Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-14 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Mediation Case: 2006-09-14 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Amoruso 12:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Mahmoud Ahmadinejad


 * Who's involved?
 * user:Markovich292, user:LifeEnemy, user:Mantanmoreland, user:ThuranX and many more


 * What's going on?
 * The debate is over the question if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad belongs to the category of Anti-Semitic people or not. Those saying he is have included a list of WP:RS to back their opinion that comments made by Ahmadinejad are clear and explicit anti-semitism, including his actions over endorsement of a conference and cartoon contest of holocaust denial. Those saying that he isn't have said that his comments do not constitute anti-semitism, that no anti-semitic quotes were given, and that the sources simply state their opinion, which is not a fact and therefore should not be included.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * another opinion is requested - I think that enough WP:RS and reasoning have been posted. The discussion is simply going in loopholes with every side repeating what he said.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? 
 * no...

Mediator response
I'll take this as my first mediation.Hemhem20X6 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Parties do not desire mediation. Closing. --Ideogram 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.



Discussion

 * Can you please provide the quotes here? Thank you. I'll be back in about 6 hours.Hemhem20X6 15:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * you mean the sources that are used to categorise him ? Thanks for your effort. Here they are, note there are users who are saying it's opinions and therefore it's not enough for category - it's quite a long discussion in the talk page :

Some sources that describe Ahmadinejad as antisemitic
-- Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) ...the country's viciously anti-semitic President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. - The Guardian, a highly respected British newspaper.
 * 2) ...the anti-Semitic president of Iran... - The Week magazine.
 * 3) Ahmadinejad, who has caused a stir with a number of anti-Semitic remarks... - The Gulf Times an Arab newspaper.
 * 4) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is notorious for Holocaust denial and his Hitlerian exhortation that Israel should be "wiped off the map." This open call for Israel's extermination cannot help but remind us of 1933, when another anti-Semite who openly called for the extermination of the Jews was elected by his people. - Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism
 * 5) Nadler Condemns Ahmadinejad’s Latest Anti-Semitic Rant - Jerrold Nadler, U.S. Representative
 * 6) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Semitic remarks - United Press International
 * 7) Not all Muslims, however, share Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic views - Deutsche Welle
 * 8) Anti-Semitism International: Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his Own Words - Anti-Defamation League
 * 9) Mr. Ahmadinejad's anti Semitism is a true face of the Iranian government - Ghassem Namazi, Iranian.com.
 * 10) Like the Persian royal adviser Haman (the most infamous anti-Semite of antiquity), Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reeks with his own considerable animus for Jews... Similarly creative anti-Semitic rants... Avi Shafran, spokesman for Haredi Judaism
 * 11) ...Iran and its anti-Semitic president - Alan Dershowitz.
 * 12) That coin -- virulent anti-Semitism -- circulates throughout the Muslim Middle East, not just in Iran. Ahmadinejad's ugly outpourings were condemned in the West... - Jeff Jacoby
 * 13) There really are anti-Semites in this world of ours right now who not only wish to destroy all Jews but are doing all within their powers to bring that about. Does the name Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader, suggest anything? - Daniel Lapin, Modern Orthodox Rabbi and political commentator in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
 * 14) ...Ahmadinejad has tried to recast himself as less a radical anti-Semite... - The Australian
 * 15) ...people who lack a baptismal certificate are excused for their clearly anti-Semitic hatred. Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are symptomatic of those who glide effortlessly back and forth between reproaching the "Zionist entity" and glorifying the massacre of Jews. - San Antonio Express-News
 * 16) ...Ahmadinejad comes across as an out-of-control anti-Semite who wants Israel destroyed... - Fox News Channel
 * 17) So you see, we are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind — with an anti-semite - Ehud Olmert in The Times.

Re: The Quotes Above
The following is some of the content on the main talk page that directly addresses the above quotes and is the reason many editors still oppose Ahmadinejad being listed as an anti-Semite:


 * Just by a quick count, it looks like eight of those are directly attributed to individual authors. Is it your argument that anything people say in reliable sources is true?


 * Number eight is acually the title of an article, which is most obviously the POV of the writer. Most (if not all) sources that do not have a direct quote or do not report specific actions are the POV of the author like you see here.


 * I hope this is the last time I have to point this out because I, as well as other people, have already done it at least a half dozen times: The quotes you included are by journalists, commentators, etc. Even if there is no reporter listed, all of those quotes you put down are opinions of people think MA is anti-semitic. It is like gathering a group of people that all call George Bush stupid, and claiming it is a fact because they say so. You have not one single quote of MA, and not one shred of proof that he has done anything anti-semitic there.


 * Remember the following (from wikipedia policy): "When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence." You can not claim that somebody holds a particular belief (in this case, anti-semitism) by other people's opinions alone. Markovich292 21:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how this statement by The Guardian' is not reliable. If you would like to say that he never made these comments, why don't you find the text of the speech itself? "...the Iranian President called the Holocaust 'a fairytale' and called for the destruction of Israel." Also, please state the policy that you are citing. Hemhem20X6 00:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I, nor anyone as far as I can recall, has ever claimed that this quote is not reliable. The problem here is that it is the responsibility of people that want to add the category to find such a direct translation (that is verifiable, and in a RS), because this could very well be the writers interpretation of his quotes.


 * For the sake of argument, and this is accurate, those words are not inherently anti-semitic anyway. Wanting the [political] destruction of Israel is anti-Zionist. The Holocaust comment does not qualify him for the wikipedia definition of anti-semite, but it has landed him in the Holocaust Denial category (although at least one editor has maintained that he does not belong there, as his recent direct quotes never deny the Holocaust, but rather doubt it).


 * Cited Policy Here


 * Markovich292 06:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, can you find his quotes? That would really help.

Hemhem20X6 14:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You should be directing that question to the people that support the category. They have repeatedly ignored requests like that, and this is why this topic has gone on long enough to require mediation.  As I said, it is thier responsibility to get such quotes to prove the category belongs in place.  With all respect, I neither have the time nor the will to do the work that is supposed to be done by someone else (as a mediator, this is not your responsibility either). Markovich292 19:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Markovich, why are you pretending that this is not a direct quote basically ? The direct quotes are in the discussion on MA's discussion page. This is what he says. The truth is that you think such comments are not enough for the anti-semitism category like you said in the next sentence. Stick to the truth and that's your second argument. Anyway, there's also no need for any direct quote as the Guardian is a WP:RS - this is what you're missing. Btw, if the Guardian will write an article explaining that IQ tests or some other tests in the pasts showed a low intelligence level of Bush, then that will be a category too perhaps. Your attempt in relating a "stupid" category to a well established phenomenon of anti-semitism explained by serious scholars is quite pathetic. Amoruso 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. I responded to his question on reliability, and his other question about getting an actual verifiable and reliable copy of the speech.  Don't try to put words in my mouth like ThuranX did.  I also can't help but notice that you say "direct quote basically."  Colloquially that means you acknowledge that it really may not be a direct quote. The doubt will only disappear if you do as Hemhem20X6 is asking and get the original text of the speech.


 * I know there is not a need for a direct quote to include details from a RS in an article. You have missed (or are completely ignoring) that I have said policy supports that, on more than one occasion.  This ability, however, does not allow you to classify someone as as an anti-semite unless you have proof to meet the wikipedia definition. Lastly, I ask you to reread the G.W. Bush analogy, because you obviously have missed the point, not to mention that you are being uncivil in how you respond.  Markovich292 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones Markovich. First you threw them on User:Thuran X and now on me - it seems you shouldn't walk around barefoot in your apartment for the time being. Anyway, the direct quote is the same and it's one of the (many) proofs of anti-semitism here. I won't get into this attitude of yours where you ask for sources then find excuses to deny them and invent wikipedia policies again. Amoruso 00:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop fighting, because that doesn't help. Be civil, at the very least.Hemhem20X6 23:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I try, thanks. For direct anti-semitic quotes here : where he also talks about the network of zionists around the world - if you look at the discussion, I've written several quotes showing MA's talking about ZOG - Zionist Occupation Government : this is a form used by anti semites and it's a proof of anti semitism. He made several comments in this sense. and here -  . him saying that "Israel should be wiped off the map, and that the Holocaust is an overblown fairytale" is not disputed by anyone, not by MA himself or anyone else. This is the kind of thing that frustrated editors on the talk page : They had to argue things that are meaningless simply because one user brought them up and started the campaign to take the category off. Everybody was fully aware that MA made certain comments but when a user keep saying "provide proof" for anything irrationally, it got frustrating. Amoruso 00:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Suuure you try to be civil. At 23:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC), Hemhem asks for civility and then at 00:43, 16 September 2006, you are clearly being uncivil. Markovich292 04:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Now we can get around to finishing this debate.

Hemhem20X6 01:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the primary response to that Spiegal article, as it was written on the talk page:
 * "Within the entire interview with "Spiegel", the most antagonistic view he shares it that he thinks Israel should not be located in Palestine. Thats hardly an anti-Semitic attitude."
 * Here is Amoruso's primary response to that on the talk page:
 * "Your continuing denial of his anti-semitism is quite funny actually"
 * Markovich292 02:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hemhem20X6, now you see a big issue here. Amoruso insists that MA made comments that claim of "ZOGs" and that his comments "clearly make him an anti-semite." He then expects people to find these comments by Ahmadinejad that he is referring to in a source like this one provided above. He doesn't actually put the quotes that allegedly make him anti-semitic on the page for all to see. When the editors involved read the source itself, something like half of them see no ZOG or anti-semitic comments, because it is POV that allows the other editors to see it that way. Markovich292 02:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hem, hem! I don't care who started it! Please address the issues that are at hand, and don't live in the past. Please read the other source too. If you have seen The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, please look at the article. He makes several claims that Zionists control the world. Isn't THAT Anti-Semetic?

Hemhem20X6 02:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I just want to remark that the notion that this was the most antagonistic view (Israel not in palestine) in theinterview is a remark from someone who clearly didn't read the interview. Amoruso 03:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See, this is exactly the kind of unproductive personal comments that Amoruso has made the whole time. He claims that people don't read sources just because they do not see the world through his POV. Markovich292 03:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Amoruso 04:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason that I mentioned his behavior in my post at 02:46 was not to blame someone for starting anything. It was to make it clear that without putting these alleged quotes right on the page, anybody that has a neutral attitude will not be able to pick out the things he claims are anti-semitism. Markovich292 03:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page, Revisited

 * Before I start, thank you to HemHem for the usertalkpage note. I'm sticking my head in. Now, onto the situation. Fist, I've left the page and the discussion. I became too upset by the circular obstructionist tactics I saw being used by Markovich. Roughly, they'd go 'provide a source; source provided; source insulted as POV, agenda-oriented, nonWP:RS, WP:OR, WP:POV, or some other, but never actually refuted point by point explaining the charges of POV, agenda-oriented, nonWP:RS, WP:OR, WP:POV; requests for point by point ignored; declaration that if side won't point by point their problems with a source, they can't keep refusing category; first side asserts right to edit for NPOV and then requests sources; lather,rinse, repeat'. After months of this, I gave up last week after Markovich filed a complaint for incivility against me for repeated use of the terms 'obstructionist tactics, obstructionism, and obstructionist'. He took this to be personal attacks. He kept putting words in my mouth and then accusing me of doing it to him while dropping phrases like 'you people' into the discussion, in the context of referring to the jews and 'zionists' who are fighting for the category (This, to me, was a severe personal racist attack, but he denied it). He asserted that anyone who was Jewish or Zionist was inherently biased and needed to either leave or carefully reassess their position. At this point, I felt that it was best for me to leave the page before I got baited into committing something I could be cited for. I do not wish to deal with Markovich again, nor to be involved anymore with this situation. My position and support for the category and both the WP:RS and WP:V of suitable experts in the area of identifying anti-semitism is amply clear on the page. Use that for anything you need from me. I've been fairly well soured on Wikipedia based on this. ThuranX 03:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't see the point in writing out some long response to the first part of that, because the archives pretty thoroughly disagree with that assessment.


 * Also, did you even read that report? Here it is.  None of it says a word about your use of the term obstructionist.  I request that Hemhem20X6 also read it, because it shows exactly the kind of hostility that the other side has propagated in this debate.


 * The following is completely false: "dropping phrases like 'you people' into the discussion, in the context of referring to the jews and 'zionists' who are fighting for the category"
 * Here is the full quote: "you people that won't deal with the issue and instead make this personal." ThuranX is deliberately ignoring the entire quote, which refers specifically to the people that wouldn't deal with the issue and make the kinds of personal remarks that you see in the report that I included above. Markovich292 03:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich dude, have you responded to Hemhem20X6 's question ? Amoruso 04:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I'm still here! Can anyone stop bickering, and respond to what I say instead? BTW, this is not supposed to solve every other conflict that you have, and is not even official. Not one person in this debate has said a single thing that makes me think of them as any higher in maturity than a 5 year old. Everyone needs to cool down. Thanks, Hemhem20X6 05:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "He makes several claims that Zionists control the world" is not supported by the sources. I assume that you are interpreting the following as ZOG (written by Amoruso on the talk page with MA quote): "he actually starts the interview by saying that 'the network of Zionism is very active around the world'"


 * To clarify, he says this in response to being asked if he was surprised about the uproar in Germany about his comments. Anyway, saying "network of Zionism" doesn't automatically mean that he is insinuating that there are "Zionist owned governments." For a little creative license, here is an example. MA says something to anger Star Trek fans.  When he is asked if he is suprised about an uproar in the USA, his response could be "no, I'm not suprised, the network of Star Trek fans is active around the world." In the same way, he said the network of Zionists [Israel fans, if you will] is active around the world." Markovich292 07:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Once this specific issue has been sufficiently "mediated," I think we should seriously consider a new mediator. I for one feel that Amoruso has made comments in this section that proves a maturity level higher than a 5 year old, and the same applies to me. Frankly, I don't think either of us should have to work with a mediator that makes a comment like that. Markovich292 07:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Hemhem20X6 17:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Hemhem20X6 has been doing a good job for now... all he meant is to stop bickering, I don't think we should feel insulted. As to the point markovich, what you said is simply a very narrow POV... that refutes the whole notion of ZOG too. that can also be explained with "israel fans active"... but fact is he said network of zionism. Amoruso 17:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, saying "network of Zionists" was kind of a pseudo-typo on my part. The actual words, as you point out as "network of Zionism," carry essentially the same meaning.  I'm going to have to shift from the Star Trek example because there is no "-ism" term assosciated with it that I am aware of:


 * If one were to say "network of feminism" (also a political movement like Zionism), it is essentially the same as saying "people that share the feminist philosophy." In much the same way, "network of Zionism" is like saying "the group of people that share a Zionist philosophy."  I am not saying that this "refutes the whole notion of ZOG," I am just saying that in this instance, the quote does not make the claim of a ZOG anywhere.  We can't call him anti-Semitic because of these statements either, as they lack specificity.  As was mentioned on the talk page, one does not have to be Israeli to be a Zionist, and one does not even have to be Jewish either; since anti-semitism is specific to Jews, comments about a political philosophy can not be called anti-Semitic. Markovich292 20:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Hemhem has been doing a good job at fulfilling his function, but comments like that are exactly the thing that mediation is supposed to combat. He may have meant only to stop bickering, but civility is meant to apply to everyone.  Hemhem, I am not doubting your abilities as a mediator; I just think you need to remember how a mediator should act while performing his duties.  Markovich292 20:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Please just don't insult each other anymore. Hemhem20X6 03:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just quickly perusing this page, I see times that I state his behavior matter-of-factly, but that is hardly an insult. I'm not trying to be difficult, but maybe this would go quicker if you could tell me what I have said that you are calling an insult.  Markovich292 04:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's all of us. We are pointing out each other's faults, which doesn't really help. Anyway, it is clear to me that I cannot effectively mediate this matter. It seems to me that what Amoruso says seems valid, but I have my own biases. Does that category still exist anyway?

Hemhem20X6 04:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It does indeed. People have actually been trying to get it renamed or deleted, but so far it has "Anti-Semitic People." Some ideas in the past as I recall were "Alleged anti-semitic people" and "people that have been called anti-semitic."  In my opinion (and apparently others' opinions), neither of those is very encyclopedic.


 * I thank you for taking the time to come here and help out even if no solution was reached. Amoruso has stated that he does not care about this issue anymore, so that pretty much halts the entire thing anyway since the only other comment here was personal in nature (by ThuranX). Markovich292 08:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI -- perhaps I've been inattentive (it's the skule year) but I was not aware of this case until just now.--Mantanmoreland 20:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the mediator seems to have stated his opinion, in accordance to the opinion of the rest of the world : "It seems to me that what Amoruso says seems valid" so it seems only Markovich is still not convinced :) Personally, I'm indeed stopping this engagement and wanting nothing to do with it, because I'm tired of personal fights with Markovich and I've lost too much valuable time. Hopefully others like existing participants like you Mantanmoreland and others can continue to pursue the insertion of the category to the article. I'm out (for the near future atleast). Amoruso 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Mantanmoreland! I made a mistake. We all make them. Hemhem20X6 07:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Mostly Off Topic
Back to the subject. I realize that even given an ample evidence, certain people would deny the facts that contradict their theories. Should WP suddenly abandon our policies? In this case: WP:V. I find it ironic that at the same time, the same User:Markovich292 insists that not condemning Israel enough (to his taste) is a "whitewash". ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I hate to say it, but you haven't been clear enough above. Your use of "certain people", "their theories", and "our policies"  is somewhat ambiguous.  What certain people? Whose theories? Who is the "our" in "our policies?"


 * Your later comment is not only off topic, but also appears to be an underhanded tactic that I don't much care for. To clarify to observers, Humus Sapiens had repeatedly removed all material from that section that made more than a passing reference to negative human rights issues.  That is whitewash, and his assertation above about "not condemning Israel enough (to his taste)" is completely dishonest and reprehensible considering the implications involved. Markovich292 00:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So.... Was Humus Sapiens also being uncivil ? That would be what, the 10th person you accused ? Anyway, your WP:POV is exposed. You're not trying to defending MA, you're trying to whitewash him for political reasons. Amoruso 01:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)



Hemhem20X6 01:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Markovich292, the section Israel and the history of my edits there is a good evidence that "Humus Sapiens had repeatedly removed all material from that section that made more than a passing reference to negative human rights issues." is simply a lie. I feel sorry that you chose to resort to such behavior. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I said you removed all the material that made more than a passing reference to negative human rights. That is bourne out in the edit history.  Some of your revisions left, as I said, only passing references to the negative side of the issue - therefore, that statement wasn't a lie.  Markovich292 01:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone's a little riled up right now; why not take a break to cool off? Get involved with other stuff in the meantime. See Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistlestop Cafe.Hemhem20X6 01:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation halted, then picked up again
I wasn't on here for the last few days, and this is pretty much over, but I'll just say one thing. Hemhem, I'm sorry that you took this as your first mediation case. This 'mediation' is basically just the MA talk page all over again. Sorry about that. --LifeEnemy 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I took this too. It is clear to me that although MA is obviously anti-semetic, he can't go into that category. To me, this is much better than part of the Great Compromise. Hemhem20X6 02:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I decided to see how things were going here. Hemhem, I'd give up if I were you and ask for assistance from another admin. You have been dragged into this, unfortunately. You made a comment out of frustration, and Markovich has built it into a wedge issue. for sake of the decision, I'd ask that you consider asking for help, not out of a lack of faith in your abilities, but so that we can have a person here who Markovich cannot wedge away from the point of things. As you are experiencing, its't he same circles as the MA talk page. Everything goes circularly, not unlike a flushing toilet, and similarly, all the work goes away too. I do thank you for your efforts. I hope, foolishly perhaps, that two or three admins all in agreement relative to wikipolicy and the sources will be enough to assure the place ment of a valid, deserved category on the page. ThuranX 03:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, but I do need some help with this. I would gladly leave, but I don't really know how to request that someone else help me, or take over for me.Hemhem20X6 05:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just had a good idea. He may be an Anti-Semitic person, or he may not be. The best solution is to just not put him in the category at all. That way, there can be no controversy. I just think that it's better if our harrassment of each other can stop. So let's just not do it at all. Thoughts?H e mh e m20X6 17:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I hope this doesn't sound cranky (I'm actually quite fine with your statement), but there isn't really any other way to say this. Your idea is exactly what the "pro-policy"/"anti-category" people have been saying all along.  Many have even said they think he might be an anti-semite, but have come to the exact same conclusion that you have...that we should not put him in the category anyway because policy forbids it at this time.  The problem is that some editors think that their opinion is more important than policy, or are simply blinded to policy because of these opinions (it is editors from this side that are responsible for the escalating incivility here, and have engaged in the harrassment you mention).


 * For weeks now, Amoruso has been fighting tooth and nail, trying to push his opinion on others and into the article. Even knowing that this is your actual conclusion on the subject (note that Amoruso maintained before that you support the category, even after you said "...he can't go in the category...":Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) I still doubt that Amoruso will relent.  If he does not, arbitration may be the only solution as another editor has mentioned. Markovich292 19:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any policy that supports my statement. You could have made a convincing argument, but...

you keep making personal attacks. So next time, be civil. I do actually support putting him in the category, but I think that the side you support(Markovich) is just going to fight until they fall to the ground. Yes I don't think he should be included in the category, but only because you have been fighting tooth and claw. Your comments, and other people's comments, have led me to believe that everyone should leave this article alone for a long time.H e mh e m20X6 21:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to look over the relevant policies and guidelines that apply here. It is not a violation of WP:NPA for example, to state clearly the behavior of an editor like I did (Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions).  How is this ever going to be resolved if everybody keeps ignoring behavior that is having the effect of dragging this out?  The "pro-policy" side has been perfectly reasonable in asking for something from the other side that proves their case.  Basically nothing but opinion has been shown, yet some editors still insist their side is right! Markovich292 22:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I really didn't feel that I needed to lay out why policy supports your position not to add the category because you are a mediator after all, so you should be familiar with the policies. I have mentioned it on the talk page as well, so I figured you would be keeping up there which is why I didn't re-list them here.  The "convincing argument" has been the focus on wikipedia policy over at the talk page for weeks, which some people have been ignoring. Oh well; here are the main policies and guidelines that would be violated if the category were put in place:


 * WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, Libel, Categorization of people, Consensus, and Categorization.


 * And here are the policies that Amoruso has already violated, which I think is the primary reason that arbitration has been mentioned:


 * WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NOT/What the Wikipedia community is not and WP:AGF. Markovich292 22:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not about Amoruso. WP:NOT and yet certain editors keep trying to turn it into one by whitewashing Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier and a radical Islamist who openly calls for the destruction of Israel. WP:BLP doesn't work against facts and it is uncivil not to call AM an antisemite. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am well aware that this is not a battleground, and that specific issue is in fact part of one of the policies that I cited just above. Letting the mediator know the policies that Amoruso has violated is not making anything into a battleground; go ahead and read wiki policies again if you don't believe that.  At least one other person has mentioned arbitration, so I am perfectly within the bounds of policy to tell the mediator why that might be (especially when he talks about civility within this issue). Markovich292 21:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You really seem to need a little refreshing on the civility policy if you say it is uncivil not to call someone an anti-semite. And remember, someone is not automatically "whitewashing" or "trying to turn something into a battleground" by stating that others' edits are improper.  It is simply standing up for the policies that make wikipedia a good encyclopedia. Markovich292 22:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * All that is required for POV edits to abound is for good editors to do nothing. Markovich292 22:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So here's a recipe how to be a "good editor": defend a certified anitisemite, and claim the moral high ground by botching Edmund Burke's quotes. Yep, that simple. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)