This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Protonk (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 25 June 2008 (→Continued incivility of User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

User:Landon1980

• Landon1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user began by editing the Undoeraoth Article against a consensus. The user keeps removing "Christian" label off of bands that classify themselves as being a "Christian band" simple because he thinks that means their religion, not music. Wikiedpia's articles on Christian rock, Christian metal, and Christian music all say otehrwise. He brought the conflict to my user page, and then went on to say I was being uncivil myself. I admit, I haven't kept my cool (because the pages that are being edited have had previous consensus to keep the Christian label and they didn't edit accordingly). I tried to tell him that a Christian band plays Christian music (as common sense would tell), but he refused and went on to edit my user talk page with "I don't understand you at all, isn't it about time for you to convert back over to atheism anyways?" I am highly offended by this, I don't think it's right or even civil to tell someone something like that. I told him to stay off but... I highly doubt he will. He isn't the only one to do this, as there are two others, but at least they have been civil about this. Please resolve this. There isn't a Chrsitian Metal wikiproject and a Christian metal category for nothing. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IronCrow, you are the only one who has been really uncivil , complaining about everything, and getting really angry and frustrated because no one seems to support your point of view (As we can see here ) you have even tried to bring people into the discussion to support your point of view . You have also tried to be the victim all the time, giving apologies to people that has edited the Underoath and As I Lay Dying articles, like if articles can not be changed, or something can not be argueable. And, let's not forget you have accused us of sockpuppetry (and it's not the first time he do that : ) Seems like you can not stand people with other point of view of what you think of a "Christian band" is. Admins, please read the whole discussion before taking any actions, here and here --Kmaster (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add two cents here if I may. IrønCrøw is a major contributor to the Misplaced Pages's articles on Christian rock, Christian metal, and Christian music and to cite them in support of an arguement here, or to claim some sort of consenses, amounts to nothing more than saying he says so. That is not support in favor of a position but spamming to win an argument. It's self-righteousness at its very worst. Personally, what I'm seeing here is a wiki member using music to cram christianity down people's throats whether it's appropriate to a topic or not. Unless a band is singing in the choir on Sunday mornings, anybody would be hard-pressed to prove they are anything but makers of secular music. And let's not forget that promoting an agenda is NOT music, it's politics, even if that agenda is Christianity. The inquisition failed a thousand years ago. Don't let IrønCrøw breathe new life into it here on Misplaced Pages. Willie --216.8.171.242 (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I should start by supplying all the diffs of IronCrow speaking in all caps, calling me silly, ridiculous, a sock puppet, lacking viability, "we are all adults, I hope," etc., but I'm not going to. I also want to say that I never said that Christian bands did not play Christian music. What I said was a bands genre is what kind of music they play, and that just because band members are Christians it doesn't mean they play Christian music. My opinion is if a band is metalcore they play metalcore music, if a band is 'Christian rock' they play Christian rock music, etc. The whole conflict is over the As I Lay Dying (band) and Underoath articles: We all agree that Christian has nothing to do with their genre, and that they are both metalcore bands. Well myself and two other editors feel the lead sentence should describe the band in genre related terms like all the other articles, deeming them a metalcore band, rather than a Christian metalcore band. We moved the fact the band members are all Christians into the second sentence so it wouldn't confuse readers by making them think they were a 'Christian metalcore' band rather than a metalcore band. I realize that a lot of Christian bands play Christian music, but that is when 'Christian______' is their genre. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a bands genre the kind of music they play? Does the fact they are Christians make it Christian music instead of metalcore? Landon1980 (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• If they're Christians, then they fall under the category of 'Christian persons' or something to that effect that has been used as a category by the relevant WikiProjects - in effect, this is a biographical detail. If they play music that is on Christianity (Gospel music might be a good example), then they can be called 'Christian bands' or 'Christian metal band' or whatever. If they don't play on/about Christianity, then they are not Christian bands - even if as individuals, they may follow Christianity. If you need me (or someone else) to explain this better, OK, but the rest can be resolved among yourselves - both of you need to retract your incivilities (wherever made - by striking through them) and move on. If this is not possible, then please state why not here, because it should be simple to do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Landon1980 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anything about the debate, but I agree with everything Kmaster has said. IronCrow is the only one being uncivil, constantly typing in caps and acting like we just committed a crime and are denying it. He even said he was pissed off at us. I was going to cite examples of this but looks like Kmaster already got the major ones. — Error 03:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Blaxthos

• Blaxthos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Blaxthos has on multiple pages accused me of being a POV warrior. This has been recognized by admin third party user User:Jaysweet as being a baseless charge. Blaxthos additionally has misused the admin noticeboard, taking a dispute with me there when this would've been the appropriate spot, seemingly in an attempt to intimidate me. This is not the first time this user has misused wikipedia administration tools: there, he stalked and wrongfully reported a user who he'd had a longstanding disagreement with. It was recognized as a wrongful report and dismissed. The root of this disagreement is Blaxthos' uncooperative editing, specifically on the What Happened page. I will copy and paste the crux of the dispute from the admin noticeboard page:

After the initial inclusion of Dole's widely reported letter, Blaxthos removed the edit, asserting that it violated SPS. . Note that this was an incorrect reading of SPS, as I later pointed out in the discussion. When I found a source that in no way violated SPS, Blaxthos removed the entire section (which, to me, constitutes blanking).

Now, you'll notice here that Blaxthos was accepting the inclusion of Dole's letter and the selected other notable responses, saying that as long as McClellan's subsequent response was included, it would constitute a neutral point of view. I objected to this logic, but with no other people offering comments, I let the issue die, as did Blaxthos. We had reached an agreement...

UNTIL Mr. McClellan began his testimony before Congress. Then, without notice, Blaxthos proceeded to unilaterally edit out the section HE had agreed to , along with the language that we had likewise reached an agreement on, terming it "sneaky POV.".

Blaxthos subsequently took to calling me a "POV warrior" in his talk page, in the discussion page of the article, and now on here. This is rather reckless on his part and I am glad to see that this has been recognized as a false claim.

I do not know why Blaxthos is persisting in this campaign against me, and I will not speculate to why he suddenly, surreptitiously subverted our earlier agreed upon text. I am disappointed by his continued spurious claims and hostile attitude.

I did not wish to take this further than civil discussion, but since Blaxthos has been hostile and has resorted to misreporting this on the admin noticeboard, I feel that this warrants some outside attention. Trilemma (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, first and foremost, let me state right away that I am not an admin :) I frequently help out on the admin's noticeboard, because most of the problems there an be resolved by discussion alone. I believe this is one of them.

I would rather see it handled here, since ANI is such high traffic, but since Blaxthos wants to keep it going there, I will respond there for now. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the misinformation then, Jaysweet. If it's any consolation, you appear to have the temperament suited to be an admin ;) Trilemma (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to contribute to splintering this discussion into multiple locations, nor will I allow a content dispute to be dragged onto conduct noticeboards. The "facts" above are non sequiturs, and as such I will only address them at ANI. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. Although, you know, ANI is for admin action, and you haven't actually asked for any admin action, you've just said that Trilemma is not observing proper Misplaced Pages etiquette, so I don't really understand why we have to air it on such a high traffic noticeboard as ANI... but whatever, I'm not going to argue about that. Marking this discussion as done. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Jay, while Blaxthos insists on keeping this on the admin noticeboard, my decision to post this alert is in part fueled by his (imo) misuse of the board. It's unfortunate that he won't reply here but I would very much like this issue to be looked at by observers on here, in this context. Trilemma (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I removed the "Not a Wikiquette alert" tag. However, I gotta go for the day so somebody else will have to pick this up :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• The editor has been warned at ANI not to remove comments from talk pages (whether or not he self-reports it) or he will be prevented from doing it again. Additionally, after my warning, you both agreed to focus on the issues at hand now and follow Jaysweet's suggestion. So do you still want to proceed with this separately, or can I mark this as resolved for the time being? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

While the specific case of the conditions surrounding the RfC have been resolved, there is a general conduct issue that I feel warrants attention. Blaxthos has signaled some level of cooperation in this, as of today, by editing some specifically aggressive language ("An editor (referring to me) has repeatedly inserted criticism from subjects quite disconnected from the topic of this article that serves only to disparage the book and it's author, and has cried "vandalism" when presented with WP:UNDUE.")he used in starting the RfC , but this was only after my personal request on his user page, after my requests both on the Admin noticeboard and the talk page of What Happened appeared to go unheeded. At the same time, I feel that the manner in which he started the RfC, the way in which he went about unilaterally removing significant chunks of agreed upon text, and his general non-cooperative attitude until he was essentially compelled to warrants attention--especially since this is not the first time that he has misused administration areas during a dispute with another editor. Trilemma (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Jaysweet will be willing to pick this up again :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> No good deed goes unpunished? ;)

Trilemma, you mention that Blaxthos has misused noticeboards in the past. Do you have diffs of this? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's the link from above, . Arzel should've taken his case here, but summarized it instead in the admin noticeboard . Clearly it wasn't a case for there, but it would've been appropriate to bring it here. Having followed the incident, it appeared to me that Blaxthos was stalking Arzel, due to their past interactions, and looking for a way to use administration areas as a tool of revenge. I didn't involve myself in the affair, but being that this is now a second instance in which Blaxthos appears to be misusing administration areas during conflict, I feel it warrants noting. this, combined with his decision to unilaterally remove a significant section of an article after he agreed to its inclusion, is why I feel perhaps a sterner warning is needed.Trilemma (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing I have noticed are unconstructive comments in AfDs, such as , , , , , , , , Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Destroy All Humans! series, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fictional chemical substances, A-M, , Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fictional diseases, , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc. Far too many WP:ITSCRUFT, WP:NOREASON, WP:PERNOM, and Misplaced Pages:Merge and delete posts, which are an etiquette issue in that as others have said calling people's work "cruft" is insulting and elsewhere others have also strongly suggest that we don't merely approach AfDs to just try to delete articles, but that we take some time trying to fix them first. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Blaxthos aware that this thread is still ongoing? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I alerted him to the initiation of the process, but he has seemed disinterested in participating. Trilemma (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's what I see:

I don't see a big problem with the AfD diffs that Les Grand pointed out. While I am sympathetic to his position on that, and think that probably a lot of those !votes weren't particularly valuable, there's sort of a de facto tolerance for that kind of thing.

I for one don't like Blaxthos' habit of privately contacting people on their talk page to get them to reverse a decision/opinion every time something doesn't go exactly his way (e.g. here). I think it is a bit overly-aggressive and doesn't encourage a harmonious resolution to problems.

I also don't particularly care for his habit of putting everything as a numbered bulleted list every time he is trying to make a point... heh.. But it's hard to fault him hugely for this. My concern with it is that it can come across as very confrontational. But who can say if that's really his intention? It's just a style I don't care for, but there's nothing inherently incivil about it.

The Arzel 3RR case potentially points to a bit of Wikilawyering.. it is unclear if he really felt it was a legit 3RR violation, or if, as some editors had alleged, Blaxthos had been lying in wait to "get" Arzel on something. I would be inclined to WP:AGF for now, but it is a little bit of a concern.

The bottom line advice I would have for Blaxthos is to just chill out a bit :D People are going to bend and break the rules a lot of the time, and one needs to pick their battles. Sometimes, allowing people to bend the rules can even be a good thing. Even when it's not, I think Blaxthos would benefit from letting other folks' transgressions slide a little more.

However, I don't see any major Wikiquette issues on Blaxthos' part. With the possible exception of the Arzel 3RR case (and again, I am assuming good faith on that for now), the only thing I can really find Blaxthos guilty of is approaching situations differently than I would approach them. heh... I'm still awaiting that promotion to King of Misplaced Pages, but until then, I think Blaxthos is allowed to do that ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack in Talk:Kanto (Pokémon)

under the dub heading compromise The user User:The Hybrid is harassing me Yami (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I went over there and I could not find any harassment. I think that there are some editors (yourself included) who need to take a step back from this conflict a bit (and it is a conflict). My personal opinion is that this is not a Wikiquette issue, and is more of a content dispute issue. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yami -- Please see this guide for how to provide "diffs" of individual user comments. Like LonelyBeacon, I see no evidence of harrassment and I frankly have no idea what you are talk about. If we missed something, you can provide a diff of the exact comment. Otherwise, please patiently work out your differences. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly frustrated that the subject of this complaint responded a little aggressively to a comment you made during a content dispute. However, the comment you made was very problematic, so it's a good idea to pay attention to those concerns and ignore the tone expressed by the subject of the complaint. Stick to the issues next time - comment on content, not contributors. Beyond that, there's nothing else to see here. It might be a good idea for you to take a break from the topic. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil accusations on Pederasty article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello. I would like to draw attention to the pederasty article, which is having some problems right now.

Pederasty (as erotic relations between men and boys) is considered from various viewpoints, some historical, others positive, and of course majority views tend to be condemnatory, especially those that are concerned about the legal consequences, and harm to children. I (and it seems some other editors) am perfectly fine with every relevant view to be presented. Editors have expressed concern over POV forking (having a seperate pederasty and a pederasty in the modern world article), and that needs cleaning up, and there are many unsourced POV statements in the article. However, a group of editors (especially Haiduc and AnotherSolipsist) seem to be constantly removing peer-reviewed critical material when it is introduced:

When peer reviewed literature presenting relevant and majority views on pederasty are presented, they tend to cry homophobia, political conspiracy, smear, and propaganda and revert large sections of text , and as can be seen from the above, they make every attempt to remove material that describes the critical or majority views on pederasty. The accusations of “homophobic propaganda” are also quite ridiculous considering that most homosexuals have a dislike of pederasty and research suggests that they are mutually exclusive anyway . When material is moved to the discussion page for discussion, they tend to totally ignore it , and focus instead on distracting from discussing material facts by throwing uncivil accusations about . They fail to assume good faith, and fail to address the actual facts being presented. Their protestations seem to amount to “I don’t like it”. I have made strong efforts to follow the edit-revert-discuss cycle to all reasonable lengths, but constructive discussion of the material in question is not forthcoming. Any advice or attention will be welcome. Phdarts (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that reliable sources on the topic should be included, especially those pertaining to the majority or critical view. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagee with the above editors. In a nutshell, Phdarts and other editors are pushing the bizarre pov that pederasty (an awful and equivocal word!) is pedophilia. Elsewhere I've pointed out that they are different things: I wrote: "How stupid it would be to call, say, Chaplin's (who was much older than me) marriage with an 18-year old beautiful nymphet 'pedophilic.'" It's surrealistic to discuss with pushers who put into the same category Chaplin with, say, a Catholic priest who molests dozens of little kids. Yes: this article deserves attention but since this subject is too controversial this will be my first and last post in this page. —Cesar Tort 14:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Cesar Tort. With respect, pederasty is considered to be a form of pedophilia for many researchers in peer reviewed articles. It is considered to be homosexual pedophilia yet at the same time pederasty is considered mutually exclusive to homosexuality (because homosexuals (similar to women) prefer fit, well toned clean looking mature males, rather than the pederast's "boyish purity ideal"). Pederasty is generally considered to be sexual relations between a male over 18 (usually and in the classical Greek and Roman sense over 40) and a child or adolescent (most often but not always 12 to 16). In most legal juristictions it is illegal. The research says it is generally considered to be pedophilia (in English), and in the US is it considered to be the sexual abuse of adolescents (Crosson Tower, amongst other academics). These are peer reviewed articles and books we are talking about, not just unsourced speculation. Feel free to add any contradictory information you wish, but this is a matter for all relevant views, including the scientific. Phdarts (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so, I'll take a crack at this one... I am aware of a long-running edit war on Misplaced Pages between pedophile apologists and anti-pedophile activists, but have stayed well on the periphery of this battle. I really don't need that kind of stress in my life, heh.

It appears this dispute is related to that long-running war. Would that be at least somewhat correct?

Again, I don't have any desire to mediate in that dispute, nor do I feel like I would have the skills of knowledge to do so. To put it bluntly, I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.

So, while I am absolutely not going to attempt to resolve content disputes at Pederasty (dear god, no), what I will offer to do is if there are specific issues of incivility or tedentious editing, I am willing to look at diffs and try to give advice in relation to that. I am willing to warn users about civility (given a clear-cut diff of said incivility, of course), and I am willing to help broker specific compromises.

If you want someone to go mediate on the article itself, you'll have to find someone else. Frankly, I don't think you are going to get a lot of takers on this noticeboard -- over here, we usually just try to soothe tempers when people are getting a little stressed at each other. This kind of complicated mediation is beyond most of what happens at Wikiquette Alerts.

Within these constraints, let me know what I can do to help. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

" I am aware of a long-running edit war on Misplaced Pages between pedophile apologists and anti-pedophile activists... Would that be at least somewhat correct?" No, it would be 100% incorrect. That's exactly the problem. None of the editors who object to the behaviour of Phdarts are "pedophile apologists", and I would be astonished if they did not object to idiots who labelled them as such. The reason that I consciously used the word "idiots" and the reason why this "Wikiquette alert" is a disgrace are the same. The real insult is to the editors who oppose Phdarts and who feel deeply and quite rightly insulted by comments such as the one you have just made. All the editors who object to Phdarts's edits complain about homophobia, for the very reason that Cesar Tort has given, and that I have also given, without getting any response . Editors are frustrated by the promotion of fringe theory by Phdarts whose activities are essentially protected because of fear of the insinuations by editors who make comments like yours. Paul B (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you so easily PaulB, but I did give a response . If you feel that some of the literature of academics is homophobic, your view is not what counts in the article, and in the abscence of any information that states those views are homophobic, your accusation goes directly to the editors who provide the facts. Using terms such as idiots, and homophobic, certainly feels abusive to those being attacked as such. It feels uncivil and certainly makes discussion and editing very difficult. The article requires a far more constructive approach. From this point there seems to be a great deal of persistent work to do to get to that point. Phdarts (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you so easily Phdarts, but I did give a response to you, as your diff indicates, since it is the diff of my response. You gave no response to me. Do try to keep to the facts. . Paul B (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul B. The text largely answers your question even though it came before your question, as does and . Older or mature men having erotic relationships with adolescent females are generally condemned as pedophiles. That is a common view in and outside of academia. The same is true with older or mature men having relations with adolescent boys, though the term pederast is used instead. Again, these are not fringe theories at all and they are supported by the literature. This is so basic it should not even need to be repeated. Treating editors as homophobes or idiots really doesn’t help matters. Please discuss cooperatively. Phdarts (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Older or mature men having erotic relationships with adolescent females are generally condemned as pedophiles." This is utter fantasy. If the girls are above the age of consent they absoutely are not. Adult men having sex with teenage girls happens all the time. It is, for obvious biological reasons, normal sexuality, not paedophilia. Your own sources acknowledge that. We have no special word for it, hence the fact that using a special word for the equivalent practice within a homosexual context is discriminatory. Your complete refusal to acknowledge that this is a legitimte and common position is the cventral problem and it leads to extreme frustration. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Paul B. If you are interested in fairness, talk to a homosexual who has been persecuted for having an erotic relationship with another homosexual of the same age. It happens. I understand you are frustrated. But then you will obviously be frustrated if you have to countenance all relevant views of pederasty. I think you will have to somehow cope with this. The fact is, pederasty is condemned if not hated by parents and singles alike. Its just a fact of life. Beyond that, the law in many places condemns pederasty. Getting back to definitions, the most common definition of pederasty is always Men and Boys. Then Men and Male Children. Then children of around 12 to 16. In many legal situations, when there is a relationship between an over-16 and a 24 year old, it is often not considered pederasty or pedophilia at all. However, many people in academia and society will dislike the idea of mature men having erotic relations with even 18 year old males and females, and there is a very significant push for having the age of consent as high as 21. Pederasty, to the majority, is erotic relations between 12 to 16 year olds, is generally considered a form of pederasty, and is just one of those things. When pederasts are prosecuted, they get hit very hard in prison, because sexual deviants, especially those who focus on minors, get it really bad in prison. Again, if you find that unfair, I think you are just going to have to cope with that somehow. All relevant views are to be allowed in the article, especially when they come from reliable sources. Its as simple as that. I'd recommend treating it with a detatched attitude. Hope this helps. Phdarts (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no end your offensiveness is there? The constant references to "deviants" and assertions about what a fantasised "majority" are just forms of insidious bullying far far worse than anything of Haiduc's. There is no "very significant push for having the age of consent as high as 21". That is a very extreme minority view. In the UK the age of consent for homosexual relations was reduced from 18 to 16 in 2000 - with majority popular support. There is no debate whatever about it being raised, and the idea that it should be raised to 21 is so very far beyond the mainstream that it is the fringe of the fringe. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul B. Please assume good faith. Yes there have been historical reductions in age of consent, and there have been protestations. These are all significant views that can be represented in the article wherever appropriate. It is your view that an age of 21 for consent is fringe. Try telling that to the father of a young daughter in, for example in a traditional area of the country. Your view is not what matters here. It is the reliable sources that count. Please deal with the material at hand without ignoring the assume good faith recommendation. Phdarts (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a provisional requirement. It is not my personal view that it is fringe. It is simply a fact. There is no significant debate to raise it. The majority - which you keep claiming support for your view - agreed with the equalising the age of consent . "Try telling that to the father of a young daughter in, for example in a traditional area of the country" Is that supposed to be an argument? Please provide evidence that there is any significant proposal to increase the age of consent. That would mean that major parties supported such a change or that lobby groups with widespread support were making it and that legislators were proposing legislation to that effect. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The pederasty article was having no problems (for many years) until a group of like-minded editors suddenly descended on the article en masse about a month ago. "Coincidence" is probably not the best word to describe the event. Their edits all aimed to depict pederasty as child abuse, and used as stratagem the fact that the word "pederasty" is polysemic. One of its meanings IS indeed "child abuse." But that meaning is well covered at the article(s) on that topic. There is a link to them in the article.

The meaning of "pederasty" that is covered in the article by that name is as defined there: the definition which applies to much of its history and which is used by sexologists, historians, artists, etc. It happens to include many legitimate homosexual relationships in modern times, to the extent that they take place between adolescent youths above the age of consent and post-adolescent or older males. Thus the insistent efforts to impose a child abuse model on all pederasty is, sad to say, homophobia.

The main argument that this crowd has been clinging to is that they want the article to reflect "majority views." But Misplaced Pages is not a compendium of conventional wisdom. It is an elitist undertaking: we humble editors take the knowledge that scholars and intellectuals (the elite) have created and present it in digestible form for the use of the masses. Not the other way around.

I could say much more, but I respect other editors' time and I am not here to complain. Haiduc (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haiduc. Assuming good faith is very important, especially with this type of article. Your statements about removing child abuse related information might have a little credibility if it weren't for the fact that you also remove critical information that is directly related to pederasty and pro-pederast groups . The dispute does seem to go a lot further back than the "coincidence" you refer to. You might be constructive if you could learn to assume good faith, discuss the actual matter of the edits, and stop using such antagonistic edit summaries. Phdarts (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jaysweet. I understand your reluctance to step in to the situation. Both the articles in question and the style of discussion seem also to me to push away the normal reader or editor.

I started off on Misplaced Pages looking at improving material on psychology and therapies in general as that is my background. The pederasty article caught my eye after a general look at the state of the psychology on some of the paraphilia related articles. Similar to the pedophilia article, there seemed to be a long term push to remove some of the pertinent facts about harm to any related party. The huge range of pederasty articles seemed and seems to have a distinct lack of majority views, especially regarding policy, concerns about harm to minors, and psychological harm in general. Information is lacking both pro and anti and I started working on filling the gaps, especially where “Citation needed” was presented.

The feeling I got from some of the editors on the article was any factual or majority view on pederasty should apply only to child abuse articles, and that if it was presented on the pederasty article it would be an attack on homosexuality. Of course, from just a cursory view of literature on homosexual society, its clear that modern and majority homosexuals distance themselves from pederasty. So it seems extremely desperate to me that someone should constantly claim homophobia when a phenomenon (pederasty; erotic attraction to male children) largely seen as a type of pedophilia (erotic attraction to children) has well sourced majority views applied.

I imagine the article will require mediation. Whether there are any anti-pedophile activists or pedophile apologists doesn’t particularly bother me. I am resigned to the fact that Misplaced Pages will probably have those elements. Its the presentation of views in proper proportion, and the scientific views that largely dictate modern social, legal, and ethical matters that really needs work. Any editors who appear to be pedophile apologists would actually be better off with some of those majority or science views being presented, albeit with all sides of the controversy. But that’s not happening right now, as there seems to be a general fear that the article will look totally condemnatory when all views are presented properly. I don’t think it will be that bad. I believe the main problem is that fear, together with the idea of “article ownership”. Good Wikiquette and discussion will help.

What variety of diffs are you interested in looking at first? Phdarts (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the lecture, sir. I have always assumed good faith, and I have usually been rewarded with interesting and constructive discussions from which I learned a great deal and which almost invariably resulted in improvements to the articles I worked on, whether pederasty-related or not. In your case too I assumed good faith, but you, Phdarts, together with your collaborators, quickly disabused me of that illusion. You have consistently refused to engage in any meaningful discussion, as have your associates. Instead of engaging in a process of reasoning you have attempted to enforce your point of view by force of numbers and interminable repetition of favorite themes, one of them being the imposition of "majority views" and another being the incessant appeal to assuming good faith while destroying that faith through your behavior. I see that here too that pattern continues. Mediation?! Please go ahead. Your own words indict you better than mine ever could. Haiduc (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haiduc. This is a Wikiquette discussion, and you really are supposed to consider me as in collaboration with you. According to what I understand about Misplaced Pages (actually Misplaced Pages makes it blatantly clear on policy pages) we are supposed to edit, and civilly discuss matters when they are disputed. You have not been civil, as far as I can see, in your constant allusion to conspiracy, smear, propaganda and so on. You have also largely been ignoring material facts, and have been focusing on accusations. Assuming good faith, I did doublecheck your assertion on propaganda within the literature, and the only reliable facts I could find were "Durkin, Keith F. & Clifton, D. Bryant (1999) Propagandizing pederasty: A thematic analysis of the on-line exculpatory accounts of unrepentant pedophiles. Deviant Behavior 20,2:103-127.". This goes into detail over the faulty reasoning of pederasts, such as calling pedophilia pederasty, harmless, consensual (even when it is legally non-consentual), educational, and attacking society as homophobic. You nipped that piece of peer reviewed evidence based psychology in the bud here and called it homophobic propaganda. The article has a severe lack of modern scientific material for enlightening the reader. But one good thing at least; I am glad you are interested in mediation and that we can move forward, perhaps even without all the desperately angry and accusational edit summaries, attacks, and discussion headings. Phdarts (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear me, this is why I don't get involved in these discussions. I write a couple paragraphs, and I come back 14 hours later to see several Kbytes of arguing. You anti-pederasty activists and pederasty apologists (I will not make the mistake of saying the pedo- word in present company anymore!) really need to see WP:TLDR. hehehe...

I have a few thoughts about the content dispute, but I am not nearly qualified. I would like to point out that Statutory rape is in Category:Child sexual abuse, FWIW, so even if we accept that pederasty and pedophilia are two separate things, it still seems remiss not to discuss an association between pederasty and abuse. But I don't really know anything about the literature, so I'll just leave it at that observation and not comment further on the content.

So, the Wikiquette issue at hand... Phdarts, to test my understanding, your main Wikiquette complaint is the edit summary that used the phrase "homophobic propaganda." Is that correct?

PaulB, Haiduc... words like "homophobic" and "propaganda" are very strong words, and when you put them together the message is even more intense. I would caution you to be very careful about using words such as this, especially in edit summaries (since they can not be retracted or modified later, not without admin assistance). I, in fact, avoid using words like that altogether most of the time -- and I have edited some pretty homophobic stuff out of articles before, but I try not to use those words because it just antagonizes the other side.

One option to move forward is that Haiduc can acknowledge that the words "homophobic propaganda" are highly charged and agree not to use language like that in edit summaries anymore. I think that is the easiest way to move forward, and it is what I would recommend. After all, if you feel a source is homophobic propaganda, you can still feel free to challenge it, but using less loaded words, e.g. you might say on the talk page (not edit summary, please) that "I feel this source has a clear bias as evidenced by X, Y, and Z, and I would object to using it as a reliable scientific source."

If this is really unacceptable to you, we can talk about other options. But really, does it take away from your ability to edit if you just don't call something "propaganda" in an edit summary? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jay. Yes, you are correct, the most obvious evidence for the reason for my complaints are on the edit summaries, arguments and discussion headings, that tend to scream "homophobia". And this runs on into the general discussion, that generally ignores when the actual material is placed into the discussion page, and instead focuses on accusations towards editors. The material is is simply not getting discussed. Its just getting objected to by editors who like the classical view of pederasty (pederasty as education, rather than pederasty as a sort of pedophilia). All that is really needed is that some editors stop claiming "homophobia" when they see something critical, and actually get down to discussing the author, the journal, and the relative weight of the actual view. As far as I am concerned, all the critical material so far has been ignored, so it can all go into the article, and there is a lot there. Any seemingly pro-pederasty editor are really shooting themselves in the foot here. I reckon myself to be pretty reasonable. That doesn't involve summarily booting peer reviewed articles from the article. Adjustments are fine by me. Any encouragement towards sensible discussion, rather than editwar, would be helpful here. Phdarts (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)PS, your suggestion to Haiduc is also very helpful. Phdarts (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jay, if you cannot see how profoundly noxious Phdart's language is then I am sorry. He maintains the rhetoric of politeness as a strategy, while constantly using very derogatory and divisively judgemental comments that consistently mirepresent the views he is responding to. Referring to an argument as homophobic is entirely legitimate, and certainly no more objectionable than referring to "deviants" and insidiously attempting to smear an editor by association with them. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the literature Paul B, and try to keep a level head about it. I checked up on Haiduc's accusation of propaganda and the literature search led me to Durkin et al 1999. If you find it impossible to countenance the literature, then I think you have a serious problem. It does take a certain amount of self control to deal with objectionable subjects. I suggest you start at least trying to assume good faith, and trying to work with editors who deal with the actual literature pertaining to pederasty, both ancient and modern. Phdarts (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am closing and archiving this debate, and referring the participants to WP:RFC. While I do think there are some Wikiquette issues here, they are too intertwined with the underlying content dispute issues, and those issues are far beyond the ability of this noticeboard to address.

For instance, I wish people wouldn't throw around words like "homophobic" or "propaganda," but we can't really call it a cut-and-dry Wikiquette issue unless we establish whether or not an academic source criticizing pederasty can be considered homophobic -- and I'm going to cowardly refuse to even participate in that debate, sorry.

I have discussed this with another editor who is heavily involved in resolving requests on this noticeboard, and he agrees -- we just don't have the right people or the right resources to deal with it here. If an uninvolved editor would like to bravely take a crack at this, they may remove my {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}} tags and reopen the discussion, but I would ask that nobody who commented here does so. As I said, we just can't help you here. I am sorry. Try WP:RFC. Best of luck. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

SlamDiego

• SlamDiego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

highly uncivil and if you check the start of his edit history he doesn't act like a new guy hence I suspect he's also a sockpuppet. --Blackeagles (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs of the incivil comments you are referring to? Thanks :) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How about his accusing me of be a salking horse "last-caught sockpuppet" or that "Maybe you need to blow your nose, then."

Or he's obvious grudge against people of faith that taints so many of his posts and that's just in the last 7 days if one checks his edit history you'll find he makes remarks like this all the time. And then there's his sockpuppetry. My experience has been that most people start an account on wikipedia to edit articles (not to talk or argue) and as a result they start editing in articles. SlamDiego started editing in a talk area and went right from that to starting an article with a redirect, and not long after showed the kind of knowledge of wikipedia that only comes with working in it for over a year . It's pretty obvious been on wikipedia before and under a different name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeagles (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you go all the way back? His first contributions were in August 2006. (no opinion on recent comments I haven't looked at them.)--Cube lurker (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just as I noted here, there is an open checkuser request from SlamDiego on Blackeagles here. Adam McCormick (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Adam, for the info. Marking as resolved, unless Blackeagles can provide diffs of actual incivility. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How about his accusing me of be a salking horse "last-caught sockpuppet" or that "Maybe you need to blow your nose, then." Or he's obvious grudge against people of faith that taints so many of his posts and that's just in the last 7 days if one checks his edit history you'll find he makes remarks like this all the time. --Blackeagles (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Blackeagles, please follow the link I provided in my first reply to you, to see instructions on how to create a diff. (You should look at the Simple Diff Guide, which can be found here) I will not dig through SlamDiego's contribs to try and verify these comments; you really need to provide a diff so that we can rapidly locate the comment in question and then judge it in context. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and if you are concerned about the allegations of sockpuppetry, please wait for the Request for Checkuser to be resolved. If this exonerates you, it could potentially reflect poorly on SlamDiego, and we could consider it at that time. Please wait for it to be resolved, though. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't assert that you were a stalking horse; I wrote “Plainly, this nomination is a stalking horse.” And my assertion was that Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle was the “last-caught sockpuppet” of Grazon. As to the edit-summary suggestion “Maybe you need to blow your nose, then.”, I remind you that it followed your summary “This doesn't smell right” (for an easily verified assertion, already supported by the refs of the article, but for which I provided an explicit link). Anyway, I will hold any further comment here until after the completion of checkuser/Grazon. —SlamDiego_←T 22:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued incivility of User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles.

this WQA regards behavior of an editor over the course of a few afd's. Other examples of similar behavior may exist but I wasn't party to them so I won't include them. I will post diffs of precise comments/responses that I feel cross the line but I also ask that reviewing editors read some of the linked AfD debates in their entirety.

Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles (LGRdCP) has comported himself in a manner that could be described as uncivil and provocative. This has included multiple posts consisting of nothing more than a copy/paste of a previous editors words to literal gainsaying of an editor's comments on an issue. This is especially apparent on the debates over the AfD for Cheshire Cat in Popular culture but has cropped up in other debates, namely Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (6th nomination) , Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Dragon_Quest_VIII_characters, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Titans_(Crash_of_the_Titans) and Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Pizza_delivery_in_popular_culture_(second_nomination).

Specifically:

Cheshire Cat-

• Clear copy/past of other editors comments as a response.
• Clear refactoring of comment to misconstrue the intent of the original editor.
• When this was pointed out, LGRdC chose to not WP:AGF.
• scroll down LGRdC refuses to assume good faith.

Pizza Delivery-

• Literal gainsaying. Check the full conversation for details, but the basic idea is that argumentation is responded to with repetition (with little variation) of LGRcC's previous comment in the thread.
• an exchange starting with LGRdC declaring that "cruft" is not a one word reason to delete (something I agree with passionately). Someone responds by stating a full bodied rationale and LGRdC replies with basically the same sentence as his original comment.

Crash of the titans-

• This is borderline. It isn't patently uncivil, but it seems to be a textbook case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
• Not LGRdC's edits, but a response that points out the gainsaying.

Fully citing this behavior with diffs is difficult because most of the literal back-and-forth requires that 3 edits, not 2, be immediately visible. furthermore, I am not making the claim that LGRdC has been blatantly uncivil or disruptive. By and large, he seems to comport himself with restraint.

What I intent to show is that this behavior is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, baiting, and tendentious acts. I make this WQA with some deep reservations, because I don't want it to be interpreted as an attack on LGRdC's positions. I argue against many of those positions in afd, but I don't feel he needs to be castigated for them. On the contrary, I wanted to show that apart from those positions his behavior has been obstructionist. I am also aware that I have not behaved perfectly. I have violated WP:COOL and borderline violated WP:CIVIL in the following acts:

• User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles#In_popular_culture: Followup was probably unecessary.

I'm sure other examples exist. I hope that a reasonable observer will see that my actions were motivated by frustration rather than malice and that the purposes ascribed to those actions by follow-on comments were not accurate.

Thank you for your time. Protonk (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution