Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive101

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


180.10.153.175

IP user has been active on the article, and it appears to be the same user from february. The editor has shown incivility towards me, harasment an disqualification without evidence. For example, he repeatedly disqualify me for not being english native, implying that I shouldn't be editing here, or repeatedly suggesting I work for the organization which source I used to disqualify my neutrality (and that is false). At first (february) I responded to those comments and the issue halted. But now it continues and I'm avoiding any response to those comments. But when I want to reply with argument about the article, he responds ignoring my point at all and including such kind of "insinuations", making difficult to actually improve the article. He also misreads or disqualifies my comments so I feel futile to end the dispute by normal dialog. Some diffs: [1][2] (here he change the facts in his "timeline", since the first bold edit was not adding another numbers, but replacing them in a context of another source)[3] (telling me to go to "my" wikipedia version)[4][5][6][7] pmt7ar (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've sent them an NPA notice. Let's just assume they're a newbie and are unfamiliar that comments like that aren't allowed. If it continues, though, feel free to report back here. Regards, Swarm X 03:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

user:Bzuk and the removal of citation templates

Bzuk is a well-regarded editor known mostly for his contributions to aircraft articles. However there is a long-running dispute between him and myself and some other editors. This is going nowhere and I'd appreciate additional input.

The issue revolves around the {{citation}} templates. I use these, I use them when adding new references, I use them when re-working older references. Bzuk does not use them - to the point of making a great number of edits whose only point is to remove them. These are usually labelled as "cleanup" and are often performed immediately after another editor has expanded an article with appropriately formatted refs. Apart from the virtues or otherwise of any particular format, this sort of edit is of itself disruptive and usually perceived by the initial editor as being a critical dismissal of their work.

When questioned, the response ranges from being ignored or the cryptically terse to the overly effusive to the point of WP:TLDR.

Their justification is a stylistic one, based on their previous vast experience as a librarian, and the fact that we poor fools at Wikipedia are just doing it (citation formatting) all wrong. I see three problems with this view:

  • If there is a problem with the output of the citation templates, then the place to fix that is at template_talk:Citation where a better template can be produced, with a smarter output. I have a lot of sympathy for this view.
  • I am not personally a librarian (and thus my opinion evidently counts for nothing), but I am a professional and published authority on the handling of metadata within the library and museum context. I am also a software engineer of considerable professional experience. Uniting these two areas involves techniques like the citation templates. They offer two advantages. The first is that their output is flexible, even in the future. If we markup a source page with wikicode to call a template using identified property values, then we can change the future formatting of this, and many pages, however we might wish, without needing to re-visit the many pages that used it. This is an important technique for abstracting a data model (the template parameters as separate properties) away from a formatted presentation. Secondly, we may (I hope) wish to expand the semantic web capabilities of WP in the future, to better support projects such as DBpedia. Such projects benefit hugely from embedded semantic publishing, the output formatting of content in ways, usually hidden, so as to make it machine-processable by further agents. Rather than just an italic-formatted string of Flight (which a few humans might infer to be a journal title), we can make this a structured property such as Flight, where it refers to a taxon within an controlled vocabulary - a strong machine link to this being a journal, and it being a particular journal, not just another publication of the same name. By using such techniques early, we build a content repository that can easily support new processing and access techniques in the future.
  • It's just rude. No-one likes to work on an article, to add those all-important references, to spend extra effort in structuring them carefully, only to have them immediately stomped by another editor and their implied structure thrown away. Particularly not when this edit is labelled as "Cleanup". I for one no longer contribute to aviation articles, simply because I don't appreciate my work being discarded in this manner by this one editor.

I don't believe I'm the only editor seeing this behaviour as a problem either. See [8] & [9]. I particularly like Bzuk's comment, "When the referencing style is already in place, it is contingent on new editors to either follow the proscribed style or explain clearly why changes are to be made. ", a viewpoint which his own edits show absolutely no regard for whatsoever. Also [10] & [11] and [12] & [13], [14], [15] and even [16].

On a related note, it seems that this editor is now going to lecture us on why WP's use of alt text should be removed too [17]

That's a non-issue as I have been persuaded that there is a need for the notes for vision-challenged users; my concern was with the style of writing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm sorry to raise this issue with someone who is clearly such a valuable editor, but enough's enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See my response to Andy Dingley on his talk page on numerous occasions, which I believe stems from his rewriting all the original citations on the Supermarine S.6B article into his preferred style of templates. However, the rewriting introduced new errors and going back in the article history, I noted that cite templates were not standardized. When there are many errors, it is sometimes easier to rewrite the data in text rather than wrestling with the malformed templates.

In a few words, the issues are:
  1. Useage in Wikipedia is highly influenced by the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome.
  2. Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers. despite many efforts to re-draw the templates, they are still rampant with errors in format. I can actually re-write the templates, but it takes so much time and effort, that I finally have abandoned that practice.
  3. Cite templates were intended for neophytes and casual users (certainly not someone like you who is attempting to make a difference!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
  4. Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
  5. Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
  6. Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.
  7. The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come, is long discarded.

Item 1 Explanation: The "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome is derived from computer nerds who soon realized that if your data is flawed, no matter how you manipulate it, it comes out flawed. It's a precept of Wikipedia that any and every one can edit so it also follows the adage of "too many cooks..." Basically, having numerous editors working on an article can actually create a negative result, much in the way of a committee product, although with judicious review, a levelling can take place in terms of style, grammar and syntax. The citation templates are still a mess, but there have been "patches" placed over nearly all of them. I have tried for years to get the designers to rewrite the templates to no avail, so if you continue to use a template system, you will have to learn how to manipulate the template parameters and unless you have a background in cataloging or reference librarianship, it may be too daunting a task. Nevertheless, I can teach anyone how to cite in MLA or even APA, Chicago or other referencing styles that eliminates all the malformed template errors.

Item 7 Explanation: The canard that you must have citation templates no matter how flawed they are, and all of them, to one degree or another, are malformed, was because editors were told that their meta data would be more easily manipulated by some miraculous future programed bot that would set about Wikiwonderland, standardizing everything. If you believe that, I do have some prime swampland in Florida for you to consider, or perhaps the Brooklyn Bridge may be to your liking. Not to be facetious, but there is no magic bot out there, just a whole bunch of semi-trained researchers/editors plinking about and since they have no training in cataloguing or reference systems, the best way for them to proceed is to use a "fill-in-the-blanks" template. Now, a full disclosure, I am not a Luddite, having been a reference Librarian for 30 years, and lately an author and editor at various publishing houses and film companies. I can use the templates, even in the form they presently appear, but they have to be adapted in order to accept second and third authors, publication data such as location and require a plethora of different citation templates for documents, news articles, media, books, and journals (periodicals). I have, along with many other experienced editors, simply ditched the messy template system entirely and write out the data in an clearly "scratch" cataloging/referencing system used for all citations, notes and bibliographical notations. FWiW, to allay any other concerns, I have been editing Wiki articles since 2006, and have countless articles accepted as FA and GA articles, without any of the citation templates that reviewers seem so intent on preserving.

In articles that Andy seems to have ownership, such as the RAF High Speed Flight, I have typically done a preliminary "cleanup" of just the references, but so many errors existed that I was loathe to spend three hours re-writing citation and bibliographic templates that are so messed up, I would dump the whole mess and start all over with the correct formatting. I do try to explain why editing changes occur as there appears to be non-standard editing and stylistic issues that have to be addressed. Do not hesitate in asking for the reasoning for an alteration.

Now, for the comment that I rewrite all citation templates arbitrarily, that flies in the evidence of numerous articles where the templates are properly formatted and left that way, see Bill Waterton, an article I recently spent some time researching; you will note that templates and "scratch" cataloging exist side-by-side. Numerous other articles are left alone; the Boeing 777 is a particularly egregious example of an editor overwriting perfectly good references with templates. I backed off when I saw what was happening, but this editing phenomenom is all too familiar. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC).

If you're going to accuse me of both WP:OWNership of an article, and also for changing all of its references to use templates, please check your facts. My only edits to Supermarine S.6 are this diff. I've never even read 777 and my only changes to Bill Waterton were a typo and a wl.
I do recognise that the irritation of having formats bulk-changed arbitrarily from one form to another. I think the templates are better, but if our agreement is generally to maintain the status quo, then I agree to abide by this, in the larger interests of collaborative editing. This is not a courtesy that Bzuk seems willing to extend.
As to the point by point issues, then I still remain unconvinced by them
1. Useage in Wikipedia is highly influenced by the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome.
This applies to either method equally. So we fix the garbage, same as we fix other problems. It's also generally easier to manipulate data as bare properties rather than as formatted output.
2. Cite templates are presently incorrectly formatted and have "bugs" that were never addressed properly by their designers. despite many efforts to re-draw the templates, they are still rampant with errors in format. I can actually re-write the templates, but it takes so much time and effort, that I finally have abandoned that practice.
So we fix the bugs. It'll probably take longer to identify and characterise them than it would to do the coding changes.
3. Cite templates were intended for neophytes and casual users (certainly not someone like you who is attempting to make a difference!) to have a bibliographic and referencing tool that would make references available.
So what are you suggesting here? We exclude the casual users from editing? Are you looking to restrict WP editing to only time-served librarians? WP editors are, on average, average. We not only need to have mechanisms that work in the best cases, but also ones that work for average users of average skill.
4. Cite templates were written in the simplified American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide that was intended for short-cut editing and does not allow for multiple authors, changes in publication date/location or non-print media.
As I've always acknowledged, your have more familiarity with the vagaries of styling. Yet it's a simple matter to make a template support multiple, switchable formats. Besides which, there already is support for multiple authors.
5. Cite templates were never recommended, nor approved for use in Wikipedia, but were offered as an alternative means of referencing.
I just don't know what you mean by, "nor approved for use in Wikipedia". {{cn}}}, to coin a phrase.
6. Once a referencing style is in use and accepted as it was in this article, it is contingent on all other editors to maintain and follow that style guide consistently. It is a difficult thing to "mix" style guides for editing purposes and it is recommenced to establish a style guide, which was done and stick with it, unless there is an overwhelming reason to change to another style.
What do you mean by a "referencing style"? The finished output formatting in the HTML, or the method used in the wikicode to achieve it? There is an obvious benefit to the reader (readers, remember them - they're the only reason why we're here) in the final result being consistent. However any benefit from the wikicode used to achieve this is only of very marginal benefit, to editors alone, to those editors working on multiple refs within the article. A competent mapping from input properties to formatted output means that different routes will anyway give the same result.
I'm aware of style guides to keep the output consistent between refs, and advice to keep the wikicode and method consistent over time (to avoid ping-pong editing). However I know of nothing that requires consistent techniques across the wikicode within the article, nor any strong reason to do so.
7. The old canard that cite templates produced meta data that would be somehow in the future, melted into the templating systems to come, is long discarded.
The point is that it's never discarded, we can simply do it tomorrow. We retain future flexibility by using the templates.

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

My contention remains, I change the referencing style to correct errors; I retain templates if they are properly formed, but if there are errors, it is easier to rewrite the entire "string" then reformat the code in the templates. I have tried in vain to have the templates modified, and was basically told, "if you don't like them, don't use them..." which still leaves multiple bugs inherent such as multiple authors, which do not follow the second author standard. FWiW, the output remains inconsistent when authors, publishers, dates, and other data is not consistent with the body of the article. Some like templates, others can abide them and some editors replace them if there is a better system. Check Supermarine S.6B for the first of our disagreements. Bzuk (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC).
What do you mean by "errors"? As I see these changes, they're less "errors" and more a use of APA rather than your favoured style. Yet per WP:CITEHOW, APA(and a few other) styles are acceptable. You might not like this, you might not choose to use it, you might even change some to achieve consistency through an article, but that doesn't make them errors. Your reaction to a format you simply don't like is excessive. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
What I mean by errors in any style guide is often the notation of authors, use of primary and secondary titles, publisher's dates and locations, and ISBN/ISSN notes. When these are in error, that's the reason for changing the citation or bibliographic record. As to use of APA over MLA style guides, neither is actually the model for the citebook template but an amalgam of styles most closely resembling the APA style guide, but still with inherent errors. I can use the templates and can even modify them to output correctly, but if there is no overwhelming need to use a malformatted template, it is simply easier to write out the code parameters. FWiW, an a recent FA article, I answered an editor's call for assistance and he preferred the template style that he was employing. I used the templates but the amount of work was magnified compared to the usual written out style. Bzuk (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC).
Of any of these, what can't be added to the template? I've always agreed with you that the template is imperfect (I'd like to see finer-grained identification of sections), but there's no reason we can't just fix it and move on.
The main problem here is that it's not about your edits, it's about what the average joe is supposed to do. Maybe you (with the benefit of years of librarianship) can hand-craft the perfect reference. Now how is anyone else supposed to achieve these same heights? You are not only refusing to work on improving the templates to your standards, you're thus implying that everyone else's edits will be stuck at some lower standard, until you deign to visit personally and re-work the prolefodder. This elitism is not how a collaborative project is supposed to work. 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Bzuk's item 7 and commentary on it: Bzuk talks about automated use of metadata as if it were some kind of myth or dream for the future. There are already automated tools in use such as the citation bot. This is an extremely powerful and useful tool, which can fix formatting errors in references and load missing bibliographic information from external sources. --Srleffler (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

From Avanu: I've posted this on Bzuk's Talk, but I'll post it here as well to ensure better coverage.

I'm posting the following for your review to assist in understanding other editors on Wikipedia who are inserting what might appear at first glance to be repetitive or unnecessary 'alt' information into images and other items.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images

Further information: Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, Wikipedia:Image use policy#Size 1.Images should include an alt attribute, even an empty one, that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added it should be succinct, or should refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text: see WP:ALT for more information.

United States: Section 508 Laws

http://www.section508.gov/

In 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to require Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology (EIT) accessible to people with disabilities. Inaccessible technology interferes with an ability to obtain and use information quickly and easily. Section 508 was enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, open new opportunities for people with disabilities, and encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals.

http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?fuseAction=stdsdoc#Web

§ 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications. (a) A text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided (e.g., via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content).

Web Accessibility Initiative (a project of World Wide Web Consortium)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Accessibility_Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/


Modern Language Association (MLA) statements on accessibility

Guidelines for Institutional Support of and Access to IT for Faculty Members and Students http://www.mla.org/resources/documents/rep_it/it_support

"Technological innovations that permit persons with disabilities to conduct research and carry out other professional responsibilities effectively should be available. Institutions should be aware of and comply with federal regulations regarding accessibility."

Guidelines for Evaluating Work with Digital Media in the Modern Languages http://www.mla.org/resources/documents/rep_it/guidelines_evaluation_digital

"Stay Informed about Accessibility Issues. Search, reappointment, promotion, and tenure committees have a responsibility to comply with federal regulations and to become and remain informed of technological innovations that permit persons with disabilities to conduct research and carry out other professional responsibilities effectively."

-- Avanu (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

  • Recommend block on the editor who brought this item. I think the problem is that Wikipedia has a significant population of editors who are obsessed with templates. The templates are opaque and largely unnecessary - the citation templates are a good example this. They make Wikipedia articles harder to edit, which presumably is the 'advantage'; they exclude non-cognoscenti. This item has been brought to cause difficulties for someone who appears fairly blameless, but does not go along with the template-obsessives. Would it be possible to have a 2 week block on the person who brought this item to Wikiquette alerts?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Personally I prefer using the templates for a variety of reasons however I also understand that some users do not like them which is fine. Users should not however be reformatting references to remove them from the templates or vice versa. There is no preference and to force it one way or the other is a bad practice and could be grounds for blocking. Some editors don't agree but some editors find using templates to be easier to use and it makes it much easier for applications and bots to determine if the citations contain or do not contain certin items, are on the article at all and a variety of other things. --Kumioko (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know if I am uninvolved, but I was not sure where else to comment. I've only had a brief exchange with Bzuk about citation templates. I use the templates in my edits, but it is more to plug reference details in so readers know where information comes from. I suppose my hope is that any formatting can be done in the template coding to rearrange the reference details for the best possible presentation. Might also be worth mentioning in the discussion to consider WP:CITEVAR. Some articles will have an obvious style, and some won't. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the debate is largely a matter of style vs. substance. Templates allow automated tools like the citation bot to fill in bibliographic information and keep references up to date. They also allow style to be kept consistent between references and allow the style to be easily updated as needed. It's just a better, more functional, way to store bibliographic data. The objection to templates seems to be a matter of mere appearance. Somebody doesn't like the way the template output happens to look right now. To me, how the bibliographic entries look at the moment is mostly irrelevant. If the data is in a template, appearance can always be improved in the future. Stripping references out of templates and putting them in as text is actively harmful.
That said, the last time I looked the guideline was that references should be kept in a consistent form within each article. If an article already contains well-formatted text references, editors adding new references should stick to the same format rather than using templates. If an article uses templates, editors should continue to use them even if this is not their preference. I hate this; if it were up to me templates should be preferred over formatted text in all cases, with different sets of templates as needed to support different bibliographic formats. It's not up to me, though, so that isn't how it works.--Srleffler (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
But this magic bot also makes mistakes, the templates remain buggy and if major changes are required, it is easier to write out the information than change coding. FWiW. the places where I have substituted a written out style is when gross errors occur, and if all that is necessary is to correct errors, then the easiest method is the one I have employed. In other instances when templates are properly formatted or when primary authors prefer that style, then that is what is followed. Bzuk (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC).

Uncivil behaviour by User:Ryulong

Ryulong has used profanity to try and solve an issue with me, as well as using caps lock to "prove" his point (not a general consensus) [18] that he is right. In a way this kind of intimidated me. Anyways if I did end up being wrong, it did not give this user the right to swear. Intoronto1125 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I used the word "shit" and "damn" on his talk page and used capital letters in the history and bolding for emphasis when Intoronto1125 clearly did not understand what I was trying to convey to him as he kept repeating the edits despite messages on his talk page to cease. Nothing needs to be done other than reminding Intoronto1125 of the WP:BRD cycle.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I just had a very quick look, and subject to Intoronto1125 providing a further explanation, it appears that Ryūlóng is correct. The bad words were not directed at the user, and the heavy use of bold seems more than justified given that Intoronto1125 seemed to have trouble hearing the very simple message ("do not state X unless a source verifies X"). The WQA noticeboard should not be used for minor issues, particularly when the matter should be resolved by the simple expedient of reading Ryūlóng's comments and edit summaries. Johnuniq (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I did tell him to be civil, however (does not matter if it is directed at me) [19]. I never did say it was directed at me. Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Editors care about articles and proper sourcing (and other policies introduced at WP:5P). I guarantee that if a proper source is provided for any information added to the article in question that Ryūlóng will not use bold comments or profanity, so any issue will not arise. My comment about "not directed at the user" is important regarding interpretation of WP:CIVIL: strong language is regrettable but not necessarily a big problem. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand that but keep using swearing a whole day after reporting is not right, and it looks like he is taking advantage of this. [20] Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If you understood me the first time I wouldn't keep swearing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In case you did not understand me earlier please do not swear. Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Hey Ryulong. Profanity doesn't bother many users, but it does indeed bother many others. A couple curse words here and there aren't a big deal, but the civility problem I see is your use of profanity after a user requested that you refrain from doing so. WP:CIV tells us we should be respectful and courteous. The respectful and courteous thing to do would be to not use profanity if asked not to. Surely you can agree to that principle? Swarm X 02:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Everyone here knows that. However, it is not necessarily helpful to the encyclopedia to focus on the use of a minor amount of bad language (not directed at an editor), when the actual issue appears to be the failure of one editor to acknowledge that adding information that appears obvious to them is in fact contrary to Wikipedia's established practices. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If you'll see my above comment, I noted that while the bad language isn't a big deal, using profanity with a user whoo's asked you not to goes against the principles of civility. And, yes, I'm sure Ryulong knows this, that doesn't change the fact that they've failed to show it in practice. Swarm X 10:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Guys my edits are deemed bad by him, not a consensus. For example, the Chinese Zodiac was listed on the page where we were warring in no specific order, so I decided that it would be best for it to be in alphabetical order. Mere minutes later he decided that he was right and I was wrong and it should be in the order of procession, when there was no indication on the article it should have [21]. After making that edit the user went and changed the previous sentence to include "of procession of signs", without a consensus [22]. Pretty much I feel like WP:OWN has been violated as well. Intoronto1125 (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Intoronto1125, the "procession of signs" part is from the TV show. I don't know why I need a consensus to elaborate on something from the source (the television program also explained the order, my edit reverted Intoronto1125's modification of the order against what reliable sources say it should be).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
He is continuing to say "deal with it" as it was a typo for using the word "f******". On top of that calling my edits "hampering". Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
"If you understood me the first time I wouldn't keep swearing" implies that Intoronto1125 deserves to be spoken to in this manner; that he is the one causing Ryulong to speak in this fashion. No one deserves to be spoken to in this manner, in my opinion. Ryulong, it would be better if you could hold your temper and behave in a more collegiate manner. Intoronto is not causing your behavior. He is not the one controlling your behavior. Intoronto though new is a hard-working editor and with a little guidance his contributions will get better as time goes on. See also the thread on my talk page. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Fine. He does not deserve to be spoken to in this manner. If someone does not understand something that I have told them the first time around, should I continue to be courteous after I have to explain to someone over and over again what is the issue with some of their edits or their behavior? Do I need to be courteous about when I make a typo and he accuses me of having poor grammar? This shit is getting blown out of proportion once more. Or should I have not said "shit" to refer to this situation as Intoronto1125 seems to think that any cuss word I use is directed at him?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't get it, all edits I make are reverted in the opinion of Ryulong, not a consensus. The source you provided for the procession order does not have what you list. Diannaa before that comment I did tell him to remain civil and he blatantly refused. Intoronto1125 (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You should be courteous no matter what. That's the point of the civility policy. Swarm X 19:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Intoronto1125 - He doesn't need a consensus to revert something, but you both should seek one on a talk page. I suspect he's more right than you think, but getting more editors who are aware of the content topic would help.
I second Swarm's comment as well, I have discussed somewhat on Ryulong's talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Of couse he is right now, because he added that sentence. Without either one both of us is right. Intoronto1125 (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should examine the source material again before saying that either one of us is correct.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The source you provided from CBS does not state that, I am watching the video again. He does say that I am sorry. Intoronto1125 (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) I think Ryulong has received the point. If there are more problems, feel free to continue this, but I know Ryulong can cool off enough to, at least, refrain from using profanity. I hope they will do so. Swarm X 19:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add additional interactions with Ryulong as a demonstration of continued un-civilm personally attacking behavior, and failure to follow the community procedures and guidelines.
I have asked the user to redact their personal attack (and assumption of bad faith) on the AfD and when I raised concern on the AN page that they failed to notify me regarding an administrative action concerning me (in violation of the big orange box at the top of the page) they responded un-civily and placed an explative on my talk page (which has been subsequently removed). As such I see an escalating pattern of failures at AGF and NPA. Hasteur (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
There was no such personal attack or assumption of bad faith on the linked AFD. And there was nothing in the thread on WP:AN that required your notification. I was requesting janitorial assistance which I already mentioned on your talk page. So please kindly drop this issue and move on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec) This edit [23] does not seem to be a personal attack. Mathsci (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hasteur probably objected to this edit; the last part has since been revised to "dont have a cow, man." Now it is just one more step for Ryulong to think before he posts instead of after. Getting there. --Diannaa (Talk) 21:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hasteur objected to Ryulong's first diff (above) as a personal attack in the very next diff.[24] Mathsci (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not assuming good faith and incivility by User:Mokele

Resolved
 – mistaken assumption of bad faith Swarm X 18:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Brief summary of the interactions in question:

  • User:Gracefool made a few small edits to article Aquatic locomotion on 2011-03-13T05:32:40, diff. It does not appear that Gracefool had previously edited this article, nor did Gracefool have any history (to my knowledge) with the editor Mokele.
  • User:Mokele responded by reverting the edits to the Aquatic locomotion article, then gave a one-time only (serious) Vandalism warning to User:Gracefool at 2011-03-13T15:18:34, diff. Mokele's edit included a threat to report (probably reasonable, if was really vandalism) as well as a putdown of the (presumed) belief system of the editor Gracefool (inappropriate civility, in my opinion)
  • Gracefool responded on the Gracefool Talk page with a reasonably well-articulated defense of why the edits were not vandalism, requested non-presumption of ideological sensibilities, called out the attacking language, etc. on 2011-03-13T05:32:40, diff.
  • Mokele responded on Gracefool's Talk page, diff, requesting that Gracefool "not make any such further edits regarding evolutionary topics." (a bit too far, in my opinion. It would seem to me that no editor should be asking other editors not to ask for citations on unsourced statements, or not to clarify prose, on a broad set of articles within Wikipedia).
  • I (User:N2e) then commented on Gracefool's Talk page (diff), stating that "I find no vandalism at all in the edits of Gracefool in the subject article. Mokele should, indeed, assume good faith in initial interactions with other editors"; and
  • I (N2e) placed a lightly worded caution on Mokele's Talk page (diff).
  • Mokele deleted the comment from her/his Talk page (which is the user's right; I have no problem with that) and wrote a response to N2e in the edit summary that said "Don't care, not even slightly."

I find this lack of civility, and failure to assume good faith remarkable—which along with the editor's explicitly stated lack of concern for such personal incivility—worthy of bringing to the attention of this Wikiquette page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have no direct involvement, to my knowledge, on any of the mainspace pages where Mokele and Gracefool are interacting. And with one exception, have never interacted with either editor previously. (the exception was a month ago where I mistakenly and incorrectly placed a "Welcome-with-an-improperly-cited-material-caution" on Gracefool's Talk page that was meant for another user; when my mistake was pointed out, I agreed completely that the error was all mine. N2e (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at Mokele's contributions and personal Talk page to get a sense of his stance. One comment in particular stood out to me with regard to this situation. "Unfortunately, I don't get as much editing done as I used to, beyond fixing vandalism, but I periodically update important pages now and then. Mokele (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)"
It's possible that focusing specifically on potential vandalism is affecting the editor's point of view on non-malicious edits, creating a sort of battleground mentality. I can't speak for Moleke, and look forward to seeing his point of view represented, but for the time being, I get the impression that Moleke might play nicer if he would just WP:LIGHTENUP and have fun. -- Avanu (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an isolated incident that the Mokele was appropriately warned for. I don't think a WQA discussion is necessary. I will say that while their quick assumption of bad faith was inappropriate, it's perfectly understandable. Changing "did evolve" to "may have evolved" or "is believed to have evolved" is certainly controversial and questionable. This is better handled as a content dispute. Swarm X 18:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this brief, with a few key points.

Firstly, I've had no prior interaction with Gracefool, beyond an edit which is *identical* to several others I've encountered by creationist trolls. As such, I reverted and warned, and I'll admit I was harsher than probably necessary.
Second, I'll admit that axe-grinding vandalism (such as creationism) is particularly abhorent to me, and likely to garner a harsher response than is "nice". I try to remain at least marginally civil, but blatant stupidity such as creationism is sure to provoke harsh responses (hence why I avoid high-profile evolution articles).
Third, I also admit that my concern for others' feelings is minimal, at best. I'm used to a more academic setting, in which bad data or sloppy science is called as much without subtlety or concern, and frankly I hold that up as the ideal of discourse. However, I do acknowledge that most editors lack the ability to detach themselves so fully.
Fourth, the edit in question was undisputably disruptive, like editing Newton's second law to read "F is believed by some to equal M * A". Citation-needed tags are fine, but to introduce such ridiculous equivocation into matters of settled science is disruptive, unproductive, and verges on vandalism, axe-grinding, and weasel-words even if good-faith is assumed.
Lastly, Avanu is right - dealing with the unending influx of vandals and all-too-temporary semi-protection is draining and frustrating, leading to a greater chance that I'll snap at someone. It's particularly infuriating for the pages in which it's obvious that I'm the only person watching it, or at least the only one who checks more than every few weeks. This leads to both a reduction in my output and a general "us-vs-them" mentality. This actually ties into the current survey on the participation of academics such as myself on WP - as long as our edits will be washed away in a tide of vandalism without our constant maintenance, it'll seem pointless. I don't mean to soapbox, but something seriously needs to be done to prevent little-known pages from becoming solely entrusted to the care of just one editor.

Well, so much for keeping it brief. Point is, I did over-react and was overly harsh, but the edit in question was not nearly so benign as supposed, being a precise mirror of the kind of vandalism associated with creationist trolls. Mokele (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I don't want to get into it on this page, but the edit did seem strange and does indeed mirror creationism-biased tendentious editing. As I said above, their actions should be perfectly understandable. Swarm X 00:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm disapointed. If we want a community where WP:AGF is the norm, then a community response that is somewhat more than has occurred here would, I think, be appropriate. If this discussion, and the extremely mild conditional apology for such rude and inconsiderate behavior by Mokele, is all that occurs, methinks our community norms will be moving to less and less WP:AGF over time. But it is what it is. What we tolerate in this area is what we will get. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Mokele was wrong to assume bad faith, but, in hindsight, it was quite explainable and understandable. You came off as a creationist troll, despite not being one. They called you on it. If you'll allow an analogy: you looked like a duck and swam like a duck, so they called you a 'duck'. It turns out, you were a platypus. Understand? Swarm X 04:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

DailyEditor

Archiving this because both users have descended to personally attacking each other. The article in question has been protected and both users have received warnings for incivility. Swarm X 21:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DailyEditor wants to add a "date filmed" or "date investigated" category to the List of Ghost Hunters episodes article, but the information is being obtained through original research by the user watching each episode from their DVD collection and recording the dates/times the crew was at a location by what is displayed in on their computer video screens and cameras. To me, that is unacceptable referencing. I told DailyEditor this information is not reliable because it cannot be verified through proper references and this is info he/she is gathering and publishing themselves. No websites that I can find list these dates, just the date the particular episode aired on SyFy.com - the only official website for Ghost hunters. Likewise, I commented that the information, I believe, is trivial information which does nothing for the article except to add clutter and confusion to the listings. In response, DailyEditor threatened to "report me" and get me "blocked" because I'm "vandalizing" by leaving comments on their talk page. How else are we to communicate? I'm obviously not getting through to them, they don't want to cooperate, so now I would appreciate third party intervention here. Thank you. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: DailyEditor now claims their word is reliable because they have a "close personal friend who works for Syfy: Imagine Greater". Their actual words. (By the way, "Imagine Greater" is the company's tag line, not part of their actual name). Oh and "I messed with the wrong guy." Cyberia23 (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  • If the Ghost Hunters episode were a series of printed books, it would not be original research to look up information from them and cite the relevant books as sources on Wikipedia. How do published DVDs of episodes differ? If the DVDs were purchased (not home-recorded), they just like a set of books. If he wants to use this information, he needs to provide individual citations for the information. If he were citing from a book, he would have to state the volume and page number. He needs to cite DVDs in the same way. At the moment he is not doing this. He should also put something from sources saying why this information is notable - and yes, a citation will be needed for this too.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't find any specific examples, but I've seen a couple Wikipedia television articles in the past where people had cited information that was "exclusive DVD content" and some editors deleted them saying they were not reliable sources because not everyone had access to the DVDs. I don't know if there is a difference between books and DVDs, but still in this case, DailyEditor - who is clearly a adolescent and therefore shouldn't be taken as a reliable editor to begin with - isn't even citing DVD content; they are watching the show (claiming they own the DVDs, but could be watching them off YouTube for all we know), and saying the dates are on background computer monitors and feed from the thermal cameras. The actual film dates, as far as I know, aren't indicated anywhere on the DVDs (be it case or booklet or voice-over commentaries) and no website gives the filming dates. The show itself just shows a day and time of a specific segment, no actual dates are given. Therefore, the information is questionable and should not be permitted unless given by an official source. It can also be considered unnecessary "fancruft" material (as they call it) which is of no real value to the article. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not attack DailyEditor. Everyone is welcome to edit here and comments like that can be considered biting. I however agree that sources have to be either books or internet sources accessible to everyone.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't attack him/her. He/she had a fit about my so-called "violent" protest of his improperly sourced information. I just told them they shouldn't add unverified information based on what they saw on a DVD, and I'd be challenging it's validity and that's what I'm doing. I didn't threaten them, or call them names. I may get sarcastic when people say dumb things and since they didn't get what I was saying I assume they're either a kid or can't speak English. This should all be a no-brainer as to who is acting out of place here. Cyberia23 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Your comment and your previous one are the ones attacking DailyEditor. I don't want you to bite him. However, both of you need to stop attacking each other. While DailyEditor should not be unwilling to discuss like that, you need to not attack him/her on basis of age.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
@Cyberia23 Splendide mendax! It is conformed that you are having some serious problems as you were the casus belli who started a fire, and I just added more firewood. If you were a more 'experienced' editor, like you claim, you should have sorted out the dispute you started in a diplomatic way like John. It is crystal clear that you are a juvenile because you believe that only you are perfect and everyone one Wikipedia is stupid and is waiting to be guided by you. You cannot handle criticism or losses. In my opinion you are a persona non grata to Wikipedia and should be blocked. Quod erat demonstrandum, is proved. You are a spoilt brat, similar to the Winklevii in The Social Network. Everything had been going your way in life as well as Wikipedia until I came over. The world is completely contrary to the virtual world you are living in bear in mind you are not Queen Elizabeth II of the 1940s that you have the whole world under control, or if you are, even God will have a tough time helping England, You believe that everything you do, is right but, ipso facto, you can't even act as a diplomat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyEditor (talk • contribs) 06:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the article List of Ghost Hunters episodes for one week. Judging by what I read on User talk:DailyEditor, it seems DailyEditor was the first to take the conversation into inappropriate territory with his/her hyperbolic accusations of vandalism over a content dispute. However, Cyberia23 isn't helping matters by insisting to continue to insult DailyEditor on a page called Wikiquette disputes. That behavior, however understandable considering DailyEditor's insults, doesn't bring us any closer to resolving this dispute. Gamaliel (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, doesn't anyone else here see that this DailyEditor person is a complete whack job? Now he's speaking Latin to make himself look like he's some sort of genius. Delusional psychopath with multiple personality disorder is more like it. Go read his talk page, half of what he says makes absolutely no sense and the context changes with every comment. Why is he still allowed to be here to spew his lunatic rants and personal attacks? I've seen people blocked for weeks for far less. Cyberia23 (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not unsympathetic. However, calling someone a delusional psychopath is not the best way to convince an uninvolved third party that you are the sane and civil one in this dispute. If your diagnosis is even remotely accurate, then others will quickly see this without any further escalation on your part. Good advice in such situations is to refrain from such comments and let the other editor dig him or herself into a hole. Gamaliel (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh so now I am the sociopath instead of you, you are so sensitive to criticism that you will go to any extent to prove your false point. This proves that you are a human being (BTW I'm not sure whether you are a human) with an unreasonable attitude and a fat brain. I don't even know how madmen like you get into Wikipedia, a place for intellectuals not lunatics. I expect an immidiate ban for disrespecting a Wikipedian. By the way do you even know Latin? I am majoring in the classic, in your face. Beware fellow Wikipedians, if this vermin is not annihilated it will drool its venom on you. And before you cry and say that I called you a vermin, bear in mind that it is a metaphor. Now as I know that your English grammar is distressing, allow me to explain what a metaphor is. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity. DailyEditor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC).
Tell me what's Latin for "keep talking shit." Cyberia23 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Well a perfect English synonym will be: Cyberia23
DailyEditor (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
DailyEditor, that comment constitutes a personal attack, which is strictly forbidden here. If you continue, you may be blocked. As a whole for everyone here, I want all of you to redact (delete or strike out) your incivil comments and actually resolve the dispute. If the incivility continues, I will request an administrator to take action here.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Since both editors are engaging in incivility and personal attacks, maybe both of them would benefit from the same discipline? -- Avanu (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree fully with Jasper, both of you knock it off. You're both coming across deplorably here, go find something else to do other than snipe at each other. Dayewalker (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cyberia23

Archiving this for the same reason as above. Both users involved have personally attacked each other in this thread. The article in question has been protected and both have been warned. Swarm X 21:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandal, deleted reliable information at least 5 times. Should be blocked. Also violently opposed addition of reliable information. You can check details at my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyEditor (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, User:DailyEditor is the one who engaged in personal abuse. For example in this diff he accused Cyberia23's mother of being illiterate! I looked at Cyberia23's contributions in the article on Destination Truth, and they are constructive edits. On the List of Ghost Hunters episodes, there is a content dispute between the two editors. However as DailyEditor cannot provide citations for the additional information he wants in the article, and Cyberia23 says that the information is too unreliable, the onus is on DailyEditor to provide citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It's clear to me with how DailyEditor has responded that they are child, or young teenager who doesn't know what they are doing and has no business being here. Although we cannot keep kids from editing, this is a clear case of juvenile behavior and they should be blocked from editing. Cyberia23 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Everyone regardless of age is welcome. That comment is not appropriate and I suggest you redact it as per WP:CIVIL.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Further reading comments, I suggest both of you do not attack each other as per WP:CIVIL.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You know, I see edits made by kids on here all the time, and if it's clearly an unconstructive juvenile rant, I'll delete it when I find them. Granted not all they're edits are stupid and if they make a good faith edit that can be corrected I'll help them out. But every once in a while you'll get one who throws a baby fit temper tantrum and you expect us to just say "oh how cute" and give em a pat on the head for it? No you need to correct them, and if needed to block them from access. Problem solved. To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure if DailyEditor is a kid - my guess is they're not an adult, but if they are, God help them, because they have some serious social issues. Cyberia23 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No-one is perfect, and the attitude of Wikipedia is supposed to be welcoming. I want you to stop criticizing DailyEditor based on age. Back in 2008, I too used some rants myself, and have grown out of it. I learned WP:CIVILITY and am now an experienced editor. So, teach DailyEditor the ropes, by giving him policy links, which I'm assuming you did, and do not attack him on basis of age or maturity.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
@DailyEditor:When you have a dispute with someone, and that someone takes you to a policy page, please read that page. One of the biggest things here is that you can't be afraid to be wrong. If you are wrong, do not attack the person who showed that you were wrong, and assume good faith. Be civil.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
@Cyberia23 Splendide mendax! It is conformed that you are having some serious problems as you were the casus belli who started a fire, and I just added more firewood. If you were a more 'experienced' editor, like you claim, you should have sorted out the dispute you started in a diplomatic way like John. It is crystal clear that you are a juvenile because you believe that only you are perfect and everyone one Wikipedia is stupid and is waiting to be guided by you. You cannot handle criticism or losses. In my opinion you are a persona non grata to Wikipedia and should be blocked. Quod erat demonstrandum, is proved. You are a spoilt brat, similar to the Winklevii in The Social Network. Everything had been going your way in life as well as Wikipedia until I came over.
@Toddy1, Ipso facto, Cyberia is the casus belli, Cyberia started the fight and disrespected my mother, so I did the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyEditor (talk • contribs) 06:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, please stop the personal attacks and incivlity. It seems none of you have read WP:Civility. Please read and understand it. This goes for all of you. To experienced Wikipedians:Do not publicly discuss DailyEditor's age and do not criticize him based on that. To DailyEditor, remember the Golden Rule that anything you do to others comes back to you. Please be civil and do not attack other editors just because they disagree with you.
As a whole, I want everyone to calm down and show civility here.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(OD) As with my comment sabove, I agree fully with Jasper's warning here, you're both making personal attacks on a discussion page, and you'll both be handed blocks if it continues. Walk away and get back to doing something productive around here, please. Dayewalker (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apologies! DailyEditor (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary Psychology

I may be reporting myself or User:Leadwind, or both of us, depending on who is doing something wrong. This is just background: The article is part of a long drawn polarized dispute about how best to represent Evolutionary Psychology. One issue has been whether Evolutionary Psychology is a narrowly defined field r whether all evolutionary approaches to psychology are "evolutionary psychology". Today I added a source that states explicitly that some sources use the narrow sense and others use the broad sense. User:Leadwind then posted this to the talkpage gloating against his opponents:[25]. The post is clearly just baiting and taunting the named editors with whom Leadwind has had a dispute in the past, it doesn't even attempt to make it look as if it has a constructive purpose but is simply a lognwinded nyah-nyah (it also misrepresentst he situation because Leadwind had argued that the narrow sense was wrong and only the broad sense existed, now he acts as if the fact that both senses are obviously in use somehow supports him). I first answered and told him that that was unproductive, but then realized that this post was purely disruptive so i deleted it entirely, per WP:NOTFORUM.[26]. I removed it again[27], but then realized that I didn't know whether I was doing the right thing. My question is whether it is acceptable to make talk page posts like this one by Leadwind, and if it isn't whether it is acceptable for me to remove it. I realize that this is a borderline case per WP:TPO so if there is a consensus that Leadwind's post was not disruptive and that I had no right to remove it I will reinsert it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am involved as I have commented about the nonsense at Evolutionary psychology where some strange sources have been stretched to assert some POV. However, my exposure to the talk page has convinced me that too much off-topic speculation has occurred, and I think you did the right thing to remove that inappropriate thread. The enthusiasm with which Leadwind approaches the topic is not matched by improvements to the article, and it may be time for other editors to take firmer control, including strict observance of WP:TPG—there is no need to endlessly engage in unproductive debate. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I would encourage those interested in this dispute to consider its broader context, as Maunus and his compatriots have been less than civil for months, and repeatedly derisive about this topic in particular (the general term used for the application of evolutionary theory to psychology). Leadwind (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
...and in turn, I'd point out that, as the article talk page indicates, there has been a noticeable tendency for those arguing from a pro-evolutionary psychology standpoint to dismiss all criticisms as 'unscientific', 'politically biased' and otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. This is a contentious subject, and it's scientific credibility is disputed. A little less proselytising from the 'pro' faction might actually improve matters - at times, the talk page has looked a far-too-close imitation of the 'Astrology' one. Doubts about the validity of scientific claims aren't 'anti-science', they are a necessary part of the scientific process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I would very much like an inquiry into Leadwind's talkpage contributions at EvoPsych. He consistently misrepresents views of other, attributing them opinions they have neither voiced nor hold, often in sarcastic condescending ways. For example in this edit[28] he attributes to me the exact opposite view fo the one that I have argued at length feigning to "agree" with me. In doing so he also misrepresents my summary of a source that he has not read - attributing it the opposite viewpoint of what it has. Honestly this makes me incredibly angry. If any one editor is the cause of the derailing of the discussion on the EvoPsych page it is him.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Focusing narrowly on this one incident, the section was completely unproductive to the article, served as blatant baiting and and its removal per WP:NOTFORUM was appropriate. The removal of others' comments, especially when you're in a dispute with them, should be done extremely cautiously, but in this situation I think it was an appropriate and justified action. Swarm X 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

MarshalN20 violating formal mediation

The article of the Diablada passed through formal mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Diablada, and MarshalN20 was one of the parts, there was an agreement as seen on the article's talk page, however I noticed that MarshalN20 has started again with POV edit wars in the article violating that agreement as seen in the last edits since November 2010, P.S. sorry if this is not the right board I can't seem to find the one for these kind of matters. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Adding sources, images, and improving the format of the article (for better readership) is not a POV problem. All edits are explained in the article's history. Based on his edit style, this user is probably a puppet of User:Erios30, who is involved in edit conflicts in the Spanish Wikipedia. User constantly deletes images and sources from the article. If an admin could please explain to him how to properly edit without disrupting articles, it would be greatly appreciated. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I just restored what was agreed before, the neutral part that had all the points of view and was reviewed by the mediation committee, precisely to avoid edit wars between Erios30 and MarshalN20 and was very carefully reviewed. I find it insulting that regardless I asked him politely and explained what I was doing in the talk page, this user now says that I "need" any explanation about how to edit articles, what I did here was the most ethical and neutral way to solve this to prevent further edit wars, therefore MarshalN20 accusations only constitute a personal attack. I won't break 3RR but I believe this user is playing with the system to preserve a biased version of the article. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The edit history [29] shows you have been deleting material from the article. The mediation was focused between the edits of Ereb and myself. I don't understand why you claim to be a part of that past discussion. Your aggressive nature and usage of these WP resources obviously show you are the puppet of an established user, which does go against Wikiquette. I would suggest the admin (if any actually bother to review this silly case) to please either block this IP puppet or give him/her a better explanation on how to edit WP. All the best.--MarshalN20 | Talk 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I never claimed to be part of the mediation, I said clearly that who was involved previously was MarshalN20, not me but it's right there in the talk page all what happened before, it's common sense I just observed a biased phrase. Besides the source that is claimed to be deleted is right there right now, I said it before that I was keeping it, repeating it constantly is just defamation, also the continuous puppet claims and repeating that I need any explanations are again more personal attacks, I just did some fixing there is no rule-breaking in that, for me the solution is simple, the article is okay as it is because it covers all points of view, I'm just calling the board's attention to prevent further conflicts. This is getting redundant, I prefer not to extend this to avoid making it more difficult to the person who will review this, but I advise to pay special attention on the accusations of MarshalN20, my edits are visible this person is just recurring to defamation, which is unacceptable. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Greetings to the IP user. Unfortunately, this board is where to report violations of WP:CIVILITY. I don't see any violations of civility, but I do see many revisions as "rv vandalism" when the edits aren't necessarily vandalism. I strongly recommend all users follow the WP:BRD system, and that Marshal refrain from reverting edits as "vandalism." Beyond that if anyone violates the three revert rule it should be reported at WP:AN3. Regards, Swarm X 22:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:OhSoHeartless and personal attacks

I left a message with the editor after seeing a personal attack [30] on an IP on the above page. The editor escalated the attack twice [31][32] on their user talk. To avoid further confrontation on their talk, have reported here. The Interior (Talk) 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Blatant personal attacks; user warned. OhSoHeartless, please comment only on content, not contributors from here on out. Swarm X 00:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

An editor without compromise

I writing to get some 3rd party intervention on editor Fry1989 (talk). He has been a completely inconsiderate to me and my other editors. There appears to be no compromise with this individual. He is a diligent editor, but has no sense in finding any middle ground when it comes to an impasse. Case and point we have been going back and forth on Military aircraft insignia article, please "View history" and you'll see he has stoned walled me other editors, in regards to the "Finnish Roundel" Even when consensus was obtained, he continued for a bit to pushes POV. Currently we have locked horns on Fin flash article, which I started, and he has been completely uncompromising on several images. Additionally he has been a tad rude about it as my talk page shows, titled under "Stop your rediculous self-promotion". I didn't want to bring this alert up, generally the editor is a good guy, but I think an open mind and a softer tone would be appreciated all around for the community as a whole. Jetijonez (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For all those who pay attention, you will notice several things. First, regarding the Military aircraft insignia article, which Jetijones claims I've stonewalled. YOu will find on the discussion page that Jetijones attempted to get consensus to add his lighter version of the Finnish roundel, despite pics showing it in a multitude of shades, which is why I suggested for conformity that it match the Finnish Flag. ON that discussion, only 3 users besides myself and Jetijones have weighed in on the matter. 3 people does not consensus make, and there is even another user who, while agreeing with Jetijones on the shade of blue for the roundel, agrees with me that there is yet to be solid consensus. However, I gave up on reverting Jetijones constant insertion of the questionable roundel because he won't stop, and I am tired of bothering, despite he being the offender. Second case, this user is engaging in self-promotion. On Commons, he is uploading duplicate and identical versions of existing files, and replacing those with his here on Wikipedia-EN. I've explained many times, that wastes Commons server space, and it's unnecessary for the duplication. Lastly, this user has been uploading inaccurate files, and insisting on them despite pics (from his own website of choice for sources) disagreeing with him. I will continue to enforce the correct versions of files, as per his sources and mine, as would be expected of any good editor on here. Those wishing for examples of what I'm talking about in regard to Jetijones behaviour can ask on my talk page. Fry1989 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
One other note. This is most likely retaliation for my nominating several of his duplicate files for deletion on Commons. Fry1989 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Jetijonez , please follow the instructions at the top of this noticeboard and include diffs for the uncivil behaviour you are reporting - I have no intention of wading through talk pages and [page histories to find what you are complaining about. Apart from anything else, how would I know that I have actually found the incident in question?. Be aware, however, that your own conduct in this matter is likely to come under scrutiny and a cursory examination indicates that you are not without blame here. Remember that this board is not a venue for punitive action but rather it is for attempts at resolution of civility issues. - Nick Thorne talk 22:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I will take the advice from the other editors and ignore the uncivil behavior. I'll have to seek more consensus on the talk pages in question.Jetijonez (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
What? I thought I was sooo bad and difficult, and you pull out after one user gives comment? Is it because you realize that you would be under question for your actions just as much as the ones you would like to raise against me? Fry1989 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
No I have nothing to hide Fry, and if I'm a contributing factor to this dispute, than I will be willing to man up. Sad thing is I said in my opening remarks that you were a diligent editor, but need to be a little more compromising. Yet you somehow you continue, to keep swinging. Other have told me it’s not worth a few lines or images to a article. Jetijonez (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It sure seems to me as an uninvolved party here that Fry1989's tone just now would seem to prove 'Jeti' to be 100% right regarding the issue of civility, in any case. Suggest this be closed since Jeti is willing to walk away, which is very much to Jeti's credit, as I see it. Jusdafax 03:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to be civil, and I was in the begining, however it becomes extremely frustrating when someone constantly reverts and inserts his files, against any consensus, especially when those files are in dispute. This wikiquette alert against me is just the topping on a long line of difficulty I have had with Jetijonez. Do I respect him as a user and contributer? Yes. Do I respect some of the edits he makes, no. Fry1989 (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Rastamouse-ting

Resolved: User indefinitely blocked.[33] Swarm X 04:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Rastamouse-ting has made unwarranted and frankly bizarre personal attacks on my talk page. Has made attacks against others and never assumes good faith. Uses his own user page and talk to make unsubstantiated accusations of racism and to attack Wikipedians in general. Unless I'm mistaken Rastamouse-ting has already received a block as an IP user for homophobic vandalism of User:Biker Biker. Rubiscous (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#Rastamouse-ting.  Chzz  ►  11:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Racism, racism, racism *yawn*

Nothing too important but could someone please tell the user that throwing around absurd allegations of racism is not a way of engaging into constructive discussions at WP. I am afraid he won't listen to me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, right now there are two IPs reverting who give vacuous responses on talk page and don't even have the capability to sign their comments on talk page. While I agree that a disagreement about contents lies at the heart of the problem, it also needs a minimum of observance of WP style and practices from editors such as edit summaries and coherent argumentation.. Right now I don't believe this impertinent IP plays by our rule book. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:173.117.94.129 vandals baseball articles and insults other users

Resolved
 – user [blocked]

Swarm X 17:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems this user did not appreciate me reverting both of his offensive edits. In return, the user posted an offensive comment on my user talk page. What should be done?

Xionbox₪ 10:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That was quite uncalled for. Have left a warning. If they persist, either vandalizing or dropping F-bombs, report to WP:AIV. The Interior (Talk) 10:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sinclair Broadcasting Group

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Removed the vandalism Swarm X 17:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Runnerhowie (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Contained in the introduction paragraph for the SBG, it says in the second to last sentence: "SBG is now broadcasting Balto II: Wolf Quest and Balto III: Wings of Change." While I found this to be humorous, I seriously doubt it's relevancy to the article.

Can you please clarify your point, at this time I am not clear on what you are saying and why you are posting here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Sent the user {{sofixit}}, removed the vandalism. That actually is pretty funny. Swarm X 17:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie

Resolved
 – Reported user doesn't want to participate. However, the general agreement is that the best solution is to simply let it go. Swarm X 00:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia.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 Wikipedia, 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 X 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 X 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)

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 Wikipedia 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

Resolved
 – User warned Swarm X 23:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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 X 23:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Snakefan55

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 X 15:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

KnowIG and Bill william compton

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 [GA proceduers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_william_compton&diff=next&oldid=419779495]. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [GA proceduers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_william_compton&diff=next&oldid=419779495 diff3]

  • 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 Wikipedia 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 comptonTalk 13:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Uncivility by user Biosketch?

Resolved
 – User warned. Swarm X 23:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
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 X 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[34] 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.[35][36] 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/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoetheFromm&diff=420671108&oldid=420670936 GoetheFromm (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

User:GoetheFromm reported by User:Biosketch

  1. [37] – diff where it is suggested that I am part of "a group of individuals" trying to conceal information on Wikipedia.
  2. [38] – diff where I am implicated in some unspecified wrongdoing.
  3. [39] – diff of edit at an unrelated article to which I had recently contributed.
  4. [40] – diff where I am purported to be pro-Zionist and again accused of blocking information.
  5. [41] – diff of revert at a second article to which I had recently contributed.
  6. [42] – diff where I am sarcastically told to "Keep up the good work, BioSketch," in relation to aforementioned revert.
  7. [43] – diff where I am accused of "totally deflecting the issue."
  8. [44] – diff of edit at a third unrelated article to which I had recently contributed.
  9. [45] – diff of edit at fourth unrelated article to which I had recently contributed.
  10. [46] – 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. [47] – 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. [48] – diff where it is suggested that I am part of "a group of individuals" trying to conceal information on Wikipedia.
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. [49] – 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. [50] – 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. [51] – 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. [52] – 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 [Miral] 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. [53] – 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. [54] – 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. [55] – diff of edit at a third unrelated article to which I had recently contributed.
8) What is wrong with this edit?
  1. [56] – 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. [57] – 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. [58] – 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

This shouldnt even be a wikiquette alerts. You should discuss this issue with GeotheFrom on his home page, not report him for wikiquette. Speaking from Personal experience I can say that almost all of the statements above are false. I have seen his edits and almost all that I have seen seem to be based on literature, to prevent vandalism, or for sake of clarification. My suggestion is since it is clear from your discussion now that it is more about "style" and "tone" and misunderstanding than any violation of wikipedia conduct rules, that this be resolved and moved on to your own individual discussion pages where you can discuss this further as opposed to having it wide in open. Dr. Persi (talk) 18:43, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia:Articles for creation. For more information, this looks like his personal web page. Regards, Swarm X 09:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Banana Fingers

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 X 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 X 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 X 22:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Just like what s/he did to my notice of this discussion, the "discussion" you initiated was removed, via a minor edit. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Banana Fingers, by doing that, acknowledges acceptance of the warnings and/or discussion. Come back if he/she continues with wikiquette problems.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Rudeness and hounding in discussion

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)

Without taking sides as to who is right or wrong on the issue being discussed, I would say that some of Dahn's comments in that thread do seem to be marginally incivil. It would be good if he took a break for a day or two and came back refreshed. Wikipedia can be frustrating at times and we all need to step away now and then and catch our breathe.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I have also posted a note on USER:Dahn's talk page letting him know he is under discussion here. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

To be sure, I tend to take breaks either way, but not because of "cooling time" - simply because I have other stuff to do. The quotes Hangakiran provides, without the revealing diffs, are cherry-picked, and, even as such, don't actually contain anything uncivil. My "bickering" remark refers to the fact that this user has replied, with the same (flawed) arguments, to every post in that thread, and did not seem to understand that the purpose of the debate is not to exhaust your opponent. That said, I never urged him to stop replying, but just told him that it is inefficient and tiresome, not to mention circular. The "sophistry" remark refers to his arguments - much like the one above, he selected the convenient part of other posts and replied in such a manner as to invite suspicion of bad faith. The suspicion is solid enough, considering that his is virtually a single-purpose account seemingly dedicated to editing and "rescuing" the very BLP that had been proposed for deletion, canvassing for it over several projects, and restarting the deletion thread on the basis of an inflammatory that everyone opposing him was anti-Hungarian. This was noted for instance by a third-party user, who did not vote against the article, and who commented as much on the AfD and on my talk page (see here). I noticed I was reported here, but I didn't even consider replying to such a frivolous complaint - I am frankly surprised that anyone would give Hangakiran any sort of credit at this junction. And, in any case, I did not want to encourage another endless debate here. Dahn (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the issue here. WP:CIV asks us to avoid "personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours". It does not ask us to write only in bland, emotionless language, and does not ask that we refrain from colorful expressions when that is warranted. Dahn is perfectly entitled to say he won't waste his day bickering over nonsense. He's also within his rights to say that Hangakiran risks/risked losing credibility with his tendentious answers: again, a statement of fact. And indeed, if one reads the discussion, he was extensively manipulating information with sophistry. These may be uncomfortable truths for him, but they're not rude, disrespectful, aggressive or attacking. End of story; let's move on. - Biruitorul Talk 22:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

LedRush (talk · contribs)

LedRush has engaged in incivil personal attacks at [59]. My attempt to get him to stop was eventually reverted as "disruptive editing". A third party to take a look would be useful. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I should take responsibility for using npa-1 instead of npa-2 that would have avoided the welcome to wikipedia nonsense. Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
(EC)As a little history here, I politely (and without a template) asked Hipocrite to stop making repeated personal attacks on editors on the Murder of Meredith Kercher talk page. He responded aggressively, but eventually did refrain from attacks. I made the post above after having asked FormerIP to address editors instead of edits on several occassions. The post comes off as harsh, and when I was informed of this by Hippocrite, I added to my statement to ensure that people realized that this was merely another reminder to post on edits, not editors.
I believe that Hipocrite templating of me was uncivil (it is rude to template established editors), unwarranted (my comment is tame compared to the standard fare on that talk page) and was merely a "gotcha" moment used by him in bad faith to lash out at me for my previous warning to him.
However, though I will not concede that my comment was actually a violation of WP policy, I will redact it if FormerIP's feelings really were hurt. However, his recent edits on the page seem to suggest he wasn't. I need to run to a meeting but can provide diffs if needed.
However, this whole thing is blown out of proportion and I feel that the only actions that should be made (other than a possible strike of my comment) should be against Hippocrite.LedRush (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems for the moment that Hipocrite's vindictive harrassment of me has ceased. That, at least, is some good news.LedRush (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Negi(afk)

Resolved
 – User blocked

I saw this comment from this editor, and posted a response noting the attack and to abide by WP:NPA. I was then told to "shove it" and to "stop being a credulous idiot". --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I stand by what I said. Don't be a tone troll. The poster in question was an obvious idiot. Negi(afk) (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds about right, yeah. Negi(afk) (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
No, you are not correct (unsurprisingly) in surmising that. I was making the point that the user did not have the credentials to judge the subject's work in the areas of mathematics or physics, by noting that he is white trash who has only edited nontechnical articles and also knows nothing about mathematics. Negi(afk) (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I call them like I see them. As I said, I'm not going to mince words. You can sit here and complain all you want about the tone, but I'm sorry, I'm not at all moved. There's a difference between an attack and an insult.Negi(afk) (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • And what would that be, such that WP:NPA would not restrict you from calling people "white trash", "tone troll", "idiot", etc.? Your opinion of an editor is not fact, and even if it were, it has no place here. Either WP:NPA is a policy you must abide by or it isn't. Which is it? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the stupid formed a demographic. Aside from the white trash comment, it looks like I was in the clear with the rest of the stuff.Negi(afk) (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the editor is stupid or not, whether or not I'm stupid or not, is irrelevant. Whether or not you are right about an editor's intelligence doesn't give you leave to insult them for it. Please answer the question. Is WP:NPA a policy you are expected to abide by? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It was inappropriate for an AfD and completely unproductive to Negi(afk)'s cause (which I agree with regarding this article: note my delete !vote). He/she is absolutely fired up about this deletion to the point of obsession and is engaging in borderline wikilawyering. The latest attempt to CSD the article under A7 (despite being previously declined - see User talk:SoWhy) in the middle of the AfD, while not strictly against policy, seems to be bordering on WP:POINT. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I reregistered it for A7 speedy deletion after it was determined at least two other editors that the "biography section", which constituted the majority of the article, was in violation of BLP and therefore blanked. That is why WP:POINT does not apply. Negi(afk) (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's always easy to get frustrated at AfD, since this often perversely seems to a gathering place for people who are the least qualified to make decisions about content. However, it is important to remain civil and avoid personal attacks, even if you know others are being thick. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd also note that it isn't a vote. An admin will look at it in the end and weigh up the arguments. If the arguments of those on the other side aren't very good, they'll take that into account (if they don't, there's always DRV). If the other side use bad arguments, the closer will see that. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Other incidents of attacks:

--Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Of note; issues with this editor were raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_Jacob_Barnett_and_User:Negi.28afk.29. Uninvolved administrator User:Lifebaka subsequently blocked the editor in question for 31 hours for "consistent personal attacks" [60]. The editor then chose to respond in this manner. I'm reluctant to close this thread as 'resolved'. Perhaps another person can do it. But, it's clear the utility of this noticeboard for this incident has passed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've closed it. WQA didn't really help here. Sigh. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Silverseren

[61][62][63][64][65]

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)
You were[66] - 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? SilverserenC 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[67] - 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 X 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 Talk• Contributions 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. SilverserenC 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 wikipedia 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.[66]
2.An editor goes and actually looks at those sources, and finds they say nothing of the sort. [67]
3.Noleander acknowledges that the sources cited do not actually say this and offers to help look for better sources.[68]
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 Wikipedia. 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? SilverserenC 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 > haneʼ 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

._. Hopefully no one meant it like that. SilverserenC 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.[66]
2.An editor goes and actually looks at those sources, and finds they say nothing of the sort. [67]
3.Noleander acknowledges that the sources cited do not actually say this and offers to help look for better sources.[68]
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. SilverserenC 21:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems you are accusing editors of POV pushing, which is very rude unless 100% justified.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this still going? It's been four days and you respond now? Anyhow, no, I was not accusing anyone of POV pushing. I don't know how you can be POV pushing when you're voting in a topic ban anyways. POV pushing really only applies to articles. No, the word you're looking for, which I have been using, is bias. And I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I asked a question of whether there was the possibility of there being a bias in the topic ban proceedings. That's all. SilverserenC 05:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
You said they made statements based on anti-semitism; however, you need to justify such accusations. In any case, just refrain from this in the future.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Jasper, I think you might be mistaken as to who is saying what. "statements based on anti-semitism"? Silver was the person questioning the neutrality of the others. Given the tone of the rhetoric, my 2 cents is that it was justified. Why do you suppose we pick juries with such care? It's because despite our best efforts as human beings, we still allow biases to influence us. And reasonable people understand this. If we're interested in being honest and truthful, we have to allow people to legitimately ASK. If we respond emotionally and suspiciously to every person who might seem to be in disagreement with us, we won't have the best outcome. I was under the impression that this thread had been put to bed. I'm not sure how many more ways Silver can make amends for his actions, but hopefully those who took offense can recognize the good faith effort and focus on things that are more productive than this debate. -- Avanu (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Uncivility in WP:EAR

This user, whom I had never met before, has been (ab)using of the public space shown above to make insults and spread libelous rumours about myself: "an editor who appears motivated by his political sympathies only", "his cantankerous tendencies", "addicted to unbalanced behaviour and wild charges", "a long record of provocative behaviour", among other 'compliments'. I would like some assistance from the administrators in at least letting him know that such behaviour is wrong (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) and should not be tolerated. RafaAzevedo msg 11:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have warned the user.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not understand the necessity of the warning, as I have since then, on my personal initiative, publicy asked for assistance from a third editor at his personal page(Dalillama) and agreed with him about working towards a consensus in two disputed articles. After that, I have stated my position in the discussion pages of the said articles (Paulo Francis and Landless Workers' Movement) yesterday, and expected to receive a comment on the changes proposed, not a warning about (far)anterior comments of a personal nature, which I believe were set aside for the sake of a working consensus. A visit to my contributions page will be enough to show the chronological sequence of the events described Cerme (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: I will refrain from further editing of the disputed articles, until a solution is found about how to reach a consensus about then. My personal choice was and is to bank on Dilillama's assistanceCerme (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is no excuse to attack other editors.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely Cerme (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Robvanden (talk · contribs)

Resolved

This user, first editing as IP User:27.32.51.171 and then creating his current account has from the beggining being completely uncivil to other editors. As can be ssen on his contributions as an IP he called other editors "dickhead", "revisionist Anglo Saxon", did severe POV-pushing and edit warring (with comments such as "You wish to suggest otherwise, and I won't let you. It's as simple as that", "You have no say in this matter if you're not an Iranian", "Who do you think you are..!?").

I was civil to him, asked him not to insult other users and to avoid making accusations and personal offenses (as well as asking him to read basic rules of WP): [68], [69], [70], [71]. As his new user, he kept his behaviour, making false accusations (of me having puppets) and personal offenses such as "You just got used to getting your own way on everything thus-far. I'm here to tell you, that has come to an end.", "I know you have your own agenda for this article. You won’t be successful; I can assure you of that.", "You sound like a 5 year old kid who starts sulking if he doesn't get his way.", "stop pushing your agenda on the article with different aliases", "don't use words so liberally which you have no idea what they really mean", "you sure are a stubborn person, just let it go man" and "You don't really know what you are talking about when it comes to this war".

I´ve tried to resolve the issue politely, asked him to stop personal attacks and disruptive behaviour but I do not wish to enter into a dispute or an edit-war, so I´ve just let the issue rest on the article and came here for help. His edits can be seen on both of the articles linked above. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

He has been given an only warning.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jasper

This user Uirauna has now resorted to personal attacks of his own against me. Please remind him of the rules of WP. It has been suggested also that he is using sockpuppets under different names to advance his own personal agenda for the Iran - Iraq war article. He's also been asked several times not to use big words so liberally in an area that he lacks academic knowledge. Please remind him of the rules. Cheers. (RobVanden 06:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvanden (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive101&oldid=1136425899"