Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander

---

·Maunus·ƛ· 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • If that was for me, you've got your indenting wrong. :P Silverseren^C 22:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • ROFLMFAO.... I'm not jewish... I still support a topic ban. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So? I never said that all of the Oppose voters were Jewish, that's obviously not true. I've seen Noleander editing various religious articles before and often getting reported for it, even when his edits were perfectly fine and to the references, but he was reported because they weren't positive information. The same seems to be happening here. Now, if the discussion had revolved merely around his editing, that might be different, but discussion seems to be revolving around the fact that he makes completely valid articles that are on negative topics. And, with the work antisemitic being thrown all over the place, it makes me very uncomfortable that so many Jewish users just happen to be here (and all of them are voting Oppose, obviously). It seems very, very biased. Silverseren^C 22:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this right. Do you propose that we should restrict Jewish editors ability to vote on matters of anti-semitic pov-pushers, just to be sure that they get a fair trial? Or do you merely mean that you are uncomfortable editing €around Jewish editors in general?·Maunus·ƛ· 22:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is that the Israeli-Palestinian topic are a is a nasty, disgusting mess of a battleground. Whenever these sorts of things come up at AN/I and other locations, we see the regular lineup of wiki-advocates come out to try to get their adversaries banned or their friends saved. So it isn't, IMO, a question of "oh, Person X a Jew he shouldn't vote here" ,but rather "oh, Person X is heavily invested in this topic area, so any vote by him should be taken with a grain of salt." Tarc (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes "Jews and Money" and Israel/Palestine related topic? What makes you think that it is a valid generalization to assume that any Jew is you more invested in that topic than you are? Are you not heavily invested in the topic of Israel/Judaism yourself without being Jewish (I assume)? ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc has it perfectly right. And calling Noleander a "anti-semitic pov-pusher" IS a personal attack on a specific editor. Silverseren^C 00:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a strong claim that is backed by strong evidence.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with reservations per Slim Virgin. I've been noticing more and more antisemitism creeping into this encyclopedia and this might be a good place to start rolling it back. 12 months seems a bit much however. A 3 or 6 month topic ban to break the habit might do the trick. I'm a WASP/agnostic by the way, but of course Jews should have a say in this Silver seren.V7-sport (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't answer my question on whether Jewish users are voting in a biased manner based on the topics that Noleander works on and not his actual editing. Silverseren^C 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• An honest and direct answer to that is that everyone sees things from their own point of view. Hopefully people take everything here with a grain of salt because lets face it, the encyclopedia is rife with POV. Pages like "Jews and money" are really just WP:coatracks to dump that POV. Anyway, the answer to your question is "address the argument being made, not the person making the argument," Trust me, I know that can be diffacult.V7-sport (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Members who identify as a particular culture, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, belief (and non belief - /me waves) system, political idealogy, etc, are likely very often more nuanced toward negative depictions of that identity. I shouldn't think the Jews are any less (or more) sensitive than any other group, and that such sensitivity may lead to over reaction and possibly bias within a small faction of such a group. On the other hand, there is no basis for suggesting that WP contributors who self identify (or are identified via name choices or articles edited or whatever) as Jews are apt to act other than in accordance to their understanding of the policies, guidelines and practices, especially as some gentiles (/me waves a little less assuredly, wondering if atheists fall into that category or something else) are expressing very much the same concerns. You have been trouted, which should indicate that the question you raised has been considered inappropriate by some here, and yet you do not seem to be taking the hint. This is an unfortunate mindset also exampled by the subject of the discussion. I strongly suggest that you pronounce yourself satisfied with my and others response and concede the point. Please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I’ve seen this meme before. Have you looked at the Encyclopedia Dramatica's article about it? I can't post a link to it because it’s blocked by Wikipedia’s spam filter, but the URL is http://encyclopediadramatica.com/The_Wikipedia_Jews

Note: please don’t take this to mean that I actually believe this. Encyclopedia Dramatica articles aren’t meant to be taken seriously anyway. However, I do find it kind of amusing that at least two of the “support” votes are coming from people on the list there. It’s like what Penny Arcade said: even a racist clock is right twice a day.

I’m Jewish (by ancestry, not religion) and I oppose a topic ban. I guess according to the ED article that makes me an Anti-Zionist Self-Hating Jew? --Captain Occam (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I raised the issue is because there is an preponderance of Jewish users who have arrived to vote on this topic ban, far more than an average cross-section of ANI watchers should have. There is also the fact that there is also accusation of antisemitism on Noleander's part being thrown around with very little actual looking at his editing and only looking at the type of articles he edits. It raises concerns for me of both bias on the part of users using such arguments and concerns about ulterior notification of this discussion. Silverseren^C 00:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing many commentators here that I am not familiar with and, as my content contributions are negligible these days, I am reasonably reassured that this would be because I see them on these pages. Can you point to the accounts participating in this discussion that are new to this venue? These pages are watchlisted by very many people, but most only comment on issues in which they have a viewpoint or some knowledge to impart. I am getting rather weary of this insinuation that there is a conspiracy of like minded accounts designed to sway discussions to one agenda or another, when it is human nature that individuals congregate toward a shared interest or cultural/religious/political/whatever affiliation. Again, I would point out that the concerns expressed are not solely by those of a Jewish identity (and not all those who so identify are supporting the proposed topic ban). Further, your comments may be considered ad hominem attacks designed to divert attention from the case in hand - whether an editor is coatracking their antipathy toward a particular religious following in the editing of certain articles. Regardless of whether there is a mob out for blood (libel) or a groundswell of concerned contributors commenting, that is the issue that is being addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "The reason I raised the issue is because there is an preponderance of Jewish users who have arrived to vote on this topic ban ..." Have arrived implies that before they arrived, most of the discussion was by non-Jews. Isn't the real question: why is it that Jews were not commenting before Saturday night? In any event (1) given that Noleander added the "Jews and Judaism" template to the article that prompted this thread, is it any surprise that many of the people who have read the article are Jewish? (2) how actually do you know they are Jewish? (3) why raise the question of "bias?" All you have to do is read the reasons they provide for supporting their support or opposition to the motion. This proposal will be decided on the reasons given, for and against, not the identity of the editors (which, unless someone outs themselves, we never really know). For all I know, Noleander is Jewish. I really have no idea - I can judge only her edits. I find it highly ironic that so many editors have looked at Noleander's behavior and see a bias, and now Silver seren is calling attention to the identities of editors and just based on that is claiming a bias. Silver seren, this is the precise opposite of how a Wikipedian should act. You should infer bias from how people actually behae, not from what you think is their identity. MathSci provides a great analysis of one example from Noleander's editing at the AfD page (where I have provided other examples): User:Mathsci/example; this shows how Noleander systematically misrepresents sources in order to present anti-Semitic canards as facts in articles. It is this kind of behavior that reveals the bias, not her identity. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are valid concerns raised above about the use and implementation of topic bans to silence critics or opposition. If someone could summarize the consensus from each previous complaint raised about this user, that might persuade others that it is necessary. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If these "valid concerns" could be supported by Diff's rather than just making unsubstantiated claims, that would also be helpful, and necessary.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please read the discussion instead of making snarky comments. Virtually every support and oppose has raised concerns about this topic ban, from specifying what policy has actually been broken to questioning the validity of banning someone from a controversial topic. The burden of proof remains on those calling for a topic ban. Has that burden been met? Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the burden of proof remains on those calling for a topic ban, and no I do not see that the burden has been met.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ample amounts of evidence for systematic tendentious misrepresentation of sources have been presented. I'd say that there is currently no good reason to allow Noleander to keep editing articles on this sensitive subject.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you supply the Diff's please, thanks.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[41][42][43][44][45]. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's keeping you from reading the above discussion, but here is what I said in a nutshell: he cherry-picked sources for the comparison to Christianity section while focusing on the medieval (read most negative) view of Jews. He then mis-represented sources in the anti-capitalist view paragraph: The information he misrepresented original version of text. Soxwon (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you posted the wrong URL in your second link—the second link is just Noleander adding the article to the anti-Semitism category. Assuming your quotes in the first link are accurate, though, I agree that edit is problematic, as is the one about Jews providing loans for wars when the source doesn’t say that. (I find Mathsci’s example less compelling—it’s a subtly POV edit in terms of what information it leaves out, but it’s not adding any information that’s blatantly unsupported by the source.) Both your example and the one about funding wars have been repeated a few times here and in the AFD, but I’m not aware of anyone providing any examples of him misrepresenting sources beyond these two. Can anyone provide any others? For someone with over 3,000 content edits, I think it requires more than two examples of bad edits (<0.1% of their total edits) to demonstrate a consistent pattern of behavior. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this is the fourth or fifth ANI thread about Noleander in relation to problematic editin in judaism related articles (including the fact that he has previously been made quite aware that creating an article called "Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood" was not a good idea) I think there is also substantial reason to suggest that this is not a lone swallow. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he’s had a habit of misrepresenting sources for a long time, someone needs to provide diffs of him having done this in the past. It isn’t enough to say that his editing was previously complained about at AN/I, because not every AN/I complaint is justified. In fact, it might indicate something significant that Noleander’s editing has been the subject of multiple past AN/I threads, yet he was never sanctioned in any of them. His editing has certainly received lots of attention, and if misrepresenting sources were a consistent problem for him, it seems like it should have been evident before now. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you raise the question about previous ANIs, I could suggest you read them, rather than speculate about what might have happened. As a taster, here's a flavour of what's there in just one of them:

"My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Misuse_of_antisemitic_accusations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_related_to_prevalence_of_Jews_in_leadership_roles_in_Hollywood

"His first actions were to add three new antisemitic conspiracy theories to the Antisemitic canards article, that Jews control the media, Hollywood, and global finance:[46]"

"... he then focused on adding to the List of Jewish American businesspeople any Jews who were senior members of Financial firms, media owners, or heads of Hollywood studios: [47]"

... and so on. The fact is that there's a pattern of behaviour, well-documented in the ANI discussions linked at the very start of the discussion. There's a broken agreement to step away from ethnicity. Despite all the deflection, there's a fundamental issue of what's best for the encyclopedia. Giving Noleander a break from articles on ethnicity, particularly Jewish ethnicity, would be clear step in the right direction. --RexxS (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now we’re back to the issue of motives. It’s certainly strange for one of a person’s goals at Wikipedia to be correcting what they see as pro-Jewish bias, but you can’t sanction a person based on their motives for participating here, or the selection of articles that they choose to edit. You can only sanction a person because they have a pattern of edits that violate policy. Lots of other editors have pointed this out earlier in the thread, which is why now we’ve been discussing whether Noleander has a habit of misrepresenting sources. That would be a valid reason for a topic ban if he’s done it consistently, but the impression I’m getting is that he hasn’t, which is why this extraneous information about motives keeps getting brought up. This also seems to reinforce the suspicion that a large part of the effort to get Noleander banned isn’t really about improper sourcing, but rather about disliking his viewpoint. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occam: Rexx is clearly not talking about motivation or viewpoints but about behavior. Noleander has stated his motivation and acted in accordance with that statement in a way that has been consistently detrimental to wikipedia's coverage of a sensistive topic. It is pretty clear cut actually.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not back to the issue of motives, except in your own mind. No, editors don't have to violate a policy to be sanctioned - try violating WP:POINT (not a policy) and see if you avoid being sanctioned. Sanctions are designed to protect the encyclopedia, and if enough members of the community agree that a particular sanction would produce a better encyclopedia, then that is sufficient. We don't do "due process" here. And you need to understand that there is no effort here aimed at getting an editor banned – the efforts are solely aimed at preventing the continuation of a pattern of behaviour that is detrimental. Finally, your attempt to suggest that I should be smeared with the brush of "disliking his viewpoint" just won't cut it. You are required to AGF of your fellow editors, unless there is very good reason not to. --RexxS (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I would like to see more diffs of behavior from Noleander that are clear policy violations. (Such as misrepresentation of sources beyond the two examples of that which have been provided.) It isn’t clear what the policy violation is in either of the examples that Rexxs gave. And if the material that he added to those articles didn’t violate a policy, his motives for adding it shouldn’t matter. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as said, you're mistaken that in asserting that violations of particular policies are the only reason why sanctions may be applied. --RexxS (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, what I meant was violating a policy or guideline. WP:POINT is not a policy, but it’s a guideline.

What’s good for Wikipedia and what isn’t is measured based on the encyclopedia’s policies and guidelines. (Including behavioral guidelines like WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL, as well as content guidelines like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.) You say in your post above that you think sanctions can be based on what’s best for the encyclopedia, rather than on policy, so apparently you think there’s some additional standard other than policies or guidelines by which what’s good for the encyclopedia should be measured. What standard is that, exactly? If it’s not included on any policy or guideline page, how are editors expected to know what it is so they can comply with it? And how does one determine whether an editor deserves to be sanctioned because of this standard that’s independent of policies or guidelines? --Captain Occam (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. What’s good for Wikipedia and what isn’t is measured based on the consensus that emerges in discussions by the community. The policies and guidelines merely describe the sort of conclusions that have been previously reached. They are not the Laws of Wikipedia, as you would have them be, neither are they meant to be exhaustive of every possible situation. You already know that WP:TE is an essay, but behaviour of the kind described there is commonly sanctioned. You don't believe that your own topic-ban sanction from ArbCom was based simply on WP:3RR, do you? I used to teach teenagers and they knew when they'd overstepped the mark; adults are just as capable of realising that without the need to spell out every possible offence just to please the wikilawyers. --RexxS (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c with RexxS) Captain, WP:CON is policy. Consensus that somebody's editing in a topic is detrimental to the encyclopedia can be determined through discussions just like this one. If it's detrimental, it should stop, whether through voluntary means or through a sanction that can be imposed as the outcome of such a discussion. Not that the policy-vs-guideline thing is any more than wikilawyering. People argued about it years ago, but it really sounds retro to hear it now. And once again, the basic pattern of editing being alleged is (I believe) WP:TE. Yes people do get sanctioned or banned for that. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point I’m making isn’t that I think the policies and guidelines themselves are what determine what’s helpful and harmful to the project. The point is that, as Rexxs said, policies and guidelines describe the conclusions that the community has reached about this. (As do essays, to a lesser extent.) This means that when the community as whole thinks a certain type of behavior is disruptive, that preference is going to be reflected in policies and guidelines. If the view that a type of behavior is problematic is not reflected in policies and guidelines, that most likely means the community has not reached a consensus that this behavior is problematic. Therefore, when you claim that a type of behavior is harmful to the project but can’t point to any policy or guideline as justification for that claim, there’s a good chance that the wider community does not share your viewpoint about this.

I’ve been asking for more clear-cut examples of policy (or guideline) violations from Noleander. If someone can provide clear examples of him engaging in the behavior described in WP:TE, then that would also fit the bill. What I have an aversion to is when people pull up a series of edits from him and say “this is bad” or “this is racist”, while being unable to explain what’s wrong with it in any more detail than that. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Determining whether the wider community shares a viewpoint about something is why we have these discussions. We're making such a determination right now, or at least we were before Noleander got blocked. I'm not sure what happens now. And no, policies and guidelines don't cover every situation that might ever arise. It is fine to use common sense and play things by ear. If anything, we have too many policies and guidelines already, and should get rid of a lot of them, and deal with more stuff case-by-case, since we are (despite the zaniness of this particular incident) getting better at that in general. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Occam: please read Wikipedia:Five pillars - which have been remarkably stable for six years, and are widely considered a basic point of referemce. The final pillar is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." That is because policies and guidelines do not determine our standards, you are wrong to reduce this to specific policies; this pillar means that it is the community which is the ultimate arbiter of what is acceptable or unacceptable. The first pillar is "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia" which is what this is all about. In an encyclopdia where any member of the community can edit, the comunity has an obligation to make sure that its standards for an encyclopedia are upheld. As I made clear at the beginning of the thread, the problem is an article on Jews and money that Noleander created. Giving edit diffs is inappropriate because the problem is not edits he made to an article, it is an article he created. The whole article is the example. You want specifics? At the AfD page I and others - lots of others but user:Mathsci/example and Soxwon there and in this thread have provided specific examples. The only issue here is Noleander's behavior - writing an anti-Semitic article is an act. A history of tendentious editing is a series of acts and more examples of acts are privided if you click on the links I directed you to at the opening of this AN/I thread. The examples I and MatchSci and others have provided demonstrate that Noleander systematically misrepresents sources with the effect of presenting anti-Semitic canards as facts, and this undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Per SlimVirging and Slrubenstein. Much could be said, as is done above, in support of the support position, but Slim and Sl do an exemplary job explaining why this is appropriate in this case.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Reading the above I see some users oppose because he is writing on what they consider to be notable topics. While I disagree with the assessment, I think it is clear that his approach isn't working. There are plenty of other areas that he can edit in, and this clearly isn't one of them. Bishonen and FPaS some up my thoughts on this quite well also. AniMate 23:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my initial comment at the opening of the ANI.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Based on previous experience with this editor. I would ask reasonable editors like AndyTheGrump to look into the history and reconsider their postion. TFD (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no... I'd ask those who are making the allegations to look into the history, prepare a proper case, present it as evidence, and let us examine it. If everyone goes around looking for their own 'evidence', what exactly are we basing a decision on? All I know right now is that (a) Neolander might or might not be an anti-Semite, and (b) few contributors are interested in actually discussing this - instead, they pile in with preconceived opinions backed up with self-selected 'evidence'. If 'the history' is relevant, then it should be properly included in the evidence, not left for individuals to ferret out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is funny how at Wikipedia we are supposed to work through consensus, but whenever someone does not like an emerging consensus, they try to dismiss it as "piling on" someone. We have an active discussion here, people are able to explain their opposition to the proposal freely, ditto their support. I started this thread with a title Andy described as not being neutral. Well, excuse me Andy, but, of course it is not neutral: I was proposing a community ban. Since only an administrator can enforce a community ban, AN/I is often the place where the communty discusses such proposals. This proposal for a ban is not an article and not governed by NPOV. Of course people who register support or opposition should explain their reasoning. If anyone still doubts that the issue here is one great bit of evidence: User:Mathsci/example (there is much more, at the AfD page): Noleander systematically misrepresents sources in order to present anti-Semitic canards as facts in articles. This is a long-standing pattern of behavior which demonstrates that her work on Jew-related topics is unencyclopedic and damages the integrity of the encyclopedia. I started this thread proposing that she be banned rom WP; SV narrowed the proposal to a topic ban, which is fine by me. Others have said Noleander has made other edits to the encyclopedia that are contributions. Okay. But her work on Jew-related articles is only destructive of encyclopedic quality, never constructive. That makes a topic ban very appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. An editor who significantly misrepresents sources is worse than a vandal. Per User:Mathsci/example, this appears to be a problem. Based on the obvious POV issues with the article in question, the misrepresentation does not appear accidental. A topic ban will allow the editor to continue working in fields less likely to elicit the problematic behaviors.   Will Beback  talk  06:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As mentioned, no one cares what is going on in Noleander's mind, so whether or not anti-semitism is involved is not relevant. However, when an editor focuses on topics such as "Jews and money" over an extended period, the result is not helpful to the encyclopedia. A quick look at Noleander's version of that article shows that it was highly inappropriate—we need not accept articles like "All the dirt written about X". There is plenty of evidence in the above (particulary from Mathsci) to support a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per SlimV, Hans Adler, and Mathsci in particular. Misrepresentation of sources is a particularly insidious form of POV-pushing. -- Avi (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - reading the above (and bellow), it is clear that there is a problem. Systematic misrepresentation of sources, coupled with cases of plagiarism of anti-Semitic websites, demonstrates that Noleander should not be editing the topic area, if not Wikipedia in general. Rami R 14:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Obvious censorship. This is ultimately a content dispute. There are many editors who make one-sided and POV-pushing edits regarding ethnicity: User:V7-sport and User:Bus stop, for example. Where are the calls to ban them? I'd sooner vote to ban the initiator of this discussion for intimidation. Mindbunny (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. Any editor who wishes to contribute to Wikipedia can choose from millions of articles to edit. If Noleander, or any other editor, feels that xe absolutely must contribute to one particular topic, that suggests that xe is more interested in promoting a POV than in improving the encyclopedia. (Topic bans should be more widely deployed IMHO). Analysis by Mathsci is also very disturbing, supporting the notion of POV-pushing by Noleander in this area. Southend sofa (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. The evidence is overwhelming that Noleander has, for the past two years, been using Wikipedia to "document" that Jews control finance, the media and, in general, are criminals. As RexxS points out in his comment above, in Februrary 2010 I opened an AN/I thread on this disruptive editing, in which I pointed out that after Noleander's return to Wikipedia following earlier problematic editing in this area:

His first actions were to add three new antisemitic conspiracy theories to the Antisemitic canards article, that Jews control the media, Hollywood, and global finance: While this may seem innocuous enough, he then focused on adding to the List of Jewish American businesspeople any Jews who were senior members of Financial firms, media owners, or heads of Hollywood studios: an eye-winking way of saying "we don't believe this canard that a Jewish cabal controls all this stuff, it's just that there happen to be so many Jews in senior roles here". Prominent in the "Finance & Trading" section were fairly notorious Jews Ivan Boesky, Andrew Fastow, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Marc Rich.

Has anything changed since then? Well, he returned to the List of Jewish American businesspeople article in July, and added four names; two founders of large financial firms, one Jew who controlled two media outlets, and one Jewish criminal.[48] In the intervening 9 months Noleander was apparently unable to discover a single Jewish American businessperson worth adding to the list. But last week he finally discovered some other Jewish American businesspeople: a Jew convicted in 2009 of 89 counts of fraud,[49] (in its own special "Kosher food" section), and two Jewish bankers.[50] Perhaps this was a bit too obvious even for him, so an hour and a half later he threw in a couple of token non-finance/non-media/non-criminals.[51] As has been pointed out already, there are hundreds, and likely thousands of Jewish American businesspeople with articles on Wikipedia, including Ben Cohen (businessman), Jerry Greenfield, Estée Lauder (person), Marc Jacobs, Donna Karan, Judith Leiber, Florence Melton, Zev Siegl etc. Even two-edit IP editors can find non- finance/media/criminal Jews,[52] but all Noleander can apparently locate are those who conform to antisemitic stereotypes. If an editor showed up here and proceeded to write only articles on things like African Americans and crime (often distorting the sources used), and added only African-Americans convicted of crimes to the List of African Americans, he would have been topic-banned long ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that African American comparison really fair given that they didn't only add criminals to the list of Jewish American businesspeople and have been active in some other areas including quite a lot in Latter Day Saints related articles? Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ban for now. So far as I can see, there at the least a strong prima facie case that Noleander has been a) pushing a POV, and b) misrepresenting sources. On the first point, I sadly cannot support a ban, because there are hundreds of highly-partisan POV-pushers editing wikipedia, and I have never before seen any of them banned for their POV-pushing. If we are going to go down that route, it would be a step with big consequences for how we view NPOV, and it needs a lot more discussion.
  On the second point, that of systematically misrepresenting sources, I would in principle be ready to support a topic ban (or even a complete ban) provided that the evidence has been set out properly. ANI does not provide a good format for the detailed assessment required to do that; an RFC/U would be a much better way of setting out the evidence and assessing it calmly. I suspect that an RFC/U is likely to be very uncomfortable process for Noleander, and if the evidence for systematic misrepresentation of sources anything like as persuasive as some editors claim, then I will have no hesitation in supporting bans.
  However, a ban as a result of this discussion could be portrayed as a hasty decision made as a form of censorship, which would itself become a cause of further drama. Let's examine this properly, so that whatever decision is made is transparently fair. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fairly straight precedent for imposing topic bans (it is unclear from your statement whether you distinguish between this proposed topic band and a general community ban) on editors who consistently push POV in disruptive ways. However the argument for topic banning here is that it may be the most useful way to prevent possible pov breaches from Noleander in the future, while still allowing him to edit other areas where he has not shown himself to cause problems. A ban could in no way be construed as censorship, nobody is arguing that we cannot have articles about these topics - but we are arguing that those articles cannot be allowed to be written with the disregard for neutrality and correct representation of sources that Noleander has exhibited.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Let those concerned about Noleander's editing raise a RfC/U, present their most compelling evidence in an organized manner, and then we'll see. The community needs a more orderly process than this to make such a decision. --JN466 01:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've been watching this thread for a long while, frankly it's one of the many things at ANI which remind me why I don't like ANI. I've been reluctant to comment since I usually prefer to stay away from such discussions in general and also for various other personal reasons. However this has gone on for so long and seeing some of the comments I feel I have to have my say. I'm very concerned about some of Noleander's edits, particularly the copyvio/plagiarism issue. Having on occasion dealt with plagiarism issues before, I know it can create a royal mess requiring countless good faith edits to be thrown away which I personally considered very bad and therefore feel that coming down on users who create such issues harshly is fine. I don't actually consider the anti-semitic website makes the plagiarism any worse, in fact it in some ways it makes it better. Not because anti-semitism is nothing major but because such nonsense is far more likely to be picked up before we waste the time of countless contributors effectively reducing one of the big concerns. The anti-semitism is bad but a separate issue and raises different concerns. The misrepresenting sources is another big concern, while one of the reasons we use sources is so can anyone can check, in reality particularly for non-online sources this often doesn't happen and many readers rely on the assumption a source actually says what we say it does. Given this, people may wonder why I oppose. The reason is because I'm not convinced we're actually addressing the big problems. I would potentially be willing to support a full block of Noleander. To support a topic ban, I'd need to be convinced we're not just going to be dumping a problem on other areas of the encyclopaedia where it's going to be just as bad. There's obviously no way we can know what Noleander will do if they are topic banned but I would like to see some evidence the problems are indeed primarily restricted to the area of the topic ban. If Noleander displays the same problems in other areas of the encyclopaedia then either a full ban or a wider topic ban may be called for. As others have said, RfC/U is the best place for this, this discussion at ANI simply isn't working. Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-- I don't understand how anyone that reads through the many editing problems and history(1,2,3,4) this editor has with Jewish related material cannot support a topic ban. If not a topic ban here, then when? And not for just 6 months, indefinitely. Dave Dial (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mathsci documents above an example here that seems to me to be a fairly clear misrepresentation of sources/original research. In addition, Noleander's behavior on articles has been tendentious and disruptive—even if consensus is that a topic ban is unnecessary (which I don't think is the case right now), he or she needs to shape up. Even after plenty of previous discussion, I see no indication that such a thing is going to happen. Accordingly, I have blocked for a week. NW (Talk) 03:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] What exactly is this block preventing? Now that This ANI has turned into a trial it seems wholly inappropriate to in effect silence the defendant.Griswaldo (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] This is clearly not a preventative block, but a punitive one. A topic ban is not a block. I thoroughly oppose this block. Make a topic ban per the discussion above, but this punitive block is not the way to go. SilverserenC 03:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] If Neolander is to be prevented from responding to the serious allegations made against him, this AN/I MUST BE CLOSED NOW. Any other course of action would be utterly indefensible. This stinks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblock We are discussing a topic ban, and whether AN/I is the appropriate forum for this. Both discussions would benefit from Noleander's input. Would you reconsider the block, NW? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] What allegation was mad, that Noleander has not responded to? Can you answer this simple question? Slrubenstein | Talk 06:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] I can't tell you what Noleander might want to address. Perhaps we could ask Noleander to refrain from editing articles while this thread is open. I've made my mind up. I'd like to see them permanently topic banned or site banned before this thread is closed, though I have serious concerns about the integrity of this AN/I process. Blocking the subject from directly participating, when they are quite capable of civil engagement, degrades the process even more, and reflects badly on the community. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] The answer to "what is this block preventing" is quite simple: it is preventing him from further adding source misrepresentation and otherwise behaving tendentiously, as well as acting as a deterrant to any future disruptive behavior. If Noleander wants to comment, there are many ways he can do so—<noinclude> tags, asking for assistance in moving his comments over, and so on. NW (Talk) 04:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Bullshit. This block is preventing him defending himself in the only way that any fair 'trial' would permit. First you present the evidence, then you discuss it, and then you reach a verdict. You are assuming he is guilty, and preventing him from presenting a defence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] I think Nuclear Warfare has already explained how Noleander can still comment... —GFOLEY FOUR— 04:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Now that he’s been blocked for a week in response to this thread, can the thread be closed? Normally when someone is blocked in response to an AN/I thread, the thread is then closed as resolved. There appear to have been some examples of him misrepresenting sources, and a one-week block is a reasonable response to that. But isn’t reasonable to topic ban him while he’s blocked based on a discussion in which he can’t participate. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Just watchlist his talk page and copy across anything he asks. Or doesn't that count as participation? --RexxS (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] That probably would be considered proxying for a blocked editor. This thread is also moving so quickly that by the time he sees a post here, replies to it, and I see his response and copy it here, whatever post he was trying to reply to will probably be completely buried under new comments. Even just trying to participate here normally, I'm getting edit conflicts for almost every post. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] You're confusing it with "proxying for a banned editor" (a no-no). What I describe is SOP for blocked users. --RexxS (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblock - A shame when an otherwise competent admin goes off on a rather ridiculous bender and vomits his common sense out the window. All this has done is grant one side of the I-P battleground a very undeserved victory, and embolden them to harass the next editor into oblivion who dares to write an article that mentions criticism of Jews and/or Israel. Tarc (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Tarc, what dos this have to do with the I-P battleground? Why do you bring your prejudices into this discussion? The question at hand is the editing of articles that have nothing at all to do with I-P. Maybe you meant to comment on another thread here? And Andy the Grump you are being incredibly unfair to Noleander He has xpended considerable effort defending himself against my allegations. He has written extensively in his defense both here and at the AfD page. You can chose to ignore his defense if you want to. But other editors will not be as unfair as you are being. We have read his many responses to the comment made here. I do not know why you cannot take the tim to read his responses, but maybe you should take som time out to read them. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] It didn't occur to me that this had anything to do with I/P, because of the seemingly equal-opportunity crappy editing directed at Mormons and so forth. Maybe there's also an I/P factor but I haven't noticed it. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblock This block is improper because the discussion above has yet to reach consensus and there is no pressing activity requiring immediate blocking. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblock per Colonel Warden. The discussion is continuing, and there is bo pressing reason to exclode Noleander from it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Not quite happy with the block either, because it detracts from the more fundamental discussion of a longer-term measure, more than it helps to solve any immediately pressing problem. I continue to support the long-term ban, but let's clarify the consensus for that first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblock This is just crazy carry on! NW needs to be told that stupid actions like this help nothing. --Domer48'fenian' 10:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblock. The discussion was still in progress and there was no consensus for a block, and I see no pressing need for one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblock Blocks are for preventative purposes, and that clearly seems not to be the case here. Noleander clearly makes some quite despicable edits (quite a few), but this block escalates matters which otherwise seemed well in hand. If Noleander were disruptive at the time of the block, then the consensus would likely favor the block, but such is not the case. My opinion on the content of the "EHJ article" is clear from my edits thereon, I trust. Collect (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblock per Anthonyhcole. NW writes - it is preventing him from further adding source misrepresentation and otherwise behaving tendentiously, but there is no indication that he would otherwise have been doing so. Since the AN/I started the editor has laid back. He has also not been disrupting this discussion, instead comporting himself rather civilly. NW adds - as well as acting as a deterrant to any future disruptive behavior. I'm sorry that sounds exactly like saying, "I believe punitive blocks work because they deter future bad behavior." Consider also that not a single editor was calling for a block here as far as I can tell. It appears more and more likely that Noleander will get topic banned, which IMO as I see more evidence is probably the right outcome. But that discussion does not benefit from blocking him now, nor does the block prevent any damage to the encyclopedia. Please listen to your volunteer colleagues here NW, and unblock him. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comment we could unblock, for the reasons given above, and protect the article that is being discussed for deletion. Would this be away of protecting without punishing, while we are in the middle of discussing a ban (a discussion in which Noleander, I think everyone agrees must have a means of participating)? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] *unblock: I believe that a block is unhelpful in the middle of this topic ban discussion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblock. Whether he's anti-Semitic is irrelevant. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Valuing free-speech means you let people with wrong views and hidden agendas edit. User:Bus stop and User:V7-sport edit, even though they have an obvious anti-Islamic prejudice. With the exception of cultural bias, prejudiced editing is supposed to be addressed by the consensus process, not blocks. If editors like these makes crappy edits, undo the edits. If they edit-war, block them for edit-warring. That is admin action based on policy re behavior, rather than dislike of the content. Note: I have no opinion on whther Noleander's edits are prejudiced. I'm just entertaining the hypothesis, and concluding it doesn't matter. Would rather block User talk:Slrubenstein for intimidation and bigotry. Mindbunny (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblock. Per Mindbunny and Griswaldo. If we were to start handing out blocks at AN/I for editing with bias then most of the editors on both sides of Wikipedia's I/P wars would have to go. Personally, I think that'd be a good thing, but we don't block people here becase we don't like their opinions. If someone wants to try to make the case that this editor violates NPOV more egregiously than other editors in the I/P area then an RFC/U would be the way to proceed. NW was way out of line in imposing this block for the reasons he stated, and his action was disruptive to our process here. It should not be allowed to stand.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] The block was very surprising, enough that I'd expect NW to be able to stay around and defend it if s/he expects it to stick. Without more explanation it just looks like bad judgment. I'd say unblock, but support a temporary restriction against Noleander editing article space pending outcome of ANI. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblock I cannot see how this addresses the issues discussed here, alleged bias editing and admitted but historical plagiarism - it may also be considered as tainting the discussion. I would prefer Neolander to be able to comment here or any other venue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Unblock Only because it is (still) incredibly aggravating to be invited to try to build consensus around something only to have an administrator sail in to decide the situation for everyone involved. V7-sport (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked, see the section underneath this one. 21:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have watched this discussion - and taken part - with increasing disquiet. It got off to a bad start with the title "I suspect Noleander of anti-Semitic editing" - hardly a neutral header. Frankly, I consider the issue as to whether Neolander is a misunderstood campaigner for fairness and neutrality, or a raging anti-Semite, as no longer as significant as what appears to be occurring here. Rather than being presented with an 'incident', we are faced with a call for a topic ban where everyone piles in with their own 'evidence', and their own verdict. 'Facts' have been repeated even when the evidence has been shown to be suspect (at no point has it been proven that Neolander plagiarised Stormfront), and 'diffs' are scattered around willy-nilly that don't actually seem even to link to his edits. This is a total fiasco, and a breach of any concept on natural justice. I therefore propose that this 'incident' should be marked as not relevant to AN/I (because there doesn't seem to have been a specific incident reported - instead it was a 'suspicion'). It will almost certainly be necessary to discuss Neolander's contributions to the Wikipedia project at some point soon, in some appropriate place, but this isn't the way to do it. Compile the evidence, discuss its validity, and then reach a decision, rather than engaging in an unseemly exercise in mudslinging. Maybe then we can get back to producing an online encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a proposal for a ban is not supposed to be neutral. And why is it a "mess" when different people share different reasons for opposing or cupporting th proposal - is this not precisely how the community discusses issues such as this? Wikipedia is a commmunity-written encyclopedia; th community makes decisions through community discussions. Now it sounds like you just want to censor people who disagree with you. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, there seems to be a bit of a pile-on here. I've taken the time to tead the article (it could be improved, for sure) and the sources (seems better sourced than many others in controversial political/religious articles), but I am having a hard time seeing any breach of policiy. Can someone in the support-ban camp provide some blue-links to specific policies so we know what the specific problem is here...and exactly what we're interpretting? The only thing that really jumps out at me is the title. Jews and money is a well recognized percepttion (mainly in jokes and stereotypes) but is well known (whether in poor taste jokes or otherwise), and the sources support it's existence. What is the problem, wiki-specificly? Quinn ^CLOUDY 02:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC) This comment moved from another thread, where it was posted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone supply some blue links to policiy about the problem here? I've read the article and the sources, and am currentlyh only uneasy about the title, whichy seems easy enough to fix. Quinn ^CLOUDY 03:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EC- Sorry, was typing with my thumbs in the above. But I totally agree. Wrong venue. Relevant dicussion...but should take place elsewhere. It survived and AFD it appears, so what is the next logical step for those who disagree with the article's existence? Quinn ^CLOUDY 03:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Andy. I've done quite a bit of reading and have declared my position above, but this process is appalling. An RFC/U might be appropriate, with coherent arguments and accurate diffs, but this chaotic pile-on is not. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy seems to be guilty of his own charges. To discredit evidence as 'suspect', he points out that "at no point has it been proven that Neolander plagiarised Stormfront". True, but it misses the point that Neolander actually plagiarised Radio Islam http://radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/hollyjew.htm, whose article was also copied word-for-word by Stormfront http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t98084-2/. Does anyone who looks at either of those two webpages want to suggest that we take them seriously as reliable sources? Is Andy suggesting that they are reliable sources? Or is he suggesting that accusing Neolander of plagiarism from Stormfront, instead of accusing him of plagiarising from the original article that Stormfront copied, somehow invalidates the complaint - and by implication all of the documented complaints made? Isn't this the real case of asserting a 'fact' that doesn't bear close inspection? --RexxS (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So a false assertion that Neolander plagiarised a neo-Nazi website is somehow still acceptable as evidence? I thought that the accusations were centred on misrepresentation of sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course it is acceptable as evidence. The plagiarism is just as real and the content just as offensive whichever site he took it from. Take your pick, and try to justify either of them. You're quite right, some of the accusations were centred on misrepresentation of sources; another accusation is plagiarism. But don't blame me for your confusion; you picked the example of plagiarism and then extended it to suggest that all the evidence was suspect, not me. --RexxS (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So something which is factually incorrect is acceptable 'evidence'? Wow... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, absolutely! Otherwise we have this: (1) I find text that exists on two sites A and B; (2) I plagiarise it; (3) I'm accused of plagiarising from site A; (4) I defend myself by asserting that it is a false accusation because I actually plagiarised it from site B; (5) I'm off scott free, according to you, as the evidence against me is 'false'.

Now get real for a change and quit playing games. We're all aware that plagiarism took place, and your attempts to devalue that charge, because the OP couldn't tell which site had been plagiarised from, do you no credit at all. --RexxS (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:That is perhaps the most retarded thing ever claimed at AN/I, and that is saying something given the vitriolic shit that passes trough this area. Someone he claims he plagiarized from a specific site, yet cannot back up that assertion. So the counter-response is "well, he must have plagiarized it from somewhere". Do you have any fucking clue as to how fucking ridiculous you sound right about now? Tarc (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aww gimme a break. We know he plagiarised it from "somewhere" because he admitted it after he was caught.[53] The assertion is backed up in spades, and you're the one grasping at straws to base your ridiculous blather on. Now go and wash your mouth out with soap and water before the civility police pull you up for swearing. When you've calmed down enough to read that diff, you can always come back here and refactor your nonsense. No need for an apology. --RexxS (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I have known you to be a reasonable editor, so I beg you to take a few minutes and breath and reconsider your rash and irrational response to RexxS. Rexx is not saying that factually incorrect evidence is valid, he is saying that evidence that was originally misrepresented, when represented accurately, is still valid evidence against Noleander. Surely you can comprehend this. Surely you can comprehend that if Noleander AND Stormfront plagiarize the same source, someone might think that Noleander plagiarized Stormfront, which is a more well-known site among. And now everyone accepts that this was not the source that Noleander plagiarized. But it is still clear that he plagiarized another site. Isn't this what really matters, that he plagiarized an anti-semitic site? Please tell me why you think this is NOT acceptable evidence.

Also, I am asking you politely to change the title of this section. Such a sweeping comment that is dismissive of a thread you have regularly contributed to is not constructive. Even if you disagree with my proposal, I began this thread with a paragreaph that called for a community ban, and I gave the thread a titl that described very spcifically what I think is wrong with Noleander's edits. The first sentence of the paragraph that follows names a specific article, and I explain that antisemitic editing is a form of disruptive editing. You can disagre with everything I wrote, but I was specific, which is what makes it possible for people like you to disagree in a constructive fashion.

Opening this thread by just saying "it is a mess" is vague and makes it hard to know how to respond constructively. If you want to focus attention on a specific problem (e.g. the plagiarism charge, or what you consider inaccurate evidence) why not name the section clearly so people know what it is really about? That way it would promote constructive discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing my central point, Slrubenstein. If you have a specific issue with something Neolander wrote, you are of course entitled to raise it at AN/I if you think this appropriate. You are entitled to present evidence, and others are likewise entitled to add further relevant evidence. Where this whole thing started to go wrong was at the point where some contributors were reaching a verdict while more evidence was being presented, and before Neolander had a chance to respond. This is a mess, and it does nobody any credit to suggest otherwise. I happen to think that existing Wikipedia procedures are quite capable of dealing with obvious bigots (of whatever persuasion), and that the merely biased are best dealt with through normal discussion - though of course none of us are actually free of bias anyway. For whatever reason however, normal protocol seems to have been abandoned here, and to me at least, it just looks wrong. I honestly think the best course would be for everyone to back off, and discuss this in a calmer manner in another forum - after finding evidence that is actually relevant and verifiable. for what it's worth, I think I seen enough evidence here to suggest that Neolander should be encouraged to discuss articles with others before starting them, and maybe ought to find another religion/ethnicity to concentrate on, but this attempt to present him (her?) as one of the boys from Brazil seems rather overdone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about why the plagiarism allegation is being dismissed as though false. Noleander created an article in October 2009 called Jews and Hollywood, now deleted. [54] It contained text he had copied word for word from the Radio Islam website, which publishes anti-Semitic material. He acknowledged this on AN/I. He said: "Yes, I wrote that article, and yes, I cut-and-pasted some text from the RadioIslam web site." diff discussion

The confusion about Stormfront arose only they had apparently reproduced it too. So Radio Islam, Wikipedia, and Stormfront carried the same text. A portion of the copied text (please note the language Noleander copied: "the Jew Michael Eisner"):

Noleander

Radio Islam

Film critic and author Michael Medved wrote, in a 1996 article titled "Jews Run Hollywood - So What?" and in that article said: "It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names." The article then describes how the Jew Michael Eisner, the Head of Walt Disney studios only hires "highly paid Jewish moguls" as producers such as Jeffrey Katzenberg, Michael Ovitz, Joe Roth (former head of 20th Century Fox). Medved emphazises the point that, "The famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harboured anti-Semitic attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions." [55]

The American Moment Magazine is subtitled, "The Jewish Magazine for the '90s". Its edition of Aug. 1996 carries the startling headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So What?" The author is the Jew Michael Medved who states: "It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names." The article then describes how the Jew Michael Eisner, the Head of Walt Disney studios only hires "highly paid Jewish moguls" as producers such as Jeffrey Katzenberg, Michael Ovitz, Joe Roth (former head of 20th Century Fox). Medved emphazises the point that, "The famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harboured anti-Semitic attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions." [56]

The mistake we made was to assume good faith and accept his apologies, which wasn't sensible, because (a) the plagiarism was demonstrable; and (b) he had plagiarized from an anti-Semitic website. And the next time there was a problem indicating anti-Semitism we assumed good faith again, and he said he would focus on religion from now on, not ethnicity. But he didn't. So here we are again. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A statement was made that Neolander had plagiarised Stormfront. All the evidence I've seen suggests that this is false - indeed, the evidence that this was false seems to have been available for some time. Several contributors have nevertheless chosen to repeat this allegation. If it doesn't matter which anti-Semitic website Neolander plagiarised, why do so many contributors insist on getting this wrong? As I said early on in this discussion, there seems to be a great deal of guilt by association involved here. This is hardly an appropriate way to debate the topic - either evidence is verifiable, or it is inadmissable, and being 'almost right' just isn't good enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He plagiarized material from an anti-Semitic website. It makes no sense to focus on a few people getting the name of the website wrong.

We talk about wanting and needing more editors to see Wikipedia into the future. We talk about wanting more experts, more quality, more diversity. We want to be trusted at least a little by universities and schools. But here we are arguing that plagiarism is okay, and copying anti-Semitic material from websites is okay. What really matters is that you don't get the name of the website mixed up when you object. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A statement was made that Neolander had plagiarised Stormfront – Not the whole story, to be precise. "I've clicked on Slrubinsteins links to earlier ANI threads on Noleander, up top of the thread; I hope everybody does. They are very interesting, especially Peter Cohen's post about Noleander's plagiarism from Stormfront (sic) and Radio Islam (sic)". That was what Bishonen posted above.

All the evidence I've seen suggests that this is false - this? which this? It's easy to answer: you want the (supposed) inaccuracy of the site to invalidate the plagiarism. No, the plagiarism isn't false.

Several contributors have nevertheless chosen to repeat this allegation - more hyperbole. Hans Adler repeated it; Anthonyhcole repeated it, but immediately struck the sentence. The only other mentions are by editors questioning or denying it. One editor does not equal several.

why do so many contributors insist on getting this wrong? - One contributor.

either evidence is verifiable, or it is inadmissable, and being 'almost right' just isn't good enough - try "either plagiarism occurred, or it didn't; and whether the original site or a mirror was used to make the identification makes not one iota of difference to that". Hint: plagiarism occurred. --RexxS (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By Andy's reasoning, if a witness tells the police that someone robbed a bank, and gets the name of the bank wrong, then the bank robber is innocent? Hunh? Andy, what do you mean "guilt by association?" You are not making sense. No one is accusing Noleander of associating with plagiarists, he is being accused of plagiarism. The reason he is guilty of plagiarism is not because he assoiates with plagiarists, it is becuae he actually plagiarized. Are you denying that he plagiarized? Why are you saying he is innocent of plagiarism? Why is it that any tim someone provides actual evidence that he plagiarized Radio Islam, you want to change the topic? What are you trying to cover up? Slrubenstein | Talk 06:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The attempt appears to be to dismiss the problem on a technicality. A great way to make a living, in a courtroom. We have a quite appropriate name for that sort of thing around here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't plagiarism that Neolander is being accused of here, it is anti-Semitism. If people honestly can't understand why linking Neolander with Stormfront isn't "guilt by association" then I have to question their capability when it comes to assessing Neolander's behaviour. Asking people to get their facts right isn't Wikilawyering, it is common sense.

As for Slrubenstein's suggestion that I'm trying to 'cover up' something, I find the suggestion offensive. All I have asked is that a specific breach of policy be stated, evidence be properly presented, and a reasoned response by Neolander be allowed to take place before a decision is made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The root of the accusation was that he added anti-semitic material to the page. It was doubly bad that it was plagiarised (not from Stormfront, but certainly from another antisemitic source), but bickering over the accuracy of the claim "he plagiarised from Stormfront" on the basis that it wasn't Stormfront but another antisemitic source is incredibly weak. It is hardly less damaging to Noleander that he lifted the material from Radio Islam rather than Stormfront. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He’s already been blocked for a week, and I support leaving that block in place. Why don’t we wait and see whether his behavior improves after the block expires? According to his block log, the only other block he’s ever received was one in February 2010 that was undone 20 minutes later. Since this would be the first time he’s ever been given a block that wasn’t immediately lifted, we don’t know yet whether this will be enough to teach him what sort of behavior he needs to avoid here. We should wait and see whether it will be, not continue adding additional sanctions before he’s had a chance to show whether this block will motivate him to improve his behavior. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban was proposed and discussion on that has begun. Closing the thread now, because one editor (NW) has imposed a temporary block, seems a little peremptory. 50 people are involved in this discussion. Twenty five support a topic ban. Fourteen oppose a topic ban (some for procedural reasons). Leave this discussion open for a while. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Community and AC don't have a tendency to tolerate tendentious editing - and for good reason. The Community's attitude to copyright vios and plagiarism is also unforgiving, as many know. But whether this is one of those situations or not is difficult to determine when it's near impossible to follow what's going on here (this ANI is a complete and contentious mess). The presentation of evidence and positions has been particularly poor (be it those who support the measures being proposed or those opposing them or those defending themselves for selectively refusing to answer some of the relevant questions posed). ANI isn't really designed for such matters unless they've already undergone a RfC/U or some similar step in dispute resolution.
• At some point, parties do need to be willing to cop it. If you agreed to stop focusing on one area to resolve the concern in a previous ANI, why would you continue focusing on that area now? If you haven't managed to get an outcome which brought about resolution last time you came here about a particular editor, why would you come to the same place without taking the advice which has been repeatedly given (to go down the RfC/U route)? Maybe a RfC/U isn't necessary if editor review or article RfC was tried instead, and maybe the user considered the agreement as a temporary resolution which was too informal to have any other effect (RfC/U is considered to be a bit more formal than what someone says on a user talk page and a more lengthy undertaking is needed in the drafting).
• Common sense is necessary for this project to function effectively, and that usually involves heeding good advice and being receptive to criticism when advice is not being followed. Additionally, the Community does not like buro for the sake of buro, so you should realise that there is a very specific purpose behind some of those processes if that's the advice you have been given. Despite these 2 sentences, I note that this is (at least) the second time this month that some of the same users are expecting the Community to intervene/reject a measure even though the earlier advice was not followed. I hope I have clearly communicated the points I needed to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, I started this thread. When you write, "If you haven't managed to get an outcome which brought about resolution last time you came here about a particular editor, why would you come to the same place without taking the advice which has been repeatedly given (to go down the RfC/U route)?" I assume you are talking to me. If I am misinterpreting you, I apologize in advance. If I am interpreting the "you" correctly, I must say you seem to be either misinformed or confused. I came here only once before concerning a specific article; I was not repeatdly advised to go to RfC/U, and that matter was resolved. This is only the second time I have come to AN/I about Noleander, and this time my complaint and my request is different. This time I refer to an article and other AN/I threads, one initiated by Jayjg and one by Noleander himself, with a new complaint, that Noleander has been a disruptive editor in the form of a pattern of anti-semitic behavior, and I requested a ban. SlimVirgin proposed instead a topic ban, which is what we have been discussing ever since. AN/I is the traditional place for discussions of proposed bans and topic bans. One cannot go to RfC/U to request a ban or topic ban. In short, this is the first time I have come to AN/I to request a ban, and AN/I is the appropriate plac to discuss a topic ban. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really talking about you alone - it was meant to be to everyone involved generally - but I'll focus on the gist of what I was trying to say rather than who specifically. Note the 572 archive you quoted at the top of the thread and read my very brief comment at 21:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC) for more clarity on my position on Noleander's editing - note also that even after saying that (which some might construe as being in support of the ban proposal/s), I still noted my dissatisfaction here because I think there is some merit in the complaints about the handling of this. What I'm largely complaining about is not whether ANI is the appropriate place to discuss a topic ban (it is, as you concluded); rather, the issue is whether this is the time at which topic bans should be discussed in relation to this dispute (and if it's not the time, should this dispute even be here). Having had another look at the other threads, it seems that at least one of those threads concluded with "please try RfC/U or some other DR as this isn't the place" while another concluded "this isn't the place". If Anthonyhcole's figures are accurate, that 26 editors agree with a topic ban does indicate there is an issue, but that 14 editors have disagreed and have asked for more evidence or RfC/U does suggest this isn't so black and white. There would be no need for a RfC/U if the presentation of evidence was effective in this ANI; in my opinion, it obviously isn't effective enough. Had this been handled differently (like trying RfC/U first before asking for bans of any sort), I think the chances for achieving resolution in a more ideal way would have increased with it (and that would have been more helpful in the long term for the project). I don't think the mess from here is going to clear out of the project anytime soon; I can see this mess continuing for some time (don't get me wrong...I'd be glad if things work out contrary to that...but I just don't see that happening after how messy this has got already). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There would likely be a similar breakdown in the support / opposition in an RFC/U. I've rarely seen a situation where a train-wreck ANI thread somehow became more coherent when moved to RFC/U: the usual result is simply to calcify the split in the community. IMO that's a big part of the reason why ad-hoc ban discussions have become more popular on ANI: they actually get results, whereas RFC/Us always end up back on here anyway when it comes to enforcement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the entire concern is quite plain - a poor presentation and collation of evidence - that's an assumption rather than a prediction. We always encourage users to have a look for themselves, but if this many editors are saying "please try RfC/U first", it does suggest that this process is not as pointless as you (or some others) believe it is. That combined with the tone of some of the comments in this thread is a worrying sign. Perhaps the only way the involved users are going to learn is if AC say "decline - you've been told repeatedly about what appropriate DR is on this en-wiki, so until you've made appropriate attempts at it via the proper channels, we're not going to step in. We'll step in if and after such attempts do not satisfactorily resolve the issues." Frankly though, I don't think it ought to be necessary for AC to say that in order for the concern to be addressed. Of course, an effective alternative to that would be to accept the case but to make findings on those users for failing to undertake appropriate DR (which in the case of a particular ex-functionary, wouldn't be a first Fof of its kind). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are we sure that this editor is actually making anti-semetic edits and is not simply interested in editing articles related to that topic? My only experience with this editor that I can recall off the top of my head was at our 9/11 conspiracy theories article where they suggested an edit regarding conspiracy theories related to Israel. I worked with this editor on their proposed text and it was implemented without objection.[57] Everthing seemed fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please actually read the material above, which makes his editing focus quite clear. I know its long, but it's also damning. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I haven't seen anything persuasive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quest for Knowledge, can you answer four questions for me please? (

1) how do you interpretation the evidence for plagiarism, provided in this section by Slim Virgin?

(2) What do you think of Noleander constructing the section on Nazi Germany by presenting quotes from Mein Kampf as facts? The quotes are from Mein Kampf, but Noleander does not cite Mein Kampf, he cites secondary sources that quote Mein Kampf. This makes it seem as if the quotes came from secondary sources, not Mein Kampf. I interpret this as using sources inappropriately to present anti-Semitic canards as facts; how do you interpret it?

(3) First, Noleander writes a section on Jews and war financing, claiming that Jewish bankers helped finance governments "in particular, for financing armies and wars." This is sourced to three separate page ranges in three separate books.[58]; then an editor goes and actually looks at those sources, and finds they say nothing of the sort. [59]. I interpret this as using sources inappropriately to present anti-Semitic canards as facts; how do you interpret it?

(4)how do you interpret this analysis of Noleander's use of sources: User:Mathsci/example?

Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That the editor is still blocked say quite alot about the Admin's here. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What it says it that for once the admin corps has decided that wheel-warring over the block of a contentious editor is not worth the drama. That's a positive step for me. Noleander has been reasonable in this discussion and obviously does a great deal of off-wiki preparation for his edits (this discussion does, after all, revolve around an article which was over 100k long in its initial revision), so hopefully he's taking the time to do something productive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Chris Cunningham - reverting an admin action without a clear consensus is not an action taken lightly, one which only should be considered when an admin is certain that there has been either a clear mistake or an abuse of the flags. Neolander has not made an unblock request, which is the other means by which a single sysop may act upon their view of the validity of the block against the request made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Chris and LHVU, it says quite positive things about the admins here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I'm somewhat surprised about the disagreement that people raised. I expected some dissent, of course, but not as much as there was. Some editors claim that I blocked because I was trying to suppress a point of view—that's nonsense. Disruptive editing, source misrepresentation, and so on have long been sanctionable, whether by consensus or by individual administrator action. Absent evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to assume that such behavior will not continue. However, enough editors who I respect have said it would have been wiser to let the discussion unfold. I'm not so sure about that, but I shall yield to their collective opinion and unblock. NW (Talk) 20:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for the record I hope you are not conflating the perspectives that blocking him has the effect of silencing him, with the idea that you were trying to accomplish that end. I argued the former but certainly not the latter, nor do I believe the latter at all.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• From Noleander's talk page "Hmmm. Could some admin check the un-block? I still cannot edit anything except this Talk page. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)" Passionless -Talk 04:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be autoblocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rough consensus in favor of the topic ban proposed by SV. There is a clear consensus to overturn the block. So let's do this: unblock Neolander but subject to the proposed topic ban. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a reasonable conclusion to this discussion; remove the block in favor of the topic ban. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two have nothing to do with each other. We're not negotiating a bill in Congress here. He can be sanctioned without undoing the block and the block and be undone without sanctioning him. Please don't complicate matters by trying to tie the two together.Griswaldo (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an intimation that the two are related. I do see an emerging consensus that while a topic ban is appropriate a general block enacted on top of that isn't, in that so many editors supporting a topic ban (which is the prevalent opinion) are fine with an unblock. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? And I quote ... User:Brewcrewer -- "unblock Neolander but subject to the proposed topic ban." User:Jayjg -- "remove the block in favor of the topic ban." That's plain English Chris, I'm not sure how you missed it. They were both suggested conditionally. There is a growing consensus for a topic ban to the tune of 2:1 apparently ... but the discussion is still ongoing. There is not a single person who supports the block, and many who believe that until the discussion about the topic ban ends the accused ought to have the privilege to respond.Griswaldo (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue that the two comments on question were not in favour of conditional unblocks. However, insomuch as that an unblock sans drama is almost certainly predicated on such an outcome right now, I don't think it's useful devoting energy to arguing over it. We've a while yet before I would assume anyone would take further concrete adminstrative action on this matter. In the meantime, I am certain Noleander is aware that he can use his talk page for his own additions if need be. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support both actions suggested by Brew. And, as they both relate to how to address the same precise matter -- the pattern of editing by the editor -- they certainly seem related to me. We have tools that can be applied as complementary measures or as alternative measures. Where the problem that they are supposed to address is the same one, forking discussion of them could only result in more confusion and even more being written that is repetitive ... surely, we have a sufficient amount of that already.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish-related ban might not be enough. I'm looking at Noleander's Mormon-related editing and it's pretty scary too. We may have to deal with that next. It looks (by edit count) that about 45% of Noleander's edits are about Jewish-related subjects while 25% are about Mormons, but in the earlier ANI it was closer to the other way. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case something much broader should be proposed -- perhaps a ban from all articles related to a group identity. This is just more reason not to rush into a lynch mob style decision.Griswaldo (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is a little out of control. Two admins have now threatened to block me, because in this thread I suggested that the initiator is prejudiced, rather than the accused. [60]. Too much bias, everywhere I look. Mindbunny (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make that three now. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

When I accused Noleander of anti-Semitic edits, I was commenting on what she wrote, not her beliefs, and I provided evidence (also, I opposed his being blocked). Does Mindbunny have any evidence of my bigotry? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I'm right that you are biased isn't the point. Likewise, I believe that whether Noleander is prejudiced isn't relevant. The entirety of this thread consists of accusing someone of racism. I made a fairly small contribution, and admins promptly threatened me. Huh? Seems out of control. Is calling someone "anti-Semitic" supposed to be constructive criticism, while saying someone is "bigoted" is a personal attack? Sorry, I don't get it, and I don't appreciate admins with a shoot first attitude: it is arrogant and abusive. (P.S. The evidence of your bias is this thread. You want someone topic-banned for content reasons.) Mindbunny (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In two separate edits to separate sections, you dragged in two editors who have not commented at all on this issue. That's what you were warned for. That you're now squaring up to people is not helpful. The nonsense suggestion that this thread was a result of some sort of Jewish bigotry was addressed by the large fish appended above. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny, I never said anything about Noleander personally. For all I know I have worked with many anti-Semitic editiors. No one's beliefs are in question. Only one's behavior. Noleander wrote an anti-Semitic artricle, as has been demonstrated by many others besides me. The question is not whether Noleander can think anti-Semitic thoughts, it is whether Wikipedia will publish anti-Semitic articles. Reread what I wrote, from the start. I have never raised the question of Noleander's beliefs, only the articls he has created. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with, and think that Bunny somehow misses, the distinction made by Slr immediately above, which is made more than once above. But to the other editors -- please note ... Bunny has only 200+ edits to his name (vs. the half a million that the editors responding to him here have, in aggregate), and therefore may not at this point be fully conversant with wp guidelines that we are alluding to.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

add another 200 for user:Noloop. Ignorance of protocol is not an issue here anyway. But this can go on user talk in future, being unrelated to the main issue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Mindbunny is Noloop? In that case there is some relevant history here. Noloop started an RfC on Slrubenstein for calling him a "bigot." I had no idea the two were one and the same though. That makes me feel like he was being disruptive by calling SLR a "bigot," while also noting the irony here.Griswaldo (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mindbunny's page indicated that, until Mindbunny reverted it. However, Noloop stopped editing in November and Mindbunny started in December, so it was more like a self-constructed "user rename" than socking as such. Which is why neither is blocked, I would assume. However, if they are in fact the same guy, Noloop should be indef'd and his pages should redirect to Mindbunny, so that there's no confusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My page indicated nothing of the sort. To my knowledge I have one page in common with nolops, which prompted an editor to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, an accusation that was dismissed. Mindbunny (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly DID. It was posted on the 13th, and you rubbed it out on the 14th.[61] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a template placed by a random editor with no special authority, and the message of the template is "An editor has expressed a concern that...." Like I said, an editor made an accusation, and the accusation was dismissed. Mindbunny (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't require any authority to place that template. And I see an admin above makes the same connection. Where was the accusation "dismissed"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mindbunny lies. You slipped earlier today when you posted a remark to Chris and revealed your IP address here. It has you editing in Noloop's Historicity of Jesus conflict last July...as well as editing an Oregon-based article on Sept. 11 (Noloop's modus operandi). I would endorse a checkuser to find out the other accounts you are using currently. That is why you don't care if you are blocked because you would just shift over to using one of those...unless they are blocked too.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noloop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mindbunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
192.220.135.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm a little surprised there was no SPI at the time... unless there was insufficient evidence. At the very least, though, Noloop should be indef'd, as he only needs one account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an SPI, which is exactly where it was dismissed. As for the rest, both of you are further disrupting a disruptive thread, making off-topic accusations that have already been laid to rest. Berean Hunter is being rude in a discussion of rudeness, and has become so psycho in this and past interactions that, ironically, I feel like creating a new account just to get away from him. Mindbunny (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noloop/Archive was "dismissed" only because they didn't have recent-enough data about Noloop. The SPI leaves little or no doubt that it's your previous account. The only issue at this point is, how many other accounts do you have, if any? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have amended the header since, and especially in relation to the main discussion topic; possible anti semitic bias, it has an Islamic connotation (a reward for martyrdom - as I recall). Given Epeefleche's comments regarding the possible lack of experience by the editor, I shall not be warning them re violation of WP:POINT. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I just did a bit of research on Slrubenstein. And while I cannot say that he is prejudiced based on these cursory looks, I can say that i've found further confirmation in my scientific Wikipedia theory that there is a direct, positive correlation between time spent on Wikipedia/number of edits and the backing of the community in whatever you do. The more edits you gain while you are around (and more friends you gain, I suppose) makes it so that you are able to act with almost impunity and you will have backing even if you are completely wrong. Being an admin is just icing on that cake. Just an observation. I really should write a paper on it or an essay or something. Of course, others would probably just label it humorous. Silverseren^C 21:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they'd delete it for vandalism :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's beyond irony that one of ARS's most infamous inclusionists, almost certainly drawn to this debate due to an ideological desire not to have articles deleted no matter what the content, would continue to cast aspertions as to ulterior motives behind why others support a given decision even after being rightly trouted for the allegation that opposition here was due to too many Jews having commented on it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, no. You are completely and utterly wrong and getting really close to making a personal attack with that. I came to this discussion because I saw Noleander's name, since he and I (along with others) were involved in the Criticism of Judaism article a year ago against a group of Jewish users who were adamantly refusing the addition of any material to the article. This also explains my above comment in the topic proposal, because I have already seen said bias firsthand (also that discussion a year ago was likely the beginning of a campaign against Noleander by other users). Silverseren^C 22:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You crossed the line beyond personal attacks the first time you stereotyped your opponents as recalcitrant jews fighting with a single hive mind to oppress free speech. That you do it again now is truly worrysome. I urge you to consider retracting both of your insinuations or expect a wikiquette alert to be filed.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please accept my apologies for having suggested that you came to this debate due to your inclusionist sensibilities rather than because you felt that a Jewish cabal of experienced editors was ganging up on Noleander. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, you are really rude. :/ Silverseren^C 22:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What's far more "rude" is characterizing people who disagree with you as "a group of Jewish users who were adamantly refusing the addition of any material to the article". The latter part of the sentence is simply untrue. As for your characterizing them as "a group of Jewish users", it is both unsourced, and, frankly, bigoted. Given these kinds of statements, which you persistently make, I'm completely unsurprised to see you supporting Noleander and his articles. You need to stop basing your arguments and statements here on your perception of the ethnicity or religion of other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Agreed. I have no way of reading someones mind, but for me statements like those set off alarm bells that let me stop them before I actually voice them. That someone doesn't recoil from blanket statements about ethnicities, especially negative blanket statements, is interesting. -- ۩ Mask 00:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it is specifically true. Every single person on the opposing side in that argument was Jewish, thus it is literally true to call them Jewish users. Their userpages said so and they were arguing against the inclusion of any material that was criticism unless it was by a Jewish author (which...doesn't even make any sense in terms of criticism). Eventually, most of us gave up on trying to argue, since it was getting nowhere. I believe Noleander kept arguing since then, which clearly didn't help him in the books of said users. The rooted stance of the opposing users also explains why the Criticism of Judaism article is so much worse than other comparable Criticism of religion articles. There is a specific reason why I attempt to stay away from articles where I would have a personal interest in them having a POV (such as political articles, articles about social issues, articles related to homosexuality, ect.). I wish other users did the same, but more often than not, users go directly to articles where they have a biased opinion and it's this that causes such conflict on Wikipedia. I have no personal interest in Judaism, either for or against, but I am against other biased users trying to control such an article. Silverseren^C 00:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's specifically untrue. Not all the editors opposing you there "refused the addition of any material to the article", nor did all of them identify on their userpages as Jewish. These are statements that are lacking veracity. They are false statements. Also, why would you assume that "Jewish editors" would be "biased" and trying to "control" information on a topic, and what will convince you to stop dividing the world into "Jewish" and "most of us"? Because that's what antisemites do. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently, since i've been reported to WQA, i'm not allowed to continue this conversation. But let me just clarify that it has nothing to do with me dividing the world. If this was a discussion about any other criticism of religion or even criticism of atheism, and the side that was trying to not allow information into an article was made up of people who were affiliated with what was being criticized, I would be calling bias. I feel the same about any criticism article. If we have an article about criticism of a company and a group of users were removing information from the article and they all stated on their userpages that they liked said company, I would also be calling bias. So this has nothing to do with Judaism or Jewish people beyond that's what the article subject happens to currently be. Anyways, I guess i'll stop here. Silverseren^C 01:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone has been kind enough to save you from yourself. Rather than protesting, you should thank them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See, that is both insulting and rude and completely ignoring what I said above. Silverseren^C 01:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make sense for you to accuse other's of being rude at this point.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes as much sense as any of the other accusations here. The number of admins antagonistically accusing others of antagonism and rudely accusing others of rudeness would be appalling if it weren't so drearily predictable. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how dozens of editors can make accusations of anti-Semitism, but a mention of anti-Islamic bias is denounced as a personal attack and threatened with a block by four different admins. Certainly, it will succeed in the goal of teaching the assumption of good faith. Mindbunny (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any way we could, you know, mash this topic down some? It's huge. I tried earlier, but seem to have used the wrong format. I don't want to close it, just make it less...gigantic. HalfShadow 23:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused. Nobody has mentioned anti-islamic bias. This issue has nothing to do with Islam. Silverseren has stated that the arguments of Jewish editors should be discounted because they may be biased against perceived antisemites. That is rude and borderline racist. This issue has nothing to do with pro or anti-islam. Unless of course you are now proposing that all Jewish editors are biased against islam and that this somehow influences their judgment of antisemitism which would be weird and again borderline racist.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, moving it by copypaste to a page of its own, with a conspicuous link on ANI, is one method for slimming down ANI that is sometimes used for very long threads. It's problematic in some ways (for instance, such a page won't have a useful history), but it's better than collapsing, and it does allow the discussion to rage on. Bishonen | talk 00:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Can Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) address his concerns about personal attacks without making personal attacks? Can we get an explanation of these threats to block editors for alleging an anti-Islamic or pro-Judaic bias, in a thread full of allegations of anti-Semitic bias? Why one is a "personal attack" and the other is not? Can Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) get his facts straight, and note that V7-Sport is involved in this thread, as are several editors with a history of ANIs and blocks for ethnicity-based warring? Can somebody explain why Noleander has not once been blocked for edit-warring over any of these issues, and yet the normal consensus process is considered failed in handling his edits? Can a single admin in this thread on prejudice and threats avoid prejudice and threats? Mindbunny (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the difference between "substantiated" and "unsubstantiated" allegations. The former is a constructive mechanism, part of problem resolution, and is considered proper behaviour by the community. The latter is an unconstructive attack on editors in good standing, is disruptive, and is not tolerated by the community to the extent that sanctions are not unusual. Hint: your allegations fall into the latter category. --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, other than your POV that allegations of anti-Semitism are "substantiated" and those regarding anti-Islamic sentiment are "unsubstantiated"? In fact, several editors voting here have ethnicity-based warring in their histories. It's a non-issue. The question is whether you get blocked merely for being biased, regardless of whether you've even violated the consensus process. Mindbunny (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm talking about: You wrote "Would rather block User talk:Slrubenstein for intimidation and bigotry" at 15:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC). You made no effort to back up your defamation of Slrubenstein when accusing him of bigotry. In other words you provided no evidence. It's what we call "unsubstantiated". The allegations concerning Noleander refer to multiple previous ANIs, over 50 diffs, a page analysing a randomly chosen example of misuse of sources, and an uncontested incident of plagiarism. In other words evidence was provided of a pattern of inappropriate editorial behaviour. It's what we call "substantiated". Now if you could just get past your need to label everyone with the first thing that comes into your head, you'd be taking a step towards losing the battleground mentality that causes you to think that allegations of anti-Semitism are "substantiated" and those regarding anti-Islamic sentiment are "unsubstantiated". In fact it's just your noxious allegation, which is not supported by anything, that is "unsubstantiated" - no labels, no sides, no POV, just you on your own attacking another editor. If you get blocked for it, it won't be merely for being biased, or for anything to do with consensus. It will be for violating the fourth pillar, and nobody here will be surprised. --RexxS (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are confused. I don't think allegations of anti-Semitism are substantiated etc. That's your position. It is true I consider this thread biased, and the reason is that it is an attempt to punish someone over content. Blocking someone for expressing that opinion, all of two times, particularly in this context, is abusive. Unless admins have a double-standard--which of course they do. I think this thread has been hijacked enough, so I'm not going to comment again. Mindbunny (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mindbunny, if you want to requst action to be taken against an admin who you think inappropriately threatened a block, you should change this to a new thread on those administrators' conduct. Otherwise, all of this really goes beyond your comment, which you already made, opposing the proposal, This discussion ... belongs on the discussion page. That's what discussion pages are for. This is not really appropriate for AN/I and if you mean to commnt on how AN/I is being used that should go on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this topic progress from the initial accusation and didn't give it much attention until today. I'm actually kind of shocked by the kinds of comments I have seen. I thought Wikipedia was better than this. In so many of the comments, it didn't seem to matter whether we were following Wikipedia guidelines, or whether we were following a neutral Point of View. It only seemed to matter what the material *might* be perceived as. Our guidelines don't ask us to censor Wikipedia if we don't like how something might be perceived.

Its sad, but there is an almost perceptible fear in the comments above that we *might* be treading somewhere we ought not to be treading. But this online encyclopedia covers thousands of topics; we're obviously going to make some people unhappy. So the thing that bothers me is why are so many editors willing to attack another editor who has a distinct viewpoint and material to bring to the party? If you don't agree with him, make the article better, delete it, merge it, redirect it, rename it, incubate it, etc.

It is obvious among most of the editors regarding the article "Jews and Money" that the article isn't ready for prime time. Even the supposedly anti-semitic editor Noleander said the same thing. That's why Wikipedia has the incubator. But rather than focus on the tools that Wikipedia has to improve and fix such articles, we focus on the editor, the person, who we disagree with because they *might* be saying things that are taboo. I live in the United States. We have the First Amendment. We've seen it interpreted lots of ways over 200 years, where (recently) it goes as far as protecting those reprehensible people who scream "God hates fags". I don't know where all my fellow editors are from and what sort of laws or ideals they hold, but in my nation, its held to be ok to be on that edge, in order for us to protect everyone's rights.

But back to the topic at hand. The discussion should be about what Noleander has done, and from what this editor can tell, Noleander has been willing and cooperative, while other editors seem to think that biased characterizations are enough to get someone in trouble.

I guess the best question going forward might be "who defines the middle ground in 'neutral point of view' anyway?" Hopefully, people will work on examining their biases and as such, improve the encyclopedia. -- Avanu (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Avanu. Clear, concise, and to the point... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not as impressed. Contrary to what Avanu suggests, the above discussion contains ample evidence for systematic misconduct regarding Noleander's article writing and that is the basis for the argument, not censorship or opression of free speech (and even so wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a soapbox from where to exercise one's first amendment rights).·Maunus·ƛ· 01:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be for an orderly RfC/U, where those editors concerned about Noleander's editing present their evidence, Noleander receives an opportunity to present a rebuttal, and then let the community decide. Please let's end this unseemly thread and move to an RfC/U. --JN466 02:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of you. There is ample evidence and it is appropriate to open an RFC. -- ۩ Mask 02:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Andy as well as these last three commenters got the point I was making. It doesn't matter if Noleander was wrong, if we are ALSO wrong in the way we handle things. -- Avanu (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that this should be taken to RFC/U. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we do not need a pointless RfC/U. We are not talking about whether to put an editor's head on a pike—simply whether an editor needs to stay away from certain topics. Reading the evidence presented above clearly shows that the topic ban would be very helpful to the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of this AN/I thread is that Noleander is editing, across many articles, tendentiously. The proposition in this subthread is that the RFC process is better suited to determining whether Noleander is editing tendentiously. Though RFC is flawed, I believe it is more likely to present the case for and against the tendentious claim with clarity, concision and credibility than this chaotic string of accusations and petty squabbles. Very few editors with no prior interest will have the time or dedication to read all this and the associated evidence... but these are the very editors whose input would be most valuable if we want to achieve a resolution beneficial to the encyclopedia. They're more likely to read through a well-crafted WP:RFC/U. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, Johnuniq's ban rationale[62] didn't invoke tendentious editing, it said that Noleander's focus on a certain type of article was bad for the encyclopedia in its own right. You can see a list of Noleander's mainspace edits (as of the night before last) at User talk:75.57.242.120/Noleander, grouped by article with most-frequently-edited article first. It's not pretty. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC) By the way, I have no prior interest, have never edited in those article topics, never heard of Noleander before this thread opened, and have spent several hours looking at this thread and checking diffs. My main problem is that the articles are subjects I don't know squat about, so I can't always tell a bad diff from one that just looks odd. But, what I see is enough to convince me there is a problem without needing an RFC. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm making an assumption about Avanu's subsection heading. Correct me if I'm wrong, Avanu.

75, I'm in the same boat as you: Disinterested. Read most of the links in this thread. Made my mind up. I simply have a profound distaste for the chaos of this process, and a fear that, due to the chaos, I might have missed, misunderstood or been misled on something important, and would like to hear many other disinterested editors' views. We're more likely to get the latter with an RFC/U. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Avanu wasn't responsible for the RFC/U portion of the subheading and has just deleted it. [63] I've restored it with strikethrough so that this subsection makes some sense. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't thought of using strikethough. -- Avanu (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a matter of showing whether an account focuses on a broad or narrow area of Wikipedia (ArbCom have repeatedly clarified that) but it's a matter of showing that the account is unable to contribute neutrally when editing in whatever area it is focussing its contributions on - be it a narrow area or a variety of areas. Again, I will note that I personally don't need a rfc to understand the problem here, and I'm disinterested too, but I'm still saying an RfC/U is needed here because too many people do not agree that it is so incredibly "clear". That isn't a good thing in the long term for the project, especially if an impression starts floating around that a few people are making a decision without substantiating the allegations in the appropriate way in the established venue for such disputes. Ordinary tendentious editing would not need or warrant additional bureaucracy, but when an area as sensitive as this, it becomes contentious - as can be seen here. The one thing that is undeniable about why this ANI process is problematic in this case (at this time) is because of the sheer amount of chaos that it has generated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no advantages in an RfC/U apart from a more rigid structure which discourages comments designed to drown discussion. It is hard to see how editors can make comments without having looked at the sources with care: that unfortunately is the only way to settle whether in this case, and elsewhere, these sources have been systematically misrepresented and the editing has accordingly been tendentious. The worst conduct in the thread has come from editors discussing the religion of other editors, since it has no more relevance to this discussion then their age, nationality, gender, sexual preferences or favourite colour (mine is blue). In this discussion an uninvolved administrator could give an impartial analysis and perhaps impose the topic ban which appears to have been called for. Although it would be exceeedingly time-consuming and of questionable benefit for any editor to prepare a detailed commentary, my belief is that 90% of the sentences in this article misrepresent their sources. As I've said on the AfD page, writing an article with the modified title can be done and there are good sources. Mathsci (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC/U would bestow transparency. Presently, evidence that this editor is systematically working to the detriment of the encyclopedia is sparsely peppered throughout this egregiously long thread. That is, the evidence is obscure to all but those with much patience and many hours to spare. I'm hoping involved editors who are across this matter will work up a concise, clear "case" for a topic ban, and a concise, clear rebuttal; here or at an RFC/U, or on a subpage. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I is not for this kind of general discussion. There was an initial proposal for a ban which was replaced by a proposalk for a topic ban. These proposals are not allowed at RfC/U. Andythegumb and Ncmvocalist have had their chance to support/oppose/comment on that proposal. If anyone else wants to start an RfC/U they can. But discussions like this are tangential to the proposal and not really what AN/I is for. They belong on the talk page for AN/I I urge people to move talk that belongs on the talk page to the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the fact that ANI is NOT a support/oppose poll, then you clearly have a comprehension problem when it comes to the way this project functions. This belongs here because it is relevant to the approach that a few editors have taken throughout this discussion, be it a few who are proposing/supporting, or a few who are defending/opposing. I'll put it a bit more bluntly seeing the polite requests are not working: you seem too involved to determine whether this is the best time to be proposing a ban or not. I'm not the only uninvolved user who has told you in no uncertain terms that proposing a ban in the absence of following the appropriate DR steps is unhelpful in these circumstances. Contrary to what you said, it doesn't fall on everyone else to meet the RfC/U requirements - it falls on you, because it is you who is requesting the Community to impose these measures. If you are being told that the thread you created has generated more chaos than anything else and that you should be trying something else first, it falls on you to try something else and to only come back later, or to at least acknowledge that concern for the future. If you are told that your presentation of evidence is remarkably poor, it falls on you to fix it up so that it properly and clearly substantiates what you are alleging - if you cannot do so here and that means trying a different step in DR, so be it. Your lack of receptiveness to the feedback you are being given is not just uncollegial, it's borderline disruptive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not replying to comments earlier, but I was temporarily blocked. There are quite a few comments above that I'd like to reply to, but it is impractical to reply individually, so here is a consolidated reply:

• The Encyclopedia Judaica (1972) has a large article titled Economic history of the Jews. How much of that article's information is in Wikipedia? Virtually none.
• The reason that 60 page article (and a score of notable books on related topics) is not covered within Wikipedia is because they are sensitive subjects which have been associated with antisemitism. But is that a reason to omit coverage in Wikipedia? No: instead we should include the material in WP, but ensure that it meets the highest standards of balance, context, and neutrality.
• This ANI is, essentially, a content dispute. We should be asking ourselves: how should the "Encyclopedia Judaica" material be presented in Wikipedia? How should Abraham Foxman's book Jews and money be presented in Wikipedia? These are valid questions, that need to be addressed in Talk pages of articles, but not here in the ANI.
• WP is not censored. I understand that some of the articles I work on contain topics that may be considered offensive to some. But the solution is not to ban editors, or delete the material, but rather to present the information in a balanced, neutral way.
• This ANI is an attempt to intimidate editors from editing in these controversial areas.
• The ANI above presents two pieces of evidence of my misbehavior: (1) a 2-year old mistake I made, as a novice editor, when copied some text from an Islamic web site: Guilty as charged - but that was a long time ago, and there was an ANI on it, and I apologized. (2) A claim that my summary of Marx/Hegel's view of Christianity/Judaism was wrong. That material I wrote is an accurate restatement of what the multiple secondary scholarly sources say on the subject (I suspect that the user that brought up the Hegel/Marx issue simply failed to notice the additional footnotes farther down in the article).
• I tend to spend most time - but not all - in a few topic areas. There is no WP policy that prohibits that. To the contrary, many editors edit in only a few areas.
• I stand by my assertion that the material I added to Wikipedia is a balanced, neutral representation of what scholarly secondary sources say. I'm astonished that editors would pass judgement here in the ANI without first reading the sources.
• I am not a disruptive nor tendentious editor. I believe strongly in the WP consensus model, I listen carefully to other editors, and I work hard on Talk pages to arrive at compromise solutions. Read the comments I've written in Talk pages: they demonstrate that I always collaborate in a friendly way on Talk pages to resolve any issues.
• I repeat my request that user SiRubenstein be sanctioned for suggesting that I am antisemitc.

I welcome an RFCU, away from the drama of the ANI environment, where my editing history can be scrutinized in a calmer setting. It will demonstrate that the accusations are baseless. --Noleander (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Noleander, that is not all. Please articulate a response to User:Mathsci/example, which as far as I'm concerned is the most damning thing anyone has brought to the table here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should he? The accusation there is that he distorted context. So? That is not blockable. The basic question has not been answered: If his edits are so bad, why has the normal consensus process not flagged that in some way? Why haven't they simply been reverted, and if he then edit-warred, why not a single correct block for edit-warring? To intervene with a block/ban is to say that the consensus process has failed. The basic evidence of a failure is blocks. He has none. And again, he has a point regarding sanctions against SiRubenstein for calling him anti-Semitic. An odd hypocrisy to ignore that point, when four admins have announced a willingness to block for allegations anti-Islamic sentiment. Do we block for accusations of prejudice or not? If admins dislike perceptions of a "Jewish cabal" they should avoid double-standards and quick one-sided threats. Mindbunny (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, some sound judgement at last.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not remotely. The main discussion here has nothing to do with "blocking". I was opposed to the block, in fact I was the first to question it. The main discussion is about topic banning, and that discussion is what Noleander is responding to above and that discussion is what Mathsci's example is pertinent to. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was only lightly editing Wikipedia for the last several days, and just now came upon this thread. I've spent some time going back through it all, and I think that much of what Noleander says in the bulleted comment just above is accurate. I think the block was utterly awful, and I am glad that it was lifted. Although I think that a case can be made that a topic ban would be, for Noleander, a sort of blessing in disguise (as an opportunity to step away from a quagmire), it would be the wrong thing for Wikipedia. I've worked a lot with Noleander on a variety of religion and irreligion pages, and I have always found this user to be willing to discuss matters reasonably in talk, and to try to understand what other editors say about sources. The fact that an editor chooses to provide content about material that other editors find objectionable should never be the basis for sanctions, so long as the editor then engages in the process of working towards consensus. If the editor edit wars, or refuses to discuss in talk, or is incivil towards editors who disagree, or things like that, that's another matter. But an editor who creates content to which other editors object, and then cooperates with those other editors' efforts to change that content—blocking or banning for that is just saying "we don't like you, so we won't let you edit here". On the other hand, there's a well-known quote (sorry, I forgot who said it) that doing the same thing over and over but expecting the result to be different is the definition of madness. And that would lead to my advice to Noleander: by now, you should realize that this kind of reaction is predictable when you create content like this. So don't just keep doing it! Either let it go undone, or raise the possibility of creating such a page in talk somewhere, and let other editors share the responsibility for what comes next. You should have known that starting this most recent page the way you did, would lead to what happened here. And continuing to do that, knowing it, could indeed be considered tendentious editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Topic Ban/Block or any such shenanigans - 1) Agree w/ most of Trypto's comments above. 2) I haven't delved into this topic in much depth (cause I don't have all day), but my initial impression here is that Noleander is being demonized because he happens to have some strong opinions (many of which I share) about the appropriateness categorizing people by ethnicity/religion on WP. The "race/religion/orientation categorization" issue can be extremely controversial, and it's not surprising that every once and a while someone involved in dealing with the topic attracts the ire of a number of groups. NickCT (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick you really ought to read at least the opening section. Categorization has nothing to do with this at all as far as I can tell. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reread the previous ANI threads linked at the top of this thread, and summarised all the criticisms with diffs of Noleander's editing. None of the editors who made these criticisms claims to have studied much of Noleander's work. I haven't included Mathsci's example because I didn't understand it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• From Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#user:Noleander_and_antisemitism-related_articles

[64] Noleander cut and pasted this content from Radio Islam website into a (since deleted) article he authored, Jews and Hollywood (quoting a Michael Medved article):

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names." The article then describes how the Jew Michael Eisner, the Head of Walt Disney studios only hires "highly paid Jewish moguls" as producers such as Jeffrey Katzenberg, Michael Ovitz, Joe Roth (former head of 20th Century Fox). Medved emphazises the point that, "The famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harboured anti-Semitic attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions."

Though not having read it, Noleander cited the Medved article directly, rather than the actual source, Radio Islam. Noleander says:

Yes, I wrote that article, and yes, I cut-and-pasted some text from the RadioIslam web site. I was trying to get some quotes from Michael Medved from a magazine article he wrote. As I put the text into the article Jews and Hollywood, I failed to proof-read, and failed to remove text that was between the Medved quotes. That was a mistake, and I profusely apologize. [65]

My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship. [66]

[67] Using the edit summary "add pic" Noleander inserted an image and added the following to this preexisting text in Criticism of religion: "Critics claim that many religions endorse blood sacrifice, wherein innocent victims are killed or harmed to appease deities."

A prominent example is the daily sacrifice of humans practiced by the Aztecs. The Jewish faith contains many examples of animal and human sacrifice: for example, the near-sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham (Genesis 22:1-24) and the actual sacrifice of Jepthah's daughter (Judges 11:31-40), and the king of Moab gives his firstborn son and heir as a whole burnt offering (2 Kings 3:27).

"Many" is misleading. These are the only examples of human sacrifice by Jews mentioned in the Jewish tradition, and they are elements of myth. Unlike the case of the Aztecs, there is no historical or archaeological evidence linking Jews with human sacrifice. This reflects and reinforces the blood libel canard.

• From Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Noleander_redux

[68] When Noleander came to List of Jewish American businesspeople it consisted of ten business leaders and it was slightly weighted towards technology. Noleander added 47 names, shifting the representation to 51% media executives (including 7% pornographers), and 25% finance executives (including 9% criminals). This change reflects and reinforces allegations of Jewish control of the media and Jewish control of finance and implies something about morals and criminality, too. No way does it remotely reflect the distribution of Jewish business leaders throughout the economy.

[69] With the edit summary "add section on women's rights & divorce," Noleander added a section entitled "Obsession with sacrifice" as well as a section on women's rights and divorce to Criticism of Judaism. He talks about the religion, Judaism, having the obsession, but abstract notions don't have obsessions. People have obsessions. The edit is saying Jews are obsessed with blood and sacrifice.

[70] Noleander inserted into September 11 attacks, with no context and no criticism, the conspiracy theory that the motive for the attacks was a desire to provoke the United States into a more prominent presence in the Middle East.

• From this ANI thread

[71] In his recently created article, Jews and money, Noleander included the following paragraph

Deut 23:19-20 is a passage from the Jewish Bible that governs the charging interest on loans: "Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess". Because the rule distinguishes between Jews and non-Jews, several commentators have characterized this as a "double standard".

but the previous section already contained the exact quote. The only thing this new paragraph adds is the pejorative "double standard."

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In his recently created article Jews and money there were originally section titles such as "Why were Jews so influential in the rise of capitalism"[72]. This title presumes that it is a fact that Jews were "so" influential in the rise of capitalism and does not include any of the many scholars who argue that they were not and that the rise of capitalism was due to other factors such as colonialism or protestant work ethics. In effect the title presents an antisemite canard as fact.

He also created an article with the title Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood which also assumes as a given fact that there is a prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood - the very question of controversy. in essence the title presents an antisemite canard as fact. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I assume that editors can accept the Anti-Defamation League as a source which does not promote anti-semitism?

If so, then ADL's report Alleged Jewish 'Control' of the American Motion Picture Industry is very relevant. It says:

In an essay headed "Who Says Jews Control Hollywood?" published in the February/March 1995 issue of Midstream magazine, Steven G. Kellman, a professor at the University of Texas in San Antonio, wrote: "Boosters and antisemites agree: Jews have been prominent and predominant in all phases of the [motion picture] business: production, distribution and exhibition." He noted that, at the time, "Of the 100 most powerful people in the industry according to a recent survey by Premiere, most, including the top 12, are Jewish," but observed, "Though individual Jews control Hollywood, Jewishness does not." In fact, Hollywood studios are publicly owned corporations and motion pictures are made by the efforts of individual men and women, some of whom are Jewish, many of whom are not.

In summary the point stressed by the ADL is simple: lots of Jewish people occupied prominent positions in Hollywood, but Hollywood is not controlled by Jewishness. Noleander's use of the term "prevalence" in the article title is dismissed as a "canard", but if he used the stronger "predominance" it could have been sourced to the ADL. It seems to me to be preposterous to accuse him of presenting an antisemite canard as fact, when what he asserted in the title is confirmed by the ADL.

I have been examining the deleted article's history, and while the quality of the early versions was abysmal (a list of "X said, Y said, Z said"), I note that even the earliest versions contain an explicit mention of the ADL's position on the allegation of Jewish control.

Because the article was deleted, non-admins cannot read it. I think that's a pity, because while early versions of the the article was dismissed by several editors at AFD as a coatrack, it was evolving towards a history of an anti-semitic canard; and I think it is deeply unfair to describe the earlier versions as a promotion of the canard, because they list the allegations and then list a series of responses. To be a a balanced article, it would have needed to develop a lot further, into a discursive and critical treatment of the topic rather than a catalogue of quotes ... but I see no evidence that Noleander resisted that, and some evidence of Noleander civilly assisting in doing that.

I am becoming increasingly concerned at the way in which this case is being handled. I am not impressed by Noleander's writing skills (which seem to consist of starting with a catalogue of splat-pasted quotes), and nor do I rate Noleander's referencing (a lot more care needed). But I do not see any sign in this article of this being an exercise in promoting anti-semitism; it looks to me much a poor-quality attempt to document a canard. The way to do that is not by simply listing quotes, but a persistent anti-semite would not have included as much criticism of the canard as Noleander has.

I have examined only of the many points made in this evidence-summary section, and I find that in this case a) the charge being levelled against Noleander does not stand up; b) that charge is so readily disproven that it looks mud-slinging. This is no way to handle such a wide-ranging and complex set of allegations. Evidence an arguments should be presented in a properly structured format (at an RFC/U or at Arbcom), so that the charges against Noleander can get the intense scrutiny which appears from this shoddy example to badly needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misrepresent the position of the ADL the quote is by Steven Kellman and after supplying the quote the author proceeds to write: "While statistics and studies on the subject are not readily available, the Anti-Defamation League believes that the recitation of numbers and percentages is not the answer to the false charges of Jewish "control" of the motion picture industry, or, indeed, of similar accusations involving the media, banking, finance and other businesses. Reliance on statistics alone plays into the hands of anti-Semites. Generally, Jews involve themselves in non-religious and non-political activity as individuals, not as Jews. ADL takes the position that the number of Jews involved in a particular field bears no relationship to "Jewish power" or "Jewish control" of that industry. ADL does not accept the notion that Jews in any field act in concert with other Jews similarly situated simply because they happen to be Jewish. To believe otherwise is to accept a conspiracy theory that is the anti-Semites' stock-in-trade and relegates Jews to a kind of second-class citizenship." in fact the article starts with this phrase: "The assertion that Jews "control" Hollywood, the media, banking and finance, among other things, is an anti-Semitic canard which dates back more than 70 years to an anti-Jewish campaign waged in the 1920s..." ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you re-read what I wrote; I do NOT misrepresent the ADL. I am well aware of their substantive position on this topic, and I fully support it; nothing I wrote in any way contradicted it.

My point was and remains simply that the numerical prevalence of Jewish people in Hollywood (at least at various points of history) is a fact accepted by the ADL, and that it is therefore grossly unjust to tar an editor with the anti-semitic brush for taking that fact as the the title of an article.

The ADL is quite right to point out that the anti-semitic canard lies not in the numbers, but in the assumption that a number of Jewish people will act as a co-ordinated group promoting somebody's idea of Jewish interests.

If the article title you attacked referred to "Jewish control" or "Jewish dominance", you would be on strong ground. But the actual article title was "Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood". That title does not assert or imply that this prevalence equates to control. It is a grotesque act of bad faith to assume that because a statistic is abused by the fantastical and conspiratorial constructs paced on it by anti-semites, therefore anyone who examines it must also be an anti-semite.

This sort of guilt-by-noting-an-undisputed-fact "evidence" is one of the factors which has persuaded me that this matter should go to Arbcom. Anti-semtic canards are often a conflation of factoids, bad-faith assumptions and lies into bogus "evidence" of conspiracies; they are an important historical and social topic which needs to be handled with a lot more skill and care than Noleander has shown. But by the same token, allegations of anti-semitic intent need to be based on much more solid ground than yelling "anti-semite" because an editor asserts an uncontroversial fact which others misuse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BrownHairedGirl. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His article Jews and money originally included two sections repeating ways in which 19th century antisemites had characterised Judaisms relation to money. Among other things it said: "Several leading thinkers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, including Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Werner Sombart, and Georg Hegel, compared Judaism with Christianity, and concluded that Judaism was more materialistic, and less moral."

This was sourced to the following text:

"Jews were familiar with trading and exchanging, commerce, city living, property rights, ... and accumulation of funds for future investment ... These were Jewish traits before the rise of capitalism. This has led to speculation that Jews were the first capitalists." Krefetz goes on to discuss the rise of capitalism, and the role Jews played; he discusses various views presented by Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Werner Sombart".

Not only is it an incorrect characterization at least of the view of Max Weber who argued that Protestants were responsible for capitalism. It also makes a much stronger claim than the original source warrants. It also fails to mention the fact that these "leading thinkers" (except for Weber) all took part of the very strong antisemitic views of their period, and rather than expressing original thought were part of a general hate-discourse towards jews inthat period.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article also contained the following paragraph

- Marvin Perry states that the Talmud deviates widely from the early Christian approach to money: whereas the New Testament viewed money and profit as "filthy lucre" (1 Tim 3:3), the Talmud took a positive view of money and profit because the Talmud "was written, compiled and edited, taught and interpreted for centuries by rabbis who were merchants, artisans, and professional men, knowledgeable and accepting of business and finance, in theory and practice."

- -

(exegesis of Mathsci's example) Sourced to this text (the underlines text has been left out in Noleander's summary):

More fundamental than language and other customs in shaping Jewish attitudes and practice was the Talmud. It takes a positive stance with regard to economic activity, in sharp contrast with the New Testament and Patristic theologians who were vigilant against, as they thought it to be, filthy lucre and serving Mammon, and thus incorporated a strong, mystical, antiworldly, antieconomic strain in Christian theology and ethics. The Talmud by contrast was written, compiled and edited, taught and interpreted for centuries by rabbis who were merchants, artisans and professional men, knowledgeable and accepting of business and finance, in theory and practice. They were family men, and some of them earned their living as merchants and the like, so as to serve the community without pay. It may be that Judaism's affirmative outlook on the world—Weltbejabung, what Weber called being "accomodated to the world"—made Jews more rational, less mystical, and more focused on life, and thus more likely to engage and be successful in economic activities in some degree. Also the Talmud, intricate in structure and intellectually demanding as it is, may have taught Jews to be logical, analytical, and rational in some degree. More significantly, however, in Talmud and Bible alike, getting and spending are far from being the primary or ideal purpose of life. Learning and wisdom were the jewels without price, which meant that Jews were literate and educated in civilizations where historically these assets for economic doings were rare.

By leaving out the underllined text and changing minor wordings such as:

"economic activity" > "money and profit"

"New Testament and Patristic theologians" > "christians"

Noleander manages to make Perry make the opposite argument of the one he was actually making, namely that the while certain social aspects of Jewish life may have made Judaic theology less biased against economic activity it is in fact the case that the Talmud and Bible both value knowledge and spirituality highly - and that this value of literacy required Jews to have skills that could make them especially succesful. Noleander in contrast makes Perry say that the Talmud and Bible are signinficantly different, that judaic theology is different from all christian theology and not just early Patristic theology. That this interpretation of Perry is correct becomes clear when compared with this sentence later on in the book: " Expectedly, Sombart simplifies matters terribly, reducing the Bible and Talmud to philistine justifications for money-grubbing. God and man are linked by a "businesslike connection" in which each person's deeds of good and evil are reckoned up in "a complicate system of bookkeeping," the one rewarded as profit, the other punished as loss. Many historians have demonstrated that such expositions as Sombart indulges in here are more stereotype and caricature than analysis; according to the modern scholar Ellis Rivkin, "The notion that Jews let loose capitalism is one of those persistent myths that grow with exposure." Noleander has in effect turned Perry's balanced and neutrally worded account into Sombart's caricature that he was trying to refute. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is true in virtually every sentence of the article on Economic history of the Jews. Three examples with suffice.

First example (thanks to Matchsci) According to Noleander's article: Marvin Perry states that the Talmud deviates widely from the early Christian approach to money: whereas the New Testament viewed money and profit as "filthy lucre" (1 Tim 3:3), the Talmud took a positive view of money and profit because the Talmud "was written, compiled and edited, taught and interpreted for centuries by rabbis who were merchants, artisans, and professional men, knowledgeable and accepting of business and finance, in theory and practice."

But this is not what Marvin Perry actually believes. Let's look at the original source:

More fundamental than language and other customs in shaping Jewish attitudes and practice was the Talmud. It takes a positive stance with regard to economic activity, in sharp contrast with the New Testament and Patristic theologians who were vigilant against, as they thought it to be, filthy lucre and serving Mammon, and thus incorporated a strong, mystical, antiworldly, antieconomic strain in Christian theology and ethics. The Talmud by contrast was written, compiled and edited, taught and interpreted for centuries by rabbis who were merchants, artisans and professional men, knowledgeable and accepting of business and finance, in theory and practice. They were family men, and some of them earned their living as merchants and the like, so as to serve the community without pay. It may be that Judaism's affirmative outlook on the world—Weltbejabung, what Weber called being "accomodated to the world"—made Jews more rational, less mystical, and more focused on life, and thus more likely to engage and be successful in economic activities in some degree. Also the Talmud, intricate in structure and intellectually demanding as it is, may have taught Jews to be logical, analytical, and rational in some degree. More significantly, however, in Talmud and Bible alike, getting and spending are far from being the primary or ideal purpose of life. Learning and wisdom were the jewels without price, which meant that Jews were literate and educated in civilizations where historically these assets for economic doings were rare.

All good editors know that we cannot just take "snippets" out of context and use them with any reliability. Generally we look at the context in which a relevant quote appears, to be sure what the actual view of the author is. The above paragraph is part of a refutation of the writings of an earlier German economic historian, Sombart, which one can only understand if one reads pages 158-168. As stated on page 162:

Antisemites, most notable among them Marx and Sombart, often have asserted that Judaism is a capitalist's religion, a creed that consecrates greed, that instills a capacity for rational calculation to gain profit and avoid loss, and so on. In Chapter ii Sombart features a vignette of "old Amschel Rothschild", who, having "'earned' a million on the Stock Exchange", that Friday turns for reflection to scripture; he finds much for smug satisfaction and very little to disquiet him, for wordly success is the Lord's blessing for the righteous, expecially, according to Sombart, in Proverbs and Deuteronomy. Expectedly, Sombart simplifies matters terribly, reducing the Bible and Talmud to philistine justifications for money-grubbing. God and man are linked by a "businesslike connection" in which each person's deeds of good and evil are reckoned up in "a complicate system of bookkeeping," the one rewarded as profit, the other punished as loss. Many historians have demonstrated that such expositions as Sombart indulges in here are more stereotype and caricature than analysis; according to the modern scholar Ellis Rivkin, "The notion that Jews let loose capitalism is one of those persistent myths that grow with exposure."

Now, let's look at Noleander's sentence again. Does it accurately represent the author's views?

Marvin Perry states that the Talmud deviates widely from the early Christian approach to money: whereas the New Testament viewed money and profit as "filthy lucre" (1 Tim 3:3), the Talmud took a positive view of money and profit because the Talmud "was written, compiled and edited, taught and interpreted for centuries by rabbis who were merchants, artisans, and professional men, knowledgeable and accepting of business and finance, in theory and practice."

I believe it does not. Noleander has taken two sentences out of context, adding his own WP:OR by omitting the reference to the early church leaders. He has written his text so that it conveys exactly the opposite meaning to that intended — a refutation of Sombart's antisemitic interpretation of the message of the Old Testament and Talmud which Perry & Schweitzer analyse over several pages. This seems like a complete misrepresentation of a source; it was a randomly chosen example.

Second example (Thanks to 28bytes) In the Wars, armies and railroads" section,

1. Noleander writes a section on Jews and war financing, claiming that Jewish bankers helped finance governments "in particular, for financing armies and wars." This is sourced to three separate page ranges in three separate books: Cameron, pp 6-7; Sombart pp 50-54; Perry, p 140.[73]
2. An editor goes and actually looks at those sources, and finds they say nothing of the sort. The first line in that section says "Jewish banking firms often preferred to lend to governments, in particular, for financing armies and wars." But Perry, Sombard, and Cameron do not say this; they say that Jewish banking firms prefered to lend to governments because of the fact that tax income made eventual payback more likely
3. Noleander acknowledges that the sources cited do not actually say this.[74]

Noleander and his sources make much of the fact that his article is based on "top sources." Someone reading Noleander's description of the articles for example would think that Sombart is a leading economic historian, and so is Perry. But Sombart wrote in 1911 and there have been real advances since them. Moreover, Perry is arguing against Sombart. One would never know from the way Noleander wrote - one might think that Perry agrees with Sombart's anti-Semitic remarks.

Third example Noleander's misrepresentation not only of Jewish sources, but of modern historians. Noleander writes:

According to Penslar, rabbinic commentator Maimonides, in his work Mishneh Torah - a fundamental treatise on Judaism - treated the rule that Jews may charge interest to non-Jews (Deut 23:19-21) as a "positive commandment" or obligation, and that the purpose of the commandment was (he quotes Maimonides) "not to help him [the non-Jew], nor to deal graciously with him, but rather to harm him".

This is all Noleander writes concerning Penslar's treatment of the rule from Deuteronomy. Problems: first, general ignorance - this is about a Medieval interpretation of the Bible, but instead of being in the section on the bible or Medeival Judaism, it is in the section on the Talmud. Second, it misrepresents Penslar's analysis of Maimonides; according to Penslar, Maimonides was incorporating into his thought a Christian notion that developed out of the concept of "just war," in which economic relations between different nations were a peaceful form of war, and that it was equally just for Gentiles to charge Jews exhorbitant interest rates. Third, it misrepresents medieval Jewish thought: after bringing up Maimonides as an example of the influence of Christian practices on Jews, Penslar goes on to discuss how other Medieval sages rejected Mainmonides' views as a misinterpretation of the Bible. Now, I could do the same with every example in the argument, and it would take up scores of paragraphs, which is why I limit myself to just one example.

The point that Noleander misrepresents sources, and that he has written an anti-Semitic article, go hand-in-hand. several have comented that many Wikipedians misuse sources. Yes, and in many cases the consequence is a weak article. In this case, the consequence is not a weak article, it is the representation of anti-Semitic canards as facts. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second example clearly misrepresents the source. If Penslar indeed goes on to discuss how other Medieval sages rejected Mainmonides' views as a misinterpretation of the Bible, then the third example is clear misrepresentation as well. (I don't know what source and page you're referring to.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something I came across in Criticism of the Talmud: the article contained a passage mentioning the ADL documenting notorious white nationalist David Duke spreading an anti-semitic canard, a claim that "Sanhedrin 59a describes punishment by death for non-Jews that read the Talmud". Noleander in November 2010[75] upgrades this passage to a new subsection titled "Death for non-Jews who study Jewish law". The new section says

====Death for non-Jews that study Jewish law====
The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article on Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah discusses a verse in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 59a) that suggests death for non-Jews that study the Jewish law, which includes the Talmud.[143] The ADL documents a modern instance of criticism of this passage made by David Duke, who claims that Sanhedrin 59a describes punishment by death for non-Jews that read the Talmud ("A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance; it is our inheritance, not theirs").[144] However, this text is in the context of a dialectical debate between two rabbis, positing opposing, extreme views.[71]

Noleander cites this url in the Jewish Encyclopedia for the claim that Sanhedrin 59a suggests death for non-Jews that study the Jewish law, turning the David Duke analysis into secondary commentary. The Jewish Encyclopedia actually says at that url,

R. Johanan says of one so teaching: "Such a person deserves death" (an idiom used to express indignation).

i.e. the "idiom" is not a literal call for capital punishment. Noleander leaves that part out. Another editor fixed the omission in February 2011[76] and added some more viewpoints on the issue[77] Through the section heading and the unqualified reference to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Noleander seems to be presenting, with quite high prominence backed up by the Jewish Encyclopedia's authority, an interpretation that actually came from David Duke.

Somebody who understands the subject (I don't know anything about it) can probably analyze the edit better. I can certainly come up with an AGF explanation of that ugly-looking edit. I think a lot of the general problem is coming from Noleander's habit of writing whole articles in user space and dropping them into mainspace instead of developing them collaboratively, so the article is built up bit by bit by multiple editors. The collaborative process means that almost every sentence in the article at any moment has had some reasonable amount of checking, error correction, and viewpoint balancing by other editors. With Noleander's method, all the content (including all the errors and bias) appear in a single blob, so the number of errors is much higher than would have happened with incremental development, and is high enough to make the articles themselves disreputable. Independently of any agenda that Noleander might or might not be editing with, it's entirely appropriate to hold Noleander accountable for the problems resulting from that uncollaborative process. The userspace method might work ok for uncontentious subjects but seems to have a major drawback for contentious ones. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear as if he does a lot of this stuff purposefully. It seems accidental because of his method of plopping in information from sources, a method which raises the likelihood of causing an error. As can be seen from his latest article's talk page he is very open and quick to correct errors when they are pointed out to him or to look for more information when it is shown that a certain section is not given as much depth as it should. Silverseren^C 04:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can't, usually, know an editor's intentions (though, in this case we have the benefit of Noleander's statement, "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." [78]) This is why this section is here: to collect together edits that others claim reveal a tendency in the editor's editing pattern. The above example from 75 is a very, very serious case of misrepresenting the source. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask that an uninvolved admin close this discussion when the time comes, along with an opinion as to whether there's sufficient consensus for a topic ban. If there isn't, I suggest we take this straight to ArbCom. Taking it to a user RfC is likely to attract the same people who commented here, possibly with the same opinions. I see the case for a topic ban as pretty straightforward, but the clarity of the case seems to be getting lost amid the number of opinions being expressed; and perhaps there's too much reading to expect people to do. This is the kind of situation ArbCom handles well.

By suggesting this, I'm not trying to cut short or bypass this discussion. I'm still hopeful that an uninvolved admin will see sufficient consensus and strong-enough arguments for a topic ban. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied BrownHairedGirl's comment here, to preserve thread continuity as it occurred on the original AN/I page.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having just spent two hours examining one of the charges against Noleander, I found that the case was far from being as straightforward as SlimVirgin claims; in the instance I examined, the Anti-Defamation League's own publication provides a clear justification for an article title for which Noleander was denounced.

I examined only one point of the evidence, and more than a dozen have been posted. Given the serious nature of the charge against Noleander, I hope that a closing admin will accept the need for more detailed scrutiny of rest of the evidence.

At this point, I suggest that the matter should go to straight to Arbcom, which provides a structured format for presenting and scrutinising evidence, as well as a neutral assessment of it. I also hope that Arbcom will consider some of the issues of conduct which have arisen in the course of this discussion, such as the allegations of anti-semitism which have been made at those who have expressed concerns at the way the matter was being addressed at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the key evidence, I suggest you look at

• the plagiarism of anti-Semitic material from Radio Islam, which included referring to "the Jew Michael Eisner";
• the misrepresentation of source material at User:Mathsci/example;
• Noleander's undertaking in February 2010 on AN/I to stay away from editing about ethnicity, and to focus instead on criticism of religion in general;
• and his contribs since then, which show he ignored that agreement, and which culminated in the creation of Jews and money.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)This doesn't belong in ArbCom. Has anybody looked at the dates of these diffs? With the exception of the economic history article, all of the evidence in Anthonyhcole's summary is more than a year old, and one of the diffs dates from 2009. Going back through Noleander's contribs 500 edits at a time, I guessed that he has well over 5,000 edits between the most recent example and the others. If you can find one example for your case in 5,000 edits, you are cherry-picking.
• The most basic requirement of intervention has not been met. Show where the normal consensus process has broken down. Presumably, Noleander's bad edits were reverted. What did he do? If he did not edit-war, what exactly is the problem? If he did edit-war, then why has he been editing for four years without a single correct block?
• Wikipedia is full of editors with political agendas, particuarly regarding the Middle East. Many of them with long histories of editing could be singled-out; you could cherry-pick their edits over a span of years and presented them this fashion. Maybe we should block all such editors, for the reasons presented here. It would make life easy and possibly improve articles. But there is absolutely no reason to be picking on this one editor. Mindbunny (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be up to the ArbCom whether to take the case. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No response to the good points that Mindbunny stated? Silverseren^C 03:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Noleander has been initiated Archiving this all further evidence should be presented there archiving this discussion The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 05:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]