuppets, they are simply normal editors calling out bad edits. Ssbohio took issue with your edit on your talk page, for instance; is he another pro-pedophile sockpuppet? Is FightingForJustice? Is WDavis? Not likely. These are just normal users stating their disagreement with your edits, and you need to learn to take their criticisms into consideration.

Your constant unwarrented accusations that I am a sockpuppet are particularly annoying and uncalled for, and I would ask you to stop, but it's clear that you have no intention of doing so. But until you do, don't expect any kind of meaningful cooperation to be possible. Mike D78 15:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Farenhorst is a proven sock of Voice of Britain [2], you may be correct about samantha as hshe was blocked for extreme disruption [3]. You claiming that I ma using the socks case to my advantages beggars belief, IO don't want any socks of banned users on this page. Voice got banned as a sock of a user who again got banned because of their behaviour, and he then chose to come back as a sock. I did not chjoose that as you appear to imply and such an implication is deeply disruptive and defies good faith. SAo let me make it clear, I do not want to see any socksw of banned users either on this page or the article page, ever. Is that clear? SqueakBox 17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"you may be correct about samantha as hshe was blocked for extreme disruption"

I never saw any evidence of "extreme disruption" on the part of Samantha, so I question the reasons for her block, especially considering that such a harsh indefinite block was leveled against her.

Obviously you are not the one who blocked her, but I would think you would be concerned about such extreme, potentially inappropriate admin action against another user, whoever they are. But it's obvious that all you were concerned about was the fact that Samantha disagreed with many of your edits, and thus stood in the way of you imposing your version of this article upon everyone else.

"I did not chjoose that as you appear to imply"

I never said you did, but you're certainly using the threat of sockpuppets to your advantage.

"SAo let me make it clear, I do not want to see any socksw of banned users either on this page or the article page, ever. Is that clear?"

Sure. It should also be evident to you that constantly whining about sockpuppets is a distraction and is not a justification for your editing without consensus. Is that clear?

Again, several established users who are obviously not sockpuppets have disputed your edits, including FightingForJustice, Homologeo, and Ssbohio. Jmh123 similarly challenged you when you attempted to outright delete this article without consensus, and he was so disgusted by that kind of conduct that he's sense given up on editing these articles.

These opinions of other established users should be evidence enough that you need to rethink your editing style. Mike D78 18:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually Phil sandifer is one of the admins in whom I have confidence on this project (having known him as a user and admin for 3 years now. The block log states that it is a case connected to the arbcom and I would suggestt hat if you have issues with her being blocked you contact them. I trusty Phil and have no issues re the block so I won't be contesting it. I am not using the sock threat to my advantage, there is no advantage to me to have sockpuppets on this page but it may be true that, having been exposed, the actions of these socks has weakened their cause which appears to be to promote the PPA viewpoint on this article in defiance of NPOV. I absolutely consider it vital that we address the sock disruption issue as part of moving forward with this article, that is not whining (and your claiming it is is a PA). People challenege each others edits all the time on wikipedia, that is the way we do things here, Pol64 was also challenging my edits, thast doesn't mean I have to change my edit style, what flawed logic is that? SqueakBox 18:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"I trusty Phil and have no issues re the block"

Are you aware of any conduct on the part of Samantha that was "extremely disruptive?" If not, are you prepared to defend an indefinite block without any evidence that it was necessary? I think you'd be singing another tune if this happened to a user who had shown a pattern of supporting your edits rather than taking issue with them.

"I am not using the sock threat to my advantage"

So why do you continue to bring it up, if all the alleged sockpuppets have now been dealt with? Are you suggesting that all the users who continue to disagree with your edits are sockpuppets, as well?

"I absolutely consider it vital that we address the sock disruption issue"'

Hasn't it been adressed? Haven't the sockpuppets been blocked? Do you have any evidence that they are influencing the editing of this article right now? If not, your constant complaints seem shallow and unjustified.

"People challenege each others edits all the time on wikipedia, that is the way we do things here... thast doesn't mean I have to change my edit style, what flawed logic is that?"

It's not flawed logic; any reasonable person should be logically inclined to reconsider an edit when so many users have stated their concerns with it, instead of repeatedly reverting it as you have. Moreover, your editing style and conduct towards me has frequently defied typical Wikipedia policies. You yourself admitted you crossed the line when you resorted to personal attacks and namecalling against me, after you called me a pervert and a wanker. Your repeated assertions that your behavior has been "impeccable" are laughable. Mike D78 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am absolutely willing to trust Phil's judgement on this one, especially given the arbcom comments. if you have an issue perhaps you would care to direct it at Phil, not at me, as I am not an admin.

I bring the sock issue up because it is to my disadvantage not to and I am unwilling to accept that merely so some banned user can cheat using socks, is that clear enough for you? Without extreme vigilance this artuicle will again go from bad to worse and, let's face it, it's only in the poor state it is in because of the cheating activitiers of banned users such as VoB; eg the long article lock only happened because Farenhorst was edit warring when he had absolutely no right to edit at all.

Your own style is so full of PA's and bad faith assumptions that I won't comment further, indeed you come across as someone's sock partly because of your obsessive dislike of me, SqueakBox 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"I am unwilling to accept that merely so some banned user can cheat using socks, is that clear enough for you?"

What's clear enough for me is that you're going to continue making groundless accusations about sockpuppetry as long as you think it justifies your editing without consensus. But it doesn't. There's been disconduct among people who have argued viewpoints similar to yours as well, by users such as Xavier and DPeterson. But you don't see me using that as an excuse to disregard the concerns of other editors.

"eg the long article lock only happened because Farenhorst was edit warring when he had absolutely no right to edit at all."

Um, no, there are several users who have disputed your edits in the past, which has resulted in article locks because of your tenacity in frequently reverting them without consensus. You can't simply accuse others as being responsible for the edit warring, when you are the one that is repeatedly acting without consensus.

"Your own style is so full of PA's and bad faith assumptions that I won't comment further,"

I hardly think that other users have observed my conduct to be "full of PA's and bad faith assumptions," but I do hope you hold to you intention to not "comment further," because I'm really tired of you wasting my time with these petty arguments. Mike D78 20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"I have a right to abuse children and fuck you". I see nobody around here advocating such a thing. All I see is a group of people trying to make sure wikipedia adheres to its neutral point of view policy. Both in content and they way it expresses that content. The language like the content should be neutral. I see nothing wrong with anybody wanting to do this. Like another person suggested it is possible to achieve neutrality in this article without resorting to sensationalistic words like abuse and predatory. Fighting for Justice 09:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fighting for Justice, please be selective when reverting the edits of others. If you're not in agreement with a particular edit and wish to revert it, please make sure that you're only reverting the edit you disagree with. Your last revert resulted in the undoing of numerous non-controversial constuctive intermediate edits. All has been fixed for now, but please be more careful next time. Thanks in advance, ~ Homologeo 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The article absolutely has not been fixed. A group of POV pushing editors who are unwilling to accept our NPOV policy are causing the problems with this article. We need it to be POV not the pro-pedophilia activism article it currenlty is. Unless those editors promoting the PPA POV are willing to compromise to allow for NPOV (ie the arguments of both sides) it is difficult to see how the article issues are to be resolved, SqueakBox 17:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I think you misunderstood my comment above. When I said "all has been fixed for now," I was not referring to the article as a whole, but to the reincorporation of non-controversial constructive edits (yours among them) that were undone without a reason during the last big reversion. ~ Homologeo 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You see nothing wrong with supporting paedophile activists? Have you actually read wikipedia's policies? Supporting said folk is the epitome of what a good encyclopedia is not. An encyclopedia should report the issues in a neutral fashion whereas this article writes about paedophiles as if they are great heroes and some of the editors here have no shame in trying to encourage that point of view. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge on this subject knows full well the catastrophic damage paedophiles do to children again and again and this group of activists are a bit like people who encourage murder, drug dealing and other serious crimes. To take a stance against this means describing the group in a neutral way and even Squeak is lamentably failing to do this.Pol64 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the article being pro-pedophilia, and Pol64 your statement paedophiles as if they are great heroes is really exaggerating. With the article the way it is now, I do not get that impression. And, yes, we can think pedophilia is nothing but evil, however, an encyclopedia has no business saying or implying such a thing. THe old intro arbitrarily stated pedophiles abuse children. This is a POV stance. To say such a thing is in no way, shape, or form neutral in language. We are not an advocacy group for children abused by pedophiles. If you believe that we are then you are using wikipedia as a soapbox. Moreover, not all pedophiles end up physically/sexually abusing children. Fighting for Justice 02:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Common usage of pedophile is one who abuses children [4] [5] etc and common usage terms are not POV they are considered NPOV. NPOV is nopt about a balance between the views of the great majority and the views of a tiny moniority of extremeists. We are not an advocacy group full stop and the problem with the article as it currerently stands is that it reads like an advocacy fro pedophiles, which is why the PPAs are sop defensive about it and resist any change by cheating, ie being a banned user and creating a sock, Samantha, Farenhorst et al, SqueakBox 17:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 17:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Common usage of pedophile is one who abuses children"

Encyclopedias are intended to record objective, scientifically and historically-accurate information, not simply popular opinion on a topic. As commonly-held as some of the opinions you are trying to force into this article may be, they are still inappropriate. Mike D78 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Also see this where a judge describes a repeat offender as a "prolific paedophile", claerly using the common usage term of pedophile as someone whjo engages in sexual acts with children. Pedophuiles argue that pedophilia is not the same as child sexual abuse and we need to have nboth viewpoints to meet NPOV not merely that of the pedophiles themselves which is what currently happens. This is the only set of articles I know where NPOV is considered (by some) mto be setting down the viewpopint of the subjects of the article while ignoring any oposing views, SqueakBox 18:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But in the second paragraph it says this, Some pro-pedophile activists advocate social acceptance of adult sexual attraction to minors and legalization of adult-minor sexual activity, which is currently defined as child sexual abuse. Pay extra attention to the last 3 words it says child sexual abuse so what are you complaining about? Why do you need it to say abuse twice in the span of 7 lines? If wikipedia is neutral then wouldn't it be appropriate to say the opposite words a pedophile would describe in order to achieve a balance??? The article is not suppose to take either side. They get their word in and you gets yours. That's how you achieve a balance. I get the impression that you just want an article about pedophiles to be scathing. Encyclopedias are not meant to be written that way. Fighting for Justice 20:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Squeak's version states that paedophil;es want to change the law in order to allow them to sexually abuse children. This seems very clear and straightforward to me, as does the next sentence which says paedophile activists want to remove the legal protection the law gives parents in order to be able to protect their children. I do not see what is so unacceptable in this edit, especially to justify the outburst of our young Brazilian editor. The reality is that parents can stop paedophiles from abusing their children by calling the police whereas paedophile activists want that protection removed, so if somebody abuses your child sexually there is nothing you can do about it. This kind of so-called activism is nothing more or less than an attempt to justify breaking the sound laws we have whose specific end is to protect children from predatory criminals. Fair enough for them to think that, I suppose, and as an encyclopedia I appreciate that we should have this article because the movement exists but what is not acceptable is to couch their activism in such a way that it makes out they are arguing for something very different from what they really are arguing, which is that they want the right to abuse your and my children with impunity and while we could do nothing to protect our children. What the article needs is a sensible approach based on law, current attitudes to paedophilia, and the views of those who oppose paedophilia activism as well as those who support it.Pol64 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I certianly think the openiong needs re-writing and the order of the article changing. Hopw are we all goping to reach a compromise on this one? SqueakBox 23:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a NPOV intro is in order. We need to find a ballance, so that the edit war will not resume once protection is lifted. While it is reasonable to note current prominent legal, medical, and public attitudes towards pedophilia and pro-pedophile activism (and these have to be idententified as such), it does not seem to be NPOV to simply state that pedophiles or pro-pedophiles aim to "abuse" children or to "take away protection offered by children's parents." It is appropriate, however, to observe that some of the goals promoted by the pro-pedophile movement are currently considered illegal, such as adult-minor sexual contact (deemed "child sexual abuse" under the current law). Still, misrepresentation of the movement's self-declared objectives and expressed perspectives is most definitely not NPOV. Further clarification of this issue can be found in a couple of my comments above, which have not been fully addressed as of yet. Also, I have requested multiple times that SqueakBox, along with others who promote the intro that was incorporated into the article not too long ago (different from the current one), respond to a number of concerns I have with the proposed text. Please see if you can provide some answers to my questions - this would bring insight into why exactly that particular intro is to be considered more NPOV than the one that is currently in place. If you'd like for me to restate my concerns, please state so, and I'll be more than happy to do just that. ~ Homologeo 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection #2

I've full-protected the page for 3 days due to the edit warring. Please sort out the issues (and make sure you do not undo constructive edits) here. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes we all need to be careful not to undo constructive edits, I ahve certainly been the victim of that and if I have also done it myself, well I shouldnt have and will try better, SqueakBox 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable edit

This by an editor with as many edits as SqueakBox is plainly unacceptable. I don't think he should be punished, but he ought to be blocked so you guys don't have to waste your voluntarily donated time on stuff like that. A.Z. 06:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Though a less drastic still potentially effective measure would be for him to be stopped from editing pedophilia-related subjects, or perhaps receive a warning from the community. A.Z. 06:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page about that. A.Z. 06:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We do not block people for making NPOV edits, that is to fundamentally misunderstand how wikipedia works, and especialy not to give a clear run to blocked editors and their socks, as you are suggesting. I have wasted so much of my time dealinmg with these blcoked users who have no hesistaion in cheating by creating socks and you think there time is more valuabl;e than my own? That experienced users should be blocked so inexperienced ones can pursue their agenda? To block an experienced regular with the aim of leaving an open fioeld to the socks of blocked users (and many users whio edited this page have been blocked including their socks). Why would you think the community would want to warn me for making NPOV edits. That is our duty and your calls for me to be blocked appear to be based some kind of bad faith assumption. How are we ever to remove the totally disputed template with comments like this? If you think anty part of my edit is unacceptable I suggest you explain what is wrong in detail but this article currerentl;y suports a PPA stance and that is contrary to our policies and I would suggest it is your comments that are unacceptable whereas my edits had one aim in mind, NPOViong the articvle and that is never either a blockeable or warnable offence so please think more carefully about what you say in the future as bad faith assumptions based, apparently, opn a profound ignorance of the history of this article, will get neiother you nor anyone anywhere, SqueakBox 17:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And according to Pol64 even I am "lamentably failing" to NPOV this article. So are you planning to try and get everyone oppposing the socks of banned users blocked so that "their" voluntary time in this project doesn't get disrupted. And if this is so please explain why (indeed a good editor, if disagreeing with me, who would explain why point by point but I guess yor sweeping call to block anyionje who disagrees with you saves you the effort of having to do that, SqueakBox 17:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The only solution that may be acceptable is an Rfc, though other than vandalsim there is not really any such thing as an unacceptable edit except in areas defined by the arbcom such as La Rouche. Now if yiou think the arbcom would agree with you that any edits that promote a viewpoint disputed by PPAs shopuld be disallowed on wiki[pedia then i suggest yuou engage in dispute resolution with the intention of the case ebnding up in arbcom though givent eh number of blocked users, socks and SPAs endorsing the article as a POV support of the PPA line, as well as our clearly defined NPOV and other policies, I suspect you would have problems getting the arbcom to agree with you. Because you don't like an edit is not reaosn to seek to ban the editor, SqueakBox 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What is unacceptable here is the extraordinary attitude of A.Z. who is arguing to ban an experienced user in order to allow Pro-pedophiles to edit in peace. Such an attitude seems to have nothing in common with the approach to wikipedia taken by the great majority of editors and I would suggest hat if anyone needs blocking it is clearly A.Z for his extraordinary and malicious outburst. Squeak's edit was okay but it did not make the article okay, to claim that this edit was disruptive is to blatantly support the pro pedophile a viewpoint. That is fine of itself but threatening to try and block others for disagreeing with you is what is disruptive and if you to try to get Squeak blocked I'll try and get you blocked. IO have been rerading a lot of policy over the last few days and it is clearf that Squeak is not breaking policy whereas A.Z most certainly is. Squeak expressed above how disrupted he is by banned users returning as sockpuppets whereas A.Z is blatantly coming out in favour of those banned users and their sockpupets by claiming they have a right to not be disrupted but Squeak does not. Pah! [6] This is the unacceptable edit and if we are to believe Squeak, who has far more experience of this page than the rest of us, it is an edit by a banned user. But doubtless A.Z does not care about banned users returning to edit, though personally I do. Something has got to give on this article, it cannot go on being dominated by a pro-paedophile clique as has clearly been happening for months.Pol64 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"What is unacceptable here is the extraordinary attitude of A.Z. who is arguing to ban an experienced user in order to allow Pro-pedophiles to edit in peace."

No, what should be unacceptable is users who try to divide everyone up into these opposing pro/anti-pedophile camps. You're only causing disruption and making it harder for us to cooperate in editing this article.

Feel free to adopt whatever label you wish, but I don't see others here professing these stances you attribute to them. Mike D78 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Can someone please clear this up for me. A user with a number of edits on this article appears to be placing the criticism section in the middle of the article. This seems to go against common sense (rebuttals last) and the flow of almost every other article on this website. Has this user justified their edits, or are they just vandalising? 82.45.15.121 21:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well its not vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". I know of no policy that would support what you are saying but if you know of one please bring it here. This is a content dispute and has nothing to do with vandalism, have you read the abovce3 comments re section moving? I would like to see the history section much lower down and the criticism section is better off in the middle for NPOV reasons, SqueakBox 22:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, you have a justification, and it isn't vandalism (I never claimed such a thing). These reasons remain unjustified, though. For example, why is moving exactly the same content to another part of the article (one that makes no sense for such content) inductive to a less "biased" article?

Also, exactly what is wrong with a small paragraph that explains the feelings of one commentator in the context of AIDS and sexual morality? And why must we use terms such as "create a culture of support", which suggest that such "support" or whatever is not advisable, or not deserving of simpler, shorter and less scornful terminology (i.e. neutral point of view). 82.45.15.121 22:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is when the PPA starts to generalise, to claim that "pedophile liberation is no longer fun" while being an extyraordinary statem,ent is worthy of inclusion but this chap generalising about the effects of AIDS and HIV on the sexual liberation movement of the sixties is off topic and completely irrelevant, besides being a very extreme view of the eighties that almost nobody would agree with, SqueakBox 23:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"this chap generalising about the effects of AIDS and HIV on the sexual liberation movement of the sixties is off topic and completely irrelevant"

The subjects of this article would obviously consider this idea to be on-topic and relevant, and it's sourced. I say keep it in. Mike D78 23:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you havent proven notability nor that PPAs would agree with this statement (some other sources would help on that one) nor why their opinions on HIV and sexual liberation have any relevance for the article, this is an article about PPAs not about the beliefs of PPAs re any subject you care to mention. We need to stay on topic and this strays and as long as it remains the opinion about someth4ing else expressed by a solitary PPA it can't stay in the article, SqueakBox 23:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Well you havent proven notability"

The statement of a pedophile activist seems notable enough for an article about them.

"nor why their opinions on HIV and sexual liberation have any relevance for the article"

They obviously see it as relevant and related to what they argue for. I might see if I can find some other sources that support this claim, though. Mike D78 23:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability isnt proven by a PPAs statement, that is not how we work, it would be like saying we could include anything any Rasta has ever said that got published in an RS in the Rastafari movement article regardless of whether on or off topic. How is HIV releavant to PPAs. it isn't, indeed as most of them claim not to have sex it is especially not relevant. Some more substantial sources is the only way to get this statem,ent kept and even so it would need rewriting. As I say the no fun comment is of itself fine as it shows the mind set of the PPAs. The aim iof this article is to be educationally informative about PPAs, it is not a platform to expound the beliefs of PPAs on other subjects such as HIV and the development of the sexual revolution in the eighties, SqueakBox 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"How is HIV releavant to PPAs."

It's something that influenced shifting sexual mores, which pedophile activists apparently believe is of concern to them. Mike D78 00:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Romantic love

We need a source for romantic love if it is to be included as any contended unsourced material must be removed and the onus is on thiose who want to add it not on the remover to gett he sopurce, if possible, SqueakBox 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)