Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander

I suspect Noleander of anti-Semitic editing
(I have reopened this discussion. There was no consensus to close and there are several open issues being discussed. Simply stopping the discussion helps noone.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Specifically, the article Jews and money. As I go through it and consider what kinds of changes might make it fully policy compliant and encyclopedic, it dissappears, like a puddle of piss on a sunny day. Every civilized human being has an intimate association with money. Specific claims about Jews and money are virtually entirely examples of anti-Semitism. Adding material from the Bible and Talmud are at best window-dressing (Would anyone even think to give to an article on property law in the United Kingdom the title "Brits and money?") and not based on any scholarship; as far as I can tell every sourced statement is something taken out of context, misinterpreted, or ad hoc. Throwing it all together in one article seems like NOR on the largest scale possible - at best. User:Noleander has written articles like this in the past that make me think that he is also at best a disruptive editor Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please consulte this earlier AN/I thread,

this earlier AN/I thread

and this earlier AN/I thread Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

and this earlier AN/I thread. At this point, I think he should just be banned. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I object strongly to be called antisemitic. The article is fully sourced, and there are dozens of books on the topic listed in the References section, including three (3!) books with the exact title  Jews and money, one by the director of the Anti defamation league.  Please refer to the article's reference section for dozens of other books on the topic.   If there are any specific issues about the content of the article, or its sourcing, please bring them up on the article's Talk page.  Finally, I point out that on the article's Talk page  I specifically discuss the problem with the article's title, and solicit input on other titles that may be better, including a suggestion for "Economic history of Jews".  I also request that Slrubenstein be sanctioned for suggesting that I am bigoted.  --Noleander (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to calm down. LiteralKa (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If that is aimed at Noleander, it hardly seems fair. He is entitled to defend himself against what is a fairly serious accusation, and appears to have done so in a moderate and reasonable fashion.-- K orr u ski Talk 17:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not him, hence the single indent. LiteralKa (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The 12,595-word Jews and money article seems to be a one-stop shop for every anti-Semitic idea ever published. Some red flags at random: that the first paragraph has to list a bunch of books about Jews and economics, using them as a talisman; a big section on Jews and financial scandals, as though such things are unheard of in non-Jewish circles; Shylock, Fagin, and Ezra Pound?; headers such as "Pride in achivements [sic]," a punch in a velvet glove, is that the expression? I think the best thing is to AfD it. Noleander, looking through your contribs, there's a fair bit of Jews in Hollywood, anti-Semitic canards, violence in Judaism, and the like. I recall that you agreed on previous AN/I threads to stay away from those issues for a while—you argued that you were anti-religion in general, not anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic—but it doesn't seem to be working out. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about the article. I've never heard of this article before, and am monitoring AN/I for a separate issue, so I only just encountered this article today and I was shocked. It's the kind of thing that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. I have no opinion on the editor mentioned at top. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have articles like Antisemitism and Antisemitic canard. I would AFD it myself right now but I'm at work and don't really want something like "Jews and money" showing up on my Internet history. Kansan (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The proper forum for discussing the article is the article's Talk page. It is a very notable topic with many sources.   I work on a wide variety of articles, often relating to religion, sometimes not.   I am astonished at the attempts at intimidation being exhibited here:  have you or SiRubenstein even read the sources?  Marx?  Sombart? Foxman?  Or are you simply saying that certain subjects are taboo and any editor that ventures into that realm should suffer the dreaded ban-hammer?   --Noleander (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the title of the article appears to be part of the issue here, I've renamed the article to Economic history of the Jews, which is perhaps not as accurate, but perhaps will be less contentious. --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that helps one bit. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that makes it worse, in fact. The more formal title "economic history of" seems to lend these stereotypes more credence. The fact that Abraham Foxman wrote about the subject doesn't mitigate many editors' perception of this page as a coatrack for anti-Semitic claims. Kansan (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with the article, bring them up on the article's Talk page. The article accurately reflects the numerous sources on the topic.  Read the sources.    This ANI is about my behavior (and SiRubenstein's) and whether accusations of bigotry can be thrown at editors making legitimate edits in controversial areas.   --Noleander (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I notice that there is a section on "Nazi Germany" in this article. This section is two paragraphs, each consisting mainly of quotes from Mein Kampf. Since no one has opened an AfD for this article yet, I will do so now. 28bytes (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd seen it all. AfD the entry and start a RfC/U.  Something isn't right when an editor spends this kind of time working on an entry called "Jews and Money".Griswaldo (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RfC/U? Under what grounds? Kansan (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? RfC/U seems like the right place since I don't think there is an "incident" here that is clearly in violation of policy to be dealt with.  Instead SLR alleges, perhaps correctly, that Noleander exhibits a pattern of anti-semitic editing.  RfC/U would be the place to explore that.  What would you suggest?  RfC/U isn't some kind of harsh punishment, or final step.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow. I thought you were calling for a checkuser to be run. Stupid me, you can ignore what I said. Kansan (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ha. Yeah I meant a request for comment/user conduct.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews created. 28bytes (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This edit by Noleander to User talk:Jayjg seems hard to explain. Why did Noleander not request advice before making the article go live? As far as other draft articles in Noleander's user space go, there seem to be a lot of things that are similar (now almost all blanked).                     Mathsci (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those links you list are simply draft copies of material, in my User space. Virtually all of that material found its way into WP articles.    Nothing fishy there: it is all plainly visible to the public in the histories.    Don't you do rough drafts before the final copy?   Of course those rough drafts are all blanked:  otherwise they would appear in the Categories, and in "what links here" lists.    By concocting a list like that and presenting it as something dramatic, you are misleading other editors.   Once again, I object to this witch hunt.  The material I added is valid, notable, and well sourced.  If there is a specific edit that is objectionable, show the diffs.  WP is not censored.  --Noleander (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do other wikipedia articles use Mein Kampf in this way? Mathsci (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hitler, Mein Kampf, and the Nazis are mentioned prominently by several major sources that discuss the topic of the article. Have you read the sources?  Or are you suggesting that I fabricated the references?   Or do you think the Nazis are relevant to the article, but we should just leave it out of WP because it is offensive?  --Noleander (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't actually include any commentary from the sources: you have a long quote from Mein Kampf. By not including commentary, no proper context is provided. Mathsci (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, so your concern is the lack of context in that section. That's a valid point.  I'd be happy to work with you to improve that section, and any others that you feel need some work.  We can continue this discussion on the Talk page.   --Noleander (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not just go ahead and blank the whole Hitler section? I see that Jayjg made a report on you last month on ANI about precisely these kinds of articles. Is that why you wanted to have a detailed discussion with him about this new article?  Mathsci (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is interesting, but the ANI is not the best forum for discussing specific improvements to the article: shall we continue this discussion at the article Talk page? --Noleander (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have another suggestion. Why not write a concise summary in your user space of the first reference you provided in the AfD? Its title is exactly the new title you chose, but there seems to be very little common content which is a little bit odd. It looks balanced and would be a proper starting point for a serious article. Jayjg might be able to help you out. (I don't know if he's read your message yet.) Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart the omission of a handful of articles on Mormonism, it's just a list (with unblanking) of what is in your user space. Nothing has been "concocted". Mathsci (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Besides for the aforementioned article, Noleander created Allegations of Jewish control of the media, Jews and the slave trade, Judaism and war, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, among other similar gems.  We already have an essay entitled Civil POV pushing and I guess now its time to author Civil Antisemitism pushing. However, while the former is something lots of Wikipedia editors are unfortunately guilty of, the latter is obviously far more egregious and has no place on this encyclopedia. Perhaps the community may see it fit to topic ban Noleander from Judaism, or all religion related articles. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 19:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific edit I made that is of concern? Can you cite any place where I misrepresented reliable sources?  Are the above topics not notable?   If the above articles are objectionable, the AfD process is available, and in fact, was followed on many of the articles, and the community decided that the articles are notable and valid.   Or is this just a case of WP:I don't like it?   Or is your goal to intimidate editors to prevent them from making legitimate edits on controversial topics? --Noleander (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only person whose views on the topic of "Jews and money" you quote in the "Nazi Germany" section of the article is... Adolf Hitler. That really strike you as appropriate? It didn't occur to you to use one of the many secondary sources that have been published on antisemitism in Germany instead of just uncritically quoting from Mein Kampf as a primary source? 28bytes (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I agree that section could be improved. Those quotes are from the secondary sources (that is, I did not select the quotes: the secondary sources did), but you are right: more secondary material would be appropriate.   I'd be happy to work with you on it, that's why the article has a Talk page.  --Noleander (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because a article exists does not mean that the subject matter is true; this is a dumb canard that we've had to fight over for years at the Israeli apartheid analogy article. e.g. I fail to see what is wrong with the Allegations of Jewish control of the media, it is a well-known and oft-repeated lie that certainly deserves encyclopedic attention, doesn't it? Tarc (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * observation Noleander is an atheist whose POV is abrasive to my own "pro all sorts of conventional, alternative, and plain nutty religion" POV. He dislikes religion and has helped out on Articles like Criticism of Religion and the such. I dont think he has any agenda but that and I think there are a number of people expressing good faith concerns on the evidence provided by the OP. But he really does do work on other articles. I think he even mentioned on one talk page of being of jewish background but I cant seem to find it. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 20:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ResidentAnthropologist, while I do not think the entry in question should be deleted, since it is clearly probably a workable and notable topic, I do think the Noleander's behavior bares scrutiny. The reason it was so shocking, I think, is that Noleander dropped a detailed, fully formed (300+ reference) entry titled "Jews and Money" onto the Wiki filled with topics that are usually related to antisemitism. This was a bad idea, particularly since Noleander has been accused of antisemitism before (see above).  What was s/he thinking? Of course people don't always do things in the most agreeable manner, but I really do wonder what is Noleander's fascination with Jews?  My own path crossed his recently regarding the issue of ethnic categorization.  S/he is a staunch advocate of these ethnic categories and lists, and in particular those listing Jewish people.  In fact during the conversation it was Noleander that brought up Jewish lists, and s/he did so again and again.  Perhaps this is a very innocent interest, but I think it bares scrutiny.  The entry in question needs a serious re-write IMO.  On my first glance through I started to wonder if it didn't function to "make sense of" the history of European/American antisemitism and various antisemitic canards.  I'm not saying this is the case, but closer scrutiny is needed here.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Observation what does this form of anti-Semitism have to do with religion? Plenty of atheists say anti-Semitic things. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I object in the strongest terms to any discussion of my personal faith. I am appalled at the "witch hunt" atmosphere here, when the underlying article is on a highly notable subject, that is supported by excellent sources.  This ANI appears to serve no purpose other than to intimidate editors from making legitimate edits in controversial areas.  --Noleander (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Noleander, anyway you cut it the way you went about this was boneheaded, and you really can't blame people for being shocked by this. Did you really think you were going to drop an entry called "Jews and Money" on the project and not see people flailing about over it?  Come on.  You could have saved yourself all this drama by engaging the Judaism wikiproject in advance, or specific editors.  If you had, we would probably not be here right now.  Now that you dropped a bomb people are going to want to scrutinize your behavior. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * comment we have an article on Criminal black man stereotype, perhaps an article of Rich Jew stereotype would be better than one that seems to lend credence to the stereotype rather than challenge it. Personally I would vote delete if either of them were AfD'ed but it often seems to be difficult to get this kind of crap deleted since there is no shortage of "notable publications" about these racist stereotypes.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Very much in favour unless someone gives a proper reason not to be! I know several Jews and none of them matches the stereotype, but it's too prominent culturally to overlook. It's in South Park and jokes, as well as on the darker side: racial persecution. However, how much sourced material can we find? Zakhalesh (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I think I prefer merging into Anti-semitic canard or Stereotypes of Jews.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is an reasonable way to deal with the article. It does not deal with Noleander's pattern of behavior. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * An RFC/U has been suggested. If you don't want to take that route you could explicitly propose a topic ban or siteban on WP:AN. 28bytes (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I explicitly proposed a ban, up top. Also, in archive 608 User:JoshuaZ proposed a topic ban.  I provided the links, above, to demonstrate that Noleander has already been the object of repeated lengthy AN/I discussion.  I see this as just a continuation of a long discussion over the past couple of years. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed you did. Restating it with a new, explicit section header below might prevent your proposal from getting lost in the shuffle. 28bytes (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly this is nonsense, and a very unpleasant slur on Noleander. I've looked in on Allegations of Jewish control of the media a few times in the last few months, and from what I have seen on Noleander's edits what he's motivated by is to make the world more aware of the seriousness and unpleasantness of antisemitism. Overwhelmingly the sources he seems most to rely on are Jewish sources, by the likes of Abraham Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, the Anti-Defamation League, written in the belief that this is not something that should just be allowed to continue uncommented, but should be recognised, exposed and stood up to. From what I've seen, Noleader appears to be the complete opposite of antisemitic -- he appears to be philo-semitic, and that is what motivates him. 22:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald (talk • contribs)

Lesson learned
Judging from the "early returns" from the AfD, it seems quite likely that the article will be kept. Apparently the community wants articles like this. Live and learn, I guess. At least I know the formula now, in case I ever have the urge to rebroadcast and amplify a Jewish stereotype:
 * 1. Come up with a plausibly notable article title, preferably one that's appeared as the title to one or more books
 * a. If the book(s) with that title has been written by a Jew, even better.
 * b. If the book(s) have been written by a Jewish activist like Abe Foxman, well, now we're really getting started! Can't possibly be antisemitic now.
 * 2. Start a "here's what a bunch of antisemites have to say about the Jews on this topic" list — meticulously sourced, of course.
 * 3. When editors balk at the article, point out how notable it is (see point 1) and how well-sourced it is (see point 2), and invite them to the talk page to "help" "balance" the article (in case, for some reason, they're bothered by the fact that Hitler gets so big of a platform to speak unchallenged on the topic)
 * 4. When said editors, who are naturally revolted by such an article, express no interest in "helping" "fix" it, shrug and say it must be fine if no one has any specific complaints.
 * 5. Pick another stereotype, go to step 1.

I'll admit, this seems to be a very successful strategy. I can't wait to see what we'll see next. Maybe Jews and big noses? Nah, not subtle enough; how about Physical characteristics of Jewish peoples? That's more like it. Might even find some books with that title! I guess I should watchlist those redlinks to see how quickly they turn blue. Only a matter of time, I suppose. 28bytes (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Why is it only the negative stereotypes are the ones that get articles created? How come there isn't a Black men have giant phalluses stereotype article?  I find it incredibly amazing that negative stereotype articles are allowed to exist, but no one ever complains about the lack of positive stereotype articles.  I find this discussion both sad and entertaining.  I support anyone saying these articles should be deleted, regardless of how "sourced" it is, it's clear to me that the point of the articles are designed to stir up emotions and give creedence to stereotypes which shouldn't be the focus of an Encyclopedia.   Dachknanddarice  ( T ‖ C ) 20:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * encyclopediadramatica.com/The_Great_Black_Dick_Hoax – That's a hoax, don'tcha know? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get that... my point was that fallacies are fallacies, and no matter how sourced it is or not doesn't mean we should allow stereotype-laden articles based on generalities to begin popping up on Wiki. I know nothing about the user in question or his past, and I don't care if he has an agenda or not.  The article is titled and written in such a way as to spark some sort of debate which is exactly why this ANI exists in the first place.  If this article is allowed to stick around, I imagine it will continuously pop up on this page as more and more people eventually move from discussion, to debate, to personal attacks, and on and on.  I'm not in favor of articles that will cause admins a lot more undue and unnecessary work in "putting out fires" between editors over the subject of Jews and money.  I support it's deletion and, in point of fact, support the deletion of any other articles borne out of stereotypes.  Oh, and yeah, I realize you were making a joke.  I did LOL at that.   Dachknanddarice  ( T ‖ C ) 21:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes! Damn those people who use language skills to make themselves feel superior! Oh wait; I thought that said anti-semantics... Half  Shadow  21:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * we once had an article on Jews and Hollywood, which would certainly be a positive subject, considering the major role they played in the creation of the industry there, but  it got afd'd, and redirected, and now consists of two sentence in American Jews.  the rule seems to be that since some bigots see the whatever activities of Jews as being a  negative influence, any article on Jewish relationship to whatever gets deleted. since some people perceive the influence of Jews on cinema a subversive influence, we won't have an article on it. Since some people have seen the   contributions of Jews in economic history  both during the middle ages and the rise of capitalism as negative or a matter for hatred or ridicule, that too shall not be a topic here. Since some people see articles of racial stereotypes as perpetuating the stereotypes, we won't have them either. The true principles are NPOV and NOT CENSORED, and negative attitudes towards Jews or any people are documented here as much as the positive ones. An encyclopedia  that omits recognition of the nastier parts of the real world turns gradually into  the sort of children's encyclopedias they had 50 years ago, when you never said anything that might possibly be unpleasant of anyone but Nazis and Communists. Presumably because most prior discussion of   Jews, or Blacks, or whomever, was done for the purposes of degrading them, anything but fulsome praise was eliminated.    DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC).
 * The rule is actually that if an article purporting to be a neutral encyclopedia article on a subject is in fact a thinly-veiled excuse to present as much negative material on that subject as possible that we need not attempt to rescue it based on some twisted notion of freedom of speech. When an editor does this over and over there would seem to be a deeper problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Propose topic ban

 * Support 12-month topic ban on adding content or categories related to ethnicity, particularly anything to do with Jews. Noleander keeps saying his interest lies in opposition to religion, all religion. But he continues nevertheless to edit about ethnicity, particularly Jewishness (which needn't be related to religion). I asked him in February last year whether he'd be willing to focus on religion clearly, and to leave ethnicity alone, and he agreed. But he didn't do it, and there have been multiple complaints since then. So I think there has to be some kind of topic ban now, at minimum, or we'll be back here with the same issue in a few weeks. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * [editconflict]*proposal/support Given the previous ANI attention to Noleander's editing on this topic ight I propose that imposing a topic ban on articles related to Judaism broadly construed could be a reasonable way to avoid this kind of problem in the future. I think the previous ANI threads show a very unfortunate editing pattern that we cannot allow to continue. Frankly it threatens the integrity of the encyclopedia. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Let me copy in here the paragraph I've just added above. I've looked in on Allegations of Jewish control of the media a few times in the last few months, and from what I have seen in Noleander's edits what he appears to be motivated by is to make the world more aware of the seriousness and unpleasantness of antisemitism. Overwhelmingly the sources he seems most to rely on are Jewish sources, by the likes of Abraham Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, the Anti-Defamation League, etc, written in the belief that this is not something that should just be allowed to continue uncommented, but should be recognised, exposed and stood up to. From what I've seen, Noleader appears to be the complete opposite of antisemitic -- he appears to be philo-semitic, at least that's how it's appeared to me in the random set of edits I've seen. User:Jheald 22:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose While some may not like Noleander's edits, I don't see him breaking any policies whatsoever. From what I've seen, he's more than willing to discuss disagreements about content while remaining civil.  There is no evidence of tendentious behavior or an inability to work with other editors. —Torchiest talkedits 22:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It gets to a core policy: this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for packaging anti-Semitic views as scholarship. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I understand that the areas I edit in are controversial, but so far there is no evidence of violating WP policies. Show me the diffs.  So far, all I see is vague hand-waving and "I dont like it" or "the material is offensive".   There are many editors that only work in one particular realm, and there is no WP policy that says "an editor cannot limit their edits to one particular topic area".   The material I add to the encyclopedia is an accurate, neutral, balanced representation of what the reliable secondary sources say.  If anyone can point to a specific problem with the material, I'll be the first to work with them to remedy any shortcomings. WP:Wikipedia is not censored.  This ANI and ban proposal is nothing more than a witch-hunt, clearly aimed at intimidating editors and preventing them from making legitimate edits in controversial topics.    --Noleander (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Noleander Another editor says above that the immediate response to the RfD is positive - I have to wonder how many people have read the article and are familiar with the sources (and thus know how the sources are being misrepresented)? I am not impressed by the flippant "lessons" she has being drawn from this experience.  This is the fifth AN/I discussion about her Noleander's behavior regarding Jews.  I think we should discuss either or both.  I really ask people here to read through the previous threads, linked at the top of this one, to see how much time her behavior has sucked from the community, with no real improvement in behavior. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent me. I made no comment whatsoever about "response to the RfD is positive".  That was another editor.  I expect editors to take more care when reading and quoting material.  Please correct your comment. --Noleander (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right. Apologies for my hasty mistake, which I hope I have adequately corrected. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Calling an editor an anti-semite and calling for him to be banned while he has not broken any policies is way more egregious than anything Noleander did. If the article is no good take it to AfD, if it survives than work with the editor to fix it. Oh, and just so no one thinks I'm hiding it, I do work on I-P articles. Passionless   -Talk  23:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this scream "breaching experiment" to anyone else? If an editor who hadn't previously purported to be a general critic of organised religion had devoted significant time to a half-dozen psuedodocumentarian articles on the negative impacts of Jews on civilisation he'd likely have been shooed away by now. Civility in discussion and a willingness to debate one's detractors is not, AFAIK, carte blanche to continue adding such material to Wikipedia. I'd like to see a rebuttal to that other than "FREE SPEECH Y'ALL" or "he hasn't specifically broken any rules". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was a breaching experiment the first time when he created Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood. After doing that he was made aware that that wasn't considered a fruitful approach to creaing articles about sensitive topics. Rerunning the experiment at this time is just disruptive.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my. Yes, we have been through this before.  And Noelander is also the main author of An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - What exactly is the basis for this proposal, other than "I don't like him" ? Nothing. Tarc (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The basis is, WP should not be hijacked by people who wish to package anti-Semitic views as if they were scholarship. It is not hard to do - many people publish pamphlets or books that do the same, citing real historians, even Jewish sources - but, like Noleander, only by misrepresenting sources.  It is not encyclopedic. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SiRubenstein: I object to your characterization of my edits as "misrepresenting" .. that is absolutely false.  The article is an accurate representation of what scholarly secondary sources say on the topic.  If there are any specific shortcomings in the article, please raise them at the Talk page, and I will happy to work with you to remedy the problem.   But your repeated vague hand-waving is very deceptive, and your assertions are based on innuendo and "I don't like it".  --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Unfortunately, given the history cited above, Noleander's posting on User talk:Jayjg seems to be a not particularly well disguised example of baiting (I obviously do not mean jew-baiting). Noleander's own failure to  write a neutral "Economic history of the Jews", given that a neutral source exists devoted to exactly this topic, would seem to indicate that Noleander might have his own private agenda. Since this is not the first time that Noleander has acted in this way, even fairly recently. I would not be surprised  that, if the community cannot resolve matters reasonably, Noleander could find himself at the centre of an ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I made a sample check to see whether a randomly chosen sentence matched material in the source and properly reflected its general context. I found that the sentence was chosen from an analysis of the writings of Werner Sombart, whom the authors labelled as antisemitic. The content reflects Sombart's views, not the authors. That is not apparent in Noleander's one sentence summary with its out-of-context quote. Mathsci (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban per SlimVirgin. Does the work of Noleander remind anyone else of User:Wassermann, who is now, and not before time, indefinitely blocked as "not here to help the project"? I'm not suggesting Noleander is Wassermann's sock, as there is a two-year overlap of editing; merely that there seem to be two of them. We blocked Wassermann; I'd cheerfully support a full siteban for his spiritual brother Noleander, if I thought there was any point. 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) . Noleander concedes that Radio Islam is "a rabid site", but says he plagiarised used it because he "failed to proofread" and remove the text (?), and because Radio Islam "does contain material that is often not found elsewhere." Yeah. It sure does. Even typing the names of Stormfront and Radio Islam (reliable sources?) disgusts me. The editors above who oppose on the ground that Noleander has "not broken any policies" need to get a clue about the nature of Wikipedia policy. See WP:NOTSTATUTE. Editors who bring Wikipedia into disrepute should be banned, however skilfully or "civilly" they navigate around policy. Bishonen | talk 02:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC).

break 1

 * Oppose No evidence has been presented which demonstrates any contravention of policy by Noleander. In fact the only policy I see being contravened is WP:NPA. Calling someone an anti-semite on the basis that they write articles on controversial topics, rather on the basis of what they have actually written, smacks of an attempt at censorship, in addition to being uncivil - if not worse. I think we need to look at this in the broader context of articles relating to ethnicity and faith, where 'positive' articles are often defended on flimsy grounds. If we make a decision that Neolander is wrong to create a (supposedly) 'negative' article, are we going to also stop the creation of such 'positive' articles? Perhaps we should, but until we do, we cannot have double standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mhm. So.. did you read my post just above? And/Or WP:NOTSTATUTE ? Bishonen | talk 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Did I read your post? No actually, I didn't. I had an edit conflict, and added mine without looking at it. If you want a comment on it how about this: do you really think that 'guilt by association' is a valid argument here? As for (allegedly) plagiarising Stormfront, that wasn't mentioned in the complaint - and appears to already have been dealt with. No Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy - but that doesn't mean it has to act like a Kangaroo Court either. If you have a complaint, make it in the proper way, rather than by insinuation, and with additional 'evidence' thrown in willy-nilly. Even if Neolander is in the wrong, this is no legitimate way to deal with it. We've been down this route before in recent months, with attempts to 'revise' policy to get rid of editors who don't conform to a particular POV - this is a dangerous path to tread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Andy the Grump: how about that? Not much, and it doesn't seem to represent a lot of research. I'll put my thoughts on it on your talkpage, so as not to use up further ANI space. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC).
 * The basis is, WP should not be hijacked by people who wish to package anti-Semitic views as if they were scholarship. It is not hard to do - many people publish pamphlets or books that do the same, citing real historians, even Jewish sources - but, like Noleander, only by misrepresenting sources.  It is not encyclopedic. I do not care what POV Noleander has.  What I do care about is when unscholarly views are represented by Wikipedia as scholarly encyclopedic views. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban per SlimVirgin and Bishonen. The similarity of this situation with Noleander to that of User:Wassermann is striking (not suggesting any WP:SOCKing). JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose' We can not judge someone;'s motives accurately; we can only judge their work. I really do agree with Tarc on this, the support for a block seems to be "some of the things he writes makes me uncomfortable." The answer is for perceived bias is for more people to work on these potentially sensitive articles. I personally do not, because I don't like being chased away for being willing to criticize, and I am not willing to parrot the conventionally pseudo-liberal over-benign POV that is predominant here  DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what Noleander's motives are, I only judge the work. The work doesn't make me uncomfortable, it makes me laugh, personally.  But it also makes me embarassed to be associated with a websight that claims to be an encyclopedia but has articles that use the window-dressing of encyclopedia articles (like links to other articles, long list of cited sources) but which actually misrepresents views, takes statements out of context, and organizes material in order to make a rather unencyclopedic point. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Comment I agree with User:DGG despite the fact that the editor's edits do make me somewhat uncomfortable. The problem is that I do not see the evidence to ban them based on what has been presented.  If there is a pattern of antisemitic, or otherwise disruptive editing from Noleander then an RFC/U is the right place to tease that out.  Noleander has shown some very poor judgement here but we need evidence of more than that to topic ban someone.  I encourage editors who want Noleander topic banned to take this to RFC/U.  I'll be happy to add my own perspective on their editing in such a venue.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my oppose to as simple comment. Mathsci's analysis of an example from the entry shows something troubling (more troubling than the past discussions linked to above).  More examples like this would be helpful, which is why I stand by the recommendation to take this to a different venue, where evidence can be systematically presented.Griswaldo (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

*Oppose. I strongly agree with what Griswaldo said. I, too, am rather uncomfortable with the edits this user has made, but the hyper-charged atmosphere of ANI, where many people comment without reading everything relevant, is not the way to deal with such a prolific editor who is not obviously vandalizing or doing anything of the like. Arbitration or, at the very least, RFc/u, would be a more proper avenue than here in this case. Kansan (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If we were to ake your view we might as well close shop on AN/I. In fact, if you are right that people at AN/I comment without reading everything relevant, then we simply disregard what they wrote.  That is what is supposed to happen at discussions - people raise questions, issues, and respond to them.  Community bans have traditionally been prefered over ArbCom bans and in some cases are more appropriate than ArbCom which has a relatively narrow mission.  This is not about resolving a dispute, it is about dealing with a long-standing problem. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't word my comment particularly well, but the gist of my statement is that RFc/u is a better avenue in such a case as this that, with all due respect, is not particularly clear cut. Kansan (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * After looking at Mathsci's example of a seemingly POV misuse of a source, I cannot in good conscience retain my "support". Kansan (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose As the AfD clearly shows (as does the continued existence of Noleander's previous articles), the community does not believe that making a incredibly well referenced article on a topic is wrong. Other users keep attacking Noleander for his creation of these articles, but I notice that they do so because of the subject of the articles and completely ignore the fact that they are all referenced to highly reliable sources, often of which are entirely about the subject made. That's how articles and notability works on Wikipedia. We shouldn't be topic banning an editor who is making high quality articles for the project just because people feel the very scholarly topics are racist. If the subject is a form of statement that is incorrect, then the sources will obviously show that in the end and it doesn't change the fact that the topic itself is notable for its contentious nature. Silver  seren C 07:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have addressed this numerous times. This is not by any stretch of the imagination an incredibly well-sourced article, and I wish you would share with us your basis for claiming it is.  To make such a claim you must be familiar with the sources cited, and if you were you would know that the views of the sources are regularly misrepresented, more notable sources are ignored, and information from sources is presented out of context, and incompletely, to create a skewed view.  How is this a well-sourced article? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SiRubenstein: I object to the baseless mischaracterization of my edits as "misrepresented", "ignored", and "out of context".  That is absolutely wrong:  the material  is a very accurate representation of what scholarly secondary sources say on the topic.  If there are any issues with the article, please describe them (with specificity) on the article's Talk page, and I will be happy to work with you to resolve the problems.  But he repeated vague hand-waving in the absence of any specificity is disturbing.  This really smells like McCarthyism ... all smoke-and-mirrors but no substance. --Noleander (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than repeating generalities, it would be helpful if Slrubenstein could provide some specific examples of his claims. Say, the three worst instances of misrepresentaions etc in the article. DeCausa (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I do not know more about Noleander's work than what is apparent from this ANI discussion, I tend to agree with many of the editors above that this proposal is unhelpful in this form. By all means ban an editor if they try to push an antisemitic (or any other, really) point of view on Wikipedia. But I see no clear evidence here that Noleander has done that. Rather, many people seem to object that he writes articles about topics related to antisemitism. That is not problematic, as long as his contributions themselves are neutral, about notable aspects of antisemitism and otherwise policy-compliant. I do not exclude the possibility that they might not be. Some statements in the AfD claim that Noleander's content is "an carefully crafted antisemitic screed, disguised as well researched and footnoted neutral treatment" (, with some evidence). But if that is so, it merits closer examination in a RFC/U, rather than in the heat of an ANI thread. And if it is false, such allegations are themselves very problematic, and should therefore not be made unless accompanied by a thorough analysis of the evidence.  Sandstein   07:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This is not the first time the user has acted like this. At all. I don't need an RfC/U to realise that this user is pushing an antisemitic POV, trying to push as much of it into the encyclopedia as he can get away with, but no more. The evidence mentioned by Bishonen is clear enough. We are in a Biedermann und die Brandstifter scenario. Hans Adler 08:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Ridiculous thread prompted by over-sensitivity, with some reactions nearing hysteria. Oppose per AndyTheGrump: "No evidence has been presented which demonstrates any contravention of policy by Noleander. In fact the only policy I see being contravened is WP:NPA. Calling someone an anti-semite on the basis that they write articles on controversial topics, rather on the basis of what they have actually written, smacks of an attempt at censorship, in addition to being uncivil - if not worse. I think we need to look at this in the broader context of articles relating to ethnicity and faith, where 'positive' articles are often defended on flimsy grounds. If we make a decision that Neolander is wrong to create a (supposedly) 'negative' article, are we going to also stop the creation of such 'positive' articles? Perhaps we should, but until we do, we cannot have double standards." DeCausa (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not the AfD. This is the ban discussion for an editor who has in the past plagiarised from Stormfront Radio Islam ("one of the most radical right wing antisemitic homepages on the net") and is continuing to write antisemitic articles. Whether the title is plausible for a neutral encyclopedic article is not relevant here. What counts is what he put into the article. Hans Adler 08:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Edited per below.
 * I know what this thread is. That's why I wrote what I wrote. DeCausa (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean "That's why I wrote what AndyTheGrump wrote"? Please don't waste ANI space like that; the thread is long enough without repeating other people's posts. Bishonen | talk 15:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Hans Adler: Your assertion that I visited the Stormfront website is defamatory and wrong..  I have never visited the Stormfront website.  Please correct your comment.   --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy now? Hans Adler 13:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per both AndyTheGrump & DeCausa sum up pretty my view on this subject.-- Domer48 'fenian'  09:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The entire article that Noleander wrote on Jews and money is the example, on top of a history of tendentious editing exemplified by four prior AN/I threads that provide more examples. Below, Soxwon provides a specific example, and user:Mathsci/example provides a great example.  On the AfD page I and others provide other examples.  There is hardly a lcack of evidence.  There is a preponderance of evidence that noleander systematically misrepresents sources in order to present anti-Semitic canards as facts.  And school-kids reading our encyclopedia because it is th largest online encyclopedia will read the article and believe they are facts.  This undermines the credibility of the whole encyclopedia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

break 2

 * Meh (Change to Support) I think Sandstein is right that RFC is a better place for this type of discussion. I've looked at a handful of edits and none jump out as terrible, but examining a larger number might uncover some patterns.  A look at a list of article edited shows what seems to me to be an excessively focused interest in articles related to criticism of various religions, some of which don't seem very nice.  Here Noleander adds some criticism of Israel with reasonable sourcing, ok.  Here  Noleander removes sourced but tendentious material critical of Islam, I guess also ok.  But then here Noleander adds to Israel and the apartheid analogy stuff sourced to the schlocky-looking "Zionism Explained" site.  This is from checking just a few edits and is not enough to infer anything from.  While not calling for (or opposing) a topic ban at this point, I'd be happier if Noleander's interests seemed a bit less obsessive. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to support based on subsequent discussion and investigation. Also have concerns about Noleander's editing in relation to Mormonism.  75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Support. I've read the previous ANI discussions cited by the OP. Noleander has declared "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." When they 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).[See this ANI thread] This change reflects and reinforces the claims of Jewish control of the media and Jewish control of finance. I see it implying something about morals and criminality, too. No way does it remotely reflect the distribution of Jewish business leaders throughout the economy. I haven't read Jews and money. I got to the third section, Double standard and couldn't read on. I deleted it. It was transparently just an excuse to apply the slanted, pejorative terms "double standard" and "discriminatory" to Jewish financial practice. I wouldn't have a clue whether Judaism is being presented in an unduly flattering light here, but this editor's purported antidote is toxic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unabashed ignorance and cultural insensitivity are not necessarily examples of antisemtism. However, if the numerous negative claims above about Noleander have the slightest bit of truth to them, one wonders why this hasn't already gone to RfC and/or arbitration.  If he has truly plagiarised from Stormfront, misrepresented sources, and committed other heinous breaches of Wikipedia policies, then dispute resolution should proceed on those grounds and deal with specific, actionable issues. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The lift from Stormfront was quotes of other authors. Noleander retained Stormfront's "x said", "y claimed" etc. Seemed like a genuine oversight . The lift was from Radio Islam site. Noleander retained a substantial amount of Radio Islam's commentary. "x said", "y claimed" etc . Seemed like a genuine oversight. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Corrected 17:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Corrected per SV 07:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never visited the Stormfront site, and I've never lifted any material from there. Please correct your slanderous remark.   I am appalled at the misleading, deceptive comments being promulgated in this ANI thread.   There are no concrete instances of behavior that are being cited.   If the article has shortcomings, and I'll readily admit it does, let's go to the article's Talk page and fix it.  But the baseless threats, intimidation, and innuendo being demonstrated here are out of hand.  --Noleander (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support My personal views on the subject(s) are irrelevant, as should be Noleander's; we need to consider what is best for the project. There is obviously an issue in the minds of many people that Noleander's interest and manner in editing articles relating to Jews is problematic, even though this is countered by references to non violation of policy, and acknowledgement of content based concerns. What I am not seeing is any deference to the general concerns, that there is too much emphasis upon one area - a small but significant area of a subject that Noleander has proclaimed some antipathy toward. I think Noleander should be topic banned, perhaps not for a long time but a few months, to see whether they are interested in building the encyclopedia in other areas, or whether they are interested in editing area's examining the role of Jews in society only. The best possible contributor would have already recognised the qualms of the community and voluntarily moved away from the areas of concern, and a good editor will have taken on the concerns of the community and sought to have addressed them. This editor needs to be topic banned because they are intent on being permitted to edit these articles in the manner they prefer, and they need to show now that they do so in a genuine desire to improve the encyclopedia - and if that is the case then they will accept this restriction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LessHeard vanU: Thanks for the cogent, polite comment.   Questions for you:  what specific WP policy have I violated?  Can you provide a specified Edit I made that was problematic?   If you cannot cite one, then don't your  comments devolve into "I dont like it"?   The rationale you explain above is that I have "too much emphasis upon one area".   Not true: my edits are very broad ... and even if they were focused in the area of religion, your rationale would cause thousands of  editors to get banned.  Your argument might have some merit if I refused to engage in Talk page discussions, but the truth is that  I cheerfully participate in Talk discussions, and aim for compromise at every step.  Your argument might have merit if I were uncivil, but the truth is that  I treat all editors with respect, and I am a big fan of the WP consensus process.  --Noleander (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted, there is hardly any one edit or even series of edits that cannot be described as policy compliant - even the exampled use of Mein Kampf as the sole source for one section is, properly, indicated as a content issue. If pushed, however, I would suggest that the policy your edits to articles relating to Jewish orientated subjects - in totality - is WP:DISRUPT. I think it more to the point that your actions possibly contravene the first and penultimate of the Five pillars; in that the project is not a soapbox and that you should acknowledge that good faith concerns of your fellow contributors over your focus on this group of articles. The articles do not need you to edit them, and you do not need to edit the articles - but your insistence that you are allowed to do so is why I think your actions do violate WP:DISRUPT. It is, I admit, a Catch-22 situation; I feel you need to show that you are capable of being permitted to edit these articles by agreeing not to - by accepting a topic ban of a few months duration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The user should take this discussion and poll as an ersatz RFCU and learn lessons from it to avoid future problems.   Will Beback    talk    13:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is good advice. I can already see a couple of areas I could improve in:  particularly collaborating up front with more editors before adding substantial amounts of material.  I really respect Wikipedia, and its mission to help enlighten the world. I take my editing very seriously, and I will endeavor to incorporate this feedback in my future editing. --Noleander (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is good advice, but the problem is you've been offered it before. Look at this exchange between us on AN/I in February last year, where you agreed to focus on religion, rather than ethnicity:


 * What happened to that agreement? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a quick question. Jewish can mean a religion or an ethnicity.  If Noleander is editing religion-related articles, then this means that the editor is focusing on the religious aspects, not the ethnic ones, right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanu (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support—I don't think that the article "Jews and money" or any other specific case is the issue here. Also, the discussion is for a topic ban, not a general ban or block. A topic ban can be applied in cases where a user is shows to consistently edit in a controversial manner on a topic, without making significant non-controversial contributions. It has been shown in this AN/I case that:
 * Noleander writes highly controversial articles about Jews but does not make any significant non-controversial contributions on the same topic;
 * Noleander has been warned about this behavior before, and even promised not to repeat it, but has repeated it now;
 * Noleander is not deterred by the massive opposition to his articles and does not see anything wrong with his behavior, despite admitting that at least his latest article has many problems.
 * In light of that, I don't see how a topic ban on this subject can hurt the encyclopedia. It would certainly free up the time that many editors spent commenting on this AN/I (and the relevant AfD) so that they can positive contribute to Wikipedia. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Having spent far too much time looking at the diffs presented and the earlier threads, I am convinced that there is a pattern of behaviour in this topic area that is detrimental to the encyclopedia, and I assert that that is sufficient to impose a topic ban. Noleander is not unaware of the concerns that have been previously raised. There is muddled thinking in many of the opposes above that seem to be based on the premise that a particular policy has to be found to justify community action. Nothing could be farther from the truth of what should happen on a wiki. Policy documents what is done here; it does not prescribe or circumscribe what the community does. If the answer to the question, "would it improve the encyclopedia to restrict Noleander from editing ethnicity topics" is 'yes', then support is the correct option, regardless of what has been documented as past practice. --RexxS (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is muddled thinking in many of the opposes above that seem to be based on the premise that a particular policy has to be found to justify community action. To be fair I think many people believe that at AN/I there should be a clear policy violating "incident" that requires an immediate administrative action. Some of us think that the larger pattern of behavior is better dealt with elsewhere (dispute resolution, user conduct RfC or perhaps arbitration).  In such a venue the pattern of behavior can be laid out more clearly, and the adequate solution can emerge with more forethought.  You know maybe the situation is even worse than some think here but maybe its not.  This requires a more deliberate forum than AN/I.  In other words I don't think your characterization is all that accurate.  I firmly agree with your sentiment about what is or is not required to take community  action against an editor, but I simply don't agree that the type of action being proposed on the type of evidence being presented should be taken at AN/I.Griswaldo (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your points are well-made and reasonable. Nevertheless, we only have a limited number of venues for dispute resolution. Considering that the user has been the subject of multiple earlier ANIs, and that SlimVirgin points out in the proposal that Noleander has already failed to adhere to an agreement to leave ethnicity alone, I could not agree that RfC/U is a superior venue in this case – as it lacks any sanctions to enforce its conclusions. Arbitration is for dispute resolution where the community has failed to resolve the problem itself. It may well be that the lack of deliberative structure to ANI is such a flaw that it renders it unusable for some cases, resulting in an inability of the community to resolve some issues. If that is so, then Arbitration would be appropriate at that point. In the meantime, we should be endeavouring to improve the implementation of ANI to avoid having to throw problems at ArbCom needlessly. --RexxS (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo, the community is the highest authority at Wikipedia, and only an administrator can enforce a community ban, so AN/I is the traditional place for discussing community blocks, topic bans or general bans. I agree with you that the decision should not be made hastily and without due cause.  That is why we are all involved in a serious discussion right here - and why I provided links for past discussions about the same problem, to wit, a pattern of behavior.  This is the right place.  If you don't think a ban is warranted, fine, you can say that anti-Semitic content is acceptable, or you can say that you do not see enough evidence to support the claim that there is a pattern of anti-Semitic editing, or you can say that the edits simply aren't anti-Semitic.  But this is where we discuss these kinds of problems.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * support per Ynhockey. Noleander may be one of the smarted and subtlest POV pushers we've ever had but the pattern is definitely there. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think I need to add anymore here.  I've said everything I wanted to say.  Dachknanddarice  ( T ‖ C ) 15:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Having looked at Noleander's work I see no policy grounds for a ban. In fact I am personally far more disturbed by the distinct scent of censorship and witch-hunt which I detect around here than their editing.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I love the term "witch-hunt" as though people are coming in here in droves to try and get Noleander topic banned for personal reasons. I've already admitted I know nothing about Noleander or his contributions.  I simply read through the article and thought to myself that it was very POV'ish and felt things like this don't belong in an encyclopedia.  It's like if people keep parroting that term, then it will sway some people on the fence to vote for an action of their choosing.  Don't be fooled people, read the whole article for yourself and make your own decisions.  Do not read opinions on this ANI with terms like "censorship", "witch-hunt", or "racism" and make your opinions thusly.  I implore everyone to read the article from Noleander himself and come to your own conclusions.  Don't let anyone, including myself, make up your mind for you.  And please don't be fooled by people claiming this is a "witch-hunt".  No one is asking for Noleander to be banned indef. or even be blocked from editing.   Dachknanddarice  ( T ‖ C ) 16:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

break 3

 * Oppose Including the fact that draconian solutions do not work, some of the comments above do not appear to be quite fair - naming an article about a book after the title of a book is scarcely notable - yet it was raised here as somehow noteworthy.  WP procedures about article content basically state that the discussions should be about the content and on the article talk page, and not used for any other purposes.  Do I like these article? Not especially, but thatis not the point.  The point here is "would this draconian solution help Wikipedia?" and the answer to that is "no." Collect (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * May I ask what you mean when you say this solution won't work? If the problem is that Noleander has a penchant for writing content of questionable merit about Jews in ways that threaten to reflect poorly on wikipedia and give extra work to the editors who have to clean up his POV mess, then how will topicbanning him from writing about Jews not solve that problem? In that way he can show his dedication to wikipedia to work on articles about other topics and we rest assured that we don't have to follow him around with the NPOV broom.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. No matter how skillfully he does it, it is a fact that this editor's presence on this project is dominated by a single agenda: building as much material as possible to give visibility to topics which are perceived as placing a particular ethnic group in a negative light. This, in itself, should be enough to make him unwelcome here. One editor above said he saw his activities as almost the opposite ("to make the world more aware of the seriousness and unpleasantness of antisemitism"), but Noleander's own statement seems to be giving the lie to this defense. And as for the alleged high quality of the articles, the passage (rightly) removed  is very poorly disguised tendentious writing indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I wouldn't say this is all about Jews. Mormons get it too.  Noleander's 20 most heavily edited articles are: Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement: 432 edits, Racism in Israel: 272, Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 238, Jesus in the Talmud: 158, Criticism of the Talmud: 155, Cladistics: 148, Allegations of Jewish control of the media: 137, Criticism of religion: 109, African-American – Jewish relations: 105, Criticism of Judaism: 100, Judaism and war: 95, Judaism and slavery: 72, Christianity and violence: 55, Judaism and violence: 49, Israel and the apartheid analogy: 46, Mormonism and polygamy: 44, Still Life at the Penguin Cafe: 42, Yeshu: 40, Zionism: 37, Motives for the September 11 attacks: 36. RexxS and Griswoldo: the relevant principle that I think is being raised against Noleander is WP:TE, which while marked as an essay has gotten people sanctioned plenty of times.  I agree with RexxS about muddled thinking, and see people get topic banned routinely at ANI if the issues are clear enough.  This is not like a courtroom where the judges, lawyers, court reporters, are all drawing salaries, which makes putting up with endless process just part of the tedious nonsense that's inherent in working for a living in almost any profession.  Here, per NOTBUREAUCRACY, if the appropriate outcome is clear (which in this case it might not be), we should implement it without further ado, so we can get on with other things.  The era when "admin actions" are limited to pushing the sysop buttons in the mediawiki interface is long since over.  De-escalation of dispute resolution from arbcom/rfc where those processes aren't necessary to resolve substantial unclarity is a good thing. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with bureaucracy or being like a courtroom and everything to do with the fact that some of us do not feel like the issues are "clear enough" at this time, and would like to see them presented in a much more methodical manner, and in a venue where people can have more time to consider them. I feel for the support arguments  made by people who have been following Noleander's edits for some time now, and undoubtedly have a much more nuanced view of them.  All I'm suggesting is that the rest of us be given a chance to understand this as well.  The links provided are not enough in and of themselves if you ask me.  That's all, cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the complaint against Neolander is WP:TE, then why is he/she being accused of antisemitism? That is a serious allegation, but all we seem to see for 'evidence' is vague insinuations, guilt by association, and a presumption of guilt based on his/her choice of topics - not the content, but the topic itself. If the topics are that controversial, can we see evidence that they have been recognised us such it AfDs etc, as Griswaldo asks? This is supposed to be AN/I so where are the incidents? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, I'm not sure what you're getting at. WP:TE says "Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole."  Is that not what we are talking about here, with the alleged bias being against Jews?  (And maybe Mormons).  75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy: the articles are biased and do present antisemitic canards as fact. ·Maunus· ƛ · 17:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Griswaldo that this process should not be rushed. Deciding on whether WP:TE applies here will take a lot of reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not culpable of Tendentious editing. If I were, I'd be the first to volunteer for a self-block.  WP:TE involves an editor that is not logical, does not listen, does not engage on Talk pages.  If you'll look at my Talk page discussions, you'll see I'm a very collaborative, compromise-oriented editor, that places a high value on policy, procedure, and sensibility.   No, the only thing I'm guilty of is having the audacity to edit in controversial areas.  If a particular edit I make is flawed, fine, bring it up on the Talk page, and I'll diligently work to make it right.  This ANI thread is not about my material, or my behavior, it is all about intimidating editors to prevent them from editing in controversial areas. --Noleander (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Even if somebody is an anti-semite, you can’t sanction them based on their viewpoint.  You can only sanction them because their edits themselves violate policy.  I think it’s problematic that there’s more discussion here about Noleander’s viewpoints and motives for editing than there is about specific examples of misbehavior—do we need a Wikipedia equivalent of the Thought Police?  I’m aware of the possibility that Noleander’s edits actually do violate policy, and that he’s pushing an anti-semitic POV.  However, if that’s the case, it hasn’t been demonstrated here.  I agree with the other people who’ve commented that the appropriate course of action in this case is an RFC/U. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Repeated creation of biased articles is problematic editing. Nobody cares about what Noleander thinks - we care about the fact that he makes crappy, biased POV anti-semitic slanted articles based on misrepresentations of sources.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Captain Occam, if you want to oppose this on principle, fine, but please do not misrepresent the argument.l No one cares about what Noleander thinks.  For all I know I have collaborated with many anti-Semites on various articles.  As long as it doesn't affect their behavior, it is not my business or yours whether any editor is or is not an anti-Semite.  The question is behavior.  Other editors have been banned from Wikipedia - a general ban - for anti-Semitic behavior.  The issue here is whether there is a pattern of anti-Semitic behavior  As Maunus says, repeated creation of biased articles is a problematic editing.  Presenting anti-Semitic canards as facts is anti-Semitic editing.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this kind of behavior subverts the integrity of the encyclopedia.  If we want the encyclopedia to be respected as an authoritative source of knowledge we cannot tolerate this behavior. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I know this is what a lot of people think, and I don’t discount the possibility that it’s the case. But where are the diffs demonstrating this?  In this thread people have only linked to a small sampling of his edits (about a half-dozen), and argued that this shows an overall pattern of biased editing.  That simply isn’t enough to prove an allegation like this about someone with over 3,000 article edits.  If it’s true that he’s pushing an anti-semitic POV, that should become evident in an RFC/U, and then someone can start another AN/I thread after the RFC if his behavior doesn’t improve. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But when you read this ANI diff from a year ago, you get a feeling of deja vu. How many previous ANI threads (with diffs) are need to establish a pattern? And what would be the purpose of an RfC/U, given what Noleander agreed to that time? . --RexxS (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think the purpose of an RFC/U would be to thoroughly document Noleander’s pattern of POV-pushing, assuming that there is one. In this thread people have provided a few examples of him misrepresenting sources, which could have been either unintentional slip-ups or part of a deliberate effort to push an anti-semitic POV.  I can understand why some people are suspecting it’s the latter, but before I can be convinced that this is what’s happening here, I’d need to see that these are part of a pattern and not just isolated incidents.  That will be a lot easier to demonstrate in an RFC/U than at AN/I. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support if he can't even keep his promises, than unfortunately a stronger move is (i.e topic ban) is needed in order to solve the problems caused by this user. Wikipedia admins shouldn't deal with this every day. This is the best solution. Broccolo (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Looking over the earliest drafts of Jews and money, there seems to be a concerted effort to cherry-pick quotes that promote negative Jewish stereotypes. For instance, in first version of the Economic history of the Jews, the entire section of Contrasted with Christianity's views of money seems to focus exclusively on making Jews appear as superficial and materialistic (not to mention the section below that which explicitly states as such). Soxwon (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A large number of secondary sources have written on that "contrast" topic. The philosophers that make the contrast with Christianity are Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Werner Sombart, and Georg Hegel.   I did not personally draw the comparisons.   Certainly an editor cannot be held responsible for the attitudes of notable philosophers.  If there is any "cherry picking" of material, I concur that is not acceptable, and if you can point out some specific areas, I'll be happy to work with you to rectify it. --Noleander (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, your placing undue weight and pushing a medieval perception of the subject while completely ignoring that these viewpoints are obsolete in the modern age of capitalism. You wrote

"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." based on this "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'." If you can't see what's wrong with that than you have no place on wikipedia, as that is a prime example of misinterpreting a source and using original research to push a POV. Soxwon (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to see Neolander's response to this - if what Soxwon has indicated is indeed the case, I will withdraw my opposition to the topic ban - though I'd like to make clear that I do not think this has been properly handled on AN/I, and there seems to be a lot of mudslinging going on, rather than discussion of evidence such as that presented here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't it true though that some of these figures made anti-Semitic statements along the lines Noleander indicates? I can't view the source Noleander cites, but here is a page with quotations from Kant, Hegel and Marx (with citations given) that seem adequately summarised by what Noleander wrote. Sombart is described as an anti-Semite here. (I'm less sure about Weber.) These views may be offensive, but we cannot rewrite history. -- JN 466  01:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per SlimVirgin, Anthonyhcole and Soxwon. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ &lrm; 19:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, and would also Support a community ban. Any reasonable person looking at his contributions should be able to tell that he's a single purpose agenda driven editor who likes to make articles with an anti-semitic slant. Enough already. Jtrainor (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This proposal is contrary to our well-established principle of WP:AGF. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentColonel Warden's reason is no reason at all. Any community ban or topic ban calls an editor's good faith into question.  By Colonel Warden's reasoning we would never impose a community general ban or topic ban on anyone.  And yet we have banned editors.  Ergo, there are situations where someone's good faith is called into question.  I opened this thread calling Noleander's good faith into question, quite right.  My evidence was an article he created - no need for edit differences, he wasn't editing an article, he was creating an article, that was anti-semitic - on top of a history of tendentious editing illustrated by four prior AN/I threads.  On the AfD page people provide ample specific examples of how the article is anti-Semitic: it systematically misrepresents sourcews in order to present anti-Semitic canards as facts.  user:Mathsci/example provides one excellent example examined closely.  Right here, Soxwon provides another fine example. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

break 4

 * Support. Perhaps it escaped the attention of those opposing this topic ban that the entire "Nazi Germany" section of the recently created "Jews and money/Economic history of the Jews" article was sourced to Hitler, albeit via secondary sources that quoted Hitler's statements in Mein Kampf, rather than sourcing directly to Mein Kampf itself. OK, you say. Surely that's just a coincidence. Maybe Hitler was the only one with anything interesting to say on the topic. AGF and all that. Fine. Then let's look at the article's talk page, shall we? Here's what I see:
 * 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.
 * 2) An editor goes and actually looks at those sources, and finds they say nothing of the sort.
 * 3) Noleander acknowledges that the sources cited do not actually say this and offers to help look for better sources.

The misrepresentation of sources and uncritical, unbalanced quoting from Mein Kampf isn't enough for you? OK, then what about the previous three AN/I threads where this exact type of tendentious editing and blatant cherry-picking of sources to advance a very specific POV was brought up? The pattern here is obvious to anyone paying attention. 28bytes (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose banning is an overreaction to an issue that is not a real problem. The AFD shows that the article is worth keeping. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I do consider misrepresentation of sources a real problem. 28bytes (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Should it be concerning that a good percentage of the supporting editors here are Jewish, according to their userpage? Doesn't that make them biased against Noleander? Silver  seren C 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. 28bytes (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to make my comment seen ridiculous. I just don't think that holding up a user, saying "This is a user who primarily works on articles that are negative toward religion and specifically toward Jews", is going to get a neutral outcome, especially when it can be seen that a lot of the Oppose voters are Jewish themselves. How many of these users aren't actually focusing on contributions and problems with edits, but instead are just seeing the types of articles he works on and deciding then and there that he is wrong. Considering how much the word antisemitic is being thrown around, it seems to be that way to me. Silver  seren C 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You made a pretty clear personal attack, and you ought to retract it. 28bytes (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What personal attack? Raising the possibility of bias based on personal beliefs when voting on a user who opposes said beliefs is not a personal attach. Silver  seren C 00:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ... ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If that was for me, you've got your indenting wrong. :P Silver  seren C 22:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ROFLMFAO.... I'm not jewish... I still support a topic ban. Dachknanddarice  ( T ‖ C ) 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. Silver  seren C 22:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Tarc has it perfectly right. And calling Noleander a "anti-semitic pov-pusher" IS a personal attack on a specific editor. Silver  seren C 00:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a strong claim that is backed by strong evidence.·Maunus· ƛ · 00:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. Silver  seren C 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. Silver  seren C 00:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Could you supply the Diff's please, thanks.-- Domer48 'fenian'  23:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * . ·Maunus· ƛ · 00:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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:"
 * "... 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: "
 * ... 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Captain Occam: please read 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)
 * 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)

break 5

 * 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)
 * Support per my initial comment at the opening of the ANI.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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. 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, (in its own special "Kosher food" section), and two Jewish bankers. 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. 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, 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)
 * 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)

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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)


 * 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. -- JN 466  01:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Blocked
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&mdash;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)
 * 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)


 * 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. Silver  seren C 03:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * What allegation was mad, that Noleander has not responded to? Can you answer this simple question? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 06:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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&mdash; tags, asking for assistance in moving his comments over, and so on. NW ( Talk ) 04:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * I think Nuclear Warfare has already explained how Noleander can still comment... — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 04:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

*unblock: I believe that a block is unhelpful in the middle of this topic ban discussion. ·Maunus· ƛ · 13:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Unblock per Colonel Warden. The discussion is continuing, and there is bo pressing reason to exclode Noleander from it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Unblock This is just crazy carry on! NW needs to be told that stupid actions like this help nothing. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  10:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

This 'AN/I' is a mess
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)


 * 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)


 * 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 <sup style="color:darkgray;">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)
 * 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 <sup style="color:darkgray;">CLOUDY  03:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 <sup style="color:darkgray;">CLOUDY  03:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * So something which is factually incorrect is acceptable 'evidence'? Wow... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * :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)
 * Aww gimme a break. We know he plagiarised it from "somewhere" because he admitted it after he was caught. 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)

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)


 * 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)

Plagiarism of anti-Semitic material from Radio Islam
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. 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"):

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.  Everthing seemed fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please actually read the material above, which makes his editing focus quite clear. I know its long, but it's also damning. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I haven't seen anything persuasive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.; then an editor goes and actually looks at those sources, and finds they say nothing of the sort. . 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)


 * Comment That the editor is still blocked say quite alot about the Admin's here. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  18:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Per Chris and LHVU, it says quite positive things about the admins here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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&mdash;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. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Might be autoblocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A way to end this mess
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. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems like a reasonable conclusion to this discussion; remove the block in favor of the topic ban. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Admins threatening blocks
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. . Too much bias, everywhere I look. Mindbunny (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Make that three now. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Four. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC).
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


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

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. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. Silver  seren C 21:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they'd delete it for vandalism :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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). Silver  seren C 22:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Wow, you are really rude. :/ Silver  seren C 22:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (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. -- ۩ <strong style="color:#B13E0F;">M ask  00:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. Silver  seren C 00:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. Silver  seren C 01:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone has been kind enough to save you from yourself. Rather than protesting, you should thank them. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See, that is both insulting and rude and completely ignoring what I said above. Silver  seren C 01:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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. Half  Shadow  23:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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).

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

NPOV in this discussion: Please use RFC/U
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)


 * Well said, Avanu. Clear, concise, and to the point... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- JN 466  02:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you. There is ample evidence and it is appropriate to open an RFC. -- ۩ <strong style="color:#B13E0F;">M ask  02:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


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


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Well, to be fair, Johnuniq's ban rationale 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)
 * 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)


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


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


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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: 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)
 * 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.


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I agree, some sound judgement at last.-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  18:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Summary of criticisms at ANI of Noleander's editing
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)
 * From Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571

Plagiarism
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."

Activism
"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."

Article edit
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 Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597

Article edits
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. 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. 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

Article edit
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)

Tendentious article and section titles
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". 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)
 * 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:

<blockquote style="font-size:85%">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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with BrownHairedGirl. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious misrepresentation of sources
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)

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)

Systematic misrepresentation of sources in order to present Anti-Semitic Canards as Facts
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", 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", 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.
 * 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.

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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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 and added some more viewpoints on the issue  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)
 * 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. Silver  seren C 04:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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." ) 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)

ArbCom
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)


 * 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)


 * 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.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * (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)


 * It would be up to the ArbCom whether to take the case. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No response to the good points that Mindbunny stated? Silver  seren C 03:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case 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)