Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Salvio giuliano (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Newyorkbrad (Talk)

"Jewish conspiracy"[edit]

LessHeard, this phrase is in quotes, but I don't see it anywhere in the provided diffs (nor even just "conspiracy" alone, for that matter.) Is this phrase a quote by Silver seren, or your own interpretation of his comments? TotientDragooned (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a direct quote from Silver Seren. I don't see it anywhere in the ANI. It's a reasonable interpretation of Silver Seren's claims, but LessHeard might want to refactor to not present it as a quote. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the title to avoid confusion - I have left the "quotation marks" in the text since the sentence construction clearly indicates that the phrases are not quotes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LH, I think it still unclear, because of the single quotes in the section heading. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a legitimate representation of what was said or implied; and as a title is playing to the crowd. Shouldn't evidence be presented with relative neutrality? --Errant ^(chat!) 11:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the pleasure of working with SilverSeren on an article before, and he really does not strike me as the "Jewish conspiracy" alleging type. The diff shows that he asked a general question about potential bias. Now I do suspect that the Wikipedia admin process itself may have wrongly alleged "Jewish conspiracy" in the past (see here), but by contrast SilverSeren merely asked the perennial question of whether those voting about an article might be motivated by some feeling toward its topic matter. The answer to this, as always, is "who knows"? - that's why a "!vote" isn't a vote, and the arguments made need to be considered. Wnt (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable with any situation where editors are discussed in terms of who they are and what their motivations might be. Per WP:NPA: discuss the edit, not the editor. But the diffs provided in the evidence make no mention whatsoever of any sort of "conspiracy" amongst the editors, and presenting it as if they did, does indeed appear to me to be misleading. The diffs also mention the accusations of anti-semitism made by users with whom SilverSeren disagreed. Those accusations are equally troubling, but neither one justifies the other (as in two wrongs do not make a right). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what the others have stated. The diff doesn't say anything about a conspiracy or editors colluding together. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am quite disturbed by the fact that the author of that section has not corrected this language.Griswaldo (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article(s) totally disproving this[edit]

Everyone knows what an article on a religious topic in a lay encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, presumably, should source 99% of its text to religious sources, and cram any possible lay criticism or discussion in one or two oversimplifying sentences with a footnote to dozens of sources that only unbelievers may care about. See Jews as a chosen people, and amusing talk page discussion. Looking at the edit history of that article, you will find many acquaintances of ArbCom, and of this case in particular. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of pro-Judaism activism and oversensitivity in Wikipedia articles have obviously been greatly exaggerated, to the point they are an antisemitic canard, e.g. this. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what this has to do with the now deleted article or the case? These comments seem totally out of place here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with your claims that consensus at AfD means in articles like this means beans. Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chosen people. The nominator argues that Jews as a chosen people is "well sourced and complete" (thus everything else is redundant); with a bit more effort, chosen people could have easily been deleted. Amusing to say the least, but WP:AGF. And look who is voting to delete. I recognize WP:ARBPIA-WP:AE-sanctioned editors among other regulars. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such claims. Mathsci (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And where I come from beanz meanz Heinz. Mathsci (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tijfo098, I recommend you drop this claim since I don't think anyone else is convinced here. You mean to say that some Jewish editors who have strong opinions about I-P related issues also have strong opinions about more general issues related to Judaism? Gee, what a surprise. It doesn't mean, however that general issues related to Judaism are all part of the more specific issues related to Israel, the Jewish nation-state. I think you've got the hierarchy upside down there.Griswaldo (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

odd diff[edit]

[1] has a diff that looks a bit odd to me, but I'm not competent to assess it and I'm not curious enough to want to research it further. If someone thinks it's significant and wants to present it in their own evidence, please feel free. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion irrelevant to the case.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Are you sure? You seem to know an awful lot about other Wikipedia matters for someone who has only been around for a couple of weeks.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the same user that frequently contributes to ArbCom cases, using different IPs in the Bay Area. He occasionally contributes to articles on mathematical logic. That seems to be the case here as well. Mathsci (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. So this is a serial Arbcom commentator? I have to say that is the oddest thing I've heard yet. People who hang around AN/I, or Arbcom (this is the first such I've ever heard of) for that matter should be reminded that there are much more productive ways to contribute to the project. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His contributions on ANI and in ArbCom cases are usually very good and balanced. Best not to pass judgement on other wikipedians in this way. Mathsci (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Up till this point, when did I pass judgement on a Wikipedian? You seem to be ahead of yourself. I will say this though, now that you jumped the gun, I'm honestly rather suspicious of an editor who supposedly doesn't edit outside of those venues yet is capable of "good and balanced judgement". What kind of experience with the encyclopedia, its rules and its culture are such judgements based on? Either its none, or its a some, and if the latter the editor isn't being honest about their other activities on the site. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is nothing wrong with editing from an IP, even if it changes constantly (though it makes it much more difficult at AN/I or Arbcom to understand if an editor has had prior involvement with the topic or with someone who stands accused). I suspect that in reality this editor does not primarily edit Arbcom and AN/I, and keep in mind it is to that characterization that they did that I made my last response. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add to the point I made in parens. I just noticed this, which could suggest a prior account but no current use of it. I never assumed this person was socking. I'm pretty sure I speak for most of the community when I say that when it comes to AN/I, Arbcom or other venues in which editors are accusing other editors of wrong doing, or compiling evidence of such wrong doing, we seek as much transparency as possible. With an editor like this transparency sort of goes out the window, which is why it bugs me that you say they are constantly commenting in just these venues. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo, when I say I'm not competent to assess that diff, it has nothing to do with knowledge of Wikipedia matters. I mean I can't judge the diff content for NPOV because I don't know anything about the Talmud and I have no idea whether the David Bar-Hayim is a mainstream source on Talmud interpretation or not. By comparison, I know perfectly well whether David Duke is a mainstream source. I've had absolutely no prior exposure to Noleander's editing and it took a while for me to see how severe the problems are (contrast my initial ANI comment[2] with what I'm saying about her editing now). 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I still think it is problematic for you to engage in this type of criticism of the editing history of other editors when you edit in a manner seemingly designed to dissociate yourself from your own editing history. Is there a good reason not to register a username? You're real life identity is no more anonymous this way, only your on-Wiki editing history is anonymous. I would not be bothered by that, if it weren't for the fact that you are apparently regularly commenting on the editing histories of other editors here and at AN/I. Would you consider registering an account so that your own activities on the site can will be recorded in a similar manner? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop nagging the IP. If they don't want to register, they're under no obligation to do so. They've offered a diff they think will be useful for the arbs to consider; if it is useful, great, if it's not, no harm done. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People should not be encouraged to edit in this fashion (hiding their own collective activities while criticizing those of others). If you don't want your activities tied to one account then like I said, that's completely fine. But then live in the shadows, don't criticize others who edit transparently. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that's your view, you have expressed it clearly. You don't need to repeat it every time the IP comments. 28bytes (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only answered him once (the other responses have been to you, and Mathsci), after making the initial comment, and that was to explain more clearly what I was saying. But I clearly don't need to repeat it again. You don't have to follow the conversation either if it doesn't interest you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About some evidence in the IP editor's section[edit]

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence#COATRACK, POV-pushing, and attack articles, the editor links to three AfD discussions. Two of them, in which Noleander comments repeatedly, are:

I'd like to strongly recommend to the Arbitrators that you read through those two links, and look for how Noleander comments during them, and how some other editors direct comments towards Noleander. In my opinion, what you will see is a consistent pattern in which Noleander responds to criticism of the articles politely and in a manner that accepts that things need to be fixed, and with a willingness to make those fixes, whereas some (certainly not all) other editors direct some rather strident personal attacks at Noleander, without Noleander responding in kind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is not to write massive heaps of TE/OR and fob it off on other editors to clean up, politely or otherwise. It shouldn't be their responsibility. After that pattern repeats enough times, we have to conclude there's a basic inability or unwillingness to get it right in the first place. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are you arguing that, in the linked AfD discussions, Noleander was being tendentious in not cooperating with other editors? We generally expect that newly created articles will undergo a process of further editing by other editors. TE occurs when an editor tries to make it difficult for other editors to continue to edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about Noleander's interaction style in the AFD discussions. WP:TE says "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole". I'm saying that the articles themselves were partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole, and that the validity of that assertion was established by consensus in those AfD's. That's what I mean by writing massive heaps of TE/OR and fobbing it off on other editors. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting to read the long list at WP:TE#Characteristics of problem editors, and compare Noleander's conduct with the kinds of conduct described there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tijfo098[edit]

Tijfo098, I'm not a "prosecutor", and the purpose of the statistics is partly to get a sense of whether Noleander is an SPA, partly to help check (TBD) into whether Noleander's religious criticism is more tendentious for some religions than others, or if Noleander gives different religions comparable treatment (aside from differences in volume of editing).

As for Scientology, a huge number of SPA's in that area were topic banned from it, even if their specific edits were perfectly good. See the list of topic bans at: wp:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Remedies plus any issued subsequently under the discretionary sanctions. I don't know if something similar happened with TM. Are you saying there is an admin active now, whose mainspace edits over his/her entire editing career are 90% Scientology-related? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP, how is it that you just started editing a couple of weeks ago but you use wikipedia short hand like "SPA" and how do you know so much about the Scientology arbitration case? Forgot your login? It seems odd to me that a brand spanking new IP editor should be so involved in an arbitration case. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this user's analysis helpful and not polemical. I can't say the same thing for some of the contributors to the ANI that gave birth to this case. That said, I'm hope this user is aware that using an IP or sock to evade scrutiny in an ArbCom case is absolutely forbidden. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

against the interests of TM or CoS (is what I wrote). Tijfo098 (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said "damning evidence" of that statistical sort and at least one admin that edits with a similar pattern. The statistical sort that we're talking about is 90% of the person's edits being in the disputed topic area. Who are those admins, whose mainspace edits are 90% Scientology? Or do you mean "different" when you say "similar"? Yes if someone is tendentiously editing I/P topics with such a ratio, it's a problem too.

Editing 90% in a particular area isn't sanctionable in its own right, of course. The stats as I see them are background info to help understand what we're dealing with. At least they helped me get some kind of perspective. And I think they are meaningful in the context of the other analysis being presented.

I'm open to further thoughts from anyone about whether they are useful. I do know Noleander's ratio of Jewish vs Mormon related edits came up in the ANI discussion and the numbers were (I thought) treated as relevant by some editors. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who were banned from Scientology were not banned because they focussed on Scientology, but because their edits violated policy. --JN 466 16:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were against policy to focus on certain subjects only we'd lost a majority of our editors. If it were against policy to obsess over certain topics even, we'd still lost many, some of which are admins, even admins engaged in this mess.Griswaldo (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you two look at the AfD comments of the deleted articles from SlimVirgin's section? I expanded out AfD links to them in my section. The article were deleted for massive NPOV and OR violations, and they were recent. Are you seriously telling me that someone who edited like that about Scientology, and whose edits were 90% Scientology-related, wouldn't have gotten a topic ban under the Scientology arbitration? I think it is implausible that they wouldn't have been topic banned. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many of your edits are in a certain area, but whether or not you are violating policy when you make those edits. If someone is consistently violating policy when editing in an area an obsession with that topic will only mean more violations. It has nothing to do with quality in and of itself, only quantity. The point that we're trying to impress upon you is that the volume of edits to one area isn't the problem, it is the type of edits. You appear to be saying that the volume is a problem. Do you edit disproportionately in any one area? Of course I ask because I have no way of checking on my own, as you do when it comes to Noleander. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo, concentrating in a single area is not a policy vio in its own right, but observing it in conjunction with other problems can be a factor in identifying agenda-driven editing (WP:SOAP is policy). I completely agree with you that policy vios have to ALSO be shown in the person's specific contributions for sanctions to result. I just think it is fine to document the two issues (distribution of the edits, and problems with the edits) separately. The stats section only addresses the distribution, I'm not claiming otherwise. As for my own editing, it's mostly in math and computer topics, which are relatively sedate areas with few significant disputes. So when I try to help out with DR it's just about always as an outsider. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the fundamental problem with Tijfo098's comment: she wrote, "admins that edit against the interests of the Transcendental Meditation movement," which implies that the evidence being provided is of edits "against the interests of the Jews." But anti-Semitic editing is not "editing against the interests of Jews." There is nothing necessarily wrong with edits that are against the interests of Jews - neutral editing will often go against the interests of many people and groups of people. I must ask Tijfo098 if she sees no difference between an act that is against the interests of Jews (for example, a university holding classes on Rosh HaShanah) and an act that is anti-Semitic? I am also asking for the response of members of ArbCom. Tijfo098's comment is presented as advice, and boils down to "evidence of anti-Semitid editing will not be considered by ArbCom." I need to know whether this is true, before I present any evidence. I am not going to take the time to put together a good deal of evidence if it will be rejected out of hand by ArbCom.

Be that as it may, my argument in my own statement is that anti-Semitic edits are against the interests of Wikipedia, not that they are against the interests of Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of outside interests, or which topic areas feature strongly in Noleander's editing, misses the point. What we are here to ascertain is whether Noleander's edits violated policies. We need diffs for that, especially recent diffs. What he have so far is very little. --JN 466 16:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even by the very stringent (and somewhat controversial because of that) FRA standards: "However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic". So, by analogy, criticism of Jewish religion similar to that leveled against any religion cannot be regarded as antisemitic methinks. Islam is criticized for allegedly advocating violence against infidels. Of course, some see this criticism as Islamophobia. Did ArbCom ban anyone for editing, say, Islamic terrorism or Islamism or Sharia in a negative fashion? Should they? Tijfo098 (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: We even have Islam and violence. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the FRA working definition Tijfo098 cited has an item "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis". That might be useful to keep in mind when weighing Noleander's contributions to articles like Israel and the apartheid analogy. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make a suggestion: it may be more productive to locate, present and examine diffs incriminating—or exonerating—Noleander than discussing generic issues here. --JN 466 01:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some doubts about how worthwhile that is, since these are mostly neutrality/RS issues which are not supposed to be decided in behavioral DR like arbcom, and it's hard to establish such problems with single diffs if the person has any skill. But, regarding "Israel and the apartheid analogy", here is one of the first diffs I checked. It's sourced to Zionismexplained.org, whose overview page is here. That site has the top four google hits for "zionism explained", with the overview page as the fourth. That page's meta description (use "view source" and look for the html meta tag near the top) is the self-description chosen by the authors to show up in the search snippet etc. It says:

"Zionists control Congress in the U.S. and get huge amount of taxpayers money while hurting America."

The keywords tag (just after the description tag) has the phrases:

"zionism, U.S. aid to Israel, American taxpayer, Richard Curtiss, Zionist Jews control of the Senate, U.S. foreign policy toward Israel".

I think there is a WP:RS problem with a link like that. This diff is not the result of hours of searching, it's one of the first I found in about 2 minutes of clicking around and I included in my initial ANI post (linked above) as you can see.

Rather than get into wikilawyerish debates over the NPOV-ness of individual diffs, I found the three AfD's SlimVirgin cited to overwhelmingly show consensus that Noleander's articles were full of COATRACK (a species of NPOV vio), SYNTH (a form of OR), and other problems. Opinions at AfD were divided between "the article is hopeless, blow it up and don't look back" and "the article is full of vios; remove them and keep editing". Almost nobody defended the articles as Noleander wrote them. So I think Noleander's POV problems with regard to Judiasm are well estalished by the AfD's all by themselves.

There hasn't been such brouhaha about Mormonism but it's quite easy to find ugly diffs in that subject too. I haven't yet looked much into Noleander's editing about Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, or Scientology (she has edited in all those subjects) so I'm keeping an open mind. The weird thing is in my AGF-based interpretation of Noleander's professed atheistic viewpoint, I should expect her to attack all those religions with the same intensity that she attacks Judaism with, and will feel relieved if she does that, since it at least means she's in some sense not an anti-Semite (except as a logical consequence of being anti-everything). But we'll see. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

75.57.242.120, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are policy. Systematic violation of site policies is a behavioural issue that is frequently named in arbitration findings of fact, and forms the basis of sanctions. So if you believe such systematic violations have or have not occurred, it is up to you and others to demonstrate that to the committee. Diffs are really the best way to do that; see e.g. the comment on argument and evidence here. --JN 466 19:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that proves nothing. AfDs in this area are hugely affected by The Plague, with sectarian voting on strict lines, so they get kept or deleted with probability half. Just look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamas and the Taliban analogy for a sample, and check out the talk page archives of the closing admin. Are you proposing we ban Marokwitz as well for having lost an article at AfD as SYNTH? (I kinda like him, we collaborated well on another article, so I'll oppose that.) Tijfo098 (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by all means, do bring diffs to the main evidence page that show problematic uses of sources by Noleander. That is what the evidence page is about. This case is not as clear to me as the (rejected one) on Jagged 85 ([3] rejected because the community worked out a solution). Frankly a RfCU that assembled evidence would have gone a long way here instead of repeating something along the lines of "there is consensus among those in the know that Noleander is editing with antisemitic agenda." If there were a clear evidence-based consensus in the community, like in the Jagged 85 case, we would not be having this conversation, and Noleander would have been sanctioned already by the community or at WP:AE. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under which particular ArbCom case could Noleander have been sanctioned at AE? Mathsci (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA easily. Noleander edited a fair number of those articles (like the one indicated by 75.57.242.120 above), and even those mentioned on the main evidence page could be considered sufficiently related, broadly construed. And if you're curious, there is consensus between me and myself that User:Aquib american muslim is editing with an unabashedly pro-Islamic agenda to obscure any criticism thereof and sing praises to it, but I'll have a snowball's chance in hell of getting him sanctioned based on that impression. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with that case whatsoever. Mathsci (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a stretch to me. Such an AE sanction would likely be controversial. Cool Hand Luke 18:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that many Israel/Palestine editors are involved in editing the very same articles, and involved in these proceedings, and for the fact that "Israel is the world's only Jewish-majority state, and is defined as a Jewish and democratic state by Israeli constitutional law" (according to Wikipedia), there is indeed absolutely no relationship between the topics, I agree. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Oh, and the words Radio Islam appear on the evidence page purely by accident as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm is not helpful. The discretionary remedies are content-specific, not contributor-specific; if it's out of scope for the topic (and you must admit it's no better than marginal), then discretionary sanctions would not be appropriate. Without greatly stretching the meanings of words, this dispute is not within "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted," and it's certainly not about the naming of Judea/Samaria (ARBPIA2). Cool Hand Luke 18:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[4][5][6] would seem to brush against the 1RR of ARBPIA. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting socks of banned users, like User:Marias87, is a problem to you? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nice catch, I didn't notice that as the edit summaries didn't say anything about it (they instead engage with Marias87 about the underlying content). It looks like Marias87 had already been confirmed as a sock by CU[7] on Noleander's report, but for some reason not blocked til ~30 hours later. Multi-reverting before the sock had been confirmed would of course not have been ok. I defer to editors familiar with the topic area whether counterpunch.org is an acceptable RS for this type of info. I do notice that the text Noleander restores says "Aloni, a member of the Israeli Knesset" when the cited article says "was a member" (emph mine). The discrepancy seems to have been inserted by DJ Sturm[8] in an edit that I'd say is tendentious in several additional regards as well, so all of this is less than ideal. But I'll go along with BAN as legitimizing the reverts under the circumstances, even if the restored material had problems. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish encyclopedia[edit]

Note: As I have just figured out, the subsections on the Jewish Encyclopedia page for Gentile all have unique, consecutively numbered URLs. No matter which of these URLs you enter in your browser, you can see all the article's subsections by scrolling up or down, without entering their URL. For example,

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=G#522 is the root,
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=G#531 jumps to the section on Johanan, and
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=G#542 jumps to the section "Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah".

All these URLs lead to the same page, the only difference being the cursor position; a system I haven't come across before. The misunderstanding would have been avoided if Noleander had not named the "Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah" section in the edit, but the page is confusingly URLed. The only plausible source for Noleander's edit is the Johanan section, as it's the only one mentioning Johanan's statement that Gentiles deserve death for studying the Torah. --JN 466 15:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other evidence[edit]

People seem very keen on harping on Mathsci's example, which we hear over and over was "random". Well random does not necessarily mean representative. I'd like to see some people, perhaps Mathsci, or perhaps Slimvirgin who now also posted an enormous section repeating this example, to pick another few "random" examples. It would be nice to have a better understanding what is representative as opposed to "random". It is a bit disheartening to see people making claims about a pattern of behavior by just parroting the same example over and over again. More content analysis would be very helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words lets see some other "random" examples of this type of content editing. That would be convincing.Griswaldo (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things that I'm picking up from the opening sections of SlimVirgin's evidence. Please understand that I am not saying this as a criticism of SV, but just trying to be precise about the evidence. The "Background" section contains some diffs: I can understand these simply as historical background, but I do not see anything incriminating about Noleander's conduct in those. Also, at the top, SV says that she and Noleander have not edited together. Although strictly true, there has been [9] and [10], which SV might not have liked. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now read carefully Mathsci's evidence, as well as SV's further analysis (the latter is helpful in understanding what the issues might be). I can see clear evidence that the source was utilized by Noleander in a way that did not accurately capture what the source, as a whole, was saying. However, I'm having a hard time determining from this evidence whether Noleander did so in a manner that intentionally pushed an anti-semitic POV, as opposed to simply being a little careless in finding a paragraph that appeared to Noleander to be relevant, and quoting from that without looking in more depth through the rest of the source. Now please don't get me wrong: I'm not endorsing careless use of source material! But I think that editors make these kinds of errors all the time, all over the project (it's an error that is made easier by the mechanics of Google Books searches), and the solution to these errors is usually further content editing, not sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mathsci and SlimVirgin are correct: I interpreted Perry's text wrongly. It was an honest mistake, not a deliberate POV-push. I'll cover that in detail in my evidence. --Noleander (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if that is true then we'd expect that other "random" samples would not turn out like this one. That is why it is imperative for people to look into more examples and stop simply parroting this one. We get it, this one shows some kind of problem, now lets move on and actually see if it is a pattern or an isolated incident.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not quite fair. I for one have limited time to spend on deconstructing numerous sentences in this way. My impression has now also been formed by reading a good reference (eg the Attali book, or at least parts of it) and comparing it with the article as whole. Tone is the key. The book is long, detailed and positive whereas the article was concocted from a list of disparate Jewish stereotypes and antisemitic caricatures. I might look at one or two other examples in detail, but the account is so different in tone and content from Attali, that the random example I chose is undoubtedly typical. Certainly Attali dismisses the Shylock stereotype (along with the Jew of Malta by Christopher Marlowe) as a reprise of deep-rooted christian antisemitism, writing that nothing could be less jewish than the behaviour of Shylock. Noleander's passage on Shylock is wholly negative, without even the historical perspective offered by Attali, who devotes 2 pages to the Merchant of Venice: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander/Evidence/Early_version_of_Economic_History_article#Shylock Mathsci (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci: I understand your concern that more detail, more context could and should be provided. But the article was already huge (130,000 bytes), and subtopics that already had "main" articles, like Shylock, necessarily had to be summarized in a few sentences. The preeminent point made by all sources is that Shylock has been considered as an antisemitic character rooted in money-based antisemitic canards, and that fact is clearly represented in the text. Readers could go to the Shylock article for additional detail. The text did not misrepresent nor slant the sources. --Noleander (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, length is hardly an excuse if, as appears to be the case, every sentence has a problem. I have started writing a detailed analysis of the Shylock section and it is likely to take some time. So far, as I examine the sources, I cannot agree with you when you say the text does not misrepresent or slant the sources. More later. Mathsci (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander, you said to me a few lines above that "I interpreted Perry's text wrongly." Here you say to Mathsci that "The text did not misrepresent nor slant the sources." I think that Noleander may be referring to sources as a group, while Mathsci may be referring to the source that has been discussed in detail on the evidence page. Is that the case? Is there a contradiction here?

Mathsci, as you look at these things, do you see evidence of Noleander cherry-picking material from multiple places within a source and collecting them together, or finding something in one place in a source, and failing to account for the rest of the source? The first scenario would seem to me to be a serious problem, whereas the second (which I think perhaps may be what happened here) does not rise to the same level of deliberate misrepresentation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait until I present some more evidence. All I've looked at so far seems to confirm the first assertion in my evidence. Mathsci (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early version of article available[edit]

I've put an early version of the Economic history of the Jews article (aka Jews and money) in a sub-page here, that way the original text can be referenced without resorting to the article history. --Noleander (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment on Evidence presented by Richardshusr[edit]

I was closely involved with the editing at Christianity and violence, and I can endorse most of the evidence presented by Richardshusr about that. But I'd like to provide my perspective on what Richard says (without diffs) about Noleander being a little "prickly". A fairly large amount of that was Noleander reacting specifically to things that Richard had done. I think a representative exchange between the two of them would be: [11] and [12]. There was a lot of that, very repetitively. I don't really see anything objectionable in what Noleander says there, although it does, ironically, sound like what other editors have said to Noleander in the dispute here. A fourth, previously uninvolved, editor contacted me at my talk about it: [13], and my assessment was, and still is: [14] (for that last diff, tl;dr, focus on the first paragraph). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was important to prove my assertion, I would review Noleander's talk page comments going back to November 2010 to find examples of what I call "prickly" dialog. However, as I've stated in my evidence, that would be the subject of a wikiquette alert and not the cause for an RFARB so I think we should not get wrapped up in the details of my comment about "prickliness" as it is not the major issue being discussed in this RFARB. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was a bit short with Richard in that exchange... I felt we were going around in circles. The key point, in relation to this arbitration, is that Richard and I were discussing things in the Talk pages. There was no ANI, there was no RFCU, there was no violation of 3RR. It was a civil and productive dialog that was fully consistent with WP policies. That is what is missing in the sensitive topics that are the subject of this arbitration: I have a hard time getting other editors to engage in the Talk pages. Once they do the collaboration always produces good results. --Noleander (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please persuade ANI to make topic bans or other restrictions absolutely straightforward[edit]

There's a discussion here whether Noleander consented to a topic ban in an ANI or not. I don't know this case or what the administrators' intent was. But in general, I think there is unnecessary repeat business at ANI due to lack of clarity with topic bans - for example, whether mathematics is a science; whether briefly mentioning a politician in a non-political article breaks a ban on editing political articles. Assuming the user's consent to a topic ban but not formally declaring the ban introduces more elements of uncertainty - how long did he consent to be banned for, and on what topics? I think that in the future ANI should be encouraged to ensure that each topic ban is expressed in plain language laying it out clearly without visible ambiguities, and if such a statement was not issued, then no ban should be taken to exist. Wnt (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the (recurring) suggestions of trying to make topic bans more precise are generally counterproductive, since the idea of a topic ban is that the banned person should stay as far away from the impacted subject as possible, not figure out how close to it they can get. I agree that the ANI outcome regarding Noleander and ethnicity topics would have been clearer if a formal ban had been enacted, but arbcom should use its judgment in deciding what expectations the people in that conversation could reasonably have come away from it with, and how to weigh those reasonable expectations (if any exist) into dealing with this case. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the argument for vague bans. What possible use is there in making a problem editor guess about what will or won't get him into trouble? If an editor has been a problem about one narrow issue, a narrow ban should be enough, but if you want him to stay far away, why not just make the ban as broad as you want to begin with? Wnt (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans are often gamed and there was no clear consensus at ANI. That is often why they have to be imposed by ArbCom and why we have WP:AE. Sometimes a clarification, amendment can be required, etc, etc. Mathsci (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the bans can be "gamed", both by the editor and his detractors. But I think a precisely worded ban is harder to game. For example, if you want to ban someone from math and science, why say "science" instead of "math and science"? Isn't that a game? Wnt (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The restrictions in the "speed of light" case WP:ARBSL involving Brews ohare were gamed. That involved mathematical physics, i.e. mathematics and physics, although the topic ban was in physic-related articles. Topic bans depend on the individual editor and the precise problems with their edits. Gaming can involve whether somebody close to the individual can edit in their stead from the same IP. So it can get quite complicated, depending on the nature of the editor, rather then the ban. Other users have tried the game of making an edit followed by an immediate revert, but that subliminal testing of limits of bans has not been allowed. Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason we're having this discussion here is the SV-Noleander debate over this. My reading is that there wasn't a formal ban, but there might or might not have been some level of presumed understanding, thus my belief that arbcom should use its judgment about how to interpret it and how much weight to give it. I don't think this is the right place to discuss the general philosophy of topic bans. But in the case of an ANI-imposed ban, the person could always ask the closing admin whether action X would be considered ok under the ban. Also, math and science have different editing cultures, so it's pretty reasonable to ban somebody from one but not the other. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfeasible, and we're debating it for naught here. If you visit WP:AE with any regularity, you'd know that even the definition of a revert is fuzzy and open to interpretation. So, you can't demand this sort of mathematical precision for topic areas or ANI. I have proposed however a remedy that I think it's suitable in this case. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope at least you can have mathematical precision about whether an editor has been topic-banned or not. Wnt (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, a way to be certain that a ban has been enacted is when an uninvolved administrator closes the thread with {{archive top}} or {{resolved}} noting the ban. Otherwise, it's open to interpretation, which may be evident in some WP:SNOW cases, but otherwise is not. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jews and money (Attali quote)[edit]

Thanks to Mathsci telling us about Attali's book, I can give you this quote from him for you ponder (excerpted this press coverage)

“

Les relations entre les Juifs et l'argent sont vécues depuis des siècles comme une sorte de boîte noire, dans laquelle tout le monde pense qu'il y a un serpent et que personne ne veut ouvrir. Parce qu'on sait que ces relations ont été l'occasion et le prétexte d'un antisémitisme source de malheur. Donc, on a tendance à penser qu'il vaut mieux ne pas en parler.

”

My translation: "The relations between Jews and money have been seen for centuries like a sort of black box, in which everyone thinks there is a serpent, but who nobody dares to open. Because we know that these relations have served as the opportunity and the pretext of antisemitic tragedy, we have the tendency to think that it's better not to talk about them."

Relevant to this case, I think. (And he makes a slightly stronger re-statement towards the end of the article.) Tijfo098 (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about an interview, which has no bearing at all on this case or the sources. It's not a quote from the book, which is 800 pages long ... et votre traduction est vraiment pénible. Why not get hold of a copy of this book, which was translated into English a year ago (ESKA publishers) and read it? [15] The title in English is "The Economic History of the Jewish People." Mathsci (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are free to ignore my crude translation. Although I wish you a pleasant reading, the coverage of the book in L'Express indicates that it is pushing the idea that "L'inventeur du monothéisme s'est trouvé en situation de fonder l'éthique du capitalisme" (you translate it nicely, please), which is too Sombartian (and anti-Weberian) for most English-speaking scholars covering the topic nowadays. So, I'll pass on the opportunity to improve my French by reading this book. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and intros by Alan Dershowitz never convince me to buy a book, to the contrary, I could say. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite understand how its possible to dismiss possible sources for an article, without having seen them. Jacques Attali is a distinguished economist. As far as scholarship is concerned, the book by Derek Penslar is probably amongst the best sources available. The book of Abraham Foxman is a personal account and written in a chatty way. It is anecdotal and, of its kind, well written. But it is not an academic scholarly tome. Mathsci (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is dismissing them? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be what you are doing in this thread. 17:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted say something about reading comprehension, along the lines of your comment about my translation, but it would be impolite and self-centered. So, let me make it clear: Economic history of the Jews is a red link now. Instead of endlessly arguing that original article contradicts some issues from your favorite books (that I'm unable to comprehend), knock yourself out, write the Wikipedia article entirely based on Attali and/or whatever books you think are telling the real story. Over and out. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the killing factor in that AfD was whether sources were being misrepresented in the text. That's a very hard thing for an article to come back from, especially when the sources are less accessible, and I think it's a far more serious issue than the choice of sources. Wnt (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tiny minority of the citations, based on what I have seen: one error of omission which was actually compensated in the article later by presenting alternative and opposite viewpoints (in another section), and an error where we can WP:AGF that the word "some" was missing (relative to the footnote quote), or we can WP:ABF that Noleander did it on purpose. I've not seen any other evidence of source misrepresentation, despite the walls of text posted. I think that who had written the article played a far greater role in its fate. Please refer to my evidence section here. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and let's not forget the initial title, which is the title of this section. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And starting off with the "religious guidance" section also tripped off many people, because that kind of issue is always open to interpretation; you can be sure to find a religious authority who disagrees with another on how some passage is to be interpreted, or which religious scholar is more authoritative. My 30-second impression of the article was "This can't be any good, it's getting into muddy waters from the start". In fact, the very historiography of the topic was riddled with such problems, starting with Sombart. So, religious guidance should certainly not be the first topic discussed, and it is not the first in many sources. Discussing the historiography itself first would have framed the article much better (and I was expecting that based on the lead), and this is what serious sources do. In the wiki article that was done somewhere in the "Culture" section. Woeful organization in that respect. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure why are you using this talk page as some kind of blog. Is that s good idea? In my evidence I have made clear statements about the book of Penslar and how little it has been used. So far it seems to be one of the best sources for an article on EHJ. As Wnt wrote, the AfD came down on the side of misrepresentation. By reading extensive sections of Penslar and comparing with the article, the disparity soon becomes apparent. Like Foxman, Attali's book is a personal point of view, although he is an acclaimed economist. Both books are aimed at a general readership. Mathsci (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from evidence of User:Tijfo098[edit]

Tijfo098 please do not include allegations against persons who are not parties in this case, unless you intend to petition to have them included as parties. Also you might note that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments are not normally any more convincing here than they are at AfD --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, I'm guessing that the intent here was to describe the environment in that discussion, where the edit described below was seen as WP:POINTy, as a parody of edits made by Richardshusr, and not as otherstuff. In my opinion, it's still a bit premature to be adding parties, but I urge the Committee to consider the possibility that parties may need to be added as the case progresses. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to petition to add parties, but not to have allegations made against persons not 'in the dock' who probably don't even know their name has been mentioned. There's a section for requests to add parties, although it would take some serious argument that links the other party to this case, not just that someone elsewhere in the project seems to be getting away with worse behaviour. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No argument from me. As I said, I think adding parties now is premature. I was just trying to help the Committee understand what was going on, as I understand it, not arguing for adding anyone now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The context for that can be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking action so promptly Elen. I have collapsed my rebuttal to it. If an Arb or a Clerk would like to remove it entirely, I would have no objection The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, User:Jayjg ought to be included as well. Slrubenstein created the last AN/I thread, leading to this Arbitration, but Jayjg started the one just prior to that. I don't think you can say one is more or less involved than the other.Griswaldo (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section in the Workshop - motions from the parties - is the spot for requesting that other parties be added to the case (I know it says 'from the parties', but it does actually mean anyone giving evidence). If you put it there, the Arbs will consider it - I can see you have some kind of relevancy with those two, particularly Slrubenstein. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm confused. Currently, aren't Jayen466, Slrubenstein, and Noleander the involved parties? I am not familiar with this process so maybe there is something I don't get about the scope. I thought that Slr was included since he is listed as "involved" on the main page. Is that correct? My comment assumed that is correct. Can you please clarify this. Thanks. Also I'm unclear about what you mean regarding having "relevancy with those two". From the start my own concerns have been not only with Noleander but with the manner this was handled by those two and others. I guess I don't know how much of that actually falls within the scope of the arbitration. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed. Jayjg isn't currently a party, nor is Silverseren, although someone is proposing sanctioning them over on the workshop page. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should be a party because I started the AN/I thread "just prior to that"? I started an AN/I thread 14 months ago, which most people wouldn't really consider "just prior to that", so that doesn't seem to make much sense. Should we include Peter Cohen too? He started an AN/I thead four months before that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economic history of the Christians (& Muslims)[edit]

Please consider the comparable (and worse in my opinion) masterpice of User:IZAK [16]. Assuming that that was written in good faith requires far more of an AGF stretch on my behalf. Also note (with amuzement) how the ARBPIA-AE-sanctioned User:Wikifan12345 votes in the two deletion discussions. [17] [18] I won't clog this with anymore user names, but to anyone "in the know" the pattern is evident. 14:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and say hello to the Economic history of the Muslims. 17:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to removal[edit]

Ok, if the Arbitrators are not concerned with the integrity of Wikipedia in this area, but only with appeasing whoever has the ear of ArbCom and screams the loudest, then I have nothing more to say here, except that I hope others will see this as an issue in the next election as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should you wish to bring a case against that editor, or any other editor, the template is always available. Attempting to WP:COATRACK it onto this case, which is about the good or bad editing habits of a different editor, is not appropriate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ's evidence[edit]

JoshuaZ, given how big the internet is, and how Noleander is a name, please consider that the person posting at that other website might have been someone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have collapsed JoshuaZ's evidence, please do not uncollapse it. This is for two reasons. First, as Tryptofish says, there is not certainty that it's the same chap. Secondly and more significantly, in this case it is only Noleander's onwiki conduct that is relevant. Even if it were found that he was a dyed in the wool neofascist, that alone would not be grounds to prevent him editing Wikipedia. It is problematic editing of Wikipedia that is the issue here, not problematic views. Arbcom is not the thought police (no matter what some people say) and claims no jurisdiction over people's viewpoints. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find Joshua's evidence to be a great example of what was wrong about the circus at AN/I. This "evidence" escalates the animosity on completely spurious grounds. Trying to hang Noleander on the assumption that some other internet persona using that name said something that can be creatively twisted into "holocaust denial" is beyond the pale. Please understand that I do not agree with the comments that this other online entity wrote, but they are by no means a clear case of Holocaust denial and they are by no means attributable to Noleander. Shameful really.Griswaldo (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact why has this evidence not been removed altogether? If we have no proof they are the same it should be more than collapsed, it should get bounced from the evidence page.Griswaldo (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may indeed be more appropriate. Editors giving evidence need to focus on onwiki behaviour that is problematic (or examples of onwiki behaviour that is not problematic, if they feel Noleander deserves their support), not drag in other things that do not directly relate to Noleander's editing of Wikipedia. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and in this case I think its worse because we don't even know if it is Noleander at present. I think the evidence really ought to be removed.Griswaldo (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would even argue RevDelete The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait to hear from Noleander whether he posted that comment. Regardless of that, the response illustrates one of the problems with this situation. People seem to assume that no scholarly knowledge is involved in writing about anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, that anyone can simply open a book and start cherry-picking. But this is quite false. Academics dedicate their lives to studying these issues.

Anyone engaged in that study knows that the figures are not "in dispute" or "exaggerated," and that comments like these are one of the classic signs of Holocaust denial. Take that in conjunction with creating articles about Jews and the slave trade (where it's well known that Jews had very little to do with the slave trade, not to mention the difficulty of identifying who was a Jew); plagiarizing anti-Semitic text from Radio Islam; the misrepresentation of source material; and the addition of several subsections to Lists of Jewish businessmen—including who controls Hollywood, the media, global finance, and the porn industry—and this is of great and very obvious concern. In fact, this kind of thing is exactly why serious researchers are often reluctant to get involved with Wikipedia, or reluctant to stay once they discover it's tolerated. That people are having to spend time adding more evidence when it's so obvious we have a serious problem here is both depressing and bizarre.

So, if the W/Post comment is his, it's clearly highly relevant to the case. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should not wait to hear from Noleander before deleting. One should wait to hear from Noleander before posting. I can't believe I'm hearing this. We don't assume bad faith Slimvirgin, nor do we assume that someone is guilty of something before it is proven, not at this project.Griswaldo (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Holocaust denial we should not be peddling in accusations based on "one of the signs" of this or that. The comment could mean any number of things, and it isn't clearly one thing or another. Had the poster suggested figures were closer to the hundreds of thousands rather than millions, then it would be clear Holocaust denial, but that wasn't the case. Might the poster be a denier? Perhaps, but we don't have enough evidence to say.Griswaldo (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that part of JoshuaZ's evidence. I fail to see its relevance even if Noleander did make the comment. If the editor lacks scholarship, show me onwiki evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance was explained above, Elen. If it's not him, fine. But the coincidence of name, timing, and view is stark. He tried to give the impression in his evidence that he doesn't hold the views he added to Wikipedia. But if that comment is from him, it's clear that he does, so the relevance is obvious. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this perfectly clear. There are a small number of areas where a person's offwiki habits are of significance onwiki. This is not one of them. Do not bring guesses as to what you think Noleander thinks, bring evidence of how his onwiki behaviours evidence the POV issues you believe he has. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC) ETA - for example, misusing sources - as you allege above - is something that will definitely get one run out of town, if you have evidence of it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But who decides that this isn't one of them, Elen? It's for the Arbitration Committee to decide that when they come to make a decision, and to reach a decision about it they need to see it in evidence. And other editors may want to add arguments explaining why it's relevant, given that the relevance is in dispute. This is why I posted above that people can't simply assume they understand Holocaust denial. It's not about saying the Holocaust didn't happen at all; no one claims that. It's about spreading memes that the figures are "in dispute" or "exaggerated". It's the height of ignorance, and that's what this case is about. The ignorant cherry-picking of factoids to present a distortion of the historical record. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Show me ~~THIS EDITOR~~ this editor doing that ~~ON WIKIPEDIA~~ on Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)struck shouting --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the comments claimed Jews have too much power in the U.S. media and government, antisemitic canards that Noleander has been promoting on Wikipedia (though he states he is merely documenting them as antisemitic canards). That's obviously this editor doing that on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the primary point should be his actions on the project. It seems clear to me from the writing style that this individual is him, and I may have overreacted at his apparent dishonesty about his intentions. I agree that behavior on the project is what is relevant and so I'm not going to contest this redaction. The evidence presented by others seems clear cut enough that this becomes not terribly relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone doubting the relevance should substitute African-Americans for Jews (in the offwiki post and in his edits and comments onwiki). And for the comment about the Holocaust, substitute slavery and the number of slave ships. With that, I'm taking this page off my watchlist. It should never had to come before the ArbCom, and I see it as a sign of community deterioration that it did, but things are going from bad to worse, so I'm done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or substitute animal rights. Once we go down the road of saying that an editor's view's (inferred from a dubious entry at another website) is a reason to say we don't like you so you can't edit here, well, Conservapedia, or a pedia of some other ideology, lies that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slimvirgin, at the end of the day maybe more of us will see this the way you do. But you can't expect people who try to look at things rationally to just jump into witch-hunt mode every-time someone accuses another editor of being a "bigot", "racist" or "anti-Semite". IMO, it's a damn good thing this is at Arbitration rather than a trial by lynch mob. If your view prevails at the end of the day it will have been because of a reasoned analysis of the evidence. Isn't that always preferable? I can't possibly see what there is to complain about in that regard, unless there is something personally dissatisfying about people not simply following your lead blindly. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I completely agree with SlimVirgin - outrageous, racist, belligerent action off wiki is absolutely relevant, and there are precedents attesting to their relevancy via - action taken against both Peter Demian and Ottava...Modernist (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of now there is no proof that it is him, nor was this in any way clearly "outrageous, racist, belligerent action". Exaggeration is not helpful. It is a possibly antisemitic comment made by someone who we are not sure is Noleander yet. How is it helpful to post it as evidence in that state at all?Griswaldo (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - currently the proof is not in; the outcome is still unknown. The behavior is being weighed by several people weighing several factors and my point is that behavior off wiki in relationship to what is being analyzed on wiki matters - ...Modernist (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps hypothetically, but you have to understand that Slimvirgin was arguing to keep this evidence in, before we even know if it is from Noleander. So when you say you agree with her completely .... See what I mean? I'm not completely sure I agree though, even hypothetically, since we should focus on behavior not beliefs. I don't like the idea of racist editors editing the encyclopedia, but we don't ban them for being racists, we ban them for making racist edits. The latter part is what we ought to focus on determining and not the former. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree. SlimVirgin says We should wait to hear from Noleander whether he posted that comment, and given the situation, I agree with that...Modernist (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now please don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that it happened here, but something occurs to me. The next time someone I dislike becomes the subject of an arbitration case, perhaps I should go to some other website and post an odious comment, pretending to be them. Just a reason not to accept this thing on face value. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we wait to hear from him, giving him the benefit to reply for himself...Modernist (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the timing doesn't really work, does it? That comment was posted in February 2009, just before Noleander went on his "documenting all the bad stuff about people say about Jews" editing spree. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not claiming that it happened here, so let's not get bogged down in defending the timeline. But neither does a claim that the comment was "just before" a "spree" constitute identifying evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at JoshuaZ's redacted evidence, so I don't even know what is being alleged, but if someone is claiming neutral motivation on-wiki when there's evidence to the contrary off-wiki, I'd say that should be treated similarly to evidence of an undisclosed COI. From a WP:ENC perspective, we offer our editors anonymity to protect them from outside harassment when they write neutrally on contentious topics, since we can't give them the legal representation and employment protection that a university professor would get working in the same fields. We don't owe them much in terms of process protection if they abuse that anonymity to manipulate our content. Even when it's inappropriate to put such evidence on-wiki, arbcom should accept it by email and check it out privately with the affected parties. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion irrelevant to the case.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This from the person who edits in such a way the he even casts off the traces of his own editing on Wikipedia. Why don't you register an account IP, so that others can subject you to the same standards that you subject them? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors in good standing are allowed to do precisely what you are complaining about (cast off old edits), see WP:CLEANSTART. I don't understand why you should be any happier if I enrolled accounts and switched between them once in a while, which I certainly could do instead of what I'm doing. Even with just one account (assuming that's all you've ever used, I have no way to know) you're much more anonymous than I am. Basically I find I like editing this way, and I think I contribute usefully, so I keep doing it. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is hypocritical to be so concerned about the editing patterns of others when you try to escape such scrutiny yourself. How do we judge whether or not you have any prior involvement with Noleander or with the relevant topic areas as you contribute here? We simply can't. FYI, you claim that the alternative is to register several accounts and to switch between them. Huh? What makes you think that such behavior is at all encouraged here? I have quite the opposite understanding of that myself. WP:CLEANSTART does not suggest making a new account every few weeks, by the way, which would seem much closer to what you're doing. The alternative is to do what 99% of your colleagues do. Edit from one account. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied to just try to keep my editing at a high standard. If I've messed up anywhere, feel free to let me know. I don't know what prior involvements you might have had under other possible accounts either, but you don't find me making the kinds of requests of you that you're making of me. So I'm feeling harassed and ask that you stop bothering me about this, as there's not much more to say about the subject. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo has expressed exactly the same personal point of view (about editing using an IP) several times now. Could he please therefore not mention it again during this case as everybody has absorbed how he feels: it has nothing whatsoever to do with the case, Thanks,Mathsci (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@75.57, no I don't think so. We have no remit to investigate an editor for expressing his opinion elsewhere - that is a very dangerous precedent. See the section below - the concern is him bringing his opinion onto Wikipedia, not him having that opinion to start with. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, I'm concerned that you're trying to decide the case in advance, and single-handedly. Did you volunteer to draft this case yourself? I was surprised when I saw your name, because I'm pretty sure I saw you comment on AN/I or somewhere about this before, and in Noleander's favor, though I'd have to look for diffs. Now you're removing evidence and arguing that it's irrelevant, when it's clearly relevant, if Noleander was the poster.

We had a case a few years ago before ArbCom where someone was adding anti-Semitic material to articles, but claiming it wasn't, and/or that he hadn't intended it in that way. Off-wiki posts of his showed clear intent in that direction, and they were posted on the evidence page, and as I recall decided the case. They were a great deal more extensive and unpleasant than the lone comment we're discussing here. But the point is that no one from ArbCom argued they were irrelevant, because they provided a clear rebuttal to the editor's position that he was not simply pushing an anti-Semitic POV. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very surprised if I was. I think at first sight that there's plenty of evidence of problematic editing. Since "Noleander is anti-semitic" is not a finding that Arbcom is going to make, I'm at a loss as to why there is so much emphasis on proving whether he is or not. Just show that he pushes that point of view in his editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopaedia that anyone can edit[edit]

OK, first of all, apologies for shouting. Secondly, the line of thought above is coming perilously close to "we don't allow people who are anti-X to edit Wikipedia". There are occasions when off-wiki or real life behaviours will give rise to sanctions against editors, however being 'anti-X' or 'pro-X' is not one of them (with the exception of child protection issues).

From WP:COI editors who are trying to use Wikipedia to promote their outside interests - their company, product, book, band or new theory of X that the science journals won't publish - have a conflict of interest that may give rise to sanctions. However, editors who have a viewpoint or position on something, and who attempt to bring that position into articles are not editing with a conflict of interest.

Such editors may, however, well be in breach of one of the project's oldest policies maintaining a neutral point of view. We do allow people who are anti-X (or indeed pro-X) to edit Wikipedia, but we insist that they do so with a neutral point of view. Using biased language, stating opinion as fact, asserting facts without sources, misusing sources to support a POV, all of these and more are clearly against NPOV, and will attract sanctions.

However, let us be clear about this, an editor who is a dyed in the wool neofascist. a communist agitator, an unrepentant sexist, or a Pole who thinks that the only good Russian is a dead one, are all free to edit the project provided they keep that point of view out of their contributions.

So let's give up on trying to show that Noleander is an anti-semite in real life. If he hated Jews and only edited articles on English steam trains, we would not be having this argument. Show me (loose terminology - means 'demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee') that his editing on Wikipedia is disruptive - that he goes against all the stuff in WP:NPOV, that his edits are not verifiable, that he is synthesising material to advance a position, and the outcome will be the same as for any POV warrior.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute - are you saying that even if he hates Jewish people in his everyday life and perpetuates and manifests that racism and hatred in his behavior off -wiki; and theoretically that can be demonstrated; that has no effect whatsover on his performance on-wiki when writing extensively about the Jewish people to massive objection on several fronts by a score of senior editors? Common sense alone says that when arbcom deliberates this very serious issue, everything should be on the table, including verified information about relevant outside behavior...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO, absolutely not. We are not about censoring people's opinions - our policies have nothing to say on people's opinions or their behaviour in real life. Policies are all about their behaviour within the project. We don't sanction people for their opinions, however odious they might be to us. And particularly in this instance, where you have no reasonable evidence that the person who made that forum post is the same person, you are attempting to hang someone on the offchance that it might be them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) that has no effect whatsover on his performance on-wiki when writing extensively about the Jewish people to massive objection on several fronts by a score of senior editors; it's not even that it has "no effect", it is simply not relevant. If the on-wiki editing is problematic, then it can be shown on-wiki. If it is not problematic, then there is no issue. Anyone trying to remove someone with off-wiki views who is capable of editing properly within the bounds of WP policy, well that is something we should stamp on very hard. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm so how do you explain giving Peter Damien the boot after charges that he threatened to disrupt wikipedia; off-wiki?...Modernist (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec - maybe we should make the Peter Damien case a separate thread?) I agree with Ellen; I take her main point to be, "are all free to edit the project provided they keep that point of view out of their contributions." My concern is with the quality of our encyclopedia articles, and our wish to write an encyclopedia people respect. If, as Ellen writes, an antisemite can keep her feelings and opinions out of her edits, I see no problem. It is only when those views enter into one's edits that we have a problem. My original post at AN/I was a complaint against Noleaner's edits, not his personal views. My evidence is based on the premise that what is at issue are the views represented in the edits, and how they are representeed. As far as I am concerned, as long as Noleander does not make an issue of his or her personal views, his or her personal views are not an issue here. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have my main point exactly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But he did make an issue out of his personal views, which is why we've had four AN/I threads and now this, so that ship has sailed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he made an issue out of his personal views on Wikipedia, then put it in the evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate a response to my post above, 15:50, 5 April. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd answered it. At a cursory glance, there seems to be entirely sufficient evidence that his onwiki editing is disruptive. There is not going to be a finding of fact that says "Noleander is an anti-semite." If there is evidence, there might be one that "Noleander has engaged in pushing an anti-semitic POV". Hence, if he is bringing his personal views into wikipedia, point me at the evidence. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that off-site references may come into play in subtle POV-pushing cases. If an editor looks like they might be a sneaky POV-pusher, then we would assume good faith (to a limit) when they say that they had good intentions, or that they intended to balance some other issue and only inadvertently inserted POV. This might be more or less credible, but I am certain that such a defense becomes incredible when it is clear that the same person is, say, canvassing partisans off-wiki. We have certainly topic banned users when their off-site activities have invalidated their good faith excuses to apparent POV pushing.

That said, I believe such evidence should be submitted by email to ArbCom, especially if it might identify the user in real life. Moreover, such evidence will be entirely discounted if there are not convincing signs that the off-site personality is the same person as the wikipedia user. Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not identify Noleander, CHL. The person posted the comment simply as "Noleander." It doesn't link to other posts that might jointly tell us something about him. There's no real name, no IP address, no registration details, nothing. So all we need to know from him is: did he post it? If yes, there should be no problem at all with including it as public evidence, and being allowed to explain why it is relevant. We have precedent for this here, where the ArbCom took offwiki posts into account because they showed the POV that was evident on Wikipedia was also evident elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen, in the section Editors should not be equated with their sources, Noleander has introduced into evidence his a claim about his beliefs and intentions; that these views which I and others have labeled antisemitic are in fact odious to him. I infer that you find this evidence acceptable and relevant, because you have already shown your willingness to delete evidence you consider unacceptable or irrelevant. So, Noleander has made his "personal viewpoints" a matter for evidence. It seems to me that if Noleander is using a statement about his beliefs as evidence in this case, then others must be allowed to rebut those claims. Following Cool Hnd Luke's post, does this mean that ArbCom would receive and take into consideration off-Wiki statements by Noleander that express his/her views? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CHL's point was to avoid editors getting into problems over OUTING I think, however if Noleander wishes to identify himself to Arbcom via email, he is free to do so. I'm not sure I see the point however. I would remind everyone that we are not trying him for anti-semitism - or even for accidentally insulting Jewish people - the focus is on disruptive editing. If Noleander states that he is in fact the number one supporter of Judaism, but his edits are disruptive, he can still be sanctioned. However, if it turned out that he had published 10 virulently anti-semitic books but was editing without any disruption, he would not be sanctioned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not connected to outing. If you post onwiki that you like flowers, then you go to an offwiki site and write: "I like flowers, signed Elen of the Roads," with no other personal details, there is no sense in which you're being outed if someone draws attention to it.

As for your second point, Elen, you're repeatedly ignoring the arguments, and I feel you're now acting as Noleander's advocate. He has expressed a certain POV on Wikipedia. In his own evidence, he made an issue out of it not being his POV, but something he adds to articles only to be neutral. But now we find, if that post is his, that he does indeed share that POV. The relevance is blindingly obvious. Other editors must be allowed to provide evidence rebutting what he said, and it lies in that W/Post comment. Previous Arbitration Committees have done it, and no rule has been agreed that I'm aware of that offwiki evidence is suddenly out of bounds.

Also, and this is very important, this case has nothing to do with Judaism. Being a Jew is not the same thing as being a follower of a religion. The complaint is that Noleander's edits are anti-Semitic (in effect, ignoring intent), not that they are anti-Judaic (they might be that too, but that's a separate issue).

Finally, could you respond to my post, please, at 15:50, 5 April? I seem to recall that you were involved in supporting Noleander at AN/I. Am I wrong about that? If you did post on his behalf (or, indeed, against him), why have you put yourself forward as the person drafting this case? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ArbCom's place to determine whether or to what degree Noleander is anti-Semitic. It's their place to determine whether – for whatever reason – Noleander has the competence to edit neutrally and non-disruptively in these contentious topic areas. Given Noleander's comments in the "evidence" section, in which aside from "a couple of problematic edits" he believes there to be no problem with his editing whatsoever, and in which he "maintain[s] that the material I contributed is an accurate representation of the reliable secondary sources", I think it's clear the answer is "no" regardless of what personal beliefs he holds. 28bytes (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sensible approach. An editor can certainly be a POV pusher to the extent that any excuse they provide is unsatisfactory. Cool Hand Luke 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28bytes swings the hammer and hits the nail square on its head.Griswaldo (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But unfortunately 28bytes is not on the ArbCom. The evidence has been posted before, on AN/I, and it showed his edits were obviously inappropriate. And Noleader has said before that there was no POV issue with his editing, which was as clearly false then as it is now. So we have a problem. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed the first part of what 28bytes wrote. It's not ArbCom's place to determine whether or to what degree Noleander is anti-Semitic. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why no-one who is concerned with Noleander's editing has suggested Arbcom should do that. It's beyond me why someone would even bring that up. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right; we wouldn't be having this conversation if it didn't relate to actual, questionable, on-site editing. Cool Hand Luke 02:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that people are claiming that it is related (hence the discussion). If it were unquestionably related to Noleander's on-site editing the off-cite material would still be on the case page, wouldn't it? It is questionable at best, to say that those comments, even if made by Noleander, do directly relate to any of the problem edits being discussed on the evidence page (see my comments to Jayjg below).Griswaldo (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elen: while it is true I am generally concerned about outing, my main point was expressed up front: I think that off-site evidence is sometimes relevant to rebut claims of having good intentions in sneaky POV cases. We have considered it in other cases. If there was, say, an off-site post where a user identifiably suggests that they're trying to shape the article to fit some POV vision, it's certainly relevant. We appear to disagree on this point.

At the same time, I support collapsing the section because I'm not at all convinced that this is the same person. It is also true that such evidence is meaningless without a basis for finding at least subtle POV editing on-site. Cool Hand Luke 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which, I believe, has been presented. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elen's previous comments[edit]

I found two of Elen's AN/I comments in support of Noleander, from February 2010 (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Noleander_redux), along with the context:

I don't know if he should be blocked, but there's a very clear pattern of edits. And it isn't pretty. The Jewish pornographers seems to be the most blatant. Many of these edits by themselves look innocuous but the overall pattern seems like he is pushing an anti-Semitic agenda. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think none of us agree with "Noleander's view that "that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews"? ' We therefore should wish to make certain that we never do anything of the kind. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia blacklisted some sites because they are critical to Wikipedia. I hope you are not suggesting that Wikipedia should become yet another anti-Semitic site just because somebody adds anti-Semitic garbage to the articles, and claims censorship, if he is not allowed to do it.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No, but nor should Wikipedia refrain from featuring verifiable (not rumoured, speculated, or "well, everybody knows that") facts (not gossip, folk myth or urban legend), just because they are about Jews, Irish, Chicanos, Phonecians, Hittites etc Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
But since that's not what has happened in this case, it's difficult to understand why you make that point. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Noleander, despite your obfuscation, the issue is about behavior, behavior, behavior. You edit primarily Jewish-related articles, solely for the purpose of making Jews look bad. That's a behavioral issue, since the specific content varies wildly, depending on the article. The fact that you pretend, with no evidence whatsoever, that there is "censorship" or "systemic bias" in relation to religion articles is a pretty transparent cover for this distasteful behavior. Adding a list of "Pornographers" to the List of Jewish-American businessmen has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. And the fact that you again admit you're trying to combat this imaginary "censorship" also puts the lie to the claim that you're simply trying to document antisemitic canards. No, you are trying to promote them, in order to overcome this imaginary "censorship". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, while I'd agree that the term 'pornographer' is probably not what such people call themselves, there are people in the US, some of whom may be of the Jewish faith or ethnicity, who are major players in the Adult print (and increasingly web) industry and the Adult end of the movie industry, which are big business in the US. Since this is a business, like any other, so if producers of other genres of entertainment media are mentioned, the notables in the Adult genre should be mentioned too. So if your objection is to the descriptor 'pornographer', I'm with you. If your objection is to revealing that some persons who would describe themselves as Jewish-American are senior executives in Adult entertainment, then that's censorship.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
No Elen of the Roads. As I've very, very clearly stated more than once, this is not about any specific edit, but about a pattern of behavior. When one edits all Jewish-related articles, including the List of Jewish American businesspeople, for the sole purpose of, in that editor's view, making Jews look bad, then it's a behavioral issue. Mentioning the list of pornographers was simply a response to Noleander's transparent prevarication that he made this edit (and other similar ones) as a "criticism of religion". Adding a list of ethnic Jews in "Pornography" is not a "criticism" of Judaism; indeed, we have no idea what religion these people practice, and in any event their line of work is irrelevant to their faiths, whatever they may be. And the fact that he used the pejorative descriptor "Pornography" while in his edit summary used the more neutral and encyclopedic "adult industry execs" is merely one symptom (albeit a common one) of the larger problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The second comment is particularly worrying. Elen seems to be saying it's fine to add subheads "Jews control the media," "Jews control the Hollywood motion picture industry," and "Jews control the world financial system, " to Antisemitic canard, then to add 61 names of these people to List of Jewish American businesspeople, along with a subhead "Pornography"—so long as the last item is changed to "Adult entertainment." This of course misses the entire point of the concern. And we're seeing the same failure to understand here.

Elen, can I ask that you allow someone else to draft the decision? This is an important case. It speaks to whether this is a serious project that cares about producing high-quality work; or whether we're just another website where people disseminate uneducated prejudice with a few ref tags for cover. The person drafting the decision has to be seen to be uninvolved, both with the subject of the case, and with the people posting evidence, as far as possible. You're the only Arb who commented during any of the AN/I discussions about Noleander that I can find, and it's therefore unsettling that you also volunteered to draft the decision, and are now hiding evidence, shouting at people on the talk page, and claiming there's no precedent for the Committee to consider offwiki evidence, when there clearly is. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elen quite clearly never said any such thing. She was clearly speaking only to the idea of censoring mention of business people because of the fact that they are in the porn industry, and not that it was fine to add any of those subheadings. Where on earth in your example does she say that? I find this a very dirty business trying to railroad an Arb because they have the audacity to stand up to your bullying.Griswaldo (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you'd allow Elen to respond here, Griswaldo. There's been too much drama and commentary around this case already, from people who seem to have no involvement in it otherwise, and it has barely started. My aim is not to increase it, but to put an end to it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SV, this is a disturbing piece of rhetoric. I think you have completely destroyed the basis for any argument you had against Elen (and the rest of the argument in the previous topic). In fact you're verging on a personal attack. I'm... somewhat flabbergasted really because I have always judged you to be a level headed individual in the past. Possibly time for a cup of tea? --Errant ^(chat!) 19:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very concerned about Elen's approach, Errant, in this case and in others. In my view, the Rodhullandemu case descended into farce because of her intervention (and I agree that Rod should not have been adminning, but that was not the right way to approach it). Arbs just can't get involved to the degree that Elen does, and the shouting at people as though we're dealing with a headmistress is something I find disturbing. It starts to feel as though the Committee consists of one member.

We've had this situation a couple of times in the past, and it undermines the Committee—most unfairly—which in turns undermines the community, because we need a Committee we can trust. Elen recently indefblocked Tony1, a long-term, highly trusted editor just because he made some ill-advised remarks—out of the blue, with no warning—and added to boot an unpleasant edit summary that will haunt him for the rest of his time here. It was pure humiliation of a long-term volunteer, and it angers me to see it. So yes, you may be seeing in my posts my general dismay. I apologize that it's showing so much, so I will take a break from posting here for now, but I again ask that Elen allow another member of the Committee to take over this case. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not outright disagreeing with you (though I am largely in agreement with Elen over this specific point). I think your dismay is showing though, hence this somewhat rash train of discussion. Kudos for admitting to it & taking a step back, I think a cup of tea and reflection all round might be useful. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elen clearly did not do anything like support a heading for "Jews control the Hollywood motion picture industry"; that's a scurrilous characterization. You may have sincere concerns about Elen's views, but it does not help to lay false accusations on another. At best, it distracts from your message. Cool Hand Luke 19:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CHL, if you read the AN/I thread in which Elen made those comments, you'll see that the evidence discussed there was the same as much of the evidence presented here, particularly Noleander's editing of Antisemitic canard (where he was adding those subheads) and List of Jewish American businesspeople (where he was adding the names belonging to those subheads). Those articles were discussed explicitly.

Elen then arrived and said the only problem she could see lay in his choice of term in the latter for the pornography subhead! That's a bizarre response, given that the concern was about a pattern of adding material to Wikipedia that attacks Jews. Now, perhaps she commented without having read the thread. And perhaps she's commenting here without having read evidence or posts. But whatever the cause of her responses, the concern about them is legitimate, as is the question why—of all the people on the Committee who have not previously involved themselves with Noleander—the one who has, is chosen to draft the decision. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that her first comment isn't even responsive (as Jayjg pointed out), I do think it more likely she did not notice (let alone comment upon) the Antisemitic canard heading issue. I believe that your concerns are sincere, I just found the rhetoric excessive. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I want to add here that I apologize that I'm expressing myself too strongly, to Elen and everyone else on the page. It's frustration and anger coming through, so this is definitely my last post on this page for a bit. The frustration comes from the Sisyphean saga of trying to have at least a topic ban imposed, a saga that has been going on now for 18 months or so, when it's so obvious there's a problem. And now having the drafting Arb apparently not seeing it, and uninvolved editors demanding more and more evidence, and days spent hunting it down and writing to academics to ask their views to make sure any criticism is fair—then those same editors criticizing the "wall" of evidence. It's soul-destroying to have to do this for someone who plagiarized anti-Semitic material about living persons from an Islamist website. Why on earth do we AGF about that?

Anyway, I'm off now to have that cup of tea. My apologies to all for the strong words and the increase in drama. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say something, and to make it clear that I am saying this specifically to the members of the Arbitration Committee, and not directing it at anyone else in this talk thread. There's quite a lot of heat and noise here, but far less light. Every single one of you on the Committee needs to consider carefully whether what is being directed at Elen here resembles in any way what has been directed at Noleander. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't really need to do that at all, because it's an irrelevant diversion. The issue in the case is Noleander's editing, and there's been plenty of evidence entered as to why it's problematic. The issue with Elen of the Roads is that a number of editors have seen some of her behavior so far as acting more like an advocate than a judge, and because she has been removing evidence that has been deemed perfectly acceptable in other Arbcom cases. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Arbitrators, you hear that? Jayjg says you shouldn't give it a thought, so don't. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's supposed to be wrong with either of Elen's boxed comments above, nor her approach to this process. A judge who throws out irrelevant or prejudicial evidence about an anti-Jewish terrorist is not an anti-Semite, and the same is true in this vastly more mild context. A person might try to argue that keeping a list of Jewish American businesspeople is in poor taste or too open-ended, but I don't see anything specifically wrong with Noleander adding pornographers to the mix. Does anyone seriously claim we only supposed to list "good" kinds of business in an article like that? And whether you call it pornography or adult entertainment, the idea is the same; we aren't ashamed to have Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography, so why treat Noleander as if he said a bad word? Please, people - refocus your efforts to the central allegation here, which as I see it is that Noleander misrepresented sources so badly that an article he made, which received much work from many editors, ended up being nuked and paved because people didn't feel like they could trust what it said the sources said. I don't know if that's true or false, but the preliminary indications don't sound good. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, I don't want to sound like I'm disagreeing with you, because I was with you until your last sentence, but if you don't yet know what's true or false, then please don't jump to conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the evidence isn't irrelevant; Noleander has claimed one motivation for his edits on-wiki, despite considerable evidence that these claims were not true. He has entered that into evidence of his own accord. He has also apparently indicated off-wiki that his views are quite different from the evidence presented here. This kind of evidence has been allowed in previous Arbcom cases, so it's unclear why it's suddenly unacceptable now. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of his supposed off-wiki comments even directly related to any his on-Wiki editing? As far as I know there is only one such comment, which according to Slimvirgin contains "one of the signs of holocaust denial". Is any of the Wikipedia editing being discussed in this Arbitration within the subject area of Holocaust denial? As far as I know it isn't. Someone may or may not hold various odious beliefs about other groups of people, but that does not mean they hold all possible odious beliefs about those groups of people and more importantly it doesn't mean de facto that they are pushing any of those beliefs in violation of our policies. What those who want this evidence included seem to be saying is ... "look at that off-wiki comment because it proves he's an anti-Semite and therefore clearly he must hold all other antisemitic beliefs and furthermore his editing must be antisemitic too". I think some leeway might be in order with this information, if it actually relates to on-Wiki editing, which again, it does not appear to. My understanding is that when off-Wiki actitivies are taken into account it is because they are directly related to editing, either in the sense of conspiring off-wiki or in the sense of professing highly POV opinions about actual subjects being edited in the same manner. I'm sorry even if he has one odious belief about Jewish history, it does not mean that he is incapable of editing all articles about Jews.Griswaldo (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so there is no confusion. I am, at this point, actually hoping that he is topic banned from Jewish articles, but not because of any off-Wiki comments but because of his inability to edit neutrally on-Wiki.Griswaldo (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the one where he states that Jews have far too much influence in the U.S. media and government? Um, yeah, that's directly related to his editing. And I'm not sure why you keep going on about his beliefs being "odious" or him being an "anti-Semite"; that's not something I've brought up, and it's not relevant to my comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to say you've never accused Noleander of editing in an antisemitic manner? So you agree then that the Holocaust comments Slimvirgin is harping on are completely irrelevant to the case? The media related comments you are referring to are these (disclaimer - not yet attributed to User:Noleander only to another online persona using that name): "The bias in US media regarding Palestine is appalling. Here is a modern day apartheid, an open-air prison, perpetrated by Israelis. Wouldnt' you expect the Israelis to be just a _bit_ more sympathetic to oppressed peoples? Enough with the Holocaust. The Jews and Israel have far too much influence in the U.S. media and U.S. government." I don't see how a comment within the I-P context about the media and political influence of Israel/Jews relative to Palestinians is directly related to the problems being discussed with Noleander's editing of Wikipedia. In fact, I'm almost 100% certain that everyone has distinctly said that this case has nothing to do with the I-P context whatsoever.Griswaldo (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall commenting on Noleander's beliefs, though, or what he was, just his actions. And you're right, this has nothing to do with the I-P conflict; notwithstanding your casual use of the conflated term "Israel/Jews", they are completely different things. Had Noleander's comments been only about Israel, they would be irrelevant to this case. However, he also commented about Jews, repeating a common canard about them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, stop making false accusations, the conflation was made by the poster. I would never make such a conflation, certainly not "casually". It's right there in the text I quoted ... "The Jews and Israel", and that's directly after discussing Palestine. The poster never refers generally to Jews, or generally to some Jewish media conspiracy which is what you're insinuating. I will take Risker's advice and stop commenting on this. Perhaps you will also let this die?Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay folks, enough please. I have no doubt at all that such an experienced group of editors as the one participating in this case is more than capable of finding and presenting evidence from within this project that will delineate the nature of the concerns. Let's focus on what is happening here; our community, strong as it is, cannot solve the problems of the entire world, but we should be able to look within ourselves to do our best to resolve issues within our own small part of it. Best to stick to the heart of the matter (which is, just to be clear, what happens on Wikipedia) so that attention is paid to the most salient points rather than being obfuscated by extraneous issues. Risker (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are all POVs equal (equally respectable, equally disreputable?)[edit]

There are a number of issues that have been raised in this thread, and while one or wo may be mute I think some still merit discussion. For example, if I read you correctly, you judge all forms of POV-pushing comparable; thus, all that is up to Arb Com is to measure the degree of POV-pushing as an index of the degree of disruption. I understand this and it addresses one imortant dimension, the "editing environment." When one editor is highly disruptive, it makes it harder (or more time-consuming) for other editors to do their work. Fair enough, this is important. I think there is another dimension the community has to consider (and when this case was moved from AN/I to ArbCom, it became an issue ArbCom has to consider): the reputation of Wikipedia beyond the community of editors.

In the early years the idea that WP might be an encyclopedia taken as seriously as EB may have been the dream of Jimbo and Larry. During the early years most of the people who read WP articles were also WP editors, and it made sense in the early years - when we didn't have many articles and our articles on serious topics were amateurish - to focus on making this a functional community. The assumption was, if we made this an attractive environment for editors, we would attract good editors who would write good articles.

Wikipeida is ten years old and claims to be the largest on-line encyclopedia and maybe the largest encyclopedia in the world. We do hae some extraordinarily good articles and we want to be taken seriously. Yet, most university professors discourage or diallow students from using Wikipedia. At the same time, I bet WP is the first encyclopedia of choice for most young people. We need to confront problems that undermine our credibility. And this is important not only because of our own aspirations to be taken seriously, is it because of our responsibility to readers who are not especially sophisticated and assume that our articles are reliable.

Our responsibility to our readers, and desire for credibility, is a different dimension than our responsibility to our editors, and our desire to maintain a pleasant editing environment. And in this dimension, I do not believe that the claim that all POV's are comparable is realistic or helpful. A POV-pusher who is anti-Semitic and a POV-pusher who thinks Brittany Spears is the most important musician of the decade, or who thinks that Barak Obama deserves another Nobel prize, may be equally disruptive and comparable when we are preoccupied with the editing environment, but they are not comparable when we are preoccupied with our credibility among educators. This is a judgment call, but the response should be to address it with good judgment and not to evade it altogether. Articles that push an antisemitic view will do far more damage to our reputation among educators than articles that push for Obama's or Spears' beatification.

When the first wikipedians established NPOV as the core policy, it was not just to create a framework for diverse editors to work together. It was also to direct us towards writing credible articles. Wikipedians who think that POV-pushing is a problem because it makes editing frustrating are focusing on a legitimate problem but are myopic. It also has consequences for the credibility of the project. Concerning the first problem, it really doesn't matter much what the POV is, what matters is the degree of disruption. That is because the first problem risks turning away editors. Concerning the second problem, it matters very much what the POV is, because the second problem turns away readers. The general public has a high degree of tolerance for many differences in POV; people can respect a politician, or columnist, they disagree with. And these readers can tolerate a degree of bias in our articles, knowing they can still learn something. But there are some POVs that respectable people do not respect, and will walk away from. If we want educators to take us seriously, we have to take this kind of problem seriously too. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That reasoning leads to all kinds of unintended complications. For example, there is pretty good scientific evidence that global climate change is human-caused and real. But your argument, if extended to climate change, would have required the Committee to decide the case last year in favor of saying that it's not really so bad to say bad things on BLPs of climate change skeptics, because there's a scientific basis for saying those kinds of bad things. Of course, there are projects where some POVs are considered better than others—Conservapedia comes immediately to mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think he's making a different point: that certain POV pushers are uniquely disruptive to the project because they not only skew content, but they drive away editors. Global warming is not such a topic because an "AGW denier" presumably does not drive away uninvolved contributors like, say, a holocaust denier might. He's saying that klansmen make a more hostile work environment than Britney Spears fanatics. I think that's ~~probably~~ certainly true, and I do think we take such cases seriously, but I'm not convinced there should be a formal principle about it. Cool Hand Luke 19:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) At this stage, I fear we're veering into a different case, but since you raised it, I too was actually making a different point! My understanding of the climate change case was that part of the many issues was that "GW advocates" might have been driving away uninvolved editors. But no matter, ArbCom's proper remit is to address the driving away, not the ideology. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GW editors did not allegedly drive away editors who were offended or terrified by their Global Warming views; if GW editors were problematic, it was not for their views alone. The argument is that POV pushers directed toward certain prejudices are different and more harmful because they create a hostile environment that does drive uninvolved contributors away. Toleration for such POV pushing may discourage, offend, and humiliate editors of an entire race, ethnicity, sex, or orientation. Cool Hand Luke 20:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that distinction, and I think we agree on the important thing, that we shouldn't tolerate POV pushing, and it's specifically the pushing that is the problem. And I agree about not having a hostile environment, for sure. But let's not oversimplify the issue of what creates such an environment. Here is a link that I also placed in my evidence, someone arguably being hostile the other way: [19]. And just as WP:NOTCENSORED, we don't remove content just because it might make readers uncomfortable, although that can be an indicator of a genuine problem justifying removal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By way of example, I can imagine conditions that would make atheists feel unwelcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, not just atheists. I just put my finger on why I'm so uncomfortable about this thread. Amongst those who might feel driven away by a hostile editing environment can be anyone who feels that other editors are hostile to what they are trying to add to the project. I can definitely understand how Jewish editors, or indeed any editors with a basic sense of human decency, might potentially feel unwelcome in the face of genuinely anti-semitic content. But I can see the same thing with respect to editors who are sincerely interested in contributing content that is critical of a religion. There is a serious danger that this arbitration case, if decided wrongly, could create an editing environment that is hostile to editors who write content that is critical of religion. One doesn't have to be a member of an historically discriminated-against group to be made to feel unwelcome at Wikipedia, if we handle this case the wrong way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) An editor who is racist, or homophobic, or misogynist is saying to other editors that they are inherently inferior or dangerous in some way. He's not saying he dislikes their religious beliefs, or he dislikes their political views, or he dislikes their favourite colour. But that he dislikes the very thing that they are. That's why this kind of POV pushing is so very damaging in a community that seeks diversity, and therefore should be dealt with swiftly, without the wikilawyering and hairsplitting we've seen—forcing editors to spend literally days dissecting examples that show source misrepresentation, then more days finding another example because we're told (by people who have nothing to do with the case!) that the first might not be representative. This is an absurd waste of time to resolve an issue that's as obvious as the nose on our faces to any reasonable person. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the drama being whipped up presently I don't see anything negative resulting from affording an editor a fair shake instead of lynching them at AN/I. By the way, who has "nothing to do with the case", Slimvirgin and on what authority do you get to make such declarations? Anyone in the community who has concerns about this case has the right to be "involved" in it. Why do you repeatedly seek to delegitimize any comments that dont conform to your vision?Griswaldo (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider anything that has been said here to be anywhere near the level of chutzpah that someone who plagiarized anti-Semitic material about living persons from an Islamist website, and who has edited so many anti-Jewish articles - fairly plainly pushing a POV that can get people killed in the real world - see the craziness in the Middle East and the recent riots in Afghanistan over the burning of a book. Acting as though this is a lynching of an editor relentlessly pursuing his/her own version of anti-semitism is what this is all about. I admire SlimVirgin's research and willingness to engage and I admire Slrubenstein's measured comments above as well as CHL's comment that indeed outside behavior might be relevant in a case like this...Modernist (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fairly plainly pushing a POV that can get people killed in the real world ... excuse me?Griswaldo (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is rounded out by the rest of the line - see the craziness in the Middle East and the recent riots in Afghanistan over the burning of a book. Religious distortions and stereotyping can result in tragic consequence as evinced by the book burning in Florida, the publicity spread by Karzai and the tragedy of the Afghan riots...Modernist (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like the way this conversation has been heading. Wikipedia needs editors from all points of view, provided that they work responsibly to build the encyclopedia. In the past I've even argued that acknowledged pedophiles might provide contributions of great social importance (such as the nitty-gritty details of treatment), and I'll stand by my guns - banning them is a bad precedent; banning anti-Semites, or even just Nazis, would be a worse one. As liberals we can't fathom the mindset of people who express their anti-Semitism by standing around a cross saying "Heil Jesus". We wouldn't imagine their internal divisions, their bitter factionalism. We just can't cover them ourselves with any great understanding.

Now in practice, yes, I expect that those with such beliefs will quite often not be reasonable people, and as not reasonable people they will do things to get banned. But when they are banned for the usual reasons, fairly applied, it leaves Wikipedia's integrity intact. It continues the hope that the underlying injustices that push people down such wrong paths can be confronted and fixed, and that all Wikipedians can one day be friends. Wnt (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophiles should be banned because they can cause great harm to our volunteer contributors who are very often quite young. This is a volunteer writing project, not an experiment in social utopia. That said, I think all of these headings have strayed into very theoretical and practically useless territory. Perhaps they should be archived with a {{hat}} now. Cool Hand Luke 14:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't here to say that Islamism is wrong. And you don't have to proclaim that Islamism is wrong in order to look into allegations about plagiarism or BLP violations. I feel like some people here may be looking for an excuse to set a very damaging precedent that certain POVs are unwelcome, when there's no need or excuse for that. Wnt (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time to clarify a couple of points.

"Wikipedia needs editors from all points of view, provided that they work responsibly to build the encyclopedia." Wnt (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC) I agree 100% The more diverse our community, the more knowledge people will bring to the project. No argument from me!! Fortunately, nothing I wrote contradicts this. All I said is that whereas once attracting just such a community of editors was the only priority, after ten years we need to consider an additional priority. And these priorities are not in confict.[reply]
"But no matter, ArbCom's proper remit is to address the driving away, not the ideology. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)" Tryptofish misunderstands me. I am not contrasting driving people away to ideology. I am contrasting two different groups of people we drive away: editors, and readers (and I am especially concerned with readers who are educators, and who might encourage their students to read Wikipedia articles. I think in the early years Wikipedia focussed, almost obsessively, on not driving away editors. That is because in the early days when first starting up the priority was attracting and keeping editors. Well, we should still try to recruit and keep editors. As Wnt says, the more diverse our community, the better! But now that Wikipedia has grown so big, this simply is not the big concern it was when we only had a coupleof hundred registered editors. Now that Wikipedia has grown so big, we have to take our readers' concerns seriously. We need to worry why educators discourage students from reading Wikipedia. We need to worry about Wikipedia's public image. The Essjay case proved this point! Now obviously having good scholarly articles is one way to attract readers, and it is a problem that most of our articles do not meet even our own internal standards. But our articles are of uneven quality, and we still attract readers. My point is that antisemitic articles will put our reputation into a tailspin. Those readers who stay because they do not care whether articles are antisemitic or not surely cannnot be our ideal reader whom we are trying to attract. And it is just those ideal readers who will turn away with discust.
- Tryptofish also misunderstands me by using the word ideology. First, let's be absolutely clear: it doesn't matter what ideology a person has, as long as they edit in full compliance with our policies, and do not try to use articles to promote their ideology. Surely we can all agree that editors shold not use encyclopedia articles to promote their own ideology. Tryptofish, Wnt, you both agree with this, right?

We are talking only about editors who try to use encyclopedia pages to promote their own ideology. And my point is that we need to distinguish between two different kinds of ideologies. We need to do this, because our readers distinguish between two different kinds of ideologies. There are ideologies that people can disagree with, even passionately, but be willing to share the stage with. And then there are ideologies that any sane, reasonable adult will not even argue with, because they are no longer mere ideologies, they are simply hatred disquised by an ideology. The audience of the Jerry Springer show for example is willing to tolerate a high level of acrimony. But neo-Nazis and Klansmen get booed off the stage. My point is very simple: there are many POVs that should not be pushed by our articles but that our readers will tolerate, because they understand that an encyclopedia that anyone can edit any time is going to attract a wide diversity of views, and if we really have such a diversity of views, over time POV-pushing - presenting views as facts for example - is corrected by the accumulated edits of countless others. In the meantime, readers might come upon an article that they reject as biased, but it is a bias that many people have, and you can sit at the same dinner table with such people, and even have a pleasant conversation with them. Readers have a certain amount of tolerance for these biased views, and when we treat with these POV-pushers at WP, we can apply our policies with a little flexibility too.

But there are other editors who will pay lip-service to our core policies, who will present opposing views and provide citations, but who are not simply promoting an ideology. They are promoting hatred against a whole group of people (i.e. not simply saying Golda Meir may have violated international law in orchestrating the occupation of the West Bank, or saying Bernie Maddoff was a criminal who ruined the lives of countless people, points which I think one can easily substantiate with truly reliable sources ... but instead suggests that "Jews" think non-Jews are inferior, or "Jews" put their love of money above lovng one's neighbor). The hide behind our policies because they will provide citations from respectable sources, but quote selectively and out of context so as to misrepresent the view being portrayed, or they will present an anti-semitic canard as fact, and then quote a Jewish authority saying that he rejects that view. It frankly is beyond me how any editor can believe that adding to an article that a Jew does not agree with an anti-Semitic slur or stereotype somehow makes the article NPOV and thus encyclopedic.

But let me be absolutely clear here: the reason we should have no tolerance for this kind of POV-pushing is not that it will discourage Jews from editing. Does Tryptofish honestly believe that only Jews are offended by anti-Semitism? I am appalled by any indiscriminate hatred against whole groups of people. I am offended by people who hate "the Germans" for what happened 66 years ago. I am offended by people who hate "Arabs." Or "Hispanics." Tryptofish, I have no idea what your race or ethnicity is, but are you really offended only by people who hate your race? Well, I know a great many people who are disgusted by racism, even when it is not directed at their own race. The reason we should have no tolerance for anti-Semitic editing is the same reason why we shoul have no tolerance for any racist editing. Hatred of a whole group of people is not an ideology, it is hatred. Editing wikipedia articles to present hateful views as facts is not a belief or opinion, it is a hateful act. And websites that tolerate such hateful acts lose the trust and respect of a large and diverse group of people. I want Wikipedia to be a respected website. We shouldn't tolerate editing that misrepresents sources because the consequence is, people will read Wikipedia articles with a certain but significant degree of skepticism. We shouldn't tolerate editing that misrepresents sources in order to preesent anti-Semitic canards as facts because the consequence is, people will lose all respect for Wikipedia and other on-line encyclopedias will soon become their first, second, third etc. choices for information and knowledge. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slr, thank you for making this more nuanced explanation, which I find very helpful. Let me first respond to what you ask me near the end. Somewhere higher up in this admittedly very long discussion, I actually wrote "I can definitely understand how Jewish editors, or indeed any editors with a basic sense of human decency, might potentially feel unwelcome in the face of genuinely anti-semitic content." That should clearly answer your concern that I might think only Jews would be made to feel unwelcome. Of course, I agree with you that all persons of good will would share this sensitivity.

And I pretty much agree with you too, on the other points that you ask me. Yes, we need to care about how the public sees our encyclopedia! (And, in my own editing, that has included work I have done to make some articles about medical topics, and some articles about animal rights, amongst other things, more truthful and responsible.) And, yes, I strongly agree with you that we do not concern ourselves with the ideology that an editor believes off-Wiki, so long as they set that ideology aside and adhere to policy when they edit here. I've noticed that you have been very careful to acknowledge that point throughout this arbitration case, and I applaud you for it. Unfortunately, some other editors have failed to do likewise.

At the same time, you and others haven't really convinced me that Noleander is intentionally pushing an anti-semitic POV, or that his edits are creating the kind of website that drives thoughtful readers away. There's a lot of jumping to conclusions about Noleander's intentions. I suspect thoughtful readers mostly discover a website where the content that has been disputed here has been either deleted or revised, although they can certainly find some hot and heavy AfD pages, and pages like this one right here, if they delve deep enough. And I, in turn, worry that editors who know how to navigate Wikipedia's politics can be able to drive away editors who, in good faith, are trying to fix what they perceive as POV problems. WP:TE contains a long and unpleasant list of tendentious editing patterns. There is very little evidence here of Noleander actually doing those things. There is certainly evidence that he believes that Wikipedia articles underplay certain negative aspects of religions, and that he thinks that he is trying to bring that to NPOV. I've presented some evidence that he is partly wrong in the way he goes about that, and I've also provided evidence that those who strongly disagree with him have been partly wrong in the ways they have gone about it. I have already proposed at the Workshop page that Noleander be restricted as to creating pages about Jews and Judaism, but I don't want to see this case go beyond the point where those who are offended by Noleander find that they can use dispute resolution to get rid of editors they don't like. Yes, let's make Wikipedia a comfortable place to read and edit. For everyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tryptofish: thank you for the thoughtful reply. Thank you too for reminding me that you earlier wrote, "I can definitely understand how Jewish editors, or indeed any editors with a basic sense of human decency, might potentially feel unwelcome in the face of genuinely anti-semitic content." - an important reminder of a statement I hope everyone values. Also, your thoughtful comments make it possible for me to express my concerns yet more clearly, and I thank you for this too. I hope that the following will satisfy any other editors who simply do not understand why I have made such a big deal about this.

To your main points (if I am right in breaking them down to two: First, I am not completely certain that Noleander "is intentionally pushing an anti-semitic POV." Tryptofish, this means there is another place where you and I agree. Several times I have admitted that I do not know what Noleander's intentions are. Now, Noleander himself has presented his own "viewpoint" as evidence. We need a decision from ArbCom whether it will accept this as evidence. We need to know wheter ArbCom will accept claims about intention as evidence. As you know, for something to be admitted as evidence, it must be possible to offer other evidence supportingor conflicting with it. Now, someone with the same same name, apparently a pseudonym, has made comments about Jews at a different website. If Noleander's claims about his own "viewpoint" is accepted as evidence for ArbCom, or if intentionality is a criteria for ArbCom, then in my view they have an obligation to investigate this.

If ArbCom makes as one of its principles the point that intention is irrelevant - a point I have made several times - I would repeat what i have said before that all that matters is the effect of his behavior. This leads to your second important point, that you are not convinced that "his edits are creating the kind of website that drives thoughtful readers away." i have two responses. First (and this is a point I have tried to communicate but it is a complicated one and maybe hard for me to explain) not driving people away is just as great a danger. You know, a lot of young people, people in secondary school and maybe even younger, use Wikipedia. Sure, many of them use WP only to make suceh valuable edits as "FRANKIE ROCKS." But serious editors must not view such youngsters solely as minor vandals and irritants. These kids also often rely heavily on Wikipedia articles for research on their schoolwork. And we are obliged to assume that these youngsters also browse through Wikipedia just checking out articles in order to learn new things. What about a kid on some small town who has never met a Jew before, and finds an article with "Jew" in hypertext, who starts following links and reaches an article written by Noleander? According to WP:About "Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown rapidly into one of the largest reference websites, attracting nearly 78 million visitors monthly as of January 2010." This is something to be proud of! But with it comes responsibility. And frankly I suspect that only a small percentage of th 78 million visitors actually read WP:About, where they would be fully briefed as to the flaws and limitas of an encyclopedia anyone can edit any time. Many of those 78 million are sophisticated and understand the encyclopedia's flaws immediately. And when it comes to Noleander's articles, anyone who has gone to Hebrew School or a Yeshiva for secondary school, as well as anyone who has taken more than a couple of university courses on Jews, and probably anyone with advanced training in history, will see the flaws in his articles immediately. But I keep going back to that kid in some small town who has never seen a Jew and whose curiosity is sparked. Even an adult might read one of Noleander's articles and leave with a specific view of Jews.

Tryptofish, please just consider Economic history of the Jews. It was deleted - an article on a topic I consider notable, yet it was deleted. That is because the closing admin concluded that there was ehough of a consensus that the article had such severe NPOV and NOR flaws that it merited deletion. So what do we make of the many people who voted to keep it. Tryptofish, I believe that many, let's say most, of them are not antisemitic, and voted to keep the article in good faith. That the article was deleted means that their vote was an error in judgment. If these are good editors acting in good faith, what was the source of the misjudgment? I think they saw an anti-Semitic sentence followed by a sentence saying that a Jewish historian disagrees with the former point, and from this they believed that the article really did comply with NPOV. I think they saw the long list of sources in the first paragraph, and the many citations, and believed that the article complied with V and NOR. We editors are supposed to assume good faith, so why should all those people who voted have taken the time to find the original source, learn a bit about the author, find the page cited, and see if the author's view is represented accurately or not? Tryptofish, my point is that experienced editors acting in good faith can make a serious error in judgment concerning an article that has since been deleted - how do you think a typical reader will read the article? I think they will see all the citations and assume it is a well-researched, neutral article. And fom it many would have left with the impression that there is something about Judaism that goes back to the Talmud or the Tanakh or whatever they call their ancient sacred books that makes Jews love money, and value money more than other people. Tryptofish, these readers will not be driven away, and this scares me!!!

But you are right, I also raised the concern that if we publish anti-semitic articles, it will drive many readers away. You say you do not see it happening. I think I understand why you and really any reasonable Wikipedian don't see this happening: we are a large encyclopedia with more than three million articles. The impact of Noleander is small. So the effect will be small, if we are just going by numbers (frankly, I do not want even one boy in a small town to rean one of our articles and conclude that Jews value money more than people ... and I do not want even one parent to talk to his daughter and then forbid her from using Wikipedia!). But you know as well as I do that bans are not punitive. Nothing we do at AN/I or ArbCom should be punitive. The reason I want Noleander banned, or at least topic-banned (but given anonomous editor IP 75's analysis, a full ban should at least be considered) is to prevent harm to the encyclopedia. If we do not at least topic ban Noleander, there will be two consequences: first Noleander will create more articles that contain anti-Semitic edits, and second, other people will realize that by emmulating Noleander's style they can use Wikipedia to publish antisemitic views. What do you think will happen? Will we have more and more AfDs to deal with it? Then you are saying that Noleander is such a disruptive editor that she should be banned on those grounds. If other editors simply do not have the time to do the kind of research MathSci and others have to demonstrate the misuse of sources, the inevitable consequence is, more and more articles with anti-Semitic content. It is just a matter of time before The New York Times or some other news-media discovers that it has a story that is even more explosive than the Essjay case. I really want to stop things before they reach that point. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to keep the article because it had a variety of scholarly sources, and many editors had worked it over trying to make it more neutral; with the underlying motivation being that I don't want Wikipedia to shy away from topics some people find offensive. I was not initially aware of the extent of misrepresentation of sources, but even given that, I think the article could have been salvaged to stub status, as is prescribed by policy. In my view, the text of an article contributes precisely 50% of its value, with the remainder resting largely in its list of sources, so preserving that stub would be been worthwhile. Wnt (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you voted in good faith. I checked the sources and only a couple were written by economic historians or Jewish historians with current academic positions. Some of the sources were by historians but outdated and superceeded by work since then, and the rest were by people lacking any credentials in Jewish or economic history. You believed Noleader, and norally that is what "assume good faith" is all about. Unfortunately, he took advantage of your good faith. Most of thjse sources - almost all - really are just crap. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to keep what I say brief, per the Arbs' request, but I feel that I ought to reply just a bit. You say of the AfD "keep" !voters, "That the article was deleted means that their vote was an error in judgment." No, it means that their opinion did not reach consensus. We respect consensus, but we do not equate it with ultimate truth. And we need to be careful that the decision of this case not drive away those editors who thought "keep" was right. Not driving people away includes allowing editors to make good faith edits that will be discussed, criticized, and deleted. You should examine my Workshop proposal for an editing restriction that is short of a ban. Bans aren't the only way to prevent unnecessary AfDs. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In examining this case[edit]

First, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not on anyone's side. I am working from a set of principles. These are the ones I think are particularly relevant here - if anyone wants to argue that this makes me unsuitable, then please raise your concern.

First, we don't sanction people just for their view on life. They have to do something to threaten the project.
Second, POV pushing definitely is harmful to the project. It is harmful whether or not one can identify with certainty the underlying ideology of the editor who is pushing the POV. From the Monty Hall case - a good faith editor who is disruptive is still disruptive.
Thirdly, while to achieve neutrality it may be necessary to include the negative as well as the positive, our policies are clear that contentious material must be meticulously sourced and avoid undue weight or any other appearance of non-neutrality. Editors that persistently breach this are deserving of sanction.

I hope this makes things clear. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I hope it is clear that User:Silver seren's addition to the case does not necessarily mean there will be any findings concerning him. There may be no genuine issue once the evidence is sorted. I would appreciate evidence on this recent incident, and similar incidents in the past. For example, some of the comments at this ANI heading, where he suggests that editors adopting one positions are Jews and therefore have a COI on the article, suggests there may be a pattern of behavior, but it's not immediately clear to me what's going on there. I would appreciate some organized presentation of past interactions, and I imagine other arbitrators would as well. Cool Hand Luke 21:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have your answer, but it sounds like SilverSeren was opposing the destruction of an informative article down to a small scrap. When something that bad happens to any article, people always question motivations of the editors and their connection to the topic - no matter what it is. How can Wikipedia maintain policies against stealth canvassing or POV-pushing if people aren't free to question whether they are happening? Wnt (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information[edit]

I'm wondering whether this would be useful, because I'm seeing a conflation of these issues here, even after several editors have tried to correct it:

Jews ≠ Israelis (c. 5.7 million Jews are Israeli, c. 8 million are not)
Jews ≠ Zionists (Jews may be Zionists, anti-Zionists, post-Zionists, or none of the above)
Jews ≠ followers of Judaism (Jews may follow Judaism, or some other religion or belief system, or may be atheists; atheism is in fact common among Jews)
Jews = ethnically, people whose parents (one or both) are Jews
Anti-Semitism = prejudice against people whose parents (one or both) are Jews

It would help a lot if the above could be borne in mind when discussing the case. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your definitions of JEws and Antisemitism are imprecise. One can have a parent who is a jew and not be a jew oneself. You are basically instating a definition of Jewishness that is biological - which is highly problematic, and which does not capture the nature of ehtnicity. Ethnicity is not inherited by blood but is a complex interaction of identification by others and self-identification. Antisemtisim is prejudice against Jews in any of the senses of the word, not just the ethnic sense.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are imprecise, but broadly correct in the absence of a detailed analysis, and they provide a working definition that avoids the Jews = Judaism conflation we keep seeing here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, antisemitism is not prejudice against someone who happens to be of Jewish descent. Antisemitism is prejudice against someone because they are Jewish. I can be prejudiced against someone because they are an airline pilot and I hate airline pilots, but my prejudice doesn't become antisemitism because the airline pilot also happens to be Jewish. I'm also unsure who you are directing your comment to. Jayjg quite incorrectly accused me of making the type of mistake you claim to see people making. Is there an exemplary situation here somewhere that might benefit from such clarity?Griswaldo (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus and Griswaldo make fair points and I hope Slim Virgin will revise what she wrote accordingly. But I want to emphasize that neither Maunus's nor Griswaldo's comments toughed Slim Virgin's basic point, which is that anti-Semitism is prejudice against a kind of person, and not disagreement (or even hatred of) a belief or ideology or political movement. She is making another point that is I think just glaringly obvious that Jews are not the same as Israelis.

We can argue over wording and make thse assertions more nuanced, but the problem is not the lack of nuance in Slim Virgin's propositions; the problem is in the lack of nuance in some people's entirely mistaken misrepresentations. SV's propositions are just a point of reference. Let's look instead at how often some of the people posting to this page or the evidence page make statements that are premised on the false proposition that Jews = Zionists or Jews = Israelis. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but where are these mistakes being made? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: Who is a Jew?. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for amusement value... Tijfo098 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About misrepresentation of sources[edit]

A lot of the evidence and discussion has been about the accusation that Noleander intentionally misrepresents sources. I notice also that Cool Hand Luke has proposed a principle about this at the Workshop page. In reviewing this specific case, I find the evidence about it rather complicated, and I would like to provide the Arbitrators what I hope is a nuanced way of parsing through it.

If I may, I'll explain my thinking with an example from my own editing over the last 24 hours. I'm taking part in a dispute about content at Christian terrorism. Editors are discussing whether or not sources support the inclusion of a discussion of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre as part of the page. I said in the article talk that I was going to look for better sourcing than what had been on the page. I recently posted this comment on the talk page: [20]. For convenience, I'll display that comment here (complete with the popular quote box format):

For what it's worth: [21], [22]. On a quick and superficial scan, I see one of the Scholar links saying: "In 1572, Christian terrorists committed the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in which it is estimated that up to 100,000 French Protestants were killed by Catholic mobs (Christian Terrorism, nd)," and a few of the books mentioning the incident in terms of terrorism, and one book seeming to deal with what the Pope said. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Now in terms of what I actually did, that's it. A comment on the talk page, not any edits to the page itself. But let's say, hypothetically, that next I were to add something to the article, sourced to the academic journal from which I quote that sentence about "In 1572,...". I'm not actually doing that, but on the face of it, it wouldn't seem like a particularly irresponsible thing to do. The quote is plainly visible on the Google link, and it comes from a seemingly reliable academic journal. But, again hypothetically, let's say that it turns out that the quoted sentence is (I'm just making the following up) something the authors of the source are quoting someone else as saying, and that the source then goes on to say that this quoted sentence is utterly incorrect. In that case, using that source to base something on the isolated sentence would indeed amount to presenting the source entirely incorrectly.

That's a hypothetical, and I haven't done it. And I, personally, won't do it, because I recognize the risk of taking a brief passage out of context. But if another editor did do it, what would be the evidence that they intentionally misrepresented the source? Please don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating that it's OK to be sloppy about sourcing material. But let's face it, it's easy to make this mistake in good faith, especially with the ease of using Google searches for sources. Now if I had done what my hypothetical describes, it's very likely that other editors at that page would call me out on it. Some of them are, in fact, editors who are concerned that their religion (in this case, Christianity) might be presented in an unfair way on the page, and some of them feel very strongly in that regard. Perhaps they would take me to arbitration about it. But would I have been, hypothetically, intentionally pushing a POV, or just careless about using a source? Again: don't get me wrong. I'm not endorsing carelessness. But does carelessness require strong sanctions, or moderate corrective and preventative measures?

It's easy, technically, for editors to search for "Christian terrorism and St. Bartholomew's Day massacre", or for "Jews and slave trade", and so forth, and get a search result where these things come up together. And editors can believe, in good faith, that they just found a source that says there is a connection. That, by itself, documents a bit of carelessness (and we might want to do a better job of educating editors about that), but it doesn't document intent to misuse sources. Don't get me wrong (again!): I don't approve of source misuse. If someone reads through a lengthy source and cherry picks quotes to push something that the source as a whole doesn't say, that's a big problem. But most (maybe all) of the evidence presented here doesn't really fit that description. I'm worried that editors who want to show Noleander the door are spelling out a strict reading of best practices about sourcing, showing that Noleander made the kinds of mistakes that I bet are all over the project, and jumping to the conclusion that Noleander did that with evil motivations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have put your finger on exactly what is going on: having a point to make and googling around for a citation, which doesn't work unless the person actually does know the subject pretty well (that doesn't seem to be the case here). I guess that is endemic in wikipedia. This article "Is Google making us stupid?" looks interesting. It's about the internet destroying people's attention spans. Naturally I haven't had the patience to read the whole thing though ;-). 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Of course, a big part of my point was the gray line separating someone who makes this error in good faith, not realizing that they missed other parts of the source, from someone who does it knowing that they are deceiving other editors. Some editors in this talk have self-righteously said that anything less than the highest quality of editing should be grounds for sanctions, and I have a feeling that would be a recipe for a plummet in our number of editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that is not my argument you are characterizing there. I specifically acknowledge that there is a grey line and that a substandard use of references is not a problem, but that in this case the persistency of the practice of using sources badly and to do so with a particular tendency is what makes it a sanctionable case of lacking WP:COMPETENCE.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Maunus' evidence[edit]

Maunus says: "Noleander has stated publicly that he focuses on providing criticism of religions (and has been shown also on ethnic groups) - this focus is not compatible with the goals of wikipedia, which is not to provide criticisms of anything, but to provide balanced descriptions of notable topics."subsequently modified, at least in part --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC) If one actually looks at what Noleander has said, it was that he has focused on providing those criticisms to balance what Noleander believes to be a POV in which these criticisms have been systematically absent. That's a big difference. Maybe Noleander is wrong that such a POV imbalance exists, but that's a content dispute, not a conduct one. I shudder when I see "evidence" like that. I've done a lot of editing to articles dealing with animal rights, where I have attempted to provide NPOV to what I believe were previously POV pages. I've been criticized by some editors who (sincerely!) see the POV issues differently than I do, who claimed that all I was doing was adding critical material. It would be a bad thing if they could use arbitration to shut down my editing on those pages. In my own evidence, I've provided diffs where Noleander was, in fact, seeking to add sympathetic material, criticisms of the criticisms. Let's not fall into caricatures of what Noleander has said or done. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are valid and I have clarified my statement (which is of course not evidence in the "diff" sense but rather a reminder to consider also AfD comments regarding Noleander's editing as evidence regarding whether his editing is considered to be neutral by a majority of editors). Like you I have been criticized of adding too much critical material to certain articles, and of tendentious editing. There has however never been a general consensus that this was the case either on the talkpage of the article or on an AfD discussion of an article I had written. Contrastingly Noleander has had several articles sent to AfD where they were deleted not because they were non-notable but because they were biased beyond repair. That says something about tendency and about the consensus regarding the pattern. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was helpful. But I would point out that not all the AfDs have resulted in deletion, and even some of those that did were far from snow cases. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the one's I have looked at even most of the "keep" votes acknowledged that the articles were not neutral, but voted on notability grounds.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct about those AfDs, but as I said, there have been other AfDs where editors raised the issue of neutrality, and the pages were kept, and remain kept now. I'm not trying to argue that you are entirely wrong, just that there are more shades of gray. And I have certainly been in situations where I was greatly outnumbered on talk pages, by the way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I appreciate the added nuance.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I make a suggestion?[edit]

Things have been a bit heated the last couple days. I can understand that, having been through many a case that got heated. However, everyone's on a hair-trigger, and temper's are frayed. Might I suggest that folks limit themselves to wrapping up their evidence over the next 24-48 hours, and leave off the talk page wars in an attempt to clear the atmosphere up? I think we're just waiting for one of the newly added parties to reply to the evidence posted against them. Not an order, just a (trying to be helpful) suggestion in an attempt to keep the editing atmosphere pleasant. SirFozzie (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Any material added to the case pages, especially at this point, should be for the purpose of helping the arbitrators decide the case. If your addition will not serve that purpose, it might best be omitted. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, it might help if you gave an indication of whether the arbs think there is already enough to go on. There are some editors here who think there is already enough to go ahead with findings, and others who think there's not enough yet, so it's not clear whether it's near time to call it a day. E.g. there's quite a few diffs that I've clicked on or editing patterns that I've noticed, but haven't gotten around to writing up, and I don't know if it's worth bothering if you think enough has already been presented. I thought of this as a relatively complex case that was likely to stay open for a while longer. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Brad, or Elen.. but I think that the evidence has provided us the big picture, and now it's just a matter of trying to fill in the details.. coloring inside the lines, so to speak. SirFozzie (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SirFozzie. I actually do think there are some "big picture" elements that haven't been addressed but maybe we can do without them. I do see further up (hadn't looked earlier) what you meant about things having gotten heated. Sigh. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SirFozzie. Insofar as I am concerned, there is already sufficient evidence submitted for us to evaluate Noleander's editing and behavior (unless there is a major issue that hasn't been addressed yet, which is unlikely). Of course I can't speak for the other arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One issue not yet really addressed is whether Noleander treats all religions (or ethnicities) the same way, or edits giving preferential treatment to some religions/etc. over others. I have some diffs that give some vibes about the issue, but it would take more research and analysis to reach a conclusion. I wonder whether you think that's worth pursuing, in terms of whether it's likely to affect the case outcome. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me make a suggestion. I agree that this particular talk page is reaching its expiration date, but I'd like to gently suggest that the Arbitrators not get too fixed on the idea that it is time to decide and close the case soon. In particular, I think that there is still an open question as to whether other editors should be added as parties, and rushing that component of the case may make the ultimate outcome unbalanced and unfair. Also because Elen, the drafting arb, is going to be away for a few days, I think it might be a good idea to let a few more days pass. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once, when I scolded an editor for personal attacks who is a regular in Jewish-related articles, another editor who is also a regular in that topic area responded by implying that I was anti-Semitic. Reading this talk page, I see other editors engaging in the same behavior here. In my opinion, for what it's worth, I believe such tactics don't deserve the dignity of a long response from the Committee members other than, "We removed JoshuaZ's evidence from the evidence page and anyone who restores it or repeats it on the talk page will be blocked." That's it. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs increasingly used a political weapon[edit]

Amuse yourselves with votes at Race and crime: "Delete, inherently POV and OR", and "Wikipedia is not currently capable of dealing with this sort of subject" etc. What am I to say of the nomination for Premiership of Stephen Harper. I note with little surprise who voted to delete "per nom" there. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you insinuating exactly? What is the relation between Steven Harper, Race and Crime and the Noleander case? Why exactly were you unsurprised by my vote? Have I previously espoused particular interests in Canadian politics that made you expect that from me? Were you surprised at what I voted in the Race and Crime, and Race and Intelligence AfD's? ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]