Revision as of 11:52, 29 March 2011

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:Ohnoitsjamie

User:Ohnoitsjamie, an administrator, posted this message describing a thread I started as “crap”. (In fact, he later confirmed he posted it in the wrong place and it was my thread he was referring to.) This was after he had earlier tried unsuccessfully to close down the discussion. I’ve tried to raise the issue and ask him why he called it “crap” on his Talk page, but he says he’s “not discussing it”. I would have thought this is a breach of WP:CIVIL and in my naivety, I expect more from an administrator. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I probably would have used something stronger than crap for the eleventy-millionth "can we remove the images of Muhammad?" thread started there, especially one the was purposefully placed outside of the /images sub-talk article, honestly. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Still it does not warrant profanity. Just because Ohnoitsjamie is an admin however, doesn't mean he's automatically held to higher standards than other editors; but still, as an experienced editor, he should've known better and refrained from profanity. Ohnoitsjamie should've discussed - refusing to discuss is strongly frowned at on Misplaced Pages.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To Tarc: For the umpteenth time, the issues I've raised are nothing to do with Muslim sensitivities v WP:NOTCENSORED. It's a different issue. DeCausa (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone is right all the time on Misplaced Pages, but I agree that your policy citation was correct.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) On the contrary, admins are held to higher standards: "They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct."
Doesn't get more clear than that. Adminship aside, it's kind of a low blow to call someone's comments crap and then "refuse to discuss it." I'm sure this is a result of aggravation and stress; I don't think Jamie's a generally uncivil person, so perhaps they should cool off if they're starting to offend people. Swarm 00:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Swarm hits it right on the mark.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I don't believe I aggravated him. I think I was civil throughout, and happy for someone to review my posts. DeCausa (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Reporting someone for calling something "crap"? Could we possibly be any more thin-skinned?—Chowbok ☠ 00:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the report is not for the word 'crap' alone, but because the admin used their authority to close discussion, and then refused to discuss why. Without looking further, this sounds like a use of admin power that is a bit pushy and counter to the community/consensus view of reaching conclusions. To me, that type of behavior probably warrants at least a small poke here. -- Avanu (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not what happened. Nobody closed the discussion. I moved it to the sub-page where it should have been in the first place, but Ohnoitsjamie had nothing to do with that.—Chowbok ☠ 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This comment is not civil itself, Chowbok. On WQA, do not flame anyone like that.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Admins go through a lot of stress. Sometimes simple disagreements may be enough for aggravation.

On another note, Ohnoitsjamie removed the WQA notice on his user talk page with "I don't want this" as his edit summary, suggesting that he is refusing to discuss here.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked him twice to explain his comment and he's just deleted the request. It's not reasonable behaviour. DeCausa (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but my best solution is this: ignore Jamie. Just totally move on. Ignore their comments and focus on the content issue you have. If Jamie's not going to cooperate, forget about him. Swarm 00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The machinery of creating an Encyclopedia is lubricated by two things:

• not upsetting people even if you think they deserve it
• not getting upset even when you think you've been insulted

Calling someone's thread "crap" is uncool, but fairly minor in the grand scheme of the universe, and probably best handled by letting it go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Well said, Floquenbeam. Jusdafax 03:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear. Swarm 07:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I echo that as well. On a separate point, if the talk page is being overwhelmed by tendentious debate, then sanctions on the other parties are likely...I hope that they consider attempting to address the concerns about (the appearance of) discussions being repeated to death. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The real problem here is the excessive number of pictures at Mohammad. As a result, in visual terms the article gives a distinctly Western view on the subject, which per WP:NPOV is not appropriate. That's as if the article Paris gave the measurements of the Eiffel Tower in feet first, rather than in metres, and the article was generally written as in a travel guide for American tourists, stressing tourist destinations, fast food restaurants and steak houses. This is just not the way Misplaced Pages is supposed to work, and clearly the fact that it is so hard to solve this problem has something to do with the American majority among Wikipedians and the deeply engrained anti-Muslim prejudice that is rampant among Americans. This is about a mob that is systematically fighting for their right to affront Muslims just because they can. I wouldn't mind so much if this was only hitting the radical Muslims, but obviously it causes a solidarity effect in ordinary, westernised, Muslims who would not normally care about the depictions but obviously get angry in the same way that an American atheist living in an Islamic country might get angry if Bibles were burnt there. (Given that Muslims accept Jesus as a prophet, I doubt that this is something that would happen, but I don't know for sure.) They might not mind one image, or two, in appropriate places of the article. But with six images there is just no plausible deniability of the real intention.

The problem is the collective actions of the mob, not of any single member of the mob. Disperse the mob, and the problem will be gone. While picking someone out and setting an example might help if successful, you have to pick out someone who has committed a major offence if you want to get anywhere. This thread is just a distraction. If anything, there should be a WQA thread on "the community" for systematic display of contempt against a non-negligeable part of our potential readers. Hans Adler 08:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Rudeness

• Fifthhorizon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Limp Bizkit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In an edit summary, Fifthhorizon told me to "get a clue". There might be a mild content dispute in whether The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1) is an EP or an LP. Another user provided sources indicating it as an LP, and I agreed and made the changes, but Fifthhorizon reverted the changes, twice. The content dispute could be resolved if Fifthhorizon engaged in any discussion about the changes, as I suggested, but telling another editor to "get a clue" was not necessary. WTF (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The user has been given an edit war warning.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

After thinking some more, the user has also been given a personal attacks warning.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If it doesn't stop do feel free to come back. Swarm 23:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Uncivility by user Biosketch?

• Biosketch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Miral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite my efforts to edit and reach consensus on differences we were having on the page Miral, the User Biosketch, without informing me that he had done so, reported me to See here to the Admin Noticeboard/Edit Warring.

BioSketch has used terms such as referring to my conduct as having a "borderline paranoid frame of mind" accusing me of "suspicion and uncooperativeness" stating that I am "harrassing" other users (User:Plot Spoiler at Victoria Affair) and that I am stalking BioSketch "purely for spite." Other terms such as "aggressive, uncivil, unjustly suspecting, stubborn, disruptive, and obsessive" have been used openly by BioSketch. I have addressed both edit related questions posed by BioSketch and have addressed his comments directly related to me.

I have brought up that i believe that this type of behavior is a violation, among other things, of WP:EQ. But to no avail. BioSketch's justification for some of the behaviors displayed is to state that it wasn't addressed to me, but the admins (ie, not in second person). Further, BioSketch's justification for even bringing me into the issue of Edit Warring is because now it is evident that there is justification for the edits that I made that he previously disagreed with. Is this not a violation of wiki etiquette to bring someone into an EditWarring inquiry because of their dislike of one's edits?

All of what i reference is on http://Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. I appreciate the assistance. GoetheFromm (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User warned for personal attacks. Please feel free to update here if personal attacks persist. Regards, Swarm 23:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. GoetheFromm (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if I may, I'd like to be the one to update here. Since the warning against me was issued I have been careful not to repeat any of the personal remarks I had made at AN3, which, I do realize, crossed the line and were offensive. In fact, I have been doing all that I can to avoid interacting with the user altogether. I listed four diffs at ANI that I believe constitute WP:HOUND, making sure that my language was in reference to the user's edits and not to the user himself. However, despite my best efforts at restraint, the user is disrupting the thread with ad hominems and attempts to discredit me. I really don't know what to do at this point.—Biosketch (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've not once attacked you ad hominem. Defending myself against your accusations on 3 different noticeboards (one of which you didn't even inform me that you had made a reported {which is a violation of wiki standards}) is really unfair. But if I have to, I have to... GoetheFromm (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course I warned you. You blanked the section titled ATTN: You have been reported on your Talk page. And most of what's going on at the AN/I is nothing but an ad-hominem screed against me.—Biosketch (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I blanked the screen after the matter was resolved. And for clarification, the warning didn't state that you reported to the noticeboard, as one can clearly see.

Also, i am going to warn you right now that I believe using the word "screed" against me is a violation of WP: Civil, please refrain from doing so. GoetheFromm (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The title of the section was "ATTN: You have been reported." I'm sorry but I don't see how it could possibly have been any clearer than that. As for the word "screed," it was not a personal attack directed against you but a characterization of the thread at AN/I, which has gone from being a discussion about four diffs to a long chain of attacks against me personally. User:Swarm was right to warn me for being uncivil at EW, because I did say nasty and insulting things about a user. It is for precisely this reason that I am being careful to critique edits and not users this time. (C.f. Comment on content, not on the contributor.)—Biosketch (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I believe. The title of the section was NOT "ATTN: You have been reported." It was titled Miral and NO MENTION OF REPORTING was made. Here is the diff to prove it. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:GoetheFromm&diff=420671108&oldid=420670936 GoetheFromm (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(A working link here)Fainites scribs 19:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Snakefan55

• Snakefan55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eastern Brown Snake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of incivility in edit summaries and talk pages, in addition to edit warring and refusal to cooperate with other editors. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Left him a little love note regarding personal attacks. Swarm 15:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

KnowIG and Bill william compton

• KnowIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bill william compton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's incivility going on here, but as I'm an involved administrator, and I'd prefer not to mediate between these two, and dealing with this sort of thing, quite frankly, isn't my strength, I'd rather have someone else look at it.

The incivility is described in the thread WP:ANI#Disruptive refactoring at RFC/U - Reblock needed but isn't getting the attention it needs. From my cursory glance at their talk pages there's some incivility going on there too. --Rschen7754 10:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all though it is against me, I thank Rschen cause the issue is from Bill as well. reply more in a nbit.m KnowIG (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

he accused me of being rude and that I shouldn't use 'slang' saying his culture finds it offensive therefore I shouldn't use it in other words I don't understand it so I'm going to stomp my feet. He also accused me of getting involved on a GAC Only beacuse your British (which is offensive). In response I said something that I probably (considering this user) should never had said, but in context... still. Anyway I then appologised. but Bill continued to be incivil and baiting with comments such as this and the two previous ones he made I'm better that you and can't be racist because I have a British flag on show (wow!). Note he has continued to bring issues up when it has been dropped see 21st and 24th to carry on being incivil and to harrase espically after an appolgy went in from me. he also put this box on my review of netball, specifically after he was told not to put it there, but to put it in a bit saying . He didn't have to do that, he was clearly stirring and being incivil and can't follow instructions (if he did that by accident which I find very hard to believe). KnowIG (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Bill william compton

I'll answer all the accusations made by him over me:

1. I made a racial comment by calling him "British"

• It was my comment " It was the first time that somebody blamed my language as obstacle for comprehensive communication and KnowIG supported her because he's British" - I called him British because both Laura and KnowIG use same dialect of English, which is British.

diff1 and diff2

Note - I never took his nationality as reason for his involvement with GAC of Netball.

2. I'm better than him and can't be racist because I have a British flag on show

• I don't like to open my personal life on Misplaced Pages but I was compelled to tell him that I also have British connections and would never make any offensive comment on any British (actually you can check my history on Misplaced Pages and you'll never find any comment for anyone by me which you can categorize as offensive)

3. I also placed a box on his review of netball, specifically after I was told not to put it there, but to put it in a bit saying

• These my reply are sufficient to answer this accusation diff4 and diff5

Now I'd like to present my accusations over him

1. Why he called me "stupid Indian"?

2. Why he said that he don't like American's that much? diff1_2

3. Why he used British slurs like arse, bollocks, gob, etc against me?

4. Why he complained against me on WQA for being racist, without even properly notifying me? diff4

5. Why he threatened me to stay away from Netball or any other review? diff5

6. What is his problem with my username? diff6

7. Why he compared my knowledge with my age? diff7

8. When I asked him to stop his slang language than why he said that this is a part of western culture and hence of English language, so I've no choice but to lump it. diff8

9. Why he said this line to me "there is no rule against slag stop talking out of your arse"? Don't we've policy of WP:AGF? diff9

10. Why he tried to insult my nation on my face? diff10

I'm completely sick of this person and his accusations. I was in impression that working on Misplaced Pages would be fun, but certainly users like KnowIG making it worse. So, I'd like admins to impose indefinite block on KnowIG. Thanks Bill william compton 13:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Note KnowIG has been blocked indefinitely. Swarm 15:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Banana Fingers

• Banana Fingers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mostly at my User talk:Howard the Duck.

This person has serious WP:NPA issues. Take a look at this, this, this, this and this (probably more elsewhere). My reply in a dispute of which I am a party (at least I consider myself to be one) was edit was removed], and was not archived wondering if the other person knew I had a reply to that issue. I tried to be diplomatic but everytime s/he disagrees it seems like a master beating a slave with a pencil to a bloody pulp. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I notified him/her of this discussion but as probably was expected of him/her, it was undid. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User warned.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he got the message. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If it continues, let us know. Swarm 17:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I dunno if it'll continue, but if weren't for Jasper reverting on what I'd say, in a good-faith manner, rather nasty edit of him/her on my user page, I wouldn't have known that s/he did it. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, pure userpage vandalism? Not good. I've escalated the warning for that edit- they should definitely know better. I'll keep my eye on him for awhile. Regards, Swarm 18:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Howard the duck says he's "being diplomatic"?!?! What did I say, he's a hypocrite! I first ran into you last year I had brought up a content issue but from the get go your tone has been nowhere near diplomatic. That has continued every time you've (yes you!) have crossed my path. You always make things as if you want to and have to be right and you're some big shot around here because you're decorated with all these barn stars or whatever else. It's been that way with your edits and the tone of your edit summaries and replies on talk pages. I would even say that I'm being hounded. So I've told exactly what I've thought including some of his editing hypocrisy. Banana Fingers (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well. There ya go. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Although it's immaterial, I've been editing football articles for a very long while now, as evidence by this discussion: Talk:2006–07 UEFA Champions League knockout stage. Like I said, it's immaterial, but just to set things straight. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on Banana Fingers's talk page. Swarm 22:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Silverseren

• Silver seren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I_suspect_Noleander_of_anti-Semitic_editing (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In an article about allegations of antisemitic POV pushing Silver seren (talk · contribs) is claiming that the opposing side is in a effect a Jewish lynchmob working with a single mind to censor criticism of jews. This is offensive both because it is a massive breach of AGF, it stereotypes Jews as being a homogenous group dedicated only to protecting jewish interests, and in this case it slanders Jewish wikipedians as promoting Jewish interests above wikipedias interests. Silver seren has repeatedly been made aware that his argument is offensive and bigoted, but he continues to defend it. Is it ok to accuse one's fellow wikipedians of being part of a Jewish conspiracy? ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The user has been given an only warning for all of this.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

When?·Maunus·ƛ· 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reacting but I think you chose the wrong warning. He wasn't commenting on specific editors, but on a large group (25+ editors) arguing that another user should be topic banned due to antisemitic editing. In anycase a template warning is not likely to solve the issue, but rather a well argued rationale that this kind of argument is not considered to be alright.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The warning is still effective, as its connotation is that against personal attacks, even against a whole group of people. I will elaborate.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why was I not informed of this? Silverseren 01:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You were - the reaction to the warning was just very swift.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of being informed if i'm given a warning in the same minute? Silverseren 01:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I didn't think the warrning would be given that quickly so I am not really responsible for that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact I also warned you in the discussion itself and asked you to retract your allegations - but you continued to defend them.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) I'm a believer in WP:DNTTR, and I don't think a warning template is going to magically resolve the issue. Warning templates are supposed to educate new users; I'm sure Silver is well aware of what a personal attack is. However, I think Silver seren should give their perspective before I comment (should they choose to). Swarm 04:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Having seen the responses in that Admin Noticeboard thread, I can understand why someone might have inadvertently (or intentionally) responded in the manner you described, Maunus. There is a clear undercurrent of fear or something that is present in some of the commenters. When a person in the discussion says they are at work and afraid of the article titled "Jews and Money" showing up in their browser history, then something is wrong with the debate. My suggestion is to simply accept the apology Silver is giving below as sincere, and focus on the words and intent of people, and try our best in the future to create an atmosphere that is welcoming of viewpoints on the subject. We can have differences of opinion without instantly being labeled. Words like "bigoted" are instant catalysts for defensiveness, and it is probably best to get clarification before we jump to conclusions. -- Avanu (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Don't think I need a separate section, so I will just post an observation here. Noting that a group of editors may be acting in concert to block/ban an editor they do not like is not a personal attack. People who share similar points of view, wither it be along religious, ideological, hell, even what they favorite sports team is, can and do act out a herd mentality to protect what they feel is their "turf". So, if a bunch of editors from one side of the I-P topic area are observed to be acting in tandem on many, many, many issues, calling them out on it doesn't mean one is attacking their racial or ethnic background. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This was not the case here. Slverseren did not make an observation about a clique of editors whom he had seen work together before - he specifically was worried because several editors commenting were jewish. As far I know only certain conspiracy theorists would claims that "Jewish persons" are a "clique observed to be acting in tandem". This is no different from if I had objected to other editors arguments in a discussion about terrorism by saying "the fact that several arab speaking editors are commenting here makes me nervous" would you not find that unbecoming? I know I would have reacted just like I did here if someone had said that.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate hearing things like this, where someone believes a group of people are conspiring. I'm Jewish, and I can tell you that we don't all think alike, and we don't receive coded messages from anyone. I think Slrubenstein called me a troll once about 5 years ago (yeah, I remember these things). The point is that calling one class of editors, as if you could actually identify that class, anything is uncivil and a general personal attack. And Tarc...you said almost the same thing, which I mentioned on your talk page. It's not good whomever is doing it. OrangeMarlin 17:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, you're straying into the all-too-predictable realms of political correctness. Like-minded editors who act and edit in tandem are a problem; they don't get special cover or exemption to criticism just because historically their culture has been wrongly linked with subterfuge and conspiracy theories. It is unfortunate that this sorts of thing plays itself out on what is supposed to be a just a collaborative encyclopedia project, but we have specific evidence of this in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area. See WP:CAMERA for starters, and Jayjg's infamous "watch my back" e-mail slipup. Being Jewish in itself has nothing to do with it. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If not accepting arguments that stereotype editors based on their ethnicity, beliefs, etc. is political correctness then yes I am politically correct - and I will continue to be so. Silverseren did not talk about a clique of likeminded editors - he talked about Jewish editors presuming that similar ethnicity equals likemindedness. If he had said "wait a minute I've seen editor X and X work in tandem on occasion y, z and ,q" that would have been a different kind of argument. Not a particularly good one but at least it wouldn't have been bigotted and borderline racist. You do not have any specific evidence that allows grouping all jewish editors together in a single camp trying to game the system as Silverseren implies. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking my leave of this, as you're getting a wee bit too hysterical. It isn't a stereotype when you actually see a group of editors performing said action. This WQA is without merit. End of story. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You should definitely always leave a thread with a personal attack. And I am the hysterical one? 25 editors voted to topic ban - did they all do it because they were Jews? Were they all part of this infamous clique you are talking about? Doe that mean that you won't file a WQA if someone stereotypes you? ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The WQA definitely has merit and Mannus is exactly right. In fact, this is more than a Wikiquette infraction. It's despicable. Dave Dial (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Phearson's Opinion

I have reviewed the above evidence presented, I think that Silver may have not have AGF in regards to the perceived "opposition". I also believe that he may have selected various poor choices of words to describe what he was trying to relay to other editors. However, I don't believe that he was making any Anti-Semitic remarks other then to point out that there maybe POV pushing amongst the opposition. And I do not know of any other instance of him making perceived anti-Semitic remarks. As for everything else, I have no opinion of the current dispute, as I generally stay away from religious articles unless it is outright preaching/advert/vandalism. Phearson (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Silver seren's response

First off, the first and last diff given above by Maunus are the same, so that should probably be fixed.

Regardless, I apologize if what I said was taken as a personal attack. However, I do not believe that asking whether users have bias is a personal attack. My original comment in the discussion was whether it was appropriate for users who have a personal interest in the articles that Noleander edits to make up such a large proportion of the topic ban discussion. My questions and subsequent responses were never meant to be disparaging to Judaism or any Jewish users, they were meant to question whether a bias existed. Clearly, this is a question that cannot be asked, considering the backlash that occurred. I apologize if this was taken as a personal attack by any user against themselves or their faith. It was not meant to be saying anything bad about any user, it is merely asking whether the users in question may have a personal interest that is influencing their decision, which is what bias means (and what our WP:COI policy is based on).

Again, it was never, ever meant to be a personal attack against anyone. However, I almost immediately had users calling me anti-semitic for saying it and I am afraid that that made me quite flustered and angry, leading to my next few comments, which explains the second diff given above. The third diff is where I began to be flustered at how misunderstood my words were being taken. Obviously, looking back, I can see that I should have rephrased them and been more clear. I also was far more blunt and rude than I needed to be (making no comment on potential rudeness of others).

The first, second to last, and last (a duplicate of the first) diffs, however, have nothing to do with this discussion. My comments there are about a situation that I was involved in a year ago in the Criticism of Judaism article and I don't believe apply very much to this discussion, other than someone prompted me to elaborate on it.

This comment I made afterward explains that my comments were not meant to sound anti-semitic, that I would have asked about bias regardless of whether the topic was about religion or not, if there was a group of users that were personally connected to the topic involved. I personally consider that to be an obvious question to ask in such a situation, though I see that others do not feel that way. Silverseren 06:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1. being jewish (or black or white or catholic) never constitutes a conflict of interest. This relies on the stereotypical fallacy that everyone who belongs to a particular group thinks alike. That is not what COI or Bias applies to. 2. You didn't ask you stated that you were worried that many Jews were commenting. 3. I accept your apology, but I cannot speak for others.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That is sort of like saying "being in a minority never gives you a different perspective on the world." Maybe people can just entirely overlook the consequences of unfairness directed at them, but I don't buy it. I think we all carry a perspective, and if we try to deny that, we're simply lying to ourselves (and maybe others). (That doesn't imply that we can't overcome it, and it doesn't mean we can't look past it to understand others' points of view.) -- Avanu (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No it is not, it is like saying "you can't generalize about what perspective a person has on the world just frm knowing they belong to a minority"·Maunus·ƛ· 11:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised by Silver seren's comments. It might be worth Silver seren bearing in mind that editors like fourdee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were banned indefinitely from[REDACTED] by Jimbo for, amongst other things, suggesting that Jewish historians were incapable of giving an unbiased account of the holocaust. That kind of prejudice has no place on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a leap there from a few mistaken comments that from all accounts seemed good faith, to a different editor with systemic pattern of racist comments. Let's try and keep it in perspective. -- Avanu (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a more extreme case of what seem to be the same mistaken assumptions and, as Maunus has said, "stereotypical fallacies". Since it causes unnecessary offense, it is best to avoid going down that path. Mathsci (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to "stereotype" as a defense probably isn't good here, since from my perspective, it seems some of my fellow editors are lumping SilverSeren into a stereotype as an anti-semite. -- Avanu (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I haven't done that, so you're comments are becoming off-topic. It is Silver seren's conduct which seems to have created problems. Various other editors also made comments in that thread which seemed over-personalised and only superficially related to the original incident. Their conduct has been discussed elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll make this my last comment on the thread then. Although Silver should or could have phrased their words better, it takes two of us to have a problem. I think Silver has attempted to make amends, and was sincerely acting in good faith. Hopefully that is enough. -- Avanu (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Silverseren writes "Again, it was never, ever meant to be a personal attack against anyone" and I blieve her - but that is because I interpret what she wrote to mean "I did not believe I was violating NPA." I believe that SS did not believe she was violating NPA. Violations of NPA are usually treated pretty harshly here, and I can understand why SS would not wish to violate NPA. But the real problem is that anti-Semitism is not a personal attack, it is an impersonal attack. The nature of the attack depends on its not being directed against individuals. It is directed against "Jews." So Slrubenstein is not Slrubenstein, she is "Jew." Maunus is not Maunus, she is "Jew." MathSci is not MathSci, she is "Jew." I am making the same point as Maunus and MathSci, I believe, but more bluntly because I am not sure others get the point. Anti-Semitism can take many forms. Disparaging Judaism can be one form .. but then again, it need not be, one can be critical of Judaism or specific forms of Judaism without being an anti-Semite. Similarly, one can be an anti-Semite through other forms.

When I accused Noleander of anti-Semitic editing, I did not reach this conclusion based on Noleander's identity. I do not know what her identity is, nor do I care. My comments were about an article she wrote, and my conclusions were based on what she wrote. I do not know why she wrote the article, or its contents, and I do not care, it is not my job to guess at her motives. It was the act, the writing, the contents of what whas written, that I thought were anti-Semitic. And I gave my reasons. When people asked for more reasons, I gave more reasons. Many editors agreed that the article should be deleted, and they gave reasons.

Many editors do not belive that the article should be deleted, and many editors do not believe that Noleanders edits were anti-Semitic, and many have given their reasons, and I have not accused ANY of them of being anti-Semitic. I do not agree with their reasoning, but I understand they have their reasons.

And most of the people, including myself, who have voted to delete the article and for the topic ban against Noleander have provided reasons. What makes SS's comments anti-Semitic is that she ignores the reasons we have given and says that the reason we vote for the topic ban or to delete the article is because of our identity, because we are Jews. To suggest that someone's stated reasons should be disounted because the only reason that person voted a certain way is because that person is a Jew is the argument of an anti-Semite. This is not my opinion, it is Sartre's opinion in Anti-Semite and Jew.

SS says, "My original comment in the discussion was whether it was appropriate for users who have a personal interest in the articles that Noleander edits to make up such a large proportion of the topic ban discussion." This is no excuse. Of course most of us edit articles we are interested in, and follow AfDs or AN/I threads on issues of interest to us. People can have many reasons for being interested in this thread. SS was very specific; the focus was on "Jews." What matters with any edit is what are the reasons, and the poblem is the same here: SS is refering to people who gave reasons. It is SS's sugestion that we lied about our reasons, or that the reasons we gave don't matter, that she knows the real reason, it is because we are Jews.

People responded two days ago to SS's comments, and many editors explained what was wrong eith her reasoning.

Funny how she apologizes only when it gets to WQA. At least it is clear who she is apologizing to. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I'll comment one more time. Silver expressed a theory, that some took as offensive. From what I can tell, it wasn't meant to be offensive, it was meant in a manner that was serious. I don't personally know anyone who is Jewish, and I doubt I would know or care beyond being interested in them as a person and getting to know more about them. It is simply not an issue to me. It just strikes me as a little sensitive to be so critical of a person who is making a good faith attempt to reconcile. This kind of attitude is what made me comment initially in the Noleander thread. It doesn't strike me as a unbiased editor looking to help others, but as a judgemental editor looking to 'fix' other people. *sigh* -- Avanu (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, you suggest I do not take SS's apology seriously. You are right, but I have reasons, and I think they are good reasons. In order to understand them you have to be aware of what has really gone on over the past few days. This actually means looking at how S behaves when NOT at the WQA page. This will require some time, but if you want to understand why I question SS's "apology," you have to know the facts.

On March 26 SS opposed the motion to topic ban with this comment "... completely ignore the fact that they are all referenced to highly reliable sources, often of which are entirely about the subject made ..." implying that the article Noleander wrote was well-sourced and that people supporting a topic ban "ignore" this fact.

Well, okay, but then user:28bytes supported the topic ban, writing this:

Perhaps it escaped the attention of those opposing this topic ban that the entire "Nazi Germany" section of the recently created "Jews and money/Economic history of the Jews" article was sourced to Hitler, albeit via secondary sources that quoted Hitler's statements in Mein Kampf, rather than sourcing directly to Mein Kampf itself. OK, you say. Surely that's just a coincidence. Maybe Hitler was the only one with anything interesting to say on the topic. AGF and all that. Fine. Then let's look at the article's talk page, shall we? Here's what I see:

1.Noleander writes a section on Jews and war financing, claiming that Jewish bankers helped finance governments "in particular, for financing armies and wars." This is sourced to three separate page ranges in three separate books.

2.An editor goes and actually looks at those sources, and finds they say nothing of the sort.

3.Noleander acknowledges that the sources cited do not actually say this and offers to help look for better sources.

The misrepresentation of sources and uncritical, unbalanced quoting from Mein Kampf isn't enough for you? OK, then what about the previous three AN/I threads where this exact type of tendentious editing and blatant cherry-picking of sources to advance a very specific POV was brought up? The pattern here is obvious to anyone paying attention

Now, it strikes me that this editor really took some time to check just what sources were being used, and if the were being used appropriately.

THIS is SS's comment on the above obervation: "Should it be concerning that a good percentage of the supporting editors here are Jewish, according to their userpage? Doesn't that make them biased against Noleander?"

You do not see the problem? 28bytes was commenting on Noleander's use of sources. She pointed to specific issues in the use of sources. But SS did NOT say "thanks or finally addressing the use of sources." SS did not respond at all to the content of what 28bytes wrote. Instead, the comment about Jewish editors.

On march 6, LessHeardVanYou wrote this to SilverSeren:

An honest and direct answer to that is that everyone sees things from their own point of view. Hopefully people take everything here with a grain of salt because lets face it, the encyclopedia is rife with POV. Pages like "Jews and money" are really just WP:coatracks to dump that POV. Anyway, the answer to your question is "address the argument being made, not the person making the argument," Trust me, I know that can be diffacult.V7-sport (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Members who identify as a particular culture, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, belief (and non belief - /me waves) system, political idealogy, etc, are likely very often more nuanced toward negative depictions of that identity. I shouldn't think the Jews are any less (or more) sensitive than any other group, and that such sensitivity may lead to over reaction and possibly bias within a small faction of such a group. On the other hand, there is no basis for suggesting that WP contributors who self identify (or are identified via name choices or articles edited or whatever) as Jews are apt to act other than in accordance to their understanding of the policies, guidelines and practices, especially as some gentiles (/me waves a little less assuredly, wondering if atheists fall into that category or something else) are expressing very much the same concerns. You have been trouted, which should indicate that the question you raised has been considered inappropriate by some here, and yet you do not seem to be taking the hint. This is an unfortunate mindset also exampled by the subject of the discussion. I strongly suggest that you pronounce yourself satisfied with my and others response and concede the point. Please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, is this not an attempt to be helpful? Yet, SS resplied "The reason I raised the issue is because there is an preponderance of Jewish users who have arrived to vote on this topic ban ..."

I made the following comment:

"The reason I raised the issue is because there is an preponderance of Jewish users who have arrived to vote on this topic ban ..." Have arrived implies that before they arrived, most of the discussion was by non-Jews. Isn't the real question: why is it that Jews were not commenting before Saturday night? In any event (1) given that Noleander added the "Jews and Judaism" template to the article that prompted this thread, is it any surprise that many of the people who have read the article are Jewish? (2) how actually do you know they are Jewish? (3) why raise the question of "bias?" All you have to do is read the reasons they provide for supporting their support or opposition to the motion. This proposal will be decided on the reasons given, for and against, not the identity of the editors (which, unless someone outs themselves, we never really know). For all I know, Noleander is Jewish. I really have no idea - I can judge only her edits. I find it highly ironic that so many editors have looked at Noleander's behavior and see a bias, and now Silver seren is calling attention to the identities of editors and just based on that is claiming a bias. Silver seren, this is the precise opposite of how a Wikipedian should act. You should infer bias from how people actually behae, not from what you think is their identity. MathSci provides a great analysis of one example from Noleander's editing at the AfD page (where I have provided other examples): User:Mathsci/example; this shows how Noleander systematically misrepresents sources in order to present anti-Semitic canards as facts in articles. It is this kind of behavior that reveals the bias, not her identity. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Was this note a genuine and courteous attempt to help? I even provided a link to MathSci's concrete, specific example of Noleander misusing a source, to make it clear that the comments against Noleander were based on her use of sources, not some bias. I attempted to inject reason into the discussion.

Then, these comments:

What's far more "rude" is characterizing people who disagree with you as "a group of Jewish users who were adamantly refusing the addition of any material to the article". The latter part of the sentence is simply untrue. As for your characterizing them as "a group of Jewish users", it is both unsourced, and, frankly, bigoted. Given these kinds of statements, which you persistently make, I'm completely unsurprised to see you supporting Noleander and his articles. You need to stop basing your arguments and statements here on your perception of the ethnicity or religion of other editors. Jayjg (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed. I have no way of reading someones mind, but for me statements like those set off alarm bells that let me stop them before I actually voice them. That someone doesn't recoil from blanket statements about ethnicities, especially negative blanket statements, is interesting. -- ۩ Mask 00:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Avenu, are these not constructive attempts to help SS? Wouldn't you expect SS to apologize after thesehelpful comments?

Well, let's see how SS responded:

No, it is specifically true. Every single person on the opposing side in that argument was Jewish, thus it is literally true to call them Jewish users. Their userpages said so and they were arguing against the inclusion of any material that was criticism unless it was by a Jewish author (which...doesn't even make any sense in terms of criticism). Eventually, most of us gave up on trying to argue, since it was getting nowhere. I believe Noleander kept arguing since then, which clearly didn't help him in the books of said users. The rooted stance of the opposing users also explains why the Criticism of Judaism article is so much worse than other comparable Criticism of religion articles. There is a specific reason why I attempt to stay away from articles where I would have a personal interest in them having a POV (such as political articles, articles about social issues, articles related to homosexuality, ect.). I wish other users did the same, but more often than not, users go directly to articles where they have a biased opinion and it's this that causes such conflict on Misplaced Pages. I have no personal interest in Judaism, either for or against, but I am against other biased users trying to control such an article. SilverserenC 00:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So SS is sticking to the "bias" allegation, after several editors explained hat was wrong, and also provided careful examples of valid reasons for questioning Noleander's use of sources.

Avenu, you question why I do not accept SilverSeren's apology, and why I do not try to help. The reason I do not try to help in your sense of the word is because LessheardVanU, I, Jayjg, and Mask tried to help, thy really did try to help. I am trying to understand why SS would wrote this:

If we have an article about criticism of a company and a group of users were removing information from the article and they all stated on their userpages that they liked said company, I would also be calling bias ... 01:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

AFTER the above comments, and AFTER it went here, to WQA.

So after all the (1) helpful explanations about why her comment was inappropriate and (2) helpful examples of how Noleander's misuse of sources, backed up by evidence, and not bias explained the support of the topic ban, SS does not apologize.

But here at WQA SS apologizes.

So I repeat what I wrote above: at least we know who SS is apologizing to. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm really trying to pull myself away, but... Look, I am a disinterested editor. I don't have a stake in who wins or loses, I'm just looking at what is being presented. And honestly, the discussion was supposed to be about Noleander. Some other editor makes a dumb comment and it ends up here. I haven't gotten angry or upset. I've just asked questions and pretty much looked at it neutrally (I think). What I saw on the previous page, and what I am seeing here, are several people who seem really upset and personally involved and *not* disinterested and objective. I don't mind looking at the substantive arguments (and I agree there are some things that are substantive). But what I am not interested in are the personal undercurrents of fear or reprisal or whatever they should be called. So unless we can really say that SilverSeren is a big jerk who really dislikes people of Jewish ancestry, I would say, let's all get back to being productive and let it be. And I don't see where that case has been made. He's apologized, maybe belatedly, (maybe even begrudgingly), but nonetheless, it has been made. What more shall we do? So let's move back to the original discussion and if people can't leave the emotional content behind, it might be that they aren't in a position to judge. -- Avanu (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, that last response that you're quoting from me is me discussing an incident that happened a year ago. And I stand by what I said about that incident a year ago, but I don't think you know about or care about such an incident, as it doesn't apply to the discussion at hand. You have misquoted me, sir/ma'am.

And my apology is not begrudging at all. I am still just trying to understand why others consider it to be antisemitism, when I consider myself biased in articles that I would have an interest in, such as articles about homosexuality or articles about Christianity. It is for that reason that I try to limit my involvement in such articles or anything in relation to them. Thus, I apply such an idea of bias to others as well, which is why I question the high propensity of users who have a personal relation to a topic and their subsequent involvement in such a topic ban, when they have a natural COI (as I do in topics related to me). It is quite clear that others do not share this viewpoint on how bias works. But, do you understand my confusion? Silverseren 14:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

In this context, would people please refrain from abbreviating Silver seren's name as SS... unless they mean what it implies. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

._. Hopefully no one meant it like that. Silverseren 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean it "that" way, and do apologize if anyone thought I did.

Silver says, "I am still just trying to understand why others consider it to be antisemitism, when I consider myself biased in articles that I would have an interest in, such as articles about homosexuality or articles about"

Okay, So I really would like to help but if you can indulge me by answering a few questions it would help.

user:28bytes wrote this:

Perhaps it escaped the attention of those opposing this topic ban that the entire "Nazi Germany" section of the recently created "Jews and money/Economic history of the Jews" article was sourced to Hitler, albeit via secondary sources that quoted Hitler's statements in Mein Kampf, rather than sourcing directly to Mein Kampf itself. OK, you say. Surely that's just a coincidence. Maybe Hitler was the only one with anything interesting to say on the topic. AGF and all that. Fine. Then let's look at the article's talk page, shall we? Here's what I see:

1.Noleander writes a section on Jews and war financing, claiming that Jewish bankers helped finance governments "in particular, for financing armies and wars." This is sourced to three separate page ranges in three separate books.

2.An editor goes and actually looks at those sources, and finds they say nothing of the sort.

3.Noleander acknowledges that the sources cited do not actually say this and offers to help look for better sources.

The misrepresentation of sources and uncritical, unbalanced quoting from Mein Kampf isn't enough for you? OK, then what about the previous three AN/I threads where this exact type of tendentious editing and blatant cherry-picking of sources to advance a very specific POV was brought up? The pattern here is obvious to anyone paying attention

So First question (1) Earlier, you had xpressed a concern that opposition to Noleander's article "... completely ignore the fact that they are all referenced to highly reliable sources, often of which are entirely about the subject made ..."

So my first question is, do you think that 28 bytes comment (a) is an example of the problem you describe - if so, I would have to ask you to explain why you think so, or (b) someone who actually is trying to comment on the reliability and use of sources?

(2) second question: this was your comment on the above staqtement by 28 bytes "Should it be concerning that a good percentage of the supporting editors here are Jewish, according to their userpage? Doesn't that make them biased against Noleander?" and I do not see how it is appropriate or even follows logically from 28 bytes' comment so could you 'please just explain to me why this was your response to 28 bytes' comment, what in his comment led you to this comment?

(3)Now, more directly to your question of why people responded with the trout to your comments, LessHeardVanYou wrote this:

Members who identify as a particular culture, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, belief (and non belief - /me waves) system, political idealogy, etc, are likely very often more nuanced toward negative depictions of that identity. I shouldn't think the Jews are any less (or more) sensitive than any other group, and that such sensitivity may lead to over reaction and possibly bias within a small faction of such a group. On the other hand, there is no basis for suggesting that WP contributors who self identify (or are identified via name choices or articles edited or whatever) as Jews are apt to act other than in accordance to their understanding of the policies, guidelines and practices, especially as some gentiles (/me waves a little less assuredly, wondering if atheists fall into that category or something else) are expressing very much the same concerns. You have been trouted, which should indicate that the question you raised has been considered inappropriate by some here, and yet you do not seem to be taking the hint. This is an unfortunate mindset also exampled by the subject of the discussion. I strongly suggest that you pronounce yourself satisfied with my and others response and concede the point. Please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, this seems to me like a good explanation to you. Yet you still say you are trying to understand. Okay. But that means that there is something unclear or insuficient in the above comment. I'd like to help you understant ... but first I need to know why LHVU failed. If you could explain to me what is wrong with his response, maybe I could come up with a better one.

(4) Okay, I also did try before to help you understan but I failed:

why raise the question of "bias?" All you have to do is read the reasons they provide for supporting their support or opposition to the motion. This proposal will be decided on the reasons given, for and against, not the identity of the editors (which, unless someone outs themselves, we never really know). For all I know, Noleander is Jewish. I really have no idea - I can judge only her edits. I find it highly ironic that so many editors have looked at Noleander's behavior and see a bias, and now Silver seren is calling attention to the identities of editors and just based on that is claiming a bias. Silver seren, this is the precise opposite of how a Wikipedian should act. You should infer bias from how people actually behae, not from what you think is their identity. MathSci provides a great analysis of one example from Noleander's editing at the AfD page (where I have provided other examples): User:Mathsci/example; this shows how Noleander systematically misrepresents sources in order to present anti-Semitic canards as facts in articles. It is this kind of behavior that reveals the bias, not her identity. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So if I am to try to help you again, I need to kow why my comment did not help you before. Can you explain to me why this comment was unhelpful? If I knew where I failed here, maybe I can do better. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there is really one answer to all four of your questions. My initial question and all of my responses, to which all of the responses you've given as examples don't cover is that I don't have a problem with there being Jewish editors in the discussion, especially if we're talking the editors that were involved in the disputed article. However, my concern was over the fact that there was a vast percentage more of Jewish editors that were responding to the discussion than would have been normal for the range of editors that would be scanning ANI for topics. It was also this fact that made me make the comment about my suspicions on exterior contact between users, because the number of Jewish editors responding was far too high to be a random sampling. As far as I know, there was no notification of other editors, but it concerned me and still does concern me that so many Jewish editors responded. It wasn't a normal amount that would naturally respond to such a discussion unless there was some sort of off-Wiki contact going on. I have no proof of this, obviously, but it seems very strange considering the proportions. This was the point of my comments that I see others didn't understand with the way I worded them.

Secondly, I have no issue with the evidence of misrepresentation of sources that were given by some users. However, the majority of the supporters were not going off of this evidence, but were making statements based on anti-semitism, which has nothing to do with the evidence of misrepresentation of sources. It was these sorts of reasonings by supports voters that also affected my comments asking about bias. Silverseren 21:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

User:GoetheFromm reported by User:Biosketch

1. – diff where it is suggested that I am part of "a group of individuals" trying to conceal information on Misplaced Pages.
2. – diff where I am implicated in some unspecified wrongdoing.
3. – diff of edit at an unrelated article to which I had recently contributed.
4. – diff where I am purported to be pro-Zionist and again accused of blocking information.
5. – diff of revert at a second article to which I had recently contributed.
6. – diff where I am sarcastically told to "Keep up the good work, BioSketch," in relation to aforementioned revert.
7. – diff where I am accused of "totally deflecting the issue."
8. – diff of edit at a third unrelated article to which I had recently contributed.
9. – diff of edit at fourth unrelated article to which I had recently contributed.
10. – diff where I am accused of speaking falsely, seeking retaliation, being a sockpuppet of User:Plot Spoiler, and having a "history of edit warring."
11. – the first in a series of messages trying to intimidate me into withdrawing a complaint at AN/I.

Much as I had sincerely hoped this would not be necessary, there seems to be no alternative. I have been trying these last few days, since being warned by User:Swarm of uncivil behavior, to avoid any contact with the user involved above – but sadly to no avail. Nor have my attempts at maintaining a composed, civil discourse with the user been any more successful. I would appreciate the help of an Admin in finally resolving this matter.—Biosketch (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reposted BioSketch's original complaint (as per his request) and address his points one-by-one. GoetheFromm (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

1. – diff where it is suggested that I am part of "a group of individuals" trying to conceal information on Misplaced Pages.

1) I NEVER suggested that BioSketch was part of a group individuals. One will see that Biosketch included himself on the talk page where I was the first to bring up an issue on the talk page. That is how editors communicate to each other, as we all know. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1. – diff where I am implicated in some unspecified wrongdoing.

2) I attempted to MOLLIFY Biosketch's concerns by stating that there wasn't a conspiracy and stating that users could, themselves, determine what was going on. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1. – diff of edit at an unrelated article to which I had recently contributed.

3) This is a different user's edit that I addressed (user Plot Spoiler). Why does user:BioSketch conflate himself with user:PlotSpoiler? GoetheFromm (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1. – diff where I am purported to be pro-Zionist and again accused of blocking information.

4) One will see that I didn't ACCUSE BioSketch of pro-zionism at all (after all being Pro-zionist isn't an accusation). In fact, one can see that I SYMPATHIZED with him and that I believed that full information must be included. I think that this is in line with wiki standards to have the desire to include all around information. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1. – diff of revert at a second article to which I had recently contributed.

5) The Hind Al-Husseini article is an article that I, myself, referred BioSketch to (that is, I was the one who introduced him to the page) when we were discussing the page. Biosketch performed an edit that did not consider other editors and consensus, so I reverted the changes. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the interaction word-for-word on the Miral talk page Talk:Miral where I was the first one to refer BioSketch to Hind al-Husseini:

I also want to emphasize the point that if actually follow the wiki links to Hind Husseini you will see that it makes direct reference to the Deir Yessin Massacre and setting up of an orphanage that Miral is fictionally associated to. This is how it became first evident to me that it was necessary to add the Deir Yessin Massacre. It was only afterwards, have done a google search that I discovered the film's, the director's, and others' direct reference to the Deir Yessin Massacre in reference to the film. To me, that is good wikipediying. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is BioSketch's response to me on the talk page: You make a valid point that I should probably have followed the wikilink to Hind Husseini. So that's what I'm doing now...but there are problems. For one thing, the first reference at Hind Husseini has rotted. Secondly, the second time Deir Yassin is mentioned in the Hind Husseini article, the reference leads to palestine-family.net, which appears to be a user-edited website and therefore a source of questionable reliability. It should not be considered a WP:RS either at the Hind Husseini page or here at Miral. —Biosketch (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1. – diff where I am sarcastically told to "Keep up the good work, BioSketch," in relation to aforementioned revert.

6) That was a FRIENDLY comment, not a sarcastic. If one looks at the talkpage, one will see that I even address Biosketch's issue with my comment and clarify. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1. – diff where I am accused of "totally deflecting the issue."

7) This is where I started to get a bit frustrated with Biosketch. Was a bit harsh, I'll admit. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1. – diff of edit at a third unrelated article to which I had recently contributed.

8) What is wrong with this edit?

1. – diff of edit at fourth unrelated article to which I had recently contributed.

9) What is wrong with THIS edit, also? This was a minor edit on punctuation. I should be getting thanks, not grief. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1. – diff where I am accused of speaking falsely, seeking retaliation, being a sockpuppet of User:Plot Spoiler, and having a "history of edit warring."

10) This comment was made on the noticeboard started by Biosketch himself. I was addressing his points and stating what I believed about his accusations about me. I DO indeed feel that he is being retaliatory. I NEVER once even said the word that he was a sockpuppet, and he DOES indeed have a history of edit warring (which I only mentioned because he impotently tried to accuse me of edit warring on the noticeboard, which led to nothing). On flip side, the user with whom he conflates himself with (user: Plot Spoiler did indeed violate 3rr on the page that Biosketch first started our now contentious interaction). GoetheFromm (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

1. – the first in a series of messages trying to intimidate me into withdrawing a complaint at AN/I.

11) Please check this edit. How is this intimidation and when did I ask him to withdraw his complaint? On the contrary, I said on that board that I thought he was misusing the noticeboards and that I wanted and admin to intervene. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Much as I had sincerely hoped this would not be necessary, there seems to be no alternative. I have been trying these last few days, since being warned by User:Swarm of uncivil behavior, to avoid any contact with the user involved above – but sadly to no avail. Nor have my attempts at maintaining a composed, civil discourse with the user been any more successful. I would appreciate the help of an Admin in finally resolving this matter.—Biosketch (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, I believe that is getting very out of out of hand! I believe that if one investigates the matter will see that Biosketch's interpretations above are truly misrepresentations. Biosketch has tried to use three noticeboards to stir up what I believe is simply controversy. see here Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:GoetheFromm_reported_by_User:Biosketch This was done on March 25.

In each of the noticeboards, I have attempted to defend myself against his accusations. When I felt that he was being uncivil by referring to my conduct as having a "borderline paranoid frame of mind" accusing me of "suspicion and uncooperativeness" stating that I am "harrassing" other users (User:Plot Spoiler at Victoria Affair) and that I am stalking BioSketch "purely for spite" as well as other terms such as "aggressive, uncivil, unjustly suspecting, stubborn, disruptive, and obsessive" I asked him to refrain and he did not and I reported to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Uncivility_by_user_Biosketch.3F which yielded a warning by admin about his behavior. Now Biosketch is using the same noticeboard (see above sections), despite the fact that my only interactions with him have been to address his accusations!

Please note that I attempted to be peaceful with Biosketch, as evidenced here User_talk:Biosketch#Your_Strong_Reaction GoetheFromm (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To sum up, I sincerely hope that someone takes the effort to look at the entirety of the issue (the noticeboards, edit history, and talk pages). Biosketch, to my knowing, has misrepresented our interactions and directly accused me of things (being paranoid, spiteful, and edit warring), none of which has been corroborated. In fact, the noticeboards have yielded results that have asked him to be more civil. Normally I wouldn't put so much effort into addressing these points so detailed, but BioSketch has really been making me feel that I need to defend myself. Its left a bad taste in my mouth.... Thanks for all your help everyone, GoetheFromm (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, really sorry that you all are inconvenienced by this...and I hope to resolve this soon. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh.......Could you please undo your edit and repost it as a separate message so it doesn't make chop suey out of what I wrote? Thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed it as much as I could (I actually reposted your original and kept the "chop suey" version for me with my responses). Make sense? GoetheFromm (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Thayer Watkins

• Why No Dr. Thayer Watkins

Don't know if this is getting through to anyone, but there's this viral scare diatribe popping up all over the place that quotes one Dr. Thayer Watkins (supposedly an economics expert) and he's nowhere on Misplaced Pages. Why not? 66.91.79.73 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This makes no sense to me.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No one's created an article on Thayer Watkins. Perhaps you could file a request at Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation. For more information, this looks like his personal web page. Regards, Swarm 09:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Rudeness and hounding in discussion

• Dahn
• The artcile in question is: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Janos_Boros_%283rd_nomination%29&action=submit

Dahn seems to not understand that he is being rude in his discussion, inspite of my warnings. He seems to think only those who support the deletion of the article are eligible to post their view. He has gone on to say in his last post that "I'm not going to waste the day bickering about this with you," and later in the same post "Carry on "answering" if you will, but expect to lose all your remaining credibility when you're manipulating info with sophistry." This is demenaing. He has not stopped doing this inspite of my requests. Another problem in this discussion is that all the Hungarian editors have been banned. The discussion is now entirely one where I am left to defend against many Romanian editors who have started hounding the discussion.

Hangakiran (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution