Talk:Pedophile movement/Archive 16

message: It seems silly that this needs to be restated so many times - please keep discussions on this Talk Page centered around how the article on pro-pedophile activism can be improved. This is the only topic that should be discussed here. Please do not bait anyone or egg other editors on - this does not yield any progress, and is actually counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish here. Likewise, if someone doesn't like the perspectives or opinions of another, and this preference has nothing to do with the article itself, please take ensuing discussions to the appropriate User Talk Pages. Same goes for declarations of personal sentiment. ~ Homologeo 04:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we should just remove/archive the entire "Very Scary" section of this talk page (perhaps recovering whatever useful suggestions happened to get lost in the fray). Since the entire discussion ensued from banned/irrelevant commentary anyways, it has no business taking up so much real-estate in an otherwise civil discussion. 70.53.129.218 06:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or we can just let it peter out, and archive it when things are archived. Martijn Hoekstra 10:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's a need yet to archive the "Very Scary" section, but still want to stress that  disputes not relevant to the improvement of the article, along with declarations and critiques of personal perspectives, don't belong on this Talk Page. ~ Homologeo 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Focus on Improving the Article

message: Please let me help you by editing this article with my specialist knowledge!!!
Why was this article locked on some sexofascist psalm to the hideous anti-pedophile haters at perverted justice? This is sick and an abomination against the truth! Ellis ♥▲ Raimbault 15:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody here hurts pedophiles, we are trying to write an article, nothing more. Please take your hatred elsewhere, anybody, wikipedia is not the place. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is so many anti-pedophile Conservatives on this board, it makes me go and puke. You people are sickened with hate against homosexuals, pedophiles, and anybody different than you. This article is infested with hate and neutral point of view does not exist. Bosniak 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't put homosexuals in there with that point you're trying to make, as if hate for pedophilia is just about it "being different" and not understanding. Hatred toward pedophilia has nothing to do with being conservative. Flyer22 00:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The above editor will not be with us, as she was blocked after only five or so edits. Roman Czyborra was also blocked because he asked her for a photograph (she was fourteen). GrooV 07:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof? As much as I got, Roman was blocked for threatening legal action on other WP users as he personally felt verbally abused. It seems to have something to do with him quoting a brochure from our federal ministry of education, and when our ministry retracted it he was accused of "copryight infringement" as well as "original research" on ther English-language Wikipedia simply because that brochure had been retracted. It went so far that he's now even sued our federal minister of education, Ursula von der Leyen, on grounds of censorship for retraction of that brochure. --Tlatosmd 22:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tlatosmd, I have no idea whether what you're saying is true or not, but the primary reason provided for the institution of the block was indeed the fact that Roman Czyborra asked Ellis Raimbault for her picture. ~ Homologeo 23:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The block log refers to "email abuse", and I suppose I've seen it because he's re-directed a lot of his mail correspondence to me via cc (I don't even know if he's aware of all the stuff he sent me that way, including his Wikipedia-related correspondence), and it was the lack of civil language he used in threatening legal action on people, such as Mike Godwin and Richard Stallman. Currently he and his colleagues from his nation-wide newspaper (TAZ) are preparing an online as well as print article on his suit against our minister. --Tlatosmd 23:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: Looks like Roman's ban seems in accordance with what another user has deemed "Krystallnacht" (spelling error) in the mediation process concerning this article. Some account appeared that was indefinitely banned after two posts without ever having edited one article, and Roman is simultaneously banned, allegedly due to an accuse of having contacted that account on grounds of "a" picture of unspecified nature (ID photo?), which, as has been said by somebody else, is definitely no reason to ban somebody even if this mysterious short-lived account was used by a minor, especially considering his profession as a journalist for a nation-wide newspaper. Plus, I saw no evidence of any such request for any picture in his Wikipedia-related correspondence he re-directed to me. Not sure if anybody, including me, should start an unbanning request, I just thought mentioning these facts here should be worthwile as an observation on editing politics here. --Tlatosmd 02:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, by what standards is Roman's behaviour not blockable. I bet you will not find a single admin who would unblock him, and there is clearly a lot of support of his block. The comparison of this situation to Krystalnacht (whose anniversary took place yesterday) is an insult to all the Jews who lost their lives on that terrible night. God knows even predatory peds are not treated like that by governmnets let alone on wikipedia. A hysterical reaction that insults the memory of real victims. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note I used quotes on that term. Referring to lack of interest in unbanning him is moot and cheap as I say that's not my intention. Just mentioning that there seems plenty of critizism by others, and how fishy that two-post account seems to be, especially concerning what has happened to other users in the same debates. It seems like many people challenging you have been banned under mysterious circumstances, and it also seems I'm not the only one finding an odd pattern there. --Tlatosmd 02:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: While Roman Czyborra didn't exercise prudent judgment, considering all the controversy about allowing self-identifying pedophiles to edit PAW articles (and Wikipedia in general) and the supposed blocks that resulted from this debate, it is quite easy to question this block, because asking someone for a picture is not in itself a blockable offense. For instance, if I was to ask you, SqueakBox, for your picture, would I be blocked? However, the fact that the other user had stated that she was a minor and Roman knew this makes it somewhat easier to justify this block, because some may assume that the requested image was asked for with an illegal purpose in mind. Still, there was no inappropriate qualifier attached to the picture Roman requested, so this is not a foolproof block, as one may assume. At the same time, it is clear that admins want to be cautious, and obviously this was a precaution-driven step to prevent anything illegal from taking place. Nevertheless, this block can definitely be argued against. ~ Homologeo 06:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know a lot about childlove 

message: Admin - what do you want to see before this article can get back underway? -HolokittyNX 23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues are being mediated. Looking at his or her comments in the thread here gives me little confidence that Holo wants to edit the article to promote NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, there is currently an official mediation process underway that is seeking to address the issues that have been bogging down progress of this article. Until this mediation is over, it is unlikely that indefinite protection will be lifted. However, if have any ideas in terms of uncontroversial edits, please feel free to list such edits in the appropriate section above. If other editors agree that the proposed edits are indeed constructive and uncontroversial, an admin can possibly incorporate them into the article. ~ Homologeo 02:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SqueakBox, I do find it slightly ironic that you are happily flaunting a direct link to the exact same text that you blanked from the talk page for being "pro pedophile". I guess that the usage suits you on this occasion. GrooV 06:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No irony and certainly no flaunting. The community consensus was to keep those statements and I have accepted that and moved on. Just the wikipedia way. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed ironic that he would link to a page that displays his own irreconcilable bias on the subject: "They may not be the same thing but all the same one should assume adult-child sex a thing is harmful to the child is the more neutral approach" SqueakBox. This is deeply disturbing; that his approach is the more neutral approach because he says it so? Can we really trust somebody with such ego-centric views to be taking such an active role in editing this article? 74.12.80.54 08:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What sophistry? Is this your argument that it isn't harmful? And of course almost everyone agrees with you, the rest is a conspiracy. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume good faith Squeaky.  I was trying to correct the other person's statement typo.  The content remained unchanged, and I did not omit yours.  Fighting for Justice  —Preceding comment was added at 08:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately not but I recognise it was a mistake to remove my comment, ie unintentional. You really shouldn't create a link to my user name in someone else's comments, you can do so in your own. And I was wrongly attributing that comment to you, sorry about that. Thanks, SqueakBox 08:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Er what? All other opinions are most certainly not irrelevant, please do not try to marginalise other editors. We all need to express our personal opinions about how to take the article forward, that is not a matter exclusively for admins. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter of lifting the protection on the article is exclusively left to administrators.  I for one can't wait for this to happen as the introduction is grossly POV.  Fighting for Justice 03:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well apply for unprotection then but if the only reason you want to do so is to revert the opening to your preferred version you may find it difficult to persuade an admin to do it for you as admins are loath to unprotect an article to allow edit warring to continue - which is why it is in our hands as editors as to how we take this article forward and why waiting for mediation is probably the best solution given your recent comments about wanting to change the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And you are misunderstanding the role of admins, it takes an admin to lift a protection but it is certainly not a matter left exclusively to admins, that kind of perspective is simply inaccurate. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Forward

message: I'm probably going to regret jumping into this pool of sharks, but here goes:
This has likely been brought up before, but even the first sentence of the article, which currently reads (with references removed) "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 sexually abuse children", seems not only biased against paedophiles, but also paradoxical. Child sexual abuse is currently defined in its own article as "an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses [...]". Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't any legal change allowing them to engage in sexual conduct with children by definition mean they would no longer be committing an offense in doing so. Would a change to the end of the sentence to something on the lines of "in order to allow pedophiles to engage in sexual conduct with children, which under current legislation counts as child sexual abuse" return the fickle balance of neutrality to the introductory sentence (which would be a good start), or be seen as pro-paedophile bias? Cohen the Bavarian 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. Currently, a few editors are involved in oficial mediation for this article, and the introduction is one of the things that editors expressed concerns about. Mediation tends to be a bit of a slow process, and opinions on the introduction differ greatly, so it could be in this form for quite a while. Still, I'm fairly sure of an eventual good result. Martijn Hoekstra 16:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: A neutral introduction of the sort that you're recommending was already in place before a couple editors began a revert quest to make it the way it is right now. As a result, the article was indef protected from editing yet again. As Martijn Hoekstra pointed out, currently, there is an official mediation process in progress on the MedCom's wiki, and the neutraliy of the introduction is one of the primary issues being addressed. Hopefully the editors involved will arrive at some sort of consensus in terms of what constitutes neutrality within this context, and the article can be unprotected. Until then, editors are encouraged to voice and discuss any concerns they have on this Talk Page, and hopefully proposed constructive edits will be incorporated into the article once it is re-opened to editing. Howbeit, if anyone has uncontroversial edits he or she would like to propose, please list them in the appropriate section above, and, pending approval by other members, an admin can possibly carry them out. ~ Homologeo 17:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please forgive my curiosity, but what is the current progress at the mediation? What is the mediator(s) opinion on the current intro? Thanks, Albert Wincentz 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cohen, IMO no, your edit makes lots of assumptions about the future and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Your suggested change would be pro pedophile as it would buy into how the pedophile activists see things. We can report how they see things but we cannot write our encyclopedia from a PPA perspective, but only a neutral one. If the laws of age of consent were one day changed in favour of the PPA demands we cannot speculate on how child sexual abuse would be seen in that day or nay make any assumptions of this kind. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Homologeo, I don't believe you can really claim that the previous version (the one that this current one and it are disputed) was neutral, I edited it precisely because it was a part of the neutrality problem that has been hanging over this article for a long time, and why it has been tagged since many months before the newer version was created, and recognised as such by many different editors. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It might take a while, Albert. We're still in the opening stages (opening statements). I do expect it will move a little faster after that, but it might take a while. It's just a slow process. Not something I want, but something we'll have to deal with. Martijn Hoekstra 12:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Albert Wincentz, you can witness the current state and contribute to the mediation process in this thread. And SqueakBox, decriminalizing an activity does automatically render it not a crime any longer. That's not a crystal ball, that's a simple legal definition. However I guess many, probably most Western legislations currently define the activity at hand not a crime but an offense, even the US lists child-adult sexual interactions under public order crimes, which makes them, by definition, victimless crimes (you can find AoC violations precisely named there), and the declared victim is abstract, in fact what is obviously feared is downfall of the state as it has often been a source of fear and panic in the history of persecuting obscenities at least since the Sodom myth created by Justinian I. You can actually find a quite similar approach to the abstract nature of AoC laws in informed consent where it reads, "A person below the age of consent may agree to sex, know all the consequences, but [...] Individual is barred from legally giving informed consent, despite what they may feel" precisely referring to AoC violations. --Tlatosmd 12:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I just read that thread, and although it is a good read, because it shows how sharp the differences are at the moment, it does not have much to do with the current status of the MedCom mediation. Martijn Hoekstra 13:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence seems not only biased but paradoxical 

message: this is a joke, right? it doesnt really exist?
suggest for deletion—Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.2.206 (talk • contribs) 
:No the content of this article is not a joke. There are quite a few references to reliable sources that indicate this article is real. Therefore, deletion would be inapropriate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the clarification, and at risk of offending people who like to touch little children, i'll go lose my lunch somewhere quietly  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.2.206 (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --76.213.169.164 (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joke?