Moldopodo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) has been mentioning the words "defamation" and "slander" a lot in the last few while since the end of his one month AE block. He has been also accusing editors of defaming and slandering him. IMO, this is in someway an attempt at legal posturing and as such a violation ofWP:LEGAL. As a result of this, I call for a indefinite block and ban of Moldopodo due to (1) his past and current disruptive attitude to the project, and (2) his consistent use of the words "defamation" and "slander" as an attempt to get his way (WP:LEGAL violation). These sysop actions, if approved through consensus, will be preventive as it will prevent Moldopodo from creating further disruption.nat.utoronto02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is borderline....I'm leaning towards a warning, an explaining ofWP:LEGAL and why comments like those aren't acceptable. But... I don't know, I'm going to think a bit more about it, this is just my initial reaction.Beam02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying someone is slandering you is not a legal threat. Saying you're going to sue someone for slandering you is a legal threat. I'm making no other comment on Moldopodo's behavior, as I haven't looked into it and you haven't provided diffs. If he's being incivil, or disruptive, or something, make your case based on that. But a block (or even a warning) per WP:LEGAL won't fly, IMHO. --barneca (talk)03:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion of a warning would be discussing civillity and how accusing other editors repeatedly of attacking his character does him no favors. And the explaining ofWP:Legal just so he knows it, and he knows that "slander" and "defamation" are used in legal ways some times, and although accusations of defamation and slander, although not a violation ofWP:Legal, aren't good anyway.Beam03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. "No legal threats" != "no legal terms", period. This histronic hyper-sensitivity really doesn't help matters any. And your proposed explanation just comes off as condescending, even in theory, and won't defuse the matter in the least. --Badger Drink (talk)03:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, any time we try to educate newer users and give them knowledge of policy is a fucking retarded waste of time.Beam03:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, that was inappropriate. Please calm down and try to remain civil yourself. A comment about civility may be in order, considering the user's past history. However, a block for legal threats would be excessive and probably overturned.Hersfoldnon-admin^(t/a/c)03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Sarcasm and the phrase fucking retarded aren't uncivil. And I suggested a personal warning, no template as well as an informational explanation about what WP:Legal is just to inform. And I definitely did not suggest a block, far from it. I agree with you on that point. :)Beam04:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that when you use the term "fucking retarded", it may bemisconstrued as an incivil personal attack. Even if it's not actually in violation ofWP:CIVIL orWP:NPA, it's still not good anyway. We also havea policy against adding unsourced material, which you may wish to read. See what I mean? I agree that this editor could use some sort of talking-to, but I doubt dragging random bits of policy into said talking-to is going to win the talker-to'er any respect - and with an editor of this sort, it basically boils down to whether or not they respect the community and the project, or not. If you win their respect, things clear up. Make a fool of yourself in their eyes, and it just means further headaches and (likely) an eventual block. --Badger Drink (talk)03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I was trying to give a way for Nat to feel that he got his point across while being helpful and nice to the user in question. And you're right, my sarcasm wasn't in violation of anything.Beam04:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, the edit conflict with Hersfold kinda killed the heavy-handed irony I was going for, but anyway! --Badger Drink (talk)05:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tossing around legal terms, while not the best way to get around here, aren't violations ofWP:NLT. There's a reason why it's called "no legalthreats" (emphasis mine). By the way, you can't slander anyone on Wikipedia. —Kurykh03:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You could with an .ogg file... --barneca (talk)03:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, licensing that file is going to be hard. Oh wait, no...you can release it in the public domain. :) —Kurykh03:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

An .ogg file uploaded here would be regarded as in permanent form and therefore constitute alibel rather than a slander, and thus harder to defend. --Rodhullandemu10:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, after I wrote that last night, I actually read thedefamation article, and realized I misunderstood the difference (it's not spoken vs. written, it appears to be permanent vs. transient). I was kind of hoping no one would notice, but of course there are too many eyeballs here. Why, oh why, couldn't NCMV have speedily archived this sooner, before Rod could see it? --barneca (talk)12:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's never one around when you need one is there, then three turn up at once? Not intending to be critical, just getting things right. --Rodhullandemu12:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As perthis diff.User:Marvin Diode deleted my thread here for no apparent reason. I'm going to repost, but that is highly inappropriate behavior.MSJapan (talk)23:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It was almost certainly accidental. Depending on which link one clicks to edit, it's possible for other editors to make intervening changes that are lost when ones own edits are saved. Sloppy, perhaps, but not malicious or intentional. ·:·Will Beback·:·19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed unintentional, and I left an apology on MSJapan's talk page. --Marvin Diode (talk)20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to report userUser_talk:SesquipedalianVerbiage for vandalism. He is deleting sourced statements atSolar Cycle without explanation[1], and is deleting warnings from his talk page[2].Lakinekaki (talk)10:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

First, editors are welcome to remove warnings from their talk pages. Doing so is an indication that they have been read. Second, you are engaged in a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. Third, in his edit summaries, SV has repeatedly directed you toTalk:Solar cycle where another editor has tried to open a discussion there regarding the disputed text. Please go there and discuss it to resolve this content dispute. --Steven J. Anderson (talk)10:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I added different text, and much better sourced.Lakinekaki (talk)10:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that if the editors who disagree with you are attempting to engage you in discussion on the talk page and you're not responding, you're in the wrong until you go there and make an effort. If that fails, your next step isdispute resolution, not this noticeboard. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.)--Steven J. Anderson (talk)10:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you're admitting that rather than talk, you'd prefer to keep trying to shove in an edit other editors have asked for discussion on? That's an admission of edit warring.

I request a block forLakinekaki, who admits above to edit warring.ThuranX (talk)14:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's warranted... yet. Contribs are concerning but not indicative of an all-out edit war yet; the article's talk page is being used and dicussion may go forward.Tanǀ3915:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved fromWP:AIV. ➨ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives11:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose accountsEplgleplcl andVria have been persisting in disrupting the article and associated talk page in concert, with flagrantattacks against people living or dead, and in violation ofWP:A,WP:RS,WP:BLP,WP:Coatrack.

Time reported: 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• 1st incident:00:36, 2 July 2008
• 2nd incident:12:02, 19 July 2008
• 3rd incident:01:57, 20 July 2008

Related talk page vandalism

• 1st incident:01:58, 20 July 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning:12:17, 19 July 2008

• 1st incident:7 June 2008
• 2nd incident:00:13, 8 June 2008
• 3rd incident:12:11, 14 June 2008
• 4th incident:12:54, 18 June 2008
• 5th incident:07:44, 7 July 2008
• 6th incident:11:28, 15 July 2008

Related talk page vandalism

• 1st incident:12:12, 14 June 2008

• Diff of 3RR warning:12:49, 15 July 2008

• 1st incident:00:50, 25 July 2008

Related talk page vandalism

• 1st incident:00:49, 25 July 2008

• Diff of vandalism warning:18:55, 25 July 2008

Ohconfucius (talk)11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Eplgleplcl andUser:Vria indefblocked as blatant SPAs, for persistently adding unsourced defamatory material despite being warned.User:Iuqdropgl looks suspiciously like a sock, but I've just left a warning for now.EyeSerene^talk13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 –Final warning issued. -Caribbean~H.Q. 23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Final warning ignored; blocked for disruption. -00:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

New userDisneysuit (talk ·contribs) appears to be Royce Mathew, theplaintiff in a lawsuit against Disney over the origins of thePirates of the Caribbean films. All of Disneysuit'sfirst-day edits appear designed to blanket Wikipedia articles with information about the suit and its targets. While the suit has attracted some media attention, Mathew's tactics and Wikipedia edits suggest he's a gadfly who wants to try the case in the media and is unwilling to follow the encyclopedia's guidelines and policies. Disneysuit also created an autobiography of (surprise!)Royce Mathew that was speedily deleted, then created it again with similar content atRoyce mathew. There's no evidence that this user understands concerns raised aboutWP:COI andWP:AUTOBIO, among others. He's now posting rants that include "I DEMAND THAT YOU PROVIDE A SUPERVISOR" when his edits and behavior are challenged. —Whoville (talk)22:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If all his edits so far have been disruptive, give him a stern final warning saying "Look, we're not here to promote any side or lawsuit. Stop it or else you WILL be blocked." Seriously, that talk page just reads like a three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum because his daddy took away hisI.G. Joe. I also deleted another page he created (User talk:BlackPearl14/Desk) as an attack page. -23:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Already done. We'll see if he continues.Toddst1(talk)23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also issued a warning of my own warning him that if he keeps up assuming bad faith or trying to push the lawsuit onto us, he'll be blocked, though I'm not sure if he'll heed it. I tried to be as outright and civil as I could. -23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, then we are done here? one more COI breaching edit and we send this account to Davy Jones' Locker. -Caribbean~H.Q.23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Davy Jones' Locker? Why not theWorld that Never Was? -00:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for removing that page. I wrote that page to showcase my works and then he came along and vandalised it. I apologized already to him for being rude, but I think that about cuts it. He called me "corrupted" and "meritless" and then attacked me verbally. I am very, very hurt and shocked by this sort of behaviour. This man is an adult and yet he cannot see reason. I agree with you: Davy Jones's Locker is the best solution :)00:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You have hypocritical standards. You list other artists and lawsuits etc.., yet you pick and choose only the facts that favor a business notably the Walt disney Company ,and then you make you issues about lower case "m" and make false claims. Clearly you justify a concocted reason to shut down this account. I am notifying that you are in breach of your company/business guidelines. I am seeking to file formal complaints.—Precedingunsigned comment added byDisneysuit (talk •contribs)00:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This smells like alegal threat. Blocking indef. -00:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

He's requesting an unblock and a meeting with Wikipedia's "owner". -00:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

He's also claimed false things at me such as that I speak with a small group of editors who work alongside me and accept my every move. I do not. I was just telling him that it isn't write to write something in his own POV and then expect us to accept it. I understand if I get blocked, and I accept it, but I wish he would stop hurting my feelings so much. I am a mature adult and I am really quite astonished to see this sort of behaviour. And Jeske: thank you for deleting that page for me. I don't want to have to tread upon it again.00:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Null persp, Aparna. -00:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Denied and page protected.SirFozzie (talk)00:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit thickheaded: what does null persp mean? Null perspective? On what? I'm sorry if I'm only adding fuel to the fire :(00:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You know,nullperspiration. No sweat. -00:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha - thanks! :)00:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

He sent me a legal threat thru the email system. As such, I've also revoked his email privileges. -02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone gets tired of this I am ready to take up the hand holding. Leave me a message if needed. --mboverload06:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry any more about him unless he comes back as another user and continues the behavior that led to his block (i.e. vague legal threats, accusations of cooperating with Disney to suppress info on his lawsuit, and repeated assumptions of bad faith on those who revert his peacockery). He's blocked, his talk page is protected, and his email privileges have been revoked. -09:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that I recently read an article about how major corporations, like Disney, (it was specifically mentioned), have hried peopel just to watch the Disney related pages. We should be careful of that side of the edit war as well.ThuranX (talk)00:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a public apology for my stupidity 3 years ago, when I was logged in asUser:The Bad Tax Man. I did sock a bit, with some sockpuppets tagged by Golbez, but now I've grown up and realized my stupidity. I was only 19 back then and in uni, but now I've grown up. I'm posting this from a public PC right now because I'm on the move. Sorry if I'm evading my indefinite block, but I want to apologise if I upset everyone. I was stupid, but now I've moved on. --217.36.218.31 (talk)19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's going to string you up for evading a block if you're making a legitimate attempt to reconcile things. If you want to (positively) contribute, you can post an {{unblock}} template atUser talk:The Bad Tax Man, with a link here. Cheers,caknuck_°is back from his wikisiesta20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The vanity biography of a non-notable astronomer was deleted via an AFD, and later attempts were made to recreate it 4 times. However,Uranometria (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log), who I suspect to be a sock ofKingkong77 (talk ·contribs) keeps restoring a link to the talk page, without any clear logical reason to do so.

The user has repeatedly restored link to the talk page in the disambiguation page, despite being told not to do so. I have reverted his edits 3 times, and would be happy if someone else can take a look and possibly undo this.

Diffs:this,this andthis. --Ragib (talk)16:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I have some interest and training in astronomy, so let me chip in. I hadn't heard of this guy before, but he seems notable enough for a biography, so I support recreation; he's been in a few newspapers, including theGuardian, apparently, and on TV andBBC radio. Being given an Honorary Membership in theBangladesh Astronomical Society is an achievement too. I'm not saying he's the nextHubble, but he's at least worth a short article.

However, I strongly disagree withUser:Uranometria's reversions given above; a link from article space into Talk space is never appropriate, and he needs to settle disputes instead of just uselessly thrashing the page ("BRD)". --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight⊖16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For exactly that reason (no links to talk from mainspace) I've reverted again. Unless further reverts happen it should be fine. I'm watchlisting the page, just in case.lifebaka(talk -contribs)17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too. There is nowa talkpage discussion about if it's appropriate to recreate or not; please use it, guys! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight⊖17:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Enemies of me have been having a gay-old-time attacking me atWT:FRINGE. Of course, this is not the place to do it. So I removed the discussion of me (which was extremely personal and offensive) withthis diff. Just giving you all a heads-up for the eventual brouhaha.ScienceApologist (talk)13:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The material wasn't that bad, and looked to me to be well on track towards being a great linkable archived discussion of 'why is this fringe thing so mean to me and my wacky ideas?' each time a new editor asks. I agree that it opened with some shots at you, but the more you obscure things like that, the more Ludwigs2 and others will attack you for it. I'm going to publicly ask you to restore that section. You're welcome to ignore it now, the focus has shifted to why those two are in the wrong, so hiding it now, after hours of discussion, isn't a sensible way to handle it. had you blanked it after the first four or five comments, I'd support you 100%, but the conversation's grown and changed course.ThuranX (talk)14:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log) has returned from a one-week block[3] for incivility and wikigaming onBarack Obama-related articles to wikigame again[4] and provoke yet more dissent and rancor.[5][6][7][8][9] I hope not to have to rehash the disruptive history that got us here, or to respond to personal attacks made against me for trying to deal with this disruption.Wikidemo (talk)20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Wikidemo's post here.Tvoz/talk20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors and admins are encouraged to carefully review the diffs Wikidemo has posted. WorkerBee74 returns to the page, olive branch in hand, and requests mediation. He's told in semi-polite terms to f--k off, and generally treated with barely concealed contempt, and he gets a little annoyed. The memorable phrases "disagree/ provoke/ report" and "whining exaggerated report" were coined in this content dispute with good reason.74.94.99.17 (talk)21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing message is by one of WorkerBee74's likely IPWP:SOCKs. SeeWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74. "Whining exaggerated report" and "disagree / provoke / report" are phrases this and and some other disruptive editors coined to attack me for dealing with their misbehavior. This report is not about me.Wikidemo (talk)21:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I coined that phrase and other editors and administrators have warned you that you attack me by using such dismissive language as disruptive. Your action of reporting people here does not give you license to attack people. Your previous bleating behaviour about me and shrill attacks are unacceptable, as well as your psuedo-officious talkpage warnings are passive agressive behaviour. Her is one for you: Continue to engage in your antisocial behaviour, and it will be you who will be blocked. Consider yourself warned and nough of your meritless gaming the AN/I system to attack user as you did me.Die4Dixie (talk)15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the "demo" in "Wikidemo" stand for, by the way? Are you a Democratic Party operative? Now regarding this "likely socks" nonsense, a Checkuser has been performed and has proven that we are unrelated. Otherwise, I'm sure you would have seen to it that WorkerBee74 was indefinitely blocked, Wikidemo. So please stop making these false accusations.74.94.99.17 (talk)21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the sockpuppet report, the conclusion was that WorkerBee74 socks at 74.94.99.17 - he's certainly acting like WorkerBee74 again here. Socking on his own AN/I report to taunt and make accusations...Wikidemo (talk)21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As a user who has edited this page, and has actually supported workerbee's POV: he indeed appears to have many socks. Now, if only an administrator would close out theone month old case on him atWP:SSP (and ifWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth had been taken seriously, for that matter), then we might be able to move forward.The Evil Spartan (talk)22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued wikigaming (attacks me a second time for rejecting mediation - which seems to be the ploy).[10] -—Precedingunsigned comment added byWikidemo (talk •contribs)

As the last blocking admin, and being someone with absolutely no affiliation with the Barack Obama article or US political topics, I also support Wikidemo's post here. It seems there's a lot of end-run gaming going on.Orderinchaos13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the suspected sock reports and other links, I have to say that a block should be immediate. To me it looks likeGaming the system and socking. I think it time to stop this esp. because of the showing of so many socks being utilized. Iendorse a block at this time which includes any socks that are active.--CrohnieGal^Talk16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can weplease do something about him, now? By taunting me again (about the ninth or tenth time) for discussing his conduct here he's throwing down a gauntlet. Since my last report above he's insulted me again while accusing other editors on the Obama article of "ownership", "flippancy",[11] and plotting, misconduct and bad faith over the events that got him blocked before[12], and accusing a nominator of an improper AfD nomination.[13] He's basically taken over the discussion again on the Obama article with a point that isn't going to go anywhere.Wikidemo (talk)22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really time to put this to rest for good. Gaming the system should be more than enough to draw the line; proven use of sock-puppets tops it of. Maybe I'm the stupid one not to use such disgraceful "tools" to get my way? I might consider it in the future if it works that well and screw my principles of honesty. Best regards from a somehow mad user, --Floridianed (talk)12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Consider starting an RFC on user conduct asap. Remember to provide diffs, and clearly mark recent evidence of misconduct between the previous block and when the RFC has been certified.Ncmvocalist (talk)15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to make the case from scratch again? We've been through this a dozen times now. That's extremely time consuming given the extensive history here, and always acrimonious - I get personally attacked every time by this editor and cohorts and scolded by well-intentioned administrators new to the situation that it's just two sides fighting, only a content dispute, I should put up with it, etc. Why can't we just implement the topic ban that everyone keeps proposing?Wikidemo (talk)16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that'll be effective enough, and, I don't think admins are going to give the all clear for it. If you do the RFC, you can take it to ArbCom if it becomes a problem again.Ncmvocalist (talk)16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't leave many good options. I'm not sure I want to invest that kind of time right now or be subjected to the inevitable backlash. At an RfC people will judge the most recent behavior in isolation as a fresh issue without considering the history of the article, escalating sanctions, sockpuppetry, etc. He has thrown the gauntlet as I said - by attacking me again, and taunting me for coming here, if you guys do nothing he's emboldened and he can do it again and blame me for "whining", deliberately provoking people so I can have them blocked, etc. If no admins are willing to stick with it we may just end up in a free for all again on the article. Maybe I should just start striking or deleting his comments when he attacks me.Wikidemo (talk)16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I distinctly remember a certain Bigtimepeace saying he'd be looking at the article in response to my suggestions of individual sanctions (which got enacted later down the track anyway!) - what happened to his 'watch' over the article?Ncmvocalist (talk)17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor is continuing,[14] so at this point I have deleted part of his comment[15] and asked him to stop.[16] I don't know what else to do.Wikidemo (talk)17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like the opinion ofuninvolved admins and experienced users here. WorkerBee74 is asingle-purpose agenda account, one of a handful on pages related to Obama. He has beenblocked 4 times in the ~50 days since his account was created. There is astrong suspicion that he's logging out to support himself with IP edits. I propose to indefinitely block this account and move on.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that essentially all he does is argue atTalk:Barack Obama - note227 edits to the talk page and only 11 to the article. A case could be made to just ignore him unless he either has a cogent, civilly expressed content point or starts edit-warring on the article. I would like some feedback before implementing anything.MastCell ^Talk17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My only agenda is to make this WP biography about a famous politician more similar to other WP biographies about famous politicians. Noroton's comments at the AfD onBill Ayers election controversy describe this group of editors accurately. Such biographies asGeorge W. Bush (Good Article, 16 conjugations of the word "criticism") andTony Blair (loaded with criticism on the day it attained Featured Article status) say a lot about this group of editors andtheir single purpose andtheir agenda. Trying to keep it civil here but their constant baiting, obstruction and provocation have been repeatedly rewarded, MastCell.WorkerBee74 (talk)20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He may have a single interest here, but if he's advocating for his side using the talk page and not edit warring, then tough shit. That's the point of this. In fact, he's painted himself into a corner now ,because should he invokeWP:BOLD and add what he wants to to the page, there's every chance he'll be attacked for edit warring fast. I see no big problem with letting him continue to advocate via our approved and encouraged means, the talk page. As to the incivility, that's a big problem, as are the false accusations. However, the first example above ,where he warns another editor to not get baited and instead pursue the recourses Wikipedia, is fine by me. On hot topic pages, running a game on the new guy is common; one starts something, revs up the new guy, then others swoop in for the block requests and so on. Preventing that isn't bad, it's good and helps level the playing field. Finally ,I note that Workerbee's assessment is correct. there isn't any criticism of Obama anywhere on that page. The closest thing is the National Journal's listing of him as the most liberal senator; given they always call the Democratic candidate the most liberal (fill in the blank), that's hardly a balanced article. No block, warning and incivility probation.ThuranX (talk)20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, ThuranX. Thank you very, very much. Zero criticism in a biography about a major party's presumptive nominee? With FA status? For any reasonable person, that alone should be setting off some alarms. Add to it Noroton and his patient documentation of these editors' relentless baiting (ask him, he'll show you). Mother Teresa would blow her cool at some of these people.WorkerBee74 (talk)21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're correct. There's no substantial criticism ofJohn McCain in his article. Nor do I think any should be added; it's not acoatrack for the presidential campaign. McCain's article looks quite good to me. No alarm bells. On reading it, I don't get the sense that editors are manipulating McCain's Wikipedia article to reflect the opposing party's talking points. (OK, it does have a crappy "McCain in popular culture" section). A review of the last couple weeks of editing there looks reasonably calm.Agenda-driven single purpose accounts are quickly handled. I think something similar can be achieved on the Obama article, though I have to say I view Workerbee74 as much more part of the problem than of the solution based on the issues I've outlined above. Thanks to ThuranX for commenting; again, furtheruninvolved commentary is invited.MastCell ^Talk21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, if you can't find any criticism atJohn McCain, try running a search on the page using the word "Keating." McCain was completely cleared by a Democrat controlled committee in that investigation but it gets a mention in the article lead, one or two paragraphs in the body of the article and if I recall correctly, until very recently, it had a bold section header. Try to find anything comparable inBarack Obama.WorkerBee74 (talk •contribs)22:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to argue this here, but theKeating Five were subjects of a massive investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. That's a slightly different level of notability than Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, though perhaps only"Obama campaign volunteers" are able to perceive it. And McCain's article scrupulously notes that he was cleared of all wrongdoing, that the event led to his interest in campaign finance reform (one of his signature issues), and that it has never been an issue in his numerous campaigns since. As the article should. But since you seem to be trying to find an angle of hypocrisy here, I'll agree that if Obama is or has been investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee or similarly substantive body, then it belongs in his article, maybe even in the lead. Uninvolved editors?MastCell ^Talk22:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast, MastCell. I was just getting warmed up. Take a look atHillary Clinton. Two sections with bold section headers on "Lewinskyscandal" (where Hillary wasn't even investigated and in fact was a victim) and "Whitewater and otherinvestigations" (where, like McCain, Hillary was exonerated). Then take a look at the October 2004 version ofGeorge W. Bush. Sixteen separate conjugations of the word "criticism." Looks like it was written by Josh Marshall. But you don't want to argue this here because it's mitigating evidence, right?WorkerBee74 (talk)23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct insofar as I don't want to argue this here.MastCell ^Talk23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably because you were losing the argument in rather spectacular fashion and you knew it was only going to get worse.WorkerBee74 (talk)12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why mastcell had to put emphasis on uninvolved right after 'thanking' me. If you don't want comments, don't ask for them. fatuous thanks and snide italics? go to hell.ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC) All due apologies.ThuranX (talk)00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - I did not mean to dismiss your comments in any way, only to solicitmore uninvolved input in addition to yours, rather than more argumentation from involved parties. I apologize for the misunderstanding.MastCell ^Talk23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mention the article devoted to this controversybriefly in the body of Obama's article, with a mention of the fact that despite all the "controversy", Obama has nothing in his past to suggest this sort of thing, and has condemned Ayers' past actions. This is a non-issue, but the fact that it is a non-issue can be documented, and should be.II | (t -c)22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The several previous ANI discussions about editorial conduct on the Obama page clearly do not resonate enough, and problems have still not ceased. I think we as a community have had enough of this drama. I propose the following restriction be enacted:

TheObama related-pages (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation. Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Obama pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator,the appropriate administrators' noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged atTalk:Obama/Article_probation#Log_of_sanctions.

Need community consensus to impose this. If it needs any tweaking, let me know.Ncmvocalist (talk)07:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The terms and conditions of article probation are already in effect. Admins Gamaliel and Rick Block are participating on a regular basis now; they're "involved" but they can call for other admins very quickly. What we have here, NMCV, is a group of editors who have developed marvelous expertise in what Die4Dixie accurately describes as "disagree/ provoke/ report" and what ThuranX described as one editor "revving up" the newbie so that others can report him. They engage in a constant stream of low-level provocation and baiting. False accusations are being used as substitute for a discussion of a proposed edit on its merits. Every trick and stratagem in the book is being used to block anything negative about Obama, and get rid of any editor who seeks to introduce it.

Don't reward this behavior.

One of them gave up an account of several years because he was afraid he was about to be outed as a Democratic Party operative. I suspect there are others who differ from him only in being more careful about concealing their Democratic Party links.WorkerBee74 (talk)13:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is completely inappropriate behavior for Wikipedia. You don't get to level accusation after accusation against other editors based on nothing but your own imaginings. If your present behavior is any indication, your previous problems were entirely because of your reaction to normal Wikipedia interaction. If you want to be a positive presence on Wikipedia, you must learn to play well with others, even if, especially if, they disagree with you.Gamaliel(talk)15:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong support --Clubjuggle/16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I heartily welcome such attention to the article. As someone who has been repeatedly berated by the involved editors as a "whiner", liar, etc., for participating on this noticeboard in a non-administrative capacity, I ask that we clarify that good-faith, plausible reports of editor misbehavior, SSP and checkuser requests, and other arenot impermissible assumptions of bad faith, but that taunting editors for their good faith participation in administrative discussionsis considered disruptive. Non-admins can be honest dealers too. Thanks,Wikidemo (talk)16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, casting aspersions (assumptions of bad faith) has been, and continues to be a major problem in this area. It is unacceptable for editors to continually make accusations in an attempt to besmirch another's reputation. Engaging in tendentious argument is also futile. Any concerns should be raised in the appropriate forums, if at all. (Eg; sock-puppetry accusations go as a checkuser request or toWP:SSP) If users have concerns about the continual filing of reports against an individual (should that happen) as if it were an act of harassment or something else, then they should pursueWP:DR. Accusations, attacks and the like are not to be scattered through article talk page discussions, as it further contributes to a toxic environment. The proposed article probation is intended (in spirit, if not by the letter) to tackle these sorts of issues as well.Ncmvocalist (talk)17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I support any measure that encourages users to play nice, but I'm wondering why we need probation for the article and why we don't just impose it on the particular troublesome user.Gamaliel(talk)17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the first user who has been troublesome there, and been subject to lengthy ANI discussions, blocks etc., and for some time to come at least, won't be the last one either. I think the proposed/new scheme should be more effective in dealing with any other problems/problem-users, both now and in the future.Ncmvocalist (talk)17:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, Isupport this suggestion.Gamaliel(talk)18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this suggestion as well, although how it differs from current practice will clearly need to be explained on the talk pages. I suggest we apply this to both the McCain and Obama pages. There don't seem to be quite as many problems on the McCain pages at this point but applying this to only the Obama pages would no doubt be characterized by some as evidence of a pro-Obama slant. --Rick Block(talk)21:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What previously required constant community consensus for each individual editing restriction can now be imposed at the discretion of an administrator. I'm not sure it can be extended to McCain pages in the absence of any major problems, like the Obama pages have encountered in the last 3 months. It's primarily intended to deal with editorial misconduct; an important BLP should not be subject to a toxic environment, especially for that long. But if the community wants to deal with both issues at the same time, I certainly do not have a problem with it.Ncmvocalist (talk)04:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. About time. Please give a warning first, except in egregious cases. I hope that at least several administrators get involved in this. Editors should understand that baiting/taunting/goading by someone else will not be considered an excuse for their own behavior. As FT2 has been saying recently, we're each responsible for our own behavior. I expect monitoring administrators to set a good example in their own communications and follow procedures to the letter -- otherwise you may start repelling good editors from the articles.Noroton (talk)02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I support (as noted, I'm not an admin). Gathering up thoughts from the above discussion could we include some or all of the following? "Except in egregious cases editors should receive at least one warning, or must otherwise be clearly aware (1) of the terms of this article probation, and (2) that their specific conduct is deemed problematic, before any administrative sanctions apply. A heightened standard of civility applies: editors should not on the talk page post comments that disparage or make accusations regarding each other's alleged biases, veracity, editing ability, conflicts of interest, status as legitimate editors, and so on, whether directly or indirectly, by name or by reference to groups or edit history. All commentary about editor behavior should be directed to appropriate dispute resolution forums, or a sub-page created to discuss edits on the talk page, which reports if made reasonably and in good faith are not considered to be in violation of the article probation." -Wikidemo (talk)04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not; the standard wording I've used for this remedy is sufficient.Ncmvocalist (talk)04:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the attention would be welcomed;however, the standard practices of civility etc. are more than adequate. I would suggest one warning from an uninvolved administrator to the talk page of a truly offending editor and than true sanctions starting with 24 hour topic blocks and escalating thereafter. I think most editors could use a clean slate there. I do think that the "friendly" warnings often do not serve to calm a situation, but rather to inflame. if we can get someone uninvolved in editing to watch, it would be warmly welcomed.Die4Dixie (talk)05:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)05:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The clean slate is okay, if only people will take advantage of it to get a fresh start. I think the concern isn't the occasional isolated lapse of temper but long-term low tension that's developed among editors. At the risk of too many rules we could ask that any official warnings under the probation system be left to uninvolved administrators.Wikidemo (talk)05:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm done here unless there are more suggestions.--Die4Dixie (talk)06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This idea is on the right track, but before officially supporting I'd like to see some input from admins who have experience with enforcing Arbcom sanctions, for example, admins who have logged any blocks or bans under Arbcom cases. The above proposal, though it does not come from Arbcom, has the flavor of those kind of sanctions. Also, whoever is going to impose those kind of restrictions will need to follow the Obama page night and day. Do we have admins willing to volunteer for such hazardous duty?EdJohnston (talk)18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think (I might be corrected if I'm wrong) there are 2 admins, Gamaliel and Rick Block, who are regularly looking at it (although, I don't think any admin in the world will want to do it as exhaustively as you've suggested :) nuh uh).Ncmvocalist (talk)19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Since both Gamaliel and Rick Block are active in participating in the discussions on that page, neither is likely to be in a position to do anything more than report problematic edits and comments -- just as any other editor would. Given Rick Block'sstatements to me on my talk page, I have no faith in his ability to step back from someone he disagrees with and give a fair assessment to an uninvolved admin. What we need are multiple, uninvolved admins who get a sense of what individual editors have been doing on those pages because they've been watching them regularly. MastCell has done some of that, but I haven't seen that admin comment on this section of the thread. In the past, some other admins have said they'd watch those pages, but I haven't seen evidence of that. This proposal of Ncmvocalist's will not work until we get what we've always needed: multiple, uninvolved, admin eyes aware of the context and attached to fingers willing to warn and block for clear misbehavior.Noroton (talk)21:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • There's a rub. Any administrator moderating the Obama pages will get drawn into content - and probably they should. We need moderation to handle POV pushing, accusations of bias or imbalance, reliable sourcing, weight issues, BLP vios, dealing with perennial proposals, keeping discussions on track, declaring a discussion closed or an edit to be with or without consensus, etc. Otherwise we don't solve the process problems that keep the article in an indefinite stasis while generating long heated talk page fights. Such a person can be fair and unbiased, but as soon as they tell an editor that their praise or derogatory comments about Obama are out of line, or issue a warning or administrative action, they're likely to be accused of taking sides or having an agenda. They end up in a war of words with the offending editor, trying just to justify their own actions, and so their neutrality is not accepted by everyone anymore. That's what seems to have happened with Gamaliel, Rick Block, and perhaps other administrators on the page. Noroton is clearly a serious, capable editor, and I think his questioning of Rick Block's neutrality and fairness is a fair, good faith concern - not that I agree necessarily, just that it's a fair question. I'll let people form their own opinions on the recent dispute between Gamaliel and WorkerBee74 on WB74's talk page.[33] How can one draw a distinction?Wikidemo (talk)22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pointers here left atPederasty#Australasia andUser_talk:Haiduc#Problems_with_a_recent_citation

I'll attempt to present only the facts here.

• 02:38, 23 July 2008 Aaron Brenneman (Talk | contribs | block) (77,173 bytes) (→Post-classical and modern forms: removed sections without references: Australasia, Central America, Europe) (undo)[39]
• 03:50, 23 July 2008 Haiduc (Talk | contribs | block) (81,803 bytes) (restored removed sections and added refs) (rollback | undo)[40]
• Upon reviewing the cited sourcehere I am unable to find support for the majority of the material.

I'd ask for a review of the source, of the material added, and of the comments that I've left in both places.brenneman05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that editing disputes did not belong on ANI. Am I missing something, here, or are you just trying to keep Haiduc so tied up he cannot edit properly?Jeffpw (talk)05:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. When an editor consistantly has problems with interpretation of sources (seeJules Verne talk as well) then this is an appropiate place to raise the concern. -brenneman05:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also just issued a warning[41] to Jeffpw. In my opinion he's been ratcheting up the heat across several venues, and is bordering on disruption. I'd welcome a opinions on this as well. -brenneman05:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is difficult. Editors who give even the appearance of advancing a pro-paedophilia POV have, historically, been given very little slack, for good reason. There has in the past been determined and wholly unacceptable abuse of Wikipedia for advocacy, and ArbCom has historically fast-tracked consideration of any such issues, and debated cases in private. I don't think Jeffpw is here predominantly to advocate paedophilia, but some of what he is doing has the strong appearance of militant activism, and he should be aware that this is one area where militant activism is particularly problematic, due to the potential impact on the reputation of the project. I think Jeffpw and Haiduc need to turn the heat down at least two notches and respect the fact that the default for disputed content is to keep it out of mainspace until there is agreement from all sides as to whether, and how, it should be included. The onus is always on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion - anythign else would be a POV-pusher's charter. In this case it is especially important to remember that consensus IS NOT agreement of a small group of like-minded users, it requires broad agreement from all sides, and additional input must be solicited if there are not enough eyes on the dispute.Guy(Help!)09:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Brenneman, you could not have found a more unsuitable instance to support your contention. The citation was applicable to the text, it was from an article that discussed the extinction of the very practices discussed in the paragraph (which, as you might notice, I modified to reflect this more recent report). It is an initial citation for a totally non-controversial section. Australasian pederasty is well known and documented, there is nothing to argue about there.
  • Guy, if I was a litigious fellow I would have you strung up by the authorities here for your slur of "pro-paedophilia POV." How do you permit yourself to cast ugly innuendoes on my work on homosexual history? Is this what administrators are supposed to spend their time doing???Haiduc (talk)11:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Read it again with more care. I saideven the appearance.Guy(Help!)12:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Jeffpw is here predominantly to advocate paedophilia, but some of what he is doing has the strong appearance of militant activism. Excuse me? I am not here to advocate for pedophilia at all, and I strongly resent the insuination that I am in any way doing so. If you look at my approx 10,000 edits, including one FA and 2 GAs, you'll see a minuscule percentage relating in any to pedophilism. I amanti-pedophilia, though I should not have to be forced to state this for the record.I have monitored the NAMBLA article against both pro and anti-pedo edits, to revert vandalism, and have dome the same on the Pederasty related articles.Brenneman has now threatened to block me for disruption if I continue to participate in what I see has been a civil manner. I feel threatened and intimidated by this post. And I feel besmirched by Guys quote above about my participation here. The atmosphere regarding this area of articles has become poisonous, indeed, and I do not think it is my doing at all. Is this what Wikipedia has come to?Jeffpw (talk)12:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I saidmilitant activism, I meant militant LGBT activism, not pro-paedophilia activism. There is a small overlap at the margins, and this is a key part of the problem.Guy(Help!)12:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit - no ec warning but post appeared here for some reason] I don't think that's what was meant by turning down the heat ;)Haiduc, I see nothing in the above post that accuses you of a pro-pedophilia bias. Guy was making a general observation about the need to be extra careful not to even give that impression when editing such controversial subjects.EyeSerene^talk12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, I think worrying about appearences rather than content isn't a great way to edit. If Jeff gets militant sometimes, well, maybe sometimeswe need that.Dev920 (Have a nice day!)12:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Appearances are very sensitive on this subject. Very sensitive.Guy(Help!)12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What 'we',Dev920? Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. The notion thatanyone is here to push an agenda makes me extremely uncomfortable (and, while I'm sure you weren't serious, your post does illustrate Guy's point about giving the impression of soapboxing, even unintentionally).EyeSerene^talk12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why have you linked to my name? (genuine question) And I get that people do get all icky over pederasty, but it's not pedophilia. And neither Haiduc or Jeff is a pedophile, they are long, long established editors with an interest in editing pederasty. They really shouldn't have to worry about being accused of a pro-pedo slant, their cumulative efforts here surely show that this isn't the case.Dev920 (Have a nice day!)12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I just copy/pasted it from your post in edit view (now you've pointed it out though, I've realised I do that pretty much at random - I didn't, for example, withGuy. No idea why!). However, I think the point being made was not relating to pedophilia so much as militancy in other areas, to the point where it becomes difficult to accept edits in good faith because they give the impression of being decided by a personal agenda. This can be true of any group: LGBT, animal rights, nationalist, religious... the list is endless. I think appearancesdo matter because of this, and it's difficult to claim neutrality if we aren't seen to be behaving that way.EyeSerene^talk13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Because emotions run high in editing theHistorical pederastic couples article, it's difficult to pinpoint the fault of a single editor. One the one hand, I agree that the citations need to be immaculate and notes should be extensive. However, editors who are either unhappy with the outcome of the AfD or eager to see the article make vast improvements in a small amount of time, are removing content and claiming the sources do not back up the claims when I doubt they have read the sources. Then it rather dissolves into arguing over actions rather than content. I know I have not read the sources, so I am unable to make commentary on them. I have been questioned about content in other articles I have written, though, and when that happens I find my source and copy the passage I used verbatim on the talk page and discuss it there. What might help is ifHaiduc posts a timeline or an estimate of how far he thinks he will get in improving the article in a reasonable amount of time. --Moni3 (talk)12:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I just want to state clearly here that, due to the level of intimidation I am feeling(On Haiduc's talk page, Brenneman actually implies that I will be banned if I continue participating), and the threat of blockage for supporting another Wikipedia under attack from all sides, I am now withdrawing myself entirely from any of these debates. Call me a coward, but I am under enough stress without adding to is by trying to help a disputed article. I shall now confine my edits toMary Poppins orThe Sound Of Music....oh wait, they involve children too. Damn. OK, I'll just try to tidyAngie Dickinson's bio. That shouldn't provoke any storms of controversy. If it does, I'll just give wiki smiles to all and sundry. Wiki cheer promotes a collegial environment, no?Jeffpw (talk)12:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think we all need to take a deep breath and step back for a while. Take the disputed content out of the article, leave it on the talk page, and all just do something else for 48 hours. There's an essay jsut created atWP:TABOO which makes a lot of sense in this context.Guy(Help!)14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • There is no reason to stop now, and I think the solution is to focus our attention more closely on what is really going on. It is not pedophilia that neeeds to be exposed here, but intimidation. I feel bullied by Brenneman's behaviour, and while my feelings are between me and my analyst, unfortunately there are objective reasons for my reaction. His gutting of the Hpc article and his belligerent response to my restoration of the Tilden entry are ample evidence, as is his even more troubling equivocation and sparring over my exposure of his behavior. The "appearance of pedophilia" accusation above was more fuel on that particular fire. It is a particularly insidious attack in that there is no defense against it, like Bush's assuring the American public that there is nothing to worry about at Guantanamo because they are all bad guys. Truthiness, welcome to Wikipedia. I am not good at chapter-and-verse polemics, so I will leave it at that. I do want to add that it seems that the suite of pederasty articles is like some sort of glue trap for sub-standard administrators (FCYTravis and Brenneman are just some of the more egregious examples) who come in and act abusively. I can only ask you people to monitor yourselves, and each other.Haiduc (talk)15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Apropos of this conversation, please noteTalk:Historical_pederastic_couples#Details_of_Haiduc.27s_mischaracterization_of_DeFord, discussing Haiduc's mischaracterization of Frank DeFord's book "The Triumphs and the Tragedy", andthis talk page, where Haiduc triumphantly cites Cocteau being "devastated" at the death of his friend as strong evidence that he must have been having a sexual relationship with him. This editor has a problem accurately summarizing sources, and it is negatively affecting many, many articles.Nandesuka (talk)14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jeez, that smells ofWP:OR for sure. But I return to my point above: disputed text out of mainspace and onto talk, and everybody step back for 48 hours. If necessary we should lock down talk for a while, just to make it happen, I believe. There are too many trees for the wood to be evident, and I think some space is required.Guy(Help!)14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Don't put words in my mouth, Nandesuka. You have a problem with objectivity and the mischaracterization ofmy edits.Haiduc (talk)15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• You say? I don't see any evidence of Nandesuka having an agenda here. You've been open about yours, which is much appreciated, but your expressed agenda means that you need to be especially sensitive to the concerns of other editors who do not share your minority perspective, perWP:NPOV. Valid concerns have been politely expressed by editors in good standing, regarding your interpretation of sources. In this case I strongly recommend that you present your sources on talk, and wait to see whether there is consensus to support your interpretation. Agitating for what looks to a number of people like anovel synthesis is likely to cause you trouble.Guy(Help!)16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Y'know, I think that Guy has got it exactly right? What we are seeing here, once the clouds of suspicion, accusation and counter accusation regarding pederasty/homophobia is lifted, is a classic case ofWP:BRD. We are at the stage where discussion, and therefore consensus, is required before the bold (which is another persons "controversial") content can be included. While we are taking the simple route to dispute resolution, can I just remind participants of the nutshell ofWP:NPA; "Comment on content, and not contibutors."? It may be wise, as suggested earlier, to commence the discussion after a suitable period to allow all parties to engage civilly.LessHeard vanU (talk)19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm mostly surprised that so much on the topic is on here at all. Most of the 'sources' attribute a modern label to ancient social behaviors, allowing both sides to push and pull on the articles to validate either 124th trimester abortions for all offenders, or to validate their molestations. Few editors seem able to keep the articles balanced, but it's fairly uniform that a modern perspective on this mess is the perspective. We would have a lot less hassle of the articles were restricted to using only sources contemporary to any part which use the term pederasty, thus placing emphasis on the modern issue, not on allegations that it's all normal because it's been going on for years (despite ancient cultures being very different than ours), or that it's all deviant because some tragedy befell the culture as divine punishment.(and good luck sourcing that shit.) Tighten up what's permitted on those articles, and you'd have a lot less trouble. I'm not sure the Egyptians had a hieroglyph for pederast, much less a body of scholarship on the matter.ThuranX (talk)21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep assuming that pederasty = molestation though, and that it follows that an article detailing specific pederastic relationships thus justfies molestation - and it doesn't... it merely offers instances of pederastic relationships...

As to terminology, the Anglo-saxons didn't have words for cornea, the appendix, or nephrons, but if there were an ardicle listing the timeline of appendectomy including instances from before it was commonly called the appendix, we'd still be saying that it was the appendix and the operation an appendectomy.Crimsone (talk)00:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So there are Greek and Egyptian writings on the molestation and predatory behaviors of pederasty in those cultures? Great. Please cite those sources. And no, have you read the list? It's all about the glorious and eternal love blah blah blah between a molester and his victim in some cases, and turning some other "normal" relationships INTO pederasties to augment the size and scope of the perversion.ThuranX (talk)01:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No... I've not read the list... however, pedastry is niether molestation or predatory by definition. Pedastry, by definition, refers to romantic/erotic involvement regardless of whether it involves sexual contactor not. It also primarily refers to and is defined by the emotional context of a relationship, not the physical context. It's a perfectly valid term, and a perfectly encyclopedic subject. How about you "getting real" per your edit summary comment (not the most civil of comments)... suggesting some manner of delusion or fantasy land on the part of another editor is hardly becoming of you (or so I would hope). As to ancient writings, I don't know about the Egyptians, but I do know that it's a historical fact that man/boy relationships were commonplace in ancient Greece, and prior to that, the neighboring Spartans legally sanctioned and required them as part of a boy's development. They weren't always sexual (some were), though many involved a romantic bond. You're welcome to dismiss that, but to tell the truth, I can't be bothered to go looking for sources for a commonly known historical fact in order to satisfy someone who's already demonstrated and inclination to dismiss quite civil and reasoned articles based on actual definition and complete neutrality with such offensive remarks as "get real". Chances are, given your current style of communication, whatever the source it won't be good enough for you. Especially if it doesn't use the term pederasty precisely, in spite of my prior logical argument of analogy. I don't need to read the article to see it being attacked in its entireity from a POV that ignores the definition of the articles subject in favour of calling the subject something it isn't.Crimsone (talk)01:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for not reading my comment clearly. If you have copies of the Spartan decrees requiring such, then you could use that in the Pederasty article, perhaps. However, if it was required, that sounds like an apprenticeship than a true romantic connection. You keep missing my point. Pederasty is a modern label for a behavior which in some cultures is not pederasty, but the normal course of behavior. Pederasty is specifically NOT normal behavior. If it was, we wouldn't need a list of such relationships. IF you can find ancient greek writings about the cultural behavior, you could cite those. You could cite the Spartan law. But you should NOT be using modern assignments of value, 'pederasty', to describe ancient cutlures' takes on relationships.ThuranX (talk)02:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I missed no point, nor do I do so regularly, Pederasty is not a value term... it's a word with a definition... ie, it gives a name to a very specific object/subject. To quote myself, having said it once already... "As to terminology, the Anglo-saxons didn't have words for cornea, the appendix, or nephrons, but if there were an ardicle listing the timeline of appendectomy including instances from before it was commonly called the appendix, we'd still be saying that it was the appendix and the operation an appendectomy"Crimsone (talk)10:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there's a difference. And you keep missing it. However, I get tired of arguing with POV pushers, especiallty those who push the worst behaviors as normal. So I'm done debating with you, you keep arguing that child molestation is normal, and good luck with that.ThuranX (talk)19:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there's not a difference. The difference in it's discussion is merely that you are ascribing a negative value to a defined term that the term in itself does not carry. Actually, I'm not the one throwing around offensive and charged terms and accusations, and so before you continue do do so, I rather think it might be wise to look at the typical symptoms of POV pushing. Civility isn't one of them. Incivility most certainly is. I have said or done nothing to suggest that I either believe that child molestation is normal, or that I advocate in favour of that view. Put simply, I don't.Crimsone (talk)20:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First, read up on the 'Civil POV Push'. the essay link's around somewhere. Second, assigning a modern value to ancient cultures to validate touching kids isn't how things should be done here. Unfortunately, Civil POV pushers have pushed too many of our articles into validations of child rape and other criminal acts.ThuranX (talk)21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) *Sigh* perhaps it is... it doesn't alter the fact that my approach is from an entirely NPOV standpoint though. Pederasty isn't a value... like Appendix, it's a term with a definition. Events and occurances of the ancient world fit that definition, thus are namd by that term... a tree is a tree in whaetever century. Aditionally, it validates nothing. It merely says that it happened, which it did. Once again, Pederaty does not equate to, nor is it defined by molestation. No physical contact has to occur in a relationship, and it can still be legitimately defined as pederastic. The only way to NOT push a POV on this subject, is to view the term for what it is and how it's actually defined. Nor can it be equated to pedophilia by it's definition. If I saw a man of 30 touching up a boy of 12, whther pederastic or not, I'd call the police because it's not acceptable in today's society, and I'd find it disgusting... However, I wouldn't protest a university for holding an academic seminar on "perderasty through time - from ancient greece to the modern western world". To describe a man-boy relationship as perderastic, regardless of whether sex (consentual or otherwise) or not, in any century or culture, is correct per the definition of the word. The POV here is not on my part, but on your assignment of a negative value judgement to a defined and legitimate term, which by nature of being nothing other than a term is inherently neutral apart from the value assignments people such as you seem to believe the term automatically holds. It's a noun, and not even a pejorative at that - as such, it cannot hold or relate to such values.

I've answered every point you have served and refuted it with clear logic and neutrality. The point you seem to think I've missed is related to the value judgement that you are making on the basis of the termpederasty itself. I've addressed that here, though no doubt you'll once again say "but it's about molesting kids!" or some such thing, which you've done fairly consistently so far. In terms of incivility, you could only really go one step further which would mean a personal attack, such is your level of misconduct. The fact is, language changes, and academia claimes and defines new terms all the time - and being as they are, just words of language - descriptors of type, they apply centuries ago just as they do in the modern day - they are how we now name things, and it's really that simple.Crimsone (talk)21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a simple as what I said. Using modern lenses to examine and judge ancient things to promote a modern agenda. It's a lame way to write an encyclopedia, and using simple object nouns to refute the use of a word which has an inherent value judgment to it, one diffused by your own 'Sparta' example, in which it's an obligation not a romantic behavior, is disingenuous. This article's got massive problems, and assigning a modern value judgment, like Pederasty, to ancient cultural norms, is manipulative agenda pushing.ThuranX (talk)23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I'm not familiar with the subject, I have no idea what's a reliable source, but there seem to beenough books that apply the word to ancient Greece, and theAmerican Heritage Dictionary of the English Language shows that the etymology of the word is Greek:[42] Whether or not the ancient Greeks used the word "paiderastes", it seemsverifiable enough that it can be applied to their behavior. --NE200:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, NE2, I thank you for being clear and direct. That accounts for one situation, now on to all the other value judgments assigning a modern concept to ancient behaviors. One down, dozens to go.ThuranX (talk)03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for it being a modern concept? --NE203:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is clearly a modern word, circa 1736,merriam-webster. While this is hardly a definative source, this example appears to indicate the level of scholarship taking place here: We shouldn't be trying to score points with cheap shots that take less than five minutes research to disprove. No amount of retconning will change the fact that theterm is a new one, even if it encompases behaviours that have been going on since day dot. more to the point, it's a word that comes with an incredible amount of baggage, in the vein of terrorist/rebel/freedom fighter. -brenneman03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So the English word is from 1736, but that says nothing about the concept or the Greek word "paiderastes". Again, I have no idea if this is a reliable source, but there's a translation of a writing byPhilo in[43], in which the word "pederasty" is used. --NE204:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This appears to be the original text by Philo, with παιδεραστής (paiderastes) highlighted. (But, since I don't know Greek, I can't confirm that it's not a modern recipe for calamari.) --NE204:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to and in this case, do AGF and all that, but language changes over time, and as a book travels through history, it's likely, in most cases, to be... adapted? mutated? changed? however you like it, but I can only think ofone documented case where a modern copy exhibited almost zero change when compared to the most ancient copies.ThuranX (talk)06:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what your argument here is. You stated that people are "assigning a modern value to ancient cultures", but here it's clearly (assuming the sources are reliable) an ancient concept. --NE215:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Brenneman gets it, and so do you, but you won't admit it. A word invented less that 300 years ago to discuss 3000 year old behaviors isn't appropriate. Unfortunately, Brenneman's source trumps yours, because yours could have been adulterated inthe last 2000+ years. This isn't like 'apple' for a fruit the greeks ate, but we use 'apple' cause it's the english language equivalent. There's a fat stack of SYNTh and OR to assume that a social obligation in Sparta is the same as a 'voluntary romantic relationship', and you've yet to demonstrate that the social obligation of the Spartans was called Pederasty by the Spartans. EVEN if you could, you'd still ahve to demonstrate that the Spartans were able to 'romance on command', and that pederasty in the modern sense, and the spartan pederasty, IF that's what it was equal to, really were the same thing; a duty to train young men and a desire to bone them are different.ThuranX (talk)16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the sources I gave?Philo, writing at the time of the birth of Christ, talks about the "evil [that] has crept into society, namely, pederasty". He uses the Greek word παιδεραστής (paiderastes). I don't know how you can look at that and say that the concept of "pederasty" is a new one. --NE219:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No Thuran... my Sparta example diffuses nothing... The history shows it to have been an obligation, and it also shows the relationships to have more often than not to have been or have become romantic in nature. Pederasty is not a value jusdgement. Pederast is a noun, and pederasty is applied form of the noun. Niether are value jusdgements, and that's just the way the English language works. It's a legitimate term in academic study with a specific meaning. NE2 above has gone to the level which I had not the time for, and has actually even gone so far as to offer the ancient greek etymology of the term, describing the relationships at the time in the language of the ancient greeks themselves.Crimsone (talk)00:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to refocus discussion by re-iterating the claims made in the section and comparing them to what is found in the source cited.

• Melanesian cultures employed insemination ritessource covers Gebusi of Papua New Guinea, but on this point as it is non-contentious there is some leeway
  • Sperm essence of strengthsurprisingly this seemingly straight-forward claim is not supported by the citation.
  • Not spontaneous but must be introducedunsupported by reference
• 20% Papua-New Guinean of cultures had these ritesunsupported by reference
• Mentoring
  • Father, mother's young adult brother chooseunsupported by reference
  • Educating, guiding into manhoodunsupported by reference
• Fatherhood
  • First two kids ok to "mentor"unsupported by reference
  • After that had to quit itunsupported by reference
• Casual relationships existedthis is supported by the reference, however
  • Boy had to be recipient(?) I don't even know what this means. Is this a euphemism?
  • Growth could be damagedspecifically refuted by reference
• Homo/Bi/Hetero cycleunsupported by reference

I've seen H's referencing described as “careless and garbled.” I'd say that is as generous an interpretation as it is possible to make. In the example given, even the least contentious claim is mostly unsupported by the citation, and at least one claim is directly refuted by it.

H's creative use of sourcing, combined with abject unwillingness to accept any other interpretation of sources, is damaging the encyclopaedia. Frankly, had I come across this situation "fresh" I'd have blocked him outright to prevent any further damage. I'd support a topical ban (at the very least) until H can be made to understand why his novel sourcing is a problem and some way can be found to allow him to contribute positively.

brenneman02:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Brenneman, you are doing far more damage to this encyclopedia than I ever could. The density of citations that you are suggesting is found inwhat percentage of the articles??? And why are you so focused on the bizarre practices of an extinct society of what have been described as "homicidal banana farmers?" The material is there to illustrate the gamut of homosexual/pederastic constructions, not to recommend the practice to present-day do-it-yourselfers.
To my eye your contrived "denunciation" coupled with your previous belligerent behavior are indicative of one thing and one thing only: you do not like pederasty and are out to make it as hard as possible to cover the topic. I thinkyou should be subjected to a topical ban, you have given ample proof of an inability to be impartial.Haiduc (talk)03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand the problems that Aaron has highlighted with your sourcing with respect to this particular example? Do you have any explanation for those discrepencies?Nandesuka (talk)03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The "problems" are blown out of all proportion, this is a case of lese majeste made out of whole cloth. The paragraph in question was written by me in May 2005, when we did not yet focus as strongly on citations as we do now, or at least I was not aware of it. If this was the only uncited paragraph in all Wikipedia I would feel a lot more contrite about it. As it is not, I simply have to lump it with the other several million uncited paragraphs, and certainly it needs references. It would be a lot more useful to the readers if it did. At some point it will. This very instant in time I seem to be spending more time talking to other editors then doing useful work, not a good situation.
However, the material as presented is essentially correct and legitimate. It is based mainly on the work of Gilbert Herdt, of whom you have certainly heard, seeing your familiarity with the topic. The material is utterly uncontroversial in the academic sense. So why is everybody getting so agitated? Do you think I made it up? Do you think I prettied it up? Do you think I added it with prescriptive intentions?
I'll offer you a challenge, both of you: If the material does not prove to be largely as I have written, I leave Wikipedia for a year. If, on the other hand, it is largely as I have said,you both leave Wikipedia for a year. Deal?Haiduc (talk)04:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The density of citation is what is required of Featured Articles. Furthermore, just about all of the sentences arehighly controversial statements and need to be verified. Cheers,Casliber (talk·contribs)04:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc, it seems to me that the mature solution would be to remove the material yourself, stick it on a userspace sub-page for now, then add it back in when you've tracked down the references. Does it really matter if a few days or weeks pass by without it in the article? And of course, if you don't manage to reference it, it should never have been there in the first place.EyeSerene^talk07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

While I've been attempting to be a politic as possible here, the direct question has been been asked: "Do you [brenneman] think I [Haiduc] prettied it up?" Well, in a word, yes. I've been unable to locate a copy of the particular Herdt work I beleive that you're caliming this material is based upon. I have however found a large number of other papers thatcite that paper, and they consistanly quote Herdt as saying that "from 10 to 20 percent" of cultures practiced RH. "Ten to twenty percent of all tribes in Melanesia -- an Oceania region stretching 3,000 miles from Irian Jaya to Fiji -- have mandatory "boy-inseminating" practices, claims Herdt." That it was chosen instead to be a bald 20% in the article is, if we may be frank, "pretty-ing up." I have been methodically examining the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong. (As in the case above where the source directly contradicted the claim in the article.) All material that'sall material, added by this user should be removed from articles until such citations as there are can be confirmed. -brenneman07:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Locateda direct source "Sambia Sexual Culture: Essays from the Field By Gilbert H. Herdt" where as predicted it says "...age-structured homoeroticism occurs in approximately 10 to 20 percent of Melanesian societies." -brenneman07:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaron, I looked through that reference and I don't see any sort of deception here. I see a reference which supports a good portion of the text it was added to. Do you disagree that there were statements in the removed text, not included in your list above, which clearly WERE supported by the reference? Do you disagree that the reference clearly does describe youths having homosexual relationships and then transitioning to purely heterosexual relationships... essentially the 'Homo/Bi/Hetero cycle' which you call unsupported?

It seems like you are saying Haiduc needs to immediately bringeverything he has ever written on Wikipedia, going back to 2004, up to the level of citations required for featured articles... or it should all be removed. Because he wrote 20% and you found other sources which had '10 to 20 percent'? It isn't possible that he originally (when he wrote it a couple of years ago) got that from some source which DID say 20%?

As I understand it, most of the statements in that passage aren't even controversial. Nobody is denying that it is largely correct... it just needs more references and a few wording adjustments to note estimates and differences of opinion in the field (e.g. growth stunting or not). Right? --CBD08:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is a good idea to indulge improper behavior. It does not go away on its own, but if unchecked it becomes more widespread and serious as time goes on. It also corrupts the environment in which we work here. For my part I certainly do not want to function as an enabler. Brenneman's statement that "the citations added by this user andin almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong" [emphasis mine], taken in the context of his previous behavior and statements to date, amounts to defamation and harassment. I request that the matter be investigated (take my last 100 citations, for example) and if they are largely not as described by this gentlemen, that he be formally disciplined.Haiduc (talk)11:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

CBD, the problem is that this is an ongoing and continuing behavior. It's aggravated by Haiduc often preferring fringe over mainstream sources. See the discussion onTalk:Jean Cocteau for one good example of this, where he completely ignores the authoritative biographies on Cocteau. But even when he cites a mainstream source, he tends to mischaracterize -- as in his selective quoting of Frank DeFord's bookBig Bill Tilden, where through cut-and-paste he manages to construct a paragraph suggesting an ongoing relationship and a sympathetic defendant by selecting disparate sentences from a chapter where DeFord unambiguously paints a picture of a squalid assignationm and a legal case that can only be described as a horrific train-wreck. When discussing this on article talk pages, instead of coming clean, Haiduc tends to double his bets down. In the DeFord case, for example, he suggests that he and I "just have different readings" of DeFord. In fact, absolutely no one who comprehends English could possibly read DeFord and then claim that DeFord suggests that Tilden had "long term loving relationships"; the author devotesan entire chapter to demonstrating the exact opposite. If we were only talking about a few old citations that would be one thing. But this is a continuing pattern of behavior, and I see no signs of improvement over time.Nandesuka (talk)12:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A sterling example of straw man argumentation. My reply must await the end of the business day.Haiduc (talk)12:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

CBD, it seems to me that Brenneman makes clear that he checked the source Haiduc DID use, and the source Haiduc used said something other than what Haiduc represented it to say. Given that, and given the highly controversial topic here,any statement not supported completely transparently by a source should be immediately removed. Any statement for which the source is questioned should be removed to the talk page until it can be sorted out, and in any case where a problem continues, it should be held off the article page until settled.ThuranX (talk)23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, you seem not to understand that Ialso checked the source Haiduc used and disagree with the claim that it was deceptive. Indeed, my first concern on comparing the source to the article text was that it might stray close to plagiarism, given the presence of some exactly matched phrasing. That source DOES support the text it was added to. More sources are needed, but sourcing beingincomplete is completely different than sourcing being 'deceptive'. Removing contested statements without sufficient sources to the talk page IS, as you say, the proper course. But then... most of these statements AREN'T contested (just '20%' instead of '10 to 20 percent' so far as I know)and theyweren't moved to the talk page for discussion. Just removed.(confused this with one of the other complaints) --CBD00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I did understand. Haiduc is playing games with the statistics. Would you rather pay 10% or 20% of your earnings in taxes? When the source says 10-20%, and Haiduc selectively reports the higher end only, it's damn close to a POV push, and a certain misrepresentation of the source material. It's the sort of statistical pick-and-choosing one sees in polemics, editorials, and other persuasive essays and opinion pieces. Haiduc should either report what he finds only, without editing to his agenda or POV, and nothing else.ThuranX (talk)03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I haven't investigated the incidents that Aaron Brenneman and Nandesuka are talking about, but I've seen Haiduc's contributions in many articles dealing with classical antiquity, and his work there is fine--both the quality of sources and the representations of them. So statements such as "the citations added by this user andin almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong" are overblown, and calls to remove all of Haiduc's contributions a bit on the hysterical side.--Akhilleus (talk)16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe that this is an any way difficult: We have a serious problem with a prolific editor who is chronically unable to attribute material correctly. And this is not someone making up things for articles on profesional wrestling or sea turtles: This is a highly contentious, hot button issue. While I am unaffected, there is signifigant reputational risk here if we do not correct the problem now that it has been identified.

1) My original statement was"I have been methodically examining the citations added by this user and in almost every case they are selective, misrepresentative, or simply wrong." That statement is correct: In every case where I have been able to actually locate the source, the information bears little or no resemblance. I'm happy for a workshop page to be created somewhere and a working party go through them with me.

2) The "FAC" line of reasoning was created from whole cloth, and was never in any suggestion that I made. I'm not a member of the "every phrase cited" brigade. I'm happy with a single citation per paragraph (or even less) as long as there is accurate representation.

I'm dumbfounded by CBDunkerson's claim that the citation supports "mostly" the claims. I made some effort to show that it did not, and in places that it directly refuted what was claimed. I'd ask CBD to re-read my comments above: I did not find "another source," I found the source that H claims supports the statement. It, likeliterally every other time I have attempted to verify his claims, was a misrepresentation. If, as Akhilleus suggests, this author has done acceptable work elsewhere let him return to that, per the topical ban I initially suggested.
brenneman00:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear! I'm a bit more strict about it than Aaron, apparently, because I'm advocating that ANY contentious statment be pulled till separately sourced, but Aaron has provided examples of the disingenuous sourcing occurring, and there should be a topic ban for that editor, and any like him (her/it).ThuranX (talk)00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaron, when putting something in quotation marks (e.g. "mostly") and attributing it to someone... it is generally good for that to be something the person has actually said. Which... I didn't. What I said was that the source supports a 'good portion' of the text in question. I didn't do a mathematical analysis of the paragraphs preceding and following the reference to determine the percentage supported (presumably would need over 50% for 'mostly'). Should I accuse you of 'deceptive sourcing'? Seems more like minor sloppiness not worth making much of a fuss over... which is also how I see the examples of Haiduc's 'crimes'. He said 20% instead of 10 to 20? You say he cited the source you found... but I didn't see that source attached to the text in the article. Are you sure that was his source? The source I DID see him citing actually matched part of the article text word for word... which isn't good either, but certainly doesn't jive with it NOT supporting the text. In another 'case' he said that two people had a sexual relationship because they went to dinner, played tennis together, met at one's school, and oh yeah fondled each other's privates a few times... 'sexual relationship'? Completely insupportable on that evidence. It was just a relationship, which happened to include sex (unless we're going to get Clintonesque on the definition). Or the other one where it was completely unjustified to cite a source as claiming a relationship JUST because that source said one person was devastated over the death of the other... except that the source didn't say JUST that... it also said that they had a "romantic relationship". My take on the 'case' as I've seen it is that Haiduc's citations are not perfect in covering every clause of every sentence with no possibility of dispute or alternate interpretation... but they also don't seem like the nefarious deceits which seem to be being claimed. --CBD01:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Quotation_marks#Irony. Barring that tangent, I'm confused by your claims. While this is a trivial example, chosen from an extensive list of incorrect citations:

• The text said "about 20%" with no citation
• I removed it
• H added it back, with a citation
• I looked at that citation, it said nothing of the sort
• H claimed here that that figure was fromanother source
• I found that source, and it says "from 10% to 20%"

Fine, let us characterise this as simple "sloppiness." (Your choice of polarising language like 'crimes' is unhelpful as well, but I digress.) It's not a single instance of "sloppiness" it's a continuing series of misattributions or misreadings. Let's move on to your "relationship" example, Tilden and Bobby.

• Per the source:
  • One dinner together,
  • Played tennis together once,
  • One hand-job in the car that got them arrested.
• Per H:He was clearly Tilden's boyfriend, even if of recent vintage. Tilden had a number of long term loving relationships with boys and there is no reason to suspect that, had these two not been busted, this might not have evolved in a similar direction.

I've been very careful to provide evidence for every statement I've made, and attempted to break down the problem here very carefully. Please bespecific when making counter claims. And moving on to one of your claims, that it "matched part of the article text word for word."

• From the text H added:"...some native tribes (about 20% at the end of the twentieth century, a proportion that has since been reduced to vestigial and moribund remnants as contacts with foreigners caused western morals to become prevalent)..."
• From the actual source:"A case study of striking change among the Gebusi of Papua New Guinea suggests that ritualized homosexuality and insemination of boys have become behaviorally vestigial or moribund andthat characterizing sexual practices in these terms has been difficult to begin with (as the original proponent of these terms has himself suggested)."

It's clear that, as Nandesuke makes refernce to, a cut-and-pastiche approach has been taken, using the highest figure from one source combined with a snippet of text from another, and leaving out utterly the caveat that I've emboldened. I'd encourage anyone wishing to weigh in to this debate to actually take the time to look over the talk pages of these various articles to familiarise themselves with the issues at greater depth.
brenneman02:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)