Revision as of 06:42, 28 March 2011

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

Active alerts

Rastamouse-ting

• Rastamouse-ting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Rubiscous (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Racism, racism, racism *yawn*

• Tasho.spasev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages-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

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)

User:Ohnoitsjamie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:173.117.94.129 vandals baseball articles and insults other users

Swarm 17:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• 173.117.94.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted offensive comments on my talk page
• Adam Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), diff for Adam Dunn
• Pat Burrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), diff for Pat Burrell

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

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

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 17:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Rudeness

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

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

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

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

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

Uncivility by user Biosketch?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Snakefan55

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

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

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

KnowIG and Bill william compton

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Bill william compton

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

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

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

diff1 and diff2

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

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

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

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

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

Now I'd like to present my accusations over him

1. Why he called me "stupid Indian"?

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

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

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

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

6. What is his problem with my username? diff6

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Banana Fingers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Silverseren

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phearson's Opinion

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

Silver seren's response

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution