Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robvanden (talk | contribs) at 06:14, 5 April 2011 (→Active alerts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to wikiquette assistance
    Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks.
    • Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s).
    • No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead.
    		 Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcut
    Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
    Search the Wikiquette archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:


    Active alerts

    User Uirauna

    This user has been manipulating and reverting the Iran-Iraq War both under his own name and under other sockpuppets. He has multiple aliases, as you can clearly see by the way he writes. All accounts use similar in that the posts are made up of similar grammatical English styles. He has also been asked several times not to throw words such as vandalism around so liberally, as he clearly doesn't understand how it applies to various scenarios.

    Lately, he has resorted to personal attacks against me. See his latest posting on the discussion section of the Iran-Iraq war page. Please consider this a formal complaint. This user has difficulty accepting the current agreed consensus amongst the various editors. Kind Regards (RobVanden 06:14, 5 April 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    User warned.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he got the message. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If it continues, let us know. Swarm X 17:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Please no personal attacks.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well. There ya go. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I've responded on Banana Fingers's talk page. Swarm X 22:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:Silverseren

    [1][2][3][4][5]

    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)[reply]

    The user has been given an only warning for all of this.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When?·Maunus·ƛ· 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    You were[6] - the reaction to the warning was just very swift.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the point of being informed if i'm given a warning in the same minute? SilverserenC 01:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    In fact I also warned you in the discussion itself and asked you to retract your allegations[7] - but you continued to defend them.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    ._. Hopefully no one meant it like that. SilverserenC 20:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    LedRush (talk · contribs)

    LedRush has engaged in incivil personal attacks at [8]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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): [9], [10], [11], [12]. 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)[reply]

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

    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)

    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)[reply]

    I have warned the user.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Sounds about right, yeah. Negi(afk) (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Other incidents of attacks:

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

    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" [13]. 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)[reply]

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

    User:Promethean

    Promethean has been reviewing me at my editor review and he was uncivil. I was not minding it just to the user did more still on my editor review. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 16:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Four possibilities:
    1. It might be useful to listen to what he says, and you can overlook how he says it: this does not appear to be the case, since you've come here.
    2. It might be useful to listen to what he says, but you don't want to because of how he says it: then delete his comments (it's your editor review), ignore him, at the risk of missing out on some useful info.
    3. He isn't saying anything useful, but you can overlook how he says it: this does not appear to be the case, but if it were, the solution is, again, to ignore him.
    4. He isn't saying anything useful, and you don't want to hear it because of how he says it: then delete his comments (it's your editor review), ignore him, and you aren't even risking missing out on some useful info.
    I've found that Options #3 and #4 are most common with Promethean, but note that in all four cases, the solution isn't to come here. The solution is to stop talking to him, delete his comments if you wish, and if he doesn't take the hint and keeps pestering you after you stop talking to him, then come here and ask someone to get him to stop. Saying things in a stupid way, so that the person you're talking to is not inclined to listen, is his weakness, not yours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done possibility 3 4.
    Done ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 17:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What I said Stands: However blunt my review was, it was true and accurate to the picture I and several others have accertained of this user. His inability to take in the review on its merits and admit he wants to 'get up there' way to fast is disappointing but will only hurt his prospects of doing just that. Regarding the removal, What I said doesn't need to be on the page because it's something that is blatantly clear and will come up in any RFA. I myself have watchlisted future RFA's from this user and will air my concerns there as it seems that the Editor Review process isnt made for bad things to be said about a person, however true they are. As for ACC right whoring, the tool admins are also well aware of your history and I doubt they will be changing thier position any time soon though I have no say in this. Though I find it funny that no reference to the removed review, however blunt it was, was made on the page (IE "Review by Promethean removed" with a link to the diff) and some will view this as a perversion of the Wikipedia namespace (you don't own Wikipedia namespace pages) and the Editor Review process. I have put the review on the talk page per convention such as those at RFA. So yes, the outcomes are perfect and everything is as it should be.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to say that whilst my Review was 100x more blunt than BelovedFreak's, we both mentioned the 'desperate to get power' image that people have of Ebe, so to say its completly unuseful when two people have said it and Ebe has ignored it is a failure to take critism on his part. Ebe needs to understand Im not gaining anything here and this whole process isnt doing me any harm, however, if he doesnt think to himself "Geez two people are saying this now I wonder why they think of me this way" then that is his loss, not mine.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor review process asks for constructive criticism, but doesn't give a carte blanche to be rude to someone, whatever their faults. Given that Ebe was following Floquenbeam's advice in deleting your comment, it seems unfair to harangue him about it on his talk page [14] - an editor review isn't really the equivalent of an RFA. I can see that you hoped your review would help Ebe improve, but now you've made your point, I can't see the harm in letting the post disappear.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as Harangue'ing Ebe about the removal, which is a bit of a stretch, I was more annoyed at the fact he opened a Wikiquette Alert (which is a discussion), notified me about it and then posted on my page that the "discussion is over" an hour later after he saw Floquenbeam's contribution before I could even get my 2 cents in or address his concerns which I agree to some extent are valid. You can add to his editor review that he needs to understand how Wikiquette Alerts works in future. Also note that posting messages on specific people's talk pages with the heading "Come and Help" smacks of Canvassing and makes this sound like a gang up session of friends. With all this being said I have happily disengaged from the editor review itself, but will maintain that the removed review should remain on the talkpage for the record.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Will Beback and Sam Vaknin

    User:Will Beback seems to be rampaging through Wikpedia wiping out all Sam Vaknin material, thus undoing hard work done by various people, and also unnecessarily trimming See Alsos.--Penbat (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you specify what exactly is wrong with this series of edits? If you specify what exactly is wrong, it'll be easier to understand what this alert is for. SilverserenC 09:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not the Sam Vaknin article itself which is the problem its the fact that he has annihilated pretty much all Sam Vaknin material from other articles - see Special:Contributions/Will_Beback--Penbat (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The material I removed is from self-published sources. While editors may disagree with that policy, or my interpretation of it, I don't see this as a Wikiquette issue. Maybe we should discuss this at WP:RSN?   Will Beback  talk  09:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    just because a small proportion of his work is self-published that is no excuse to anihilate him from Wikipedia. He has also been involved in countless third-party publications and his opinion is commonly sought in high profile journals and newspapers. Also quite a few of the refs used in other articles to his work are third party refs by others.--Penbat (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Its one of the drawbacks of a publication like Wikipedia, Penbat. What might be perfectly reasonable in another encyclopedia is not allowed here (in my opinion because it limits Wikipedia's lawsuit exposure). -- Avanu (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If I've made any errors I'd be happy to fix them. Can you point to the non-SPS citations which I deleted?   Will Beback  talk  09:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, rather than discuss it further Penbat1 is just reverting my edits without explanation.   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that at least some, probably all, of these sources should be removed. There's no justification, for example, in citing Vaknin's (or anyone else's) self-published material in Empire. See WP:SPS for when we're allowed to use that kind of material. I also agree that this isn't the place to discuss it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 12:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As we all know, selfpub sources WP:SELFPUB are permitted on Wikipedia depending on how and when they are used. Therefore, a blanket deletion of a self pub source would be improper. At the same time, WBB has said he is willing to repair any mistakes, so if specific diffs could be provided then the situation could be corrected as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Slef-published material as acceptable and not grounds in and of itself for removal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's grounds for removal when it violates WP:SPS, which is policy, and all or most of these edits did violate it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of user willbebacks edits violated policy ? Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not Will's; he was removing the SPS, correctly, but was reverted. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any edit restrictions in this area, perhaps related to associated sectors that user willbeback is closely associated to editing in, such as Transcendental Meditation, or associated sectors or attached to the sector of LaRouche movement? - It would imo and others that user willbeback would better remove himself from the areas he is associated with and begin editing in areas he is uninvolved in long term association with. Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean, Rob. The situation is that someone has added an SPS to lots of articles unnecessarily, where there are plenty of other appropriate sources. It looks like spamming. So Will removed some of it, and was reverted. He shouldn't have been reverted, because the material violated SPS. Then for reasons I still don't understand, it was reported here. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking at the bigger picture - User:Willbeback is a single purpose account editing in support of his own POV across a well known sector of articles and issues, this is exactly the reason a good faith editor has found reason to report him here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with your assessment of Will as an SPA. :) He correctly removed spam. There's no need for a discussion about it here, because the policy is clear about this kind of source, and it was added to articles the source had no remote connection to. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you respect him and support him and that you both edit in some associated fields such as Larouche (diff available if required} but this is worthy of a read - User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior - 'Beware of users so in love with their own virtue, that they are incapable of recognizing when it has become vice; and so in love with their own eloquence, that they can not see when it has become hypocrisy. The former are those who never admit to any wrong, but yet demand apologies from others for the lapses of judgement to which all human beings are prone; and the latter are the blindest and most intractable of POV-pushers. Skill with words correlates neither with virtue nor wisdom' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)
    It's good advice, which applies to us all. I think this is best closed, because it's clearly inappropriate on this page, and the spamming (or whatever it is) does need to stop—including in the interests of the author himself, who it's worth making clear isn't responsible for it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Vaknin's material is frequently cited by academics in the field of narcissism etc. see: [15][16][17][18])[19]) I also happen to know that the following books all reference or cite Vaknin:

    • Lisa E. Scott, He's So Vain He Can't See You (2008) p. 8
    • Frank H. Columbus/Serge P. Shohow, Advances in Psychology Research, Vol 31 (2004) p. 5
    • Simon Crompton, All About Me: Loving a Narcissist (London 2007) p. 31
    • David Thomas Narcissism: Behind The Mask (2010) p. 28
    • Ronningstam, Elsa F. Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality (2005) (can't remember the page number)

    Vaknin's views on narcissism are considered to be high profile enough to be featured in various articles in the quality press such as "Adrian Tempany When narcissism becomes pathological Financial Times September 4 2010" and in "Yvonne Roberts The monster in the mirror The Sunday Times September 16, 2007" where his opinions are included together with those of other luminaries. See also Megalomaniacs abound in politics/medicine/finance Business Day 2011/01/07 which refers to Vaknin as an "expert" and the first "expert" mentioned by name and the second named "expert" Dr Jose Romero-Urcelay a UK forensic psychiatrist and director of therapies at the unit for dangerous and severe personality disorders at Broadmoor Hospital agrees with him.

    It defies any sort of common sense that there are many academic books that cite or reference Vaknin yet it is considered inappropriate that Wikipedia can do so. Are we also saying that the quality press such as the Sunday Times and Financial Times have got it wrong by interviewing Vaknin alongside other luminaries ? None of the above newspapers said we cant use him as he is SPS. It is hardly reasonable to find a third party citation of every paragraph that Vaknin has ever written. --Penbat (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked you to give examples of academics citing his research, and you've so far not done it. They sometimes mention him as an example of a sufferer, but that's not what's meant. And anyway, someone had added him to Empire and to an article about Russia. It looked like spamming, and it's not in his interests to do this, in case it looks as though he was the one who did it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Penbat has been provided opportunity to explain why Will Beback should not have removed these edits and has failed to do so. This discussion thread should be closed. TFD (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Samaleks

    User Samaleks had been targeting me by conducting several violations of Wikiquette.

    1. Samaleks had been going against WP:AGF consistently on my edits.
    2. Samaleks had been going against the principle of Work towards agreement, by refusing to admit valid arguments presented.
    3. Samaleks had been constantly alleging meat puppetry on myself and a few other editors active on these pages, violating the principle of Argue facts, not personalities.
    4. Samaleks, on some articles, had been constantly making false claims, where the references cited doesn't support them. At the same time, he dismissed valid references on some other pages. This is in violation of the principle of Do not make misrepresentations
    5. Samaleks constantly sidesteps the arguments raised, and repeats vague claims of the reference being mentioning the fact, ignoring requests to point out the specific part of the reference that does. This is in violation of the Do not ignore questions principle.
    6. Samalake has used terms in malayalam language that are slurs, violating the principle of Be Civil

    Some diffs here. Reading the Talk pages of the articles mentioned above shows a lot of examples of the consistent behaviour of this editor.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thiruvananthapuram&diff=prev&oldid=416542591

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thiruvananthapuram&diff=prev&oldid=416923048

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thiruvananthapuram&diff=prev&oldid=417377555

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kochi&diff=prev&oldid=419391169

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kochi&diff=prev&oldid=419751540

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kochi&diff=prev&oldid=420249885

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:InfoPark,_Kochi&diff=prev&oldid=421665140

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aarem&diff=prev&oldid=417801508

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DileepKS69&diff=prev&oldid=420994796

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bijuts&diff=prev&oldid=421843027


    Samaleks is a very senior editor, with a lot of good edits to his credit. It is really unfortunate that he is violating Wikiquettes like this. He could very well make positive contribution without resorting to these tactics, if he could forget his own biases and prejudices. I am not seeking any punitive measures by raising this alert. I only wish him to recognize his folly, and act according to Wikiquette.

    DileepKS(talk) 14:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    oh dear dileep, you was a great actor on wiki!!!. everyone knows about your discussions about wikipages of Kozhikode and Thiruvananthapuram on Kochinow forums. every one viewed it before you deleted that tread fom the forum as you are a moderator there. every one knows about the wars occurred in Skyscapercity forums and the move of the foromers of kochi scc to kochinow forus. you have to move from scc because the moderators there was very strong and they BANNED all the foroumers who triggered the war. you editors also discussed about the mods very abuse fully in kochi now forums.

    I don't think the above editor's allegations about you are not wrong. the discussions in kochinow was like that. from the discussions, you editors from kochinow forum has only one thing to do, Glorify Kochi and destroy other city articles and you are doing it very organized and slowly.

    here is one of your statements from kochi now 

    ""The only way to deal with the vandals is to be cool, systematic and methodical always. Do
things slowly and steady. Right now, we have removed most of the malicious content. Doing
too much too soon will attract attention, and we will have a war at hand. Let us go easy on
the edits, and do it slow.""


    You editors are vandalizing Wikipedia in the name of WIKI LAWS. if you are not so biased, why did you deleted the tread against wiki from kochinow forums after it's been mentioned in Wikipedia???. everyone knows you will reorganize and continue your discussions through more secure means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.52.212 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    remember dileep: "Not to argue and win but to know and to make known" this will not suit you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.52.212 (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=422460943"