User talk:Barkeep49

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

October music

story · music · places

You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Today I remember an organist who was pictured on the Main page on his birthday ten years ago, and I found two recent organ concerts to match, - see top of my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Today brought a timely promotion of Helmut Bauer to the Main page on the day when pieces from Mozart's Requiem were performed for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

My story today is a cantata 300 years old, based on a hymn 200 years old when the cantata was composed, based on a psalm some thousand years old, - so said the 2015 DYK hook. I had forgotten the discussion on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

My story today is about a composer and choir conductor, listen to his Lamento. - My story on 13 October was about a Bach cantata. As this place works, it's on the Main page now because of the date. I sort of like it because today is the birth date of my grandfather who loved and grew dahlias like those pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you listen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Jordan on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Nishidani comment

Hey Bk, I see you removed Nishidani’s bizarre and offensive comment. I’m not sure removing it helps, as I feel it should be addressed. The offensiveness of an editor citing some joke as evidence that there is a Jewish tendency to gratuitously and abusively accuse non-Jews of antisemitism is pretty bad, but it is secondary to the derailing irrelevance of this particular line of “Everyone knows it exists! Stop asking for secondary sources!” argumentation that’s been popping up repeatedly at that Talk. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If anyone's serious about stamping out toxic conduct in ARBPIA, apparently Nishidani thinks it's acceptable to make condescending antisemitic jokes (~"Jews are so lazy and greedy, bumming our toothbrushes and razors") about antisemitism (~"and they're so oversensitive about antisemitism") to win arguments. Hate is disruptive. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC) Nishidani didn't make the joke, so that part was incorrect. And they've said they weren't intending to communicate anything hateful. See below for clarification. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

See https://www.jstor.org/stable/538991

p.218 states the exact joke Nishidani used, and makes the exact same academic point that Nishidani makes.

Barkeep, please could you self-revert your removal of Nishidani’s comment, and reverse the clearly mistaken ban.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. I had not thought to search JSTOR. However, I read Katz and Katz's interpretation of the joke far differently than you (even if we ignore the difference in context between two Yiddish speaking people telling jokes to each other and a person - Jewish, a Yiddish speaker, or not - telling it on the Internet to win a point). Specifically, Katz and Kate write, In this story it is not the inanimate machine that is accused of anti-Semitism but a man, who presumably belongs to the majority culture and who has behaved toward the Jews with uncommon courtesy and-be it noted-toleration. The Jew, on the other hand, is at best an outrageous and at worst a repulsive figure. We may in fact be initially amused at his impudence...Here the Jew soon appalls the hearer by his total lack of standards in such ele­mentary matters as hygiene and privacy, not to speak of more subtle areas. as delicacy and good manners. He has already been indulged far beyond the patience any hearer would show and, when the line is finally drawn, his cry of "anti­Semitism" is the culmination of a process that has taken him progressively out of the realm of our sympathy. So at best this source says that it was a known joke in early 20th the 1960's century Eastern European Jewry but by 1973 was being criticized. It is now 51 years later. I stand by my sanction for the way Nishdani's comment was, to quote the previous warning, unnecessarily inflammatory language. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Prior to the quote, Katz and Katz write (my bolding added): It is quite well known that jokes form a prominent part of the Jewish folklore tradition. Jewish folklore itself attributes to Jews a kind of expertise as raconteurs and connoisseurs of jokes… The point of the story [an equivalent story being contrasted against said joke] is familiar. A negative reaction to behavior that is inadequate or inappropriate is interpreted by the Jew as reflecting ethnic prejudice… Dorson's story [i.e. the joke Nishidani quoted] also involves a charge of anti-Semitism…

Nishidani was making the exact point that they make. Please could you explain what you consider to have been inflammatory about Nishidani’s comment?

For ease of reference, Nishidani’s entire comment, without the joke was as follows: I mean, reaslly Bob, you yourself cannot but be familiar with old Jewish jokes that, with typical irony, make fun of a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism. [The joke]. Testimony if ever how deeply ingrained (and understandably so) a sense of diffidence with those not of one's persuasion can go, even in Jewish communities.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Nishidani was making the exact point that they make. Please could you explain what you consider to have been inflammatory about Nishidani’s comment? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have already quoted Katz and Katz writing specifically about this joke and the way that it is inflamatory. This is beyond the idea that what may have been common in the 1960s (the time period for the source of the joke) may no longer be common and, crucially, what they describe as common is jokes as part of Jewish folklore tradition, not the specific jokes they cite. And, I will add, what was common in 1973, the date of the source, may no longer be common 50+ years later. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but you have not answered my question at all. Nishidani wrote two sentences, and correctly quoted a joke from academic literature, in accurate context.

Which of these two sentences did you find inflammatory?

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It can be quite appropriate for academic literature to dissect inflammatory language and explain why it is inflammatory and improper. This is what Katz and Katz do. So you don't get to handwave the content of the joke away. Correctly quoting academic literature does not mean it's OK in the context of a Wikipedia talk page discussion to reproduce it. The contexts are different and the point Katz and Katz are making is rather different than what Nishdani was doing. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

What are you suggesting that Nishidani was doing? Please explain with reference to either or both of his two sentences. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I am stating that by posting this comment Nishidani was inflaming the discussion and further stating that they had previously been warned about doing this. I understand I have not answered your specific questions, because I reject the idea that I can only consider the two sentences you keep asking about. At this point I'm quite repeating myself here and so absent this conversation moving forward in some new productive way, I feel I have met the expectations under the Administrator Policy and the Contentious topics procedures. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep, while your original revert and block was in good faith, you have already accepted that your original rationale was mistaken. Further evidence for this is below - the joke is widely published as representative of historical Jewish humor.

• Sherman, J. (1992). A Sampler of Jewish-American Folklore. American folklore series. August House. p. 152. ISBN 978-0-87483-194-8.
• Novak, W.; Waldoks, M. (2006). The Big Book of Jewish Humor. G - Reference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. HarperCollins. p. 85. ISBN 978-0-06-113813-3.

The second citation (p.85 of the Big Book) quotes the joke within a particularly detailed section (from page 60 onwards) on self-deprecating Jewish jokes about anti-semitism.

I appreciate that you acknowledged above that your initial search was lacking.

But since then you stuck to your claim that Nishidani’s comment was inflammatory, without explaining either what or how you reached that conclusion. Administrative actions are required to be supported by explanation.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

As you said, it's self-deprecating humor. Most self-deprecating jokes, especially those relating to minority groups, would be offensive if they weren't told in a self-deprecating manner (or if it wasn't clear from context). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Very true.

The context here was crystal clear. The description of the joke was used to illustrate an academic point – specifically the point that such a joke exists, and thus the existence of the cultural phenomenon of Jewish people being aware of the perception of hypersensitivity to antisemitism.

It was clearly not directed at anyone, or being used as an attempted joke.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you think to ask @Bobfrombrockley if he thought it was an issue? Or do you decide that something is inflaming the discussion without thought as to if the participants a. have a history together, b. dont take offense to such a comment, or c. instinctively know that somebody is not mak[ing] condescending antisemitic jokes? nableezy - 16:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Barkeep, while I'm not sure if I have heard this particular joke before, it is based on an authentic Jewish theme and I've heard many jokes with much the same punchline from Jewish friends. Your edit summary "a joke weaponizing antisemitism" is not correct; rather it is a joke about weaponization of antisemitism, or at least about oversensitivity towards antisemitism. A Jewish comedian telling this joke would evoke a laugh from any Jewish audience because everyone in the audience knows someone who sees antisemitism everywhere. I would have advised Nish against repeating it on-wiki, but I don't think it deserves a TB. Regards. Zero^talk 02:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

As I note at more length to Levivich below, the difference in context between a Jewish comedian talking to a Jewish audience and Nishidani writing on an article talk page remains core to why I do not find use of the joke OK in the context they used it. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, Zero you have heard this one, since I mentioned it in response to you, as an acute Jewish community insight into hypersensitivities over antisemitism. But that was 6 years ago. A lot of people, many hostile to my presence here (something i know because in reading the endless reports about me at AE/ANI over the years and not one hostile reader of my page ever noted this remark in 2018 as anything like a 'gotcha' smoking gun piece of evidence to haul me in for a sanction - and Barkeep's is the 6th action against me this year -, I am always impressed by how minutely records are kept of every edit or comment I make on wiki and on my talk page esp. These chaps know more about me than I do- and so I wouldn't have taken your advice. On principle. I don't buckle to the kind of discursive intimidation that would banish, in this case, from wikipedia discussions, a disturbing trend, stuff that is amply circulating, and subject to wise analysis out there in the public record. Unfortunately, admins have a remit to hyperspecialize in 'behaviour' <(- meaning, understandably, few have the time to plunge into a deep, comprehensive background reading of the literature on any topic -) for which there are wokist and byzantine rules and cases, and are not required to be familiar with any topic content. To both SFR and Barkeep (and leeky cauldron) this 'looked' inflammatory and rather than just ask me about it, BK did what he did. I think you are seriously wrong to think that there is even an odour of this being read as inflammatory such that an editor should shy from using it heuristically, as I did. There is something disturbingly toxic about the implicit principle laid down here: that an ethnic group's conversation cannot be quoted by anyone outside of that 'pale', and that to do so is to aggressively trouble the sensivities of those within the ingroup who would otherwise laugh at it, a joke in this case which is about one person in an ingroup (Jews) misreading what a kind person (non-Jew) did as evidence of hostile prejudice. This pathetic episode is a palmary case exhibiting the very hypersensitity the joke I cited mocked, to the point that the friendly outgrouper I am is sanctioned for mentioning it. The next step after this inflammatory precedent would be to start saying papers by the world's top Holocaust scholars in the Journal of Genocide Research cannot be cited on wikipedia because the content is 'inflammatory' since it disturbs many readers from Burma to Israel. 'And so it goes,' as Billy Joel once sang. Sigh — Preceding unsigned comment added by nishidani (talk • contribs)

You wrote in your edit summary "I can find no evidence that this is a commonly familiar old Jewish Joke. So instead I see a joke weaponizing antisemtism on the talk page about such an article." Now that you've been shown evidence that this is a commonly familiar old Jewish Joke, why doesn't it change the second sentence of your statement? Levivich (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

What I should have done was remove it and then ask Nishidani about it and only then make a decision with more information about any potential sanction. But the reason I haven't with more information reversed my topic ban, is because use this joke in this context for this purpose remains by my reading and judgement "unnecessarily inflammatory language" which Nishidani had previously been warned for. And not for nothing this also seems to be the reading of the first two editors (one of them an UNINOVLVED admin) in this very user talk discussion. Nishidani is not a scholar suggesting that Jewish folklore humor needs to change (Katz & Katz) nor is Nishidani a jurist advising legislators to stand up to anti-semtism without being hyper sensitive to it (Sedley) or any of the any other contexts we're talking about. They are instead an editor on a multiculutral encyclopedia debating whether there is the correct content on an article about the Weaponization of antisemitism has adequately sourced and written material in its lead paragraph. And in this context, to repeat what I wrote above, it remains my judgement that it was "unnecessarily inflammatory language". Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Barkeep49. As to Nableezy's three points - if Nish wanted to banter with Bob ... the proper place to put off-topic jokes would be on Bob or Nish's talk page. The reason I agree with Barkeep that it was inflammatory was that in the context of an article talk page, where others besides Bob and Nish are involved, even if Bob was fine with the joke from Nish, others quite likely would not be comfortable with such a joke, and would likely not consider it bantering between friends. Instead, it's quite likely to put off other editors and make them feel that the talk page is a hostile place. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I doubt many editors would confuse this for banter. The point of telling the joke wasn't because Nish thought the joke was funny. Rather, the joke was cited as evidence that what the RSes said was widely accepted and uncontroversial. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Levivich is right.

@Barkeep49 and Ealdgyth: are you aware that this famous joke is recorded only as a joke told by Jewish people about their own community? If Nishidani had retold a joke told by antisemites about Jews in order to make a point I could understand your argument and would be inclined to agree.

But this is provably not what this was.

The whole thing appears to be based on three false premises:

1. That Nishidani invented the joke, or wrongly described it as famous PROVEN FALSE PREMISE

2. That the joke was an inflammatory joke written by antisemites against Jews PROVEN FALSE PREMISE

3. That Nishidani was telling the joke as off-topic banter PROVEN FALSE PREMISE

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

(Another option would have been to ask about it before removing it.) What makes it not inflammatory IMO is that it's an old, widely-published, Yiddish folklore joke. I think you had it right in your edit summary: either it's a commonly familiar old Jewish joke, or else--"instead"--it's a joke weaponizing antisemitism. I think you'd agree there is nothing inherently inflammatory about a commonly familiar old Jewish joke, even a self-deprecating one.

It might still be inflammatory in the context of how it's told, and point that Katz & Katz p. 219 makes: the joke "can be regarded as anti-Semitic to the degree that the repulsive Jew is meant to stand for all Jews" but not when "the subject does not stand for all Jews". I don't see anything inflammatory about the context in which Nish told this joke.

In a discussion about a sentence in the lead that gives examples of the weaponization of antisemitism, and whether those examples should be attributed or not (or the sentence removed or otherwise changed), Nish says "abundant sources ... underline the view that it is extremely commonplace for any criticism of Israel to be countered as 'antisemitic'. I've been seeing that for half a century, and I cannot believe that editors are unaware of this obvious fact."

And then Nish says it's so common that there are even old self-deprecating Jewish jokes about it ("...you yourself cannot but be familiar with old Jewish jokes that, with typical irony, make fun of a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism."), and then Nish re-tells such a joke. It's like a use/mention distinction: the joke isn't being told for the sake of being told, it's mentioned as evidence that the weaponization of antisemitism is commonplace (and thus attribution is not needed).

Now the thing about the use/mention distinction is that one doesn't need to re-tell a joke to mention it, and in hindsight it might have been more professional to just mention the Jew-borrowing-toiletries joke, or link to it, rather than re-telling it on-wiki, and that's the kind of thing I could see one editor having a quiet word with another editor about, but I don't think it's inflammatory or otherwise sanctionable. Levivich (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The most inflammatory thing here, imo, is somebody saying Nishidani made a condescending antisemitic joke. Just bonkers. nableezy - 21:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay. This is a WP:TLDR read, but I've a right to defend my good name which Barkeep and others have impugned by calling or insinuating I am an antisemite, which throws almost two decades of IP work, tens of thousands of edits, under a cloud of suspicion.

Sigh. That, Ealdgyth, makes 4 admins (the leeky cauldron’s outrageously silly suggestion that joke means I'm ‘making condescending antisemitic jokes (~"Jews are so lazy and greedy, bumming our toothbrushes and razors") about antisemitism.’. The joke is not about ‘Jews’ fa chrissake) who didn’t do their job, and concur that I am an antisemite (if I were Barkeep, who says that, I’d have permabanned me). Did you, Barkeep and SFR actually trouble yourselves to read, other than the single diff, the remarks I made immediately before that illustration which was a paraphrase from Sedley? I.e. this, then this, where I quote from Amos Goldberg, Raz Segal, Distorting the definition of antisemitism to shield Israel from all criticism +972 Magazine 5 August 5 2019, and tweaked here? No.

Amos Goldberg is professor in the Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem ) Raz Segal is Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Both are Israeli. Like Sedley they recognize the problem the joke comments on, and warn that this hypersensitivity is damaging above all to Jews.

They give the abstract scholarly analysis for the by now ingrained weaponization of antisemitic accusations which the joke I then added illustrates, in a friendly, come-now tone to Bob. I did so to him because we have a fairly good relationship editing-wise, and he would be familiar with the anecdote since it figured in the London Review of Books in 2018 and I quoted it on my page, which I believe he has bookmarked, back then. A reminder that the hostility to this documentation on that wiki page by many editors really does go against the grain of scholarship, and editors should recall the dangers of a habit of mind, historically comprehensible, but still mocked for the exaggerated lengths it can go to in Jewish humour.

Barkeep didn’t do his homework, because he keeps saying Sedley’s remarks were addressed to Jewish MPS. They were not. They were addressed to the broad readership of the London Review of Books quietly pulling apart the intense wave of accusations, often coming from Jewish bodies and given wide coverage in the press, that the Labour Party was rife with anti-Semitism. It was not then, as Barkeep keeps repeating, a joke by one eminent (Jewish) jurist giving advice to Jewish MPs (‘nor is Nishidani a jurist advising legislators to stand up to anti-semtism without being hyper sensitive to it (Sedley)’ - another devastating misreading showing he has not read the Sedley piece which lies behind my paraphrase).

It was a Jew if you like, telling a broadly non-Jewish readership that this sowing of suspicions about anti-Semitism has both its politics, unfortunately promoted by core Jewish bodies in the UK, and he pulls the rug from under the impression this lobbying might make among non-Jews it by by telling a joke which captures inimitably this problem of overreacting. If anything Sedley's piece is a brilliant defense of Jews before that broad non-sectarian readership. It is saying:'Look, the huge assault on the Labour Party you read about is problematic but you must before passing some facile judgment realize that it reflects a hypersensitivity we ourselves, as Jews, are all too familiar with, and have been traditionally critical of'. So much for the way leeky cauldron's spin to me inexplicable misreading of an edit injuriously glossed it.. How this hypersensitivity is weaponized is now documented in great detail by Anthony Lerman in his Whatever Happened to Antisemitism? Redefinition and the Myth of the 'Collective Jew', Pluto Press, London 2022, which I have at least twice asked IP editors to read, apparently with no effect.

No one here read this, or the article I cited. They just looked at the diff and got the impression I was an antisemite. Onceinawhile at least managed to get Barkeep to google around, but even there he found excuses/reasons to remain stoutly on his given ground. Disappointing, but Wikipedia is full of the wreckage caused by not checking the full discursive record, It was inevitable that I too someday would be thrown under the wheels in the usual traffic jam of inattentive drivers. Is there no limit to admin solidarity when a patent error, understandable given the haste, is made, one that brands an editor as an antisemite, a vicious insinuation that would formally demand serious evidence and scrupulous backgrounding work? I know you guys have immensely and (in terms of the pleasure of just reading) tediously tiring tasks. I take what has happened here to be a matter of haste and reader fatigue, certainly not malevolence. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I have written So instead I see a joke weaponizing antisemtism on the talk page about such an article but that describes a single action not any sort of pattern nor does it describe you as a person. I have no reason to believe you are antisemitic and have not written that you are for that precise reason. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Let us say that if you put that remark in its context before any competent grammarian, they would, if they know their job, construe it as lending itself to the interpretation that anyone using that joke, like the joke itself, was 'weaponing antisemitism'. The joke itself does not 'weaponize antisemitism'. The joke is about the fraility of people thinking something is antisemitic, when it is not. A person who cites that joke can be 'antisemitic' or viscerally intolerant of antisemitism, like the eminent Sedley and, I insist in my own defense, my own peonish self since my earliest years. A sanction for having, in an aside, used it to illustrate the abuse of antisemitic charges previously argued via the citation of scholarly work, will suggest to many readers that in using it, I played into the antisemites' worldview. I take you at your word that you do not believe I am an antisemite. Yet, this is the way language works: it gets the better of all of us at times no matter how hard we try, or what we thought we intended to say. And that your judgment was immediately endorsed by theleekycauldron, who said my remark is an instance of hating Jews, underlines this reading present in your phrasing. She, another admin, took the joke and your construal of it as showing I was an antisemite. Thank you, by the way, for the courtesy of hatting NMMGG's abusive jeremiad against me (even though if you follow all of the links thoroughly, they show the opposite of what that editor contends/contended, and I, like the AE cases he made, found them harmless, would not have been embarrassed had they been conserved here). In any case, no grudges. If anything, I anticipated the likelihood of something like this happening 3 weeks ago. It's in the nature of the way wikipedia works, where the rules can work out to do their function, or make working here, conversely, dysfunctional. Regards Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I'm likely not going to win any friends by saying this, but I respect y'all, so here goes. I've seen the full context for that joke now, and its use was not appropriate. In a topic this fraught, nobody should be making jokes as a means of persuasion (really, Nishidani, if your opposite numbers were not going to be convinced by scholarly sources, do you think they would be convinced by a joke?), and it's far too open to misinterpretation - nobody should need to do some research to recognize that you weren't making a novel joke in very poor taste. I think you need to recognize a need to temper your rhetoric - yes, it's boring to stick narrowly to source material, but that's what editing a CT on Wikipedia requires. I'll go a step beyond Ealdgyth and say that that sort of banter - if intended as such, and not as part of discussing an article directly - shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Reserve it for a forum intended for such. That said: TLC's reading of this diff above is a very superficial one indeed, and I do think TLC owes Nishidani a retraction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t think that’s wrong, I don’t disagree it would have been wiser not to post that, but I also don’t think that merits anything more than a request to not digress in such a way on a talk page. Certainly not a sanction without even talking to somebody. nableezy - 01:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  In isolation, I agree. This isn't isolated. Nishidani has the unfortunate habit of raising the temperature; he uses rhetorical flourish, he uses strong language, he uses analogies that aren't appropriate, he uses jokes like this one. And before someone inevitably starts complaining about aspersions, that is my summary of the multiple instances I remember of Nishidani being told off at AE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: Yeah, I should have recognized that Nishidani didn't use the joke, he cited it. Consider that part of my previous statement struck. But uncritically citing the joke as an example of how Jews are oversensitive to antisemitism isn't better. Per Katz and Katz, the joke portrays Jews in a grossly negative light – greedy, ungrateful, and oversensitive to antisemitism. Yes, I'm aware that it's a self-deprecating joke made by Jews. I wonder if there are any other pieces of superficially derogatory language and culture that are fine when used by the targeted group (reclamation), but take on a very different meaning when used by the outside.

  More to the point, there's a huge difference between "Israel apologists distort the concept of antisemitism to suit their own needs" and what Nishidani said, which is that Jews have "a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism". There really is no reasonable AGF explanation for that, and it rules out a reading of the diff where Nishidani mentions the joke but tacitly acknowledges that its protagonist is a gross caricature of a Jew. I guess it's possible that Nishidani thinks Jews have the "tendency" but doesn't think Jews are ungrateful bums otherwise, and he just forgot to mention that, but it does strain AGF.

  A key tenet of Jewish humor is playing off of antisemitic stereotypes, part self-deprecation and part mockery. But the context the joke is cited in here fundamentally twists its meaning and tone. Nishidani's comment implies that the joke is funny because it's built on a truth about the Jewish community that still holds true for modern Jews, and that is something I do find very offensive. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Nishidani is saying that Jews have made jokes about other Jews being oversensitive to antisemitism. It's a terrible method of persuasion, and as I said to him, inflammatory in context because it's not actual evidence of anything - but he's not telling the joke to be funny. He's not telling the joke at all, really. You're accusing him of endorsing a caricature, rather than pointing out its existence - and that's assuming pretty bad faith on his part, especially given extensive explanation here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Right, Nishidani's not telling the joke. But they are citing it. They say so in this thread and in the diff. They cite it as evidence of, in their words, "a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism". They say it is "testimony if ever how deeply ingrained (and understandably so) a sense of diffidence with those not of one's persuasion can go". That is a straightforward argument: ~"Jews (not bad-faith Israel apologists, not even Zionists, Jews) tend to blast everything they don't like as antisemitism. Even Jews say so." The evidence for that argument is the joke and its caricature.

  If you're arguing that Nishidani was merely citing the existence of the caricature, not its content... citing in support of what, then? Its existence has no bearing on whether bad-faith Israel stooges distort the meaning of antisemitism for political purposes and no bearing on whether Jews are, as they said, "hypersensitive" to antisemitism. "Look at how the Jews make fun of themselves for being oversensitive. The caricature is bogus, but its existence proves that they really are so easily offended". I find it unlikely that someone as well-read as Nishidani would say something that specious. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  The only way you can remake Nishidanis comment in to one saying Jews as a people blame everything they don’t like on antisemitism is you if you distort it beyond recognition. And if he actually had said such a thing, why haven’t you blocked him as a racist? nableezy - 20:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  • 19 October 2024, taking out the words 'by Jews' in a wiki article with the edit summary Undid revision 1251948920 by Herostratus (talk) Good grief. The ethnicity of those who constructed it is irrelevant. It's not 'Jews' but Zionists. To say Jews in such contexts is loose. No Jew is responsible for what any other Jew might do.
  • you yourself cannot but be familiar with old Jewish jokes that, with typical irony, make fun of a tendency to take everything a non-Jew does which displeases one, as evidence of antisemitism
  • Sedley's piece is a brilliant defense of Jews before that broad non-sectarian readership. It is saying:'Look, the huge assault on the Labour Party you read about is problematic but you must before passing some facile judgment realize that it reflects a hypersensitivity we ourselves, as Jews, are all too familiar with, and have been traditionally critical of. So much for the way leeky cauldron's spin to me inexplicable misreading of an edit injuriously glossed it. How this hypersensitivity is weaponized is now documented in great detail by Anthony Lerman in his Whatever Happened to Antisemitism? Redefinition and the Myth of the 'Collective Jew', Pluto Press, London 2022, which I have at least twice asked IP editors to read, apparently with no effect.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

    @Nishidani: All right, I'm gonna try and make this my last reply, because I think I've explained my view well enough in response to Vanamonde's request that I strike my previous statement. Props on that first edit. If you're really insisting that you don't believe and didn't mean to say the proposition I understood from your statement – that Jews are hypersensitive to antisemitism as a group or culture – then I have no further quarrel with you. I have no interest in "spinning" or prosecuting, so if you're telling me straight that you're not that person, then I can move on to the article I was excited to get started on today. Does that work for you? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

    (talk page stalker) If anyone's serious about stamping out toxic conduct in ARBPIA, apparently Nishidani thinks it's acceptable to make condescending antisemitic jokes (~"Jews are so lazy and greedy, bumming our toothbrushes and razors") about antisemitism (~"and they're so oversensitive about antisemitism") to win arguments. Hate is disruptive. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

    @Nishidani: Copy-pasting my comment along with this edit summary makes for a very confusing reading experience for others later. I'd appreciate it if you made the intention of your comment clearer within the context. (Which is also, coincidentally, how I felt about your original comment!) I appreciate that there was a misunderstanding, and my perception of your original comment is different now with additional context, so sure, I'll strike it. Would you mind striking your calling my comment "spin"? I participated in this discussion in good faith, and would appreciate it if you acknowledged as much. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

    see here for why I do not respond in the form requestedNishidani (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  TLC, I don't normally vote in RFA but I did vote positively for yours. Please don't make me regret that by carrying this on further. As it stands, Nishidani has been banned from the "Arab Isreal" topic area for three weeks but can still participate in the "Arab Isfake" topic area. While this may have seemed overhasty to many (myself included), it's unlikely to be changed no matter how many pixels get splashed from the well to the screen. I would suggest that, following the adage, fewer is more. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

People have been sanctioned for a long time in this topic area. This discussion goes into some of that history. If you want to go back 11+ years this is the wrong place - and I'm not sure there is a need or right place anywhere. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not the first time Nishidani has engaged in antisemitic discourse. here he says the Jewish holiday of Purim is a celebration of genocide. here he has an anecdote about "Jewish eyes", completely unrelated to the discussion. Nishidani was one of the first editors to be TBANed from the topic area, prior to the original ARBPIA case [1] and was allowed back in based on the assumption he will be civil [2] which he very obviously isn't and has never been. He should have been permanently banned over a decade ago, but it's not too late to do so now and rid the topic area of one of the most toxic editors around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC) I could have sworn I’ve seen you make the same claims at AE. That’s right, it ended with your ban from AE for accusing "an editor of serious and ethically tainting misconduct, namely antisemitism, on specious grounds". nableezy - 23:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Indeed, there is a lot of relevant info there regarding the pattern of behavior I mentioned above (I completely forgot the "chosen" remark). Thanks for posting it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC) What’s most relevant is the finding that you made specious claims of racism, and having been sanctioned for it previously you return 11 years later to do it again. nableezy - 01:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Warnings and waggings

You know how I feel about warnings and reminders, and I know how you feel about my oft open disdain, so I'll keep up the decorum of AE in the future. As for the actual utility, when we've been dealing with editors who are making repeat appearances, with warnings and sanctions, and we're talking about warnings as anything other than an ineffectual finger-wag it really irks my taters. In my mind, warnings are to let someone know that they crossed a line, and if the line is crossed again there will be repercussions. When you're issuing repeat warnings it really is nothing more than a finger wag, or maybe a frown with a head shake from your homeroom teacher. Warnings only work if those that continue behavior after being warned face repercussions. When we warn for behavior that has already been sanctioned in the past it weakens the entire arbitration enforcement regime and reinforces the idea of WP:UNBLOCKABLES.

While I appreciate that you took the heat for the sanction discussed above, If I had seen this comment from someone who just barely had ECR, I'd have likely indef blocked them further shows the kid's gloves we're using with editors that have already been sanctioned and warned. We're essentially saying that having been warned has less weight than lacking social capital. I understand that is how things play out, because no one likes spending their limited time eating shit and dealing with fallout, but it really reduces the efficacy of warnings, particularly for established editors.

All that said, you're right, at AE I should be a bit less flip with the language I use describing the tools in our toolbox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not totally unsympathetic to the "we need to do better than finger wagging" criticism of some outcomes at AE that I propose and I appreciate you bringing up a differing point of view on such things. But yes my point was that is the wrong place to engage in that style of criticism and I appreciate what you and Valereee wrote in response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Irks my taters? New one on me. Yes, the whole unblockables thing is a very strange phenomenon. Valereee (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but read it with a Samwise Gamgee accent in my head. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You like that one? Try "had the radish" on for size. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't find it particularly astonishing that in a volunteer community where volunteer time is our most crucial resource, it can sometimes be the case that very productive members are afforded more leeway in rules infractions.

I'm not planning to opine here on the value or detriment of the phenomenon, nor how much leeway to afford – inclu­ding none – is the most optimal, nor where the bright lines and grey zones should be. But it feels logical that this arises naturally from our circumstances. Folly Mox (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Qwerty talk page

Hi Barkeep49 (and also @ScottishFinnishRadish as I saw you also made a comment), I saw your comments on User:i.am.a.qwerty's talk page; in my experience, I have never gotten a response from them on their talk page, they usually just delete everything when people leave messages. This has happened even when myself and another editor have warned them for BLP vandalism, they just deleted it all. GraziePrego (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that experience. I noticed here they did leave an explanation on the article talk page which I am considering as their response. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
• MaranoFan (submissions) wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
• Fritzmann (submissions) wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Sammi Brie (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

• From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon?

• In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel

• Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship

• Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them

• In focus: Questions and answers about the court case

• Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?

• Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK

• Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm so confused

With all the page moves etc, but I created those pages by clicking links that were all in my face so I assume you know what is up and i'm not (completely) insane? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 10:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways you're not insane (at least in this regards). Somehow the pages all got created as JSS (Alerts 0) which messed everything up. I have mostly fixed this; you have 1 or 2 more steps left to do. The step I definitely know you have to do is go to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Just Step Sideways/Statement and uncomment the template that is on the page (and I think delete your statement that's on there). You may also have to transclude the page to the candidates page. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't remember this being the least bit difficult in the past. I'm lost. I'm not running for template editor. I think I got it? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what the behind the scenes setup is for all this. I think the lesson learned is to not accidently have some weird text present when you create the candidate pages :). You are showing as a candidate so I agree it seems to be all worked out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

More agile

Regarding this comment: "more agile" is, of course, a relative term :-), as the arbitration committee wasn't all that quick in modifying the discretionary sanctions framework. But true enough, the community as a whole is too big to reach consensus agreement on major changes, and too ingrained with the idea of deriving procedures from the bottom up to worry about aligning discrepancies in its procedures. (Not worrying about trying to align everything has certain practical advantages which probably outweigh the negatives on the whole, but it leaves a lot of room for argument if everyone isn't willing to go along to get along.) I'm guessing there will have to be a bigger divergence between the contentious topics and discretionary sanctions frameworks before the community is willing to invest time to reach a consensus on the matter, and I imagine that once again they'll just say "like that, with these small differences". isaacl (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't quick to modify DS as a whole. It has been quick to make more granular changes. And despite it being slow to modify DS as a whole it's done it a couple of times where as - as you note - the community never has. So even on that front it is "more agile" if not exactly "speedy". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes – the committee being a much smaller group is actually able to generate real-world consensus, and it can fall back to voting if necessary. So changes everyone agrees on can get done quickly, and larger scale changes stand a much better chance of being considered and eventually implemented. (The vocal segment of the community that gets involved in process discussions seems less interested in that practical example of moving forward, versus ensuring their dissent will be strongly heard.) isaacl (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

November music

story · music · places

For a surprise, a Bach cantata is on the Main page today, where it was last year for the 300th anniversary, and they were too lazy to find something new ;) - Look at my story, and listen to the 3 whole-tone steps and the dialogues of Fear and Hope. - An open letter open to be signed (more info on the talk), - I haven't checked if you did, please ignore then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

And they shall be called...

Bakreep forever-more. (Thanks for the laugh in a busy-crappy day.) Ealdgyth (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(And that has inspired me to name my next MMORPG character Bakreep... ) Ealdgyth (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I hope the character serves you well in your MMORPG and may I one day reach the levels that Bakreep has already reached . Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)