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

Unmeritted insinuations in commentary within "Morally offensive views can be encyclopedic" section
In the section, Morally offensive views can be encyclopedic the IP editor commented: The current references section of "Criticism of the Talmud" is cringeworthy all by itself (see the sources it gives priority of placement to), without even having to read any of the article. IP editor, you really ought to actually read the entry before making such comments because they are off base. The sources listed first are not "given priority to", they are listed as "primary sources", in the sense of being books written by the critics that the entry is covering. Secondary sources are listed after them. The "cringeworthy" critics, whose works are listed in that section, are all covered in a section of the entry called "Twentieth century antisemitic critics." This appears to have been the case from day one, when Noleander created the entry. In other words those works are not being used as sources of information in the entry in some nefarious way, they are being presented as primary sources of criticism, and when discussed in the entry they are clearly labelled as "antisemitic", when applicable. I haven't analyzed the entry fully to see if there is some kind of subtle POV pushing going on, but cleart that wasn't your claim in any event. I highly suggest you explore something fully before making insinuations.Griswaldo (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been planning to add some more analysis, as mentioned in /Evidence, and it will discuss the article's use and construction of the reference section. Also, for purposes of immediate impressions (which do matter), it doesn't matter what it says in the middle of the article, if the first places readers tend to look at (the lead paragraph for sure, and the references section for some) show enough apparent bias.  I'm also well aware of WP's policy of writing from secondary sources and why we have it, but remember that most other publication venues don't use such a practice, and to a general reader, "here are the primary sources" means "here is the important stuff".  That said, mentioning the references eyesore in that comment was sort of an afterthought (the observation was intended for elsewhere) and I suppose I could have omitted it or picked a different example.  75.57.242.120 (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you have a problem with the way that Wikipedia classifies sources, because "primary sources" does not in any way mean "here is the important stuff" on Wikipedia. Indeed it means quite the opposite.  Also, this section is at the very end of the entry, after the footnotes even, and the claims you're making about how people read entries are downright bizarre.  You're implying that they go directly to the end of the entry to see the references.  Even so for it to be a real problem, assuming you are right about people being confused by the term "primary" this also necessitates that they don't read the entry itself, where those sources are plainly presented as antisemitic.  If there is a chance of confusion, as you seem to think there is, the solution is clearly to find a better way to present the source list at the end.  But speaking of people getting the wrong idea, your comment on the workshop does not in any way fairly represent the source list issue.  If you have a better example why not swap them out?Griswaldo (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about what "here are the primary sources" means to me or to other wikipedia editors, I'm talking about how it comes across to readers who don't edit here and are not familiar with WP editing practices. And yes, skimming down an article (maybe looking at the section headers) and getting to the references is not that surprising a thing to do.  It's certainly something I do all the time.  But ok, I may change the example; this whole discussion misses the point anyway. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding parties
I'm not exactly sure how to ask this, sorry, but it would be helpful if Arbitrators could provide some guidance about whether the case should have other parties added to it. I'm thinking specifically of editors who disagree with Noleander, and who might, perhaps, have done conduct that would merit inclusion here. I'm unsure how to understand what I've seen Arbitrators say so far: on the one hand, there is some discussion about whether Silver seren is really the only user who should be added, but on the other hand, I see mention that the Committee hopes to wrap this case up soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just so you and others know, I have been added to the case and I have until Friday to submit my evidence, though I hope to have it submitted sometime tonight, with any luck. Silver  seren C 22:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support adding IZAK because of those pointy "Economic history of the Christians/Muslims" articles and his continued pointy conduct on the "Christians" one's afd. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Second that. IZAK's pointy reaction to this mess is also a problem.Griswaldo (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rejoinder to Anon "75.57.242.120" (why hide behind an anonymous IP if you have the courage of your convictions?), at any rate, in over eight years as a WP editor I have always edited fairly and in a WP:NPOV manner in relation to both Christianity and Islam topics and categories (if you have diffs where it is not so, show them!), in spite of your efforts to smear me "by association" since my efforts in this situation was a good faith effort to create two WP:NPOV short starter articles relating to the Economic history of the two other Abrahamic religions that sprung from Judaism. Unfortunately the controversy over User  (about whom you have nothing to say it seems) drowned out the more positive opportunity to create three good articles relating to the "Economic history of the Jews/Christians/Muslims" (the final topics could have negotiated normally) as the over twenty five "Keep/Stubify" votes in the two AfDs stated in my favor. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I, too, agree that IZAK ought to be added as a party.

And I am increasingly becoming convinced that other editors may need to be added too. Newyorkbrad has said at the Evidence talk that "Insofar as I am concerned, there is already sufficient evidence submitted for us to evaluate Noleander's editing and behavior (unless there is a major issue that hasn't been addressed yet, which is unlikely)." That is reasonable insofar as evaluating Noleander's editing per se, which is what was requested by those who collectively framed this case (I'm not singling out the individual requester, but speaking of all those who have started dispute resolution processes that have led to here), which is a bit too much for my tastes like letting the prosecutor tell the judge what the judge may consider.

I find it uncomfortable to unilaterally decide that anyone should be made a party, so I'm going to suggest parties here, and ask other editors what they think. I'm thinking of adding (with diffs that are from my evidence):
 * IZAK, discussed above, and.
 * Camelbinky: . "You are playing on OUR ground."
 * AzureFury: and . Hard to make a case that SilverSeren was really any worse.
 * Jayjg: . "Noleander has made 4270 edits, AzureFury 2932, Nuujinnn 3216, SilverSeren 4607. Not one of you is an administrator. By contrast, I've made over 80,000 edits, and Jpgordon and Avraham 40,000 each, and we're all admins, have had held other significant roles."
 * Mbz1:, and . Arguably about the same as what IZAK did, just less commented on.

I'm not confident that all of these rise to the level of being parties, but I lean towards thinking that they do. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've thought it over, and decided that I am going to move to add all of the above as parties. I think that they all fall in approximately the same category as Silver seren. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shoudn't you do this by proposing a motion on the workshop page and waiting for approval from arbitrators? Mathsci (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my understanding. I'm in the process of doing that now. As I understand it, I present motions to add parties, and the Arbitrators decide whether or not to accept those motions. I'll also put notes on each user's talk page. If I am doing anything wrong, which is certainly possible, someone please advise me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think all your motions to add new parties are inappropriate and frivolous. Sorry about that. Mathsci (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have made that clear. It is not my intention to be either inappropriate nor frivolous. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you should have attempted to make a more convincing case on the evidence page. What exactly is the purpose of using diffs from one year ago without any clear context? Mathsci (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I also can't see what purpose is served by adding parties at this late stage because of the occasional ill-advised remark nearly a year ago. If you're going down that road, you (Tryptofish) did the same on Criticism of Judaism in May: "As I have started to become familiar with this talk, I find that I agree with what Mercury and Noleander said here. See also: Proverbs 18:2." . Proverbs 18:2 says: "A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind." That kind of comment adds to the unpleasant atmosphere too.


 * Your evidence against AzureFury, for example, (also on Criticism of Judaism in May last year), seems little or no worse than your comment above: "Bus stop, quote one editor who used the phrase "balance it out". This article isn't going anywhere. WP:Get over it. If you can't deal with that, you're free to unwatch the page," and "Bus stop, you're not going to justify deletions on the grounds that there is no giant neon sign that says "THIS IS A CRITICISM" on everything that is included in the article. Wikipedia requires competence, and if you can't understand such a thing as a criticism, you should not be editting."


 * And you've lifted out of context what Camelblinky wrote. He was criticizing editors for editing about Judaism without having knowledge of it, or knowing what the correct vocabulary is. He wrote (also in May): "Please if you are going to call this criticism of Judaism use JEWISH terminology and not Christian terminology! You are playing on OUR ground, use our words out of respect." It was a comment best avoided, but the context explains what he meant by it.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I find this all very odd and late in the procedings. Why did you not propose this when the main case was postd, or when evidence was posted? It seems as if you are being motivated by how people nehaved at the ArbCom proceedings. This is bad form. If you think they were part of the conflict before the case, you should have said so at the time. if you think that they are now part of a new conflict, then why not begin DR process again them for the new dispute? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander. And repeated discussion thereafter. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that IZAK should be added as a party so that he can be counseled/warned not to violate WP:POINT. The rest I am inclined to leave out of this case because the edits in question are either old or not really egregious. If there's a car wreck, the police don't need to write up every driver on the road who commits a moving violation, just the ones that contributed to the car wreck. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a possible course of action (although I'm not persuaded that the car wreck would have occurred if Noleander had been the only party involved: the responding drama was part of the problem too). But if so, should Silver seren remain a party? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of suboptimal behavior. Of associated non-parties, IZAK's is the most obvious behavior that is in the wrong. However, none of this is behavior that would generally rise to the attention of the ArbCom normally. It doesn't seem to make sense to have the ArbCom go out of its way to focus on mild to low-level behavior that would normally on a particularly dramafilled day get at most an ANI thread. It is both unfair to the ArbCom (who is very busy) and is unfair to the editors who will now be subject to far more scrutiny than their minor possible infractions would otherwise lead to. This is all the more relevant given that many of the relevant claims about other users are very old. At present the ArbCom has a very narrow case, let's not turn this into a massive multisided Wikipolitical brawl. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with observation and how this twists the real case that has nothing to do with me. IZAK (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Joshua, I believe it is "unfair" to Silver seren for someone like IZAK not to be added when Silver was. Can you honestly say that Silver's stupid comments were less disruptive than IZAK's clear WP:POINT violations?  Can you honestly say that Silver's comments are more related to this case, as they came in response to the AN/I topic ban than IZAK's pointy article creations which came in direct response to Noleander's article creation?  I don't think so.  IZAK's behavior is exactly the type of response to Noleander's that we need to prevent in the future.  Disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point is NOT how people should react to the perceived misbehavior of others, and it would be nice to see Arbcom deal with that, especially if they are going to go off and discuss comments about perceived bias in an AN/I thread.  I think there has been a serious double standard applied to Silver seren and to what he did vs. what IZAK did in this instance.Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I can see how from the phrasing of the comment above you might think that I agree with Silver's inclusion in the RfArb. That's due to poor wording on my part. I don't think that focusing on Silver is productive, and if I had had a chance to comment at the time when that inclusion was being discussed I would have argued against it. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK that makes sense. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: When I PROD'ed IZAK's two pointy creations, the PRODs were removed by... Silver seren. 28bytes (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems about right, given that they seem to be at the forefront of the inclusionism movement.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Response from IZAK
I find it incredible that an anonymous IP address with obvious animus towards me that stalks me whenever he feels he'd like to add an attack pops up and adds uncalled attacks into the discussion without being man enough to own up to his true WP ID (I have some idea who it is, but will leave that out for now.) I have responded at length in the main comments section, and for the record please allow me to repeat it here, thank you: 1. This request really surprises me because it's obviously a purely frivolous red herring. 2. I have never had any interactions with User and judging by all the commotion he has caused it is just as well since so many others are up in arms about his highly controversial editing. 3. On the other hand, for the bulk of the time that I dedicate to Wikipedia, I restrict myself to non-controversial cleaning-up and organizing of categories and corrections of articles' titles, mostly in Category:Jews and Judaism, see the history of my contributions and that I edit fairly in full compliance with WP:NPOV. 4. The proposal against me would be an utter nuisance and ironically harm WP more than anything else because I have spent many years, for example, trying to standardize many articles about Jewish history to read "History of the Jews in ____" to follow the pattern of almost all lead articles in Category:Jewish history. 5. I only became tangentially involved with this whole brouhaha over Noleander's controversies because I routinely check in with WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism and noticed the AfD about Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews and noticed that while Noleander had created topics about the Jews there were no similar articles about the two other Abrahamic religions and therefore hoped that parallel articles relating to Economic history could be created for all three major monotheistic religions, but it seems that the controversy over Noleander's editing overwhelmed my good faith intentions. 6. It therefore seems odd and hugely unbalanced that such stringent sanctions would be requested based only on the creation of two good stubs, which a number of editors agreed should have been kept. In the AfD Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Christians thirteen users voted to Keep/Stubify it, and in the AfD Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims nine users voted to Keep/Stubify, so these efforts were approved by many others but just missed being kept in their AfDs, while I would have preferred proceeding to improve all three articles related to the  Economic history of the Jews/Christians/Muslims  -- all valid titles and certainly starting points for articles as I repeatedly indicated in all three AfDs and in the ensuing discussions, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. I am allowed to express an opinion, it's not a "crime" to offer positive and possible editorial additions and suggestions about more or different articles, it's the stuff WP is made of. 7. Nothing more and nothing less, and all in a good day's editing, very common and done all the time by scholars in the field of Comparative religion, and with a touch of Be bold on my part, that is being grossly misunderstood and twisted in relation to this ArbCom case that does not involve me at all. 8. I therefore kindly request that the ArbCom dismiss the draconian and out of proportion "one year" request against me, it is impractical because I edit in non-controversial Category:Jews and Judaism areas, and because it would hamper my efforts to continue my ongoing Cleanup of articles relating to Category:Jews and Judaism where for many years I have done a huge amount of work to improve hundreds of articles to the benefit of Wikipedia and its readership -- with no complaints of this sort ever arising. 9. If I have erred I sincerely apologize for any misunderstandings or confusion, but I have never been accused of this type of thing in over eight years as an ongoing WP editor who has worked with dozens of other users over the years. 10. Please also note, that this case also comes at a very inconvenient time for Jews due to the serious preparations for and observances of the upcoming Passover holidays from April 17 to April 26, 2011, when almost all Jewish and Judaic editors will not be able to deal with the demands of responding to every last frivolous and derailing efforts to drag them in and waste their time with wild and absurd allegations that really have nothing to do with them in a vain attempt to create the image of some sort of "conspiracy theory" when there is no such thing going on at all. Thank you all once again for your kind understanding. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of terminology
I want to explain a subtlety about some underlying source issues that I think has not been understood. This grows out of this diff,, that I linked above with respect to Camelbinky, but it really is not about Camelbinky individually. There are two things going on in that diff. The first, which is easier to detect, is that Camelbinky is explaining that the Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy in the familiar Greek/Latin rendering) and the Tanakh are two different things, after SilverSeren confused the two. Other than the "shouting", this is entirely correct and appropriate.

The second, which comes glancingly later in the diff, is the distinction between Tanakh and "Old Testament". Prior to the existence of the New Testament, there was, of course, no reason to differentiate between "old" and "new". There was just, as it were, "the" Testament, the Tanakh. Accordingly, there is a line of thinking that the adjective "Old" is a Christian imposition upon the Jewish sacred texts.

It is quite reasonable to recognize that distinction when writing article content here, no argument from me. But at Talk:Criticism of Judaism, I became aware as I started to watch the page that some editors were repeatedly taking offense at the good faith use by other editors of the phrase "Old Testament" in talk (about, for example, whether the page should or should not include criticisms directed at both the "Old" and the "New" Testaments). This, not just the distinction with the Torah, is part of what is going on in the latter part of the diff, including "You are playing on OUR ground, use our words out of respect." It seems to me that this insistence has had the effect of casting aspersions on good faith comments in a way that does run against WP:OWN. Explain the issue to editors, sure, but don't treat them as though they meant to offend when they didn't.

I'm much less concerned here with adding a particular person as a party to this case, than I am with making sure that the Arbitrators understand that this was a part of the editing environment in which Noleander and SilverSeren found themselves, and which may, I fear, be present in the framing of this Arbitration case. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Trypto, kindly stop trying to "explain" things to the ArbCom as if you were the last word in objectivity on this subject. Also, stop acting as the chief witness-explicator-counsel-attorney-juror-judge-executioner-heavanly tribunal-funeral director-God almighty- etc You are obviously coming at much of this from a rather limited Christian-secular perspective lacking in-depth knowledge from Judaic sources. I don't have all the time to refute much of what you say here because it is Passover eve, but I could also dig lots of holes in almost everything you said here on the subject. So please, do not speak for matters that impact on Judaism but rather stick to your own views. You are going too far in trying to take advantage of this silly situation involving Noleander to try to "nail down" and "explain to the ArbCom the complex views and hassles of 2000 years of Christian-Jewish conflict. Thanks for trying to start to take a back seat here and relax the atmosphere by not inflaming it by dragging in more parties and subjects in a Quixotic attempt to "solve" complex religious and spiritual problems, phraseology, terminology, and dilemmas etc. Thanks for your understanding. IZAK (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbitration is a community process, even if it is decided by select few. Arbcom, using these pages, asks for views, evidence, explanation and analysis. They are free to disagree and exercise that right widely, but the community input is something actively sought. If you disagree with Trypto feel free to engage him in debate, but dont just tell him to shut up, as "So please, do not speak for matters that impact on Judaism but rather stick to your own views." boils down to. -- ۩  M  ask  11:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, AKMask. And the Arbitrators may find it interesting to compare IZAK's remarks with those for which Silver Seren is being criticized. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It does sound like someone is talking about the editor rather than the edit. Now since it's my position that SilverSeren did nothing wrong, and editors should be allowed to talk about ethnicity - whether to ask about the possibility of bias or stealth canvassing, or indeed simply to ask whether the editor knows what he's talking about - I think IZAK should be allowed to say this.  This conversation simply shows how easy it is for editors to cross the very restrictive boundaries being proposed. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

AKMask: You miss the point entirely, Tryptofish is feeding the world faulty information about Judaism based on his own beliefs it would appear and I was showing and requesting that Trypto should respond and speak for himself instead of layering up complaints and make his own judgmental comments. To cite some examples of his mistaken thinking from his above observations:
 * 1) The "Torah" and the "Tanakh" are not always "two different things" because in Judaism the word "Torah" is also used generally and generically to also include not just the Tanakh but also the entire Oral Torah with the vastness of the Talmud included in the word "Torah" -- so Trypto is way out of his field and worse is feeding very faulty information. He can speak as a Christian or Scientist or whatnot, but he is not speaking of Judaism's views.
 * 2) He incorrectly states that before the "New Testament" there was just "the Testament" which is incorrcet because there was no such notion or word, there was Judaism's Torah and Judaism's Tanakh, no "Testament" of any kind before during or after.
 * 3) It is not just as he alleges "a line of thinking that the adjective "Old" is a Christian imposition upon the Jewish sacred texts" it is a solid fact, because only Christians use that terminology since they all adhere to the beliefs of Supersessionism that Christianity has displaced Judaism.
 * 4) While on the other hand Judaism rejects all of Christianity's arguments (that is why they are opposing and rival religions on many points) and clings to the principles that there is only Torah/Tanakh=Written Torah/Oral Torah, which would explain why Trypto would not fathom what a learned Judaism editor would try to convey in a complex discussion.
 * 5) Trypto was not around years ago when it was decided on WP not to use the term "Old Testament" when it involves subjects relating to Judaism since the term "Old Testament" is offensive to Judaism, any place, anywhere, any time, as a put-down by Christianity. The better neutral term to use on WP is Hebrew Bible.
 * 6) An ArbCom case is definitely not the place to get involved in these kind of deep theological discussions, yet Trypto feels he must focus on this rather than discuss Noleander's attacks on Judaism or on the Mormons, the Catholics, the Scientologists and a host of others that creates an atmosphere of inevitable WP:WAR and bitterness that only Noleander likes and that is destructive of the fabric of POSITIVELY attained WP:CONSENSUS and not all this anger that he has inflamed over the years, which why this ArbCom case came about in the first place. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be moot, but IZAK is arguing with me about theology (and IZAK's opinion of my education and identity), when I was commenting upon the mindset of those editors who criticize Noleander, and IZAK's comments simply demonstrate that I was correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IZAK, I have to say it is you who missed the point entirely. All those things, if you feel them important, should have been the points you made to Trypto, rather then the 'you dont get to talk about this' comment you made. -- ۩  M  ask  04:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Trypto inserts theology into his comments and then does not like when he's called on it. How odd. I was only addressing myself to Trypto's erroneous assumptions as they relate to Judaism. He should stop foisting mistakes as "facts"! He is squeezing in his POV assumptions in the course of piling on on other editors. I am trying to help Trypto not trip over his own lack of knowledge about how Judaism views the very subjects he dispenses advice to the ArbCom about. Sure he can go on and on but it will just reveal yet again that he does not know much about the doctrines, ideas, laws and teachings of Judaism as taught by Judaism itself. He should stick to points of policy and not theology. Just look at his opening comments above and tell me who is the one inserting theology into this to start off with. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Question on scope of the proposed topic ban
While I support a topic ban of Noleander on Jewish topics, I wonder how "broadly construed" the topic is in Newyorkbrad's proposal. It was repeatedly argued during AN/I and Arbitration that these matters had no relation to the I-P area, and the arbitration already in place for that conflict. It was further, and rightly so, pointed out by several editors that Jews /= Judaism /= Israel (/= means "not equal" to anyone unfamiliar). Anyone who has looked into Noleander's edit history can see that he has edited in the I-P area in the past. Would this topic ban restrict him from doing do? I personally think it should not, since such care was taken to claim that it was entirely unrelated to the issue at hand. It should also be pointed out that Noleander is not the only editor who might conceivable "wikilawyer" over the scope of his topic ban. If he is allowed to edit in the I-P area we can expect a great deal of wikilawyering from those on the opposite side of the fence about Noleander's editing being in violation of his ban and seeking additional sanctions against him.Griswaldo (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, given that there has been zero evidence of problematic editing about other religions, or religions in general, it is necessary to prevent Wikilawyering over "Noleander made an edit about criticism of religion, and since Judaism is a religion, it falls under this topic ban." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and timetable
I would like to thank everyone (fellow arbitrators, parties, and others) who has taken the time to comment on my proposals on the workshop. By way of timing, I plan to respond to some of the comments tomorrow (Wednesday) and, subject to my colleagues' input, to move the case to the proposed decision/voting stage on Thursday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguities in intent, scope of problem
From what I have been able to observe of Noleander, and just having seen this case, I'd like to suggest that it is specifically Jewish topics that have tripped him up, rather than the topic of religion generally. The major possibility I see is that Noleander is basically a non-academic "New Atheist" type who opposes the use of "kid gloves" when it comes to discussing religion. I say this based on his earliest edits relating to Mormonism such as this, and those highlighted by Tryptofish. This is a political view, and so perhaps it should have nothing to do with how one edits Wikipedia, but the truth is that sometimes worldviews do impact our legitimate views about editing.

The problem is this: two of the major principles behind "New Atheism" are 1.) that religion has too much of an impact on society for critics not to treat it as an ordinary political force, and 2.) that nevertheless religions go too far in stifling criticism. In other words, this is an argument which focuses not on religious doctrine, but the direct and indirect societal effects of religious thinking, its perceived divisive effects on society, and in particular that sets out to de-mystify religious topics. This is, I believe, an argument that has arisen with special consideration for the social impact of Christianity and Islam. Yet, when applied to Judaism, the problem is that it bears a strong resemblance to traditional anti-Semitism, for reasons that I'm sure academic "New Atheist" types would agree are difficult and important, but a novice may not fully appreciate (something I say as a familiar novice myself). None of this is a reason not to adhere to NPOV, but it is to highlight a potential ambiguity in the editor's viewpoints and how they might affect the biases that he perceives, and perhaps whether his editing shows an invidious bias or a lack of ability in a tough area to address issues appropriately.

Assuming I'm wrong about all that, I'd at least suggest that Noleander's problem has been specifically with Jewish topics rather than more broadly. The issues with each religion are different, and it might well be Noleander's failure to fully appreciate how different they can be which have led things here, but I'd submit that ArbCom should be specific where it can. Mackan79 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

JoshuaZ's view on antisemitism
JoshuaZ wrote, " A POV is a POV a POV. It is easy when one is a member of a specific group that has historically been persecuted to feel like negative comments about one's group or members of the group should be different than other types of POV. But to recognize that claim would be fundamentally non-neutral." My question for jushuaZ: does this mean that the antisemitic view of Jews should be included in the article on Jews? How much weight would you consider due weight? Given that antisemitism has been state policy and is a view held my many people I assume you feel it should be presented as one of the mainstream views of Jews? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Slr I'm not sure exactly what you are asking Joshua. Antisemitic views of Jews are unfounded and unscientific.  Why would they be included in an article on Jews any more than the views of creationists would be included in an entry on evolution.  I really don't see the issue here.  We already do not present every view of every topic held by every kind of person in our entires on those topics.  Can you give an example of a situation in which, following Joshua's claim, all of a sudden we'd have to add antisemitic views about Jews into entries about Jews?Griswaldo (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From the existing article "Jews":
 * In the 19th and (before the end of World War II) 20th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church adhered to a distinction between "good antisemitism" and "bad antisemitism". The "bad" kind promoted hatred of Jews because of their descent. This was considered un-Christian because the Christian message was intended for all of humanity regardless of ethnicity; anyone could become a Christian. The "good" kind criticized alleged Jewish conspiracies to control newspapers, banks, and other institutions, to care only about accumulation of wealth, etc.[125]
 * Now I'm not sure this is really a criticism of Jews so much as Catholics, and I can't speak as to its reliability, but in any case, it is a demonstration of the relevance of anti-Semitic POVs even to an article not specifically addressing anti-Semitic stereotypes. However, I think that some more information about anti-Semitism might find a useful place it that article: currently, it mentions a vast number of expulsions and persecutions, but speaks little of the motivations of those doing so.  For example, under Torquemada, I suspect that Jews were not seen as reliable when warring factions in Iberia used religious differences to define political loyalties.  But some of the pogroms in Eastern Europe, I really don't know what they had in mind.  It would be worth explaining. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean to show with that example. Unless I completely misunderstood him that's not what Slr is worrying about.  He's not worrying about a historical presentation of antisemitism, but of antisemitic sources being used in some weird twist of NPOV, as one POV among many.Griswaldo (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure it is a POV. It is a POV that has almost no support in reliable sources. In that regard, it is similar to lots of fringe views such as say homeopathy, astrology or young earth creationism. The primary distinction is that this is a fringe view which as a society and culture we find extremely distasteful. This shouldn't change how we treat it. Our POV cannot influence what is NPOV. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo: I'm not sure what you mean by "one POV among many". Are you saying you would find it OK to segregate anti-Semitic views into a paragraph, but not to work the sentences into the text if you were organizing by some other criterion? Wnt (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer. If you understood the creationism/evolution that's the gist of my point. Yes of course an antisemitic POV about Jews, is a POV.  But the point is that we already do not treat every POV the same.  I agree with Joshua that there no need to change how we treat this POV, or how we treat other fringe POVs.  We are not required to add the creationist POV on evolution to Evolution, nor are we required to add the antisemitic POV on Jews to Jews.  We may, as notable within a certain context, wish to write about prominent antisemitic POVs from a historical perspective, but that is something quite different (and that is what your example showed).  It did not show, for instance, David Duke's views of Jews inserted as "just another POV about Jews" into that entry.  That is what I mean that we already do not do, and will never need to do based on existing policies like WP:DUE.Griswaldo (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo wants to know what I am worried about. What I am worried about is the community, and ArbCom, evading confronting some very difficult problems in their current interpretation of NPOV. NPOV demands that we include all significant views from reliable sources. The purpose of this policy is to ensure a representative compendium of knowledge that anyone in the world can edit and anyone in the world can read. It is inevitable hat in this situation people with radically opposing views will contribute to the same article. NPOV provides a framework by which contentis added not on the basis of whether it is true or false, but rather simply to represent proportionately all views.

I know many people use the "reliable sources" thing as a way to game the system, or fringe views, but that is what is going on: gaming the system. If someone wants to add views we do not like we then say that they are not from reliable sources. This is not very far from "I don' like it." Obviosuly antisemites do not think that they are fringe or that their sources are unreliable. The very claim that a view is fringe or not fringe, reliable or unreliable, is itself a view. All we have here is people claiming that WP articles include with due weight all - ALL - views. Except the ones we don't like, which on the basis of our not liking them we label fringe or unreliable.

There is not doubt that anti-Semitic claims are fringe among scientists and historians. But it is not clear to me why the only views about Jews in the article Jews should be the views of scientists and historians. Griswaldo is right that we do not currently insert David Dukes's view of Jews into the article on Jews. I understand that. The question is why. My concern is that we are excluding David Duke's views based on a hypocritical and unsustainable reading of NPOV. JoshuZ insists that a view is a view is a view, but I find this statement disingenuous because he is making it so suggest that there antisemitism is like all other views ... but the conclusion he, ArbCom, most people, including I want is not the outcome that logically follows from this insitance that a view is a view is a view. Somewhere in this chain of repetition the rules change. Although the antisemitic view of Jews is notable and is significant, we exclude it from the article. My point is that the reason that we exclude it from the article is because it is not a view, not a "view" in the sense governed by NOR. If it were a view in thie sense then we would include this view of Jews in the article on Jews. That we do not do so is because we do not treat it as a view in this context.

I want us to address this issue squarely and without hypporicy. My concern is that we have not been doing this. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to arbitrators
In the AfD of the article Economic history of the Jews that I created, there was unanimous very strong agreement that the topic was notable, and was supported by many reliable sources. And yet, before I created that article, there was no coverage of that topic in the encyclopedia. I ask the arbitrators to consider the question of why there was no coverage of that topic. Or any coverage of the important role of Jews in Hollywood. Or any article on the roles of Jews in the establishment of modern banking. Or of the antisemitic canards surrounding Jews and money. The reason those topics are not covered in WP is because they are very sensitive topics that have been exploited by antisemitic bigots in the past. Arbitrators should address these subject matter omissions as part of this arbitration. I ask the arbitrators to consider why no other editors, over the past decade, have ventured to contribute material on those notable topics. I submit that expanding coverage of sensitive topics is an important goal that should be considered as part of the remedy. When arbitrators ask what is best for WP, they should to balance my behavioral shortcomings with the need to improve coverage in those sensitive topics. With that in mind, I ask the arbitrators to fashion a remedy which addresses any Neutrality issues, but at the same time finds a way to improve the coverage of those overlooked topics. For example, I could be permitted to edit in those areas, but have my contributions reviewed before submission to article space. A remedy that requires a collaborative approach to these topic areas could be the optimal overall resolution. --Noleander (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This comment itself provides an excellent example of the type of careless editing that led to this case. By "unanimous agreement that the topic was notable", you would seem to suggest that I, the AfD's nominator, agreed with this premise, when I explicitly rejected it. The closing rationale itself was very explicit that of the 54 editors who supported deletion, only "17 people who supported deletion [...] believe that the topic is notable". Including the "keep" !votes, there may have indeed been rough consensus that the topic was notable, but by no stretch of the imagination was it unanimous. If you can't help but misrepresent the highly visible AfD discussion of the article at the heart of this case, why on earth would you expect us to assume you won't misrepresent offline sources other editors don't have access to? 28bytes (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Noleander's article was not originally on the Economic history of Jews, a topic much of which is partially subsumed in the many other wikipedia articles on Jewish history. His original title and article Jews and money were inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The content produced by Noleander showed no attempt whatsoever to write an article on economic history; by misrepresenting and mingling multiple sources, he produced an offensive and highly misleading article. Mathsci (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be made clear that the original "Jews and money" title was a much better reflection of the article's actual topic and content than the misleadingly renamed "Economic history of the Jews". 28bytes (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on the "unanimous" wording ... I've changed it to "very strong". But the larger point still remains:  one of the roles of the arbitrators is to set the tone for what topics are off-limits (or not) in the encyclopedia, and asking why WP has no content (nor any editors willing to contribute) in these notable subject areas is relevant to this arbitration.    --Noleander (talk)
 * I wouldn't call it "very strong" either, but that's of course open to interpretation. Thank you for striking "unanimous". 28bytes (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Is a delay appropriate?
As IZAK pointed out, preparations for Passover, April 17 to 26, are already underway. I think that Jewish editors might still contribute more perceptive insights or evidence explaining how anti-Semites manipulate facts. In addition, I see that User:Elen of the Roads has been listed as inactive, and describes a family illness on her talk page. I think that she did an excellent job of starting things off, throwing out questionable evidence and focusing on the relevant facts. I'd like to see what solutions she proposes and see her finish the case she started. Wnt (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I plan to post the proposed decision this evening. I appreciate your desire to make sure that everyone has a fair opportunity to comment, but I believe that between the time the case everyone has had and the next few days, this will be achieved. Also, I believe Passover begins this year on April 19 (evening of April 18), not April 17. With regard to Elen of the Roads, although she did not craft the workshop proposals that will form a starting point for the proposed decision, she has provided input, which I have taken into account, as may other arbitrators who vote on the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Noleander and the role of "Devils Advocate"
I have read the Workshop page, and am not willing to comment on any of the proposals (mainly, in truth, because all I might say has been done so - and better - by others) but would make an observation I hope might be considered within the final drafting. There appears to be a position advanced by Noleander, and supported by some, that there is a necessity that he should be permitted to participate in building articles in potentially controversial areas, and to help provide content that juxtaposes the general tone of an article. I know of no policy, guideline, or essay (not even that one of mine) that determines an editor has a right to edit an article, and indeed am aware of many that provide instances where an an editor may not contribute to an area. It is appropriate that articles may include controversial content, that there may be controversial articles, and that editors should be allowed to create that work, but it is inappropriate that User:Noleander should, for the time being, be one of those. When a consensus appears that allowing an editor to participate in working in a particular area is detrimental, then that editor should not be allowed to edit there. This not a negotiable issue, the community decides if and who shall play Devils Advocate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A thought experiment
Thanks again to those who participated in the workshop. The comments on my proposals were very helpful and some of them will be reflected in the proposed decision, which I will be posting within an hour or so. One point made by a few people in their comments, however, I found interesting enough to warrant a separate thread here.

A couple of commenters asked, in substance, whether a pattern of edits adding generally negative information about members of a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group&mdash;so long as all the edits individually are proper&mdash;is equivalent in permissibility and in value to the project as a pattern of edits inserting generally positive information about members of the same group. A few people, though not a majority of the commenters, seemed to suggest that if we are to be true to our core value of NPOV, the answer must be Yes.

I'd like to suggest a thought experiment, i.e. a hypothetical situation, that could lead people to question and think through that assumption. In doing so, I'd like to emphasize that this is a hypothetical situation. It does not reflect the facts of this specific arbitration case, in my view, because I have found that many of Noleander's edits were problematic in and of themselves. However, one's thoughts on the hypothetical example will bear on one's views of some of the proposed principles and findings.

Suppose we have two editors, X and Y, who focus their editing on articles involving members of a specific religious, racial, or ethnic group. It could be Jewish people, as in this case, or Roman Catholics, or Muslims, or it could be African-Americans or Asian-Americans or Italian-Americans or the people of a given country or the members of any other similar group. Let's call the group "Blue people" so we don't get hung up in a particular example, with Blue standing for a racial, religious, or ethnic group. Most likely it's a minority group.

Editor X devotes his or her editing to adding positive information to Wikipedia about the high points of Blue history and culture. For example, X has contributed well-written articles about the lives of respected Blue people, such as law enforcement personnel and other Blue people who are widely perceived as having contributed to society. X also adds information about the positive impact of specific Blue individuals and positive aspects of Blue culture to other appropriate articles. Significantly, although the overall tone of X's contributions about Blue people is largely positive, each individual edit is neutral in content, appropriate in weight, reliably sourced, and compliant with policy.

Editor Y devotes his or her editing to adding negative information to Wikipedia about the low points of Blue history and culture. For example, Y has contributed well-written articles about the lives of detested Blue people, such as Blue criminals and other Blue people who are widely perceived as having harmed society. Y also adds information about the negative impact of specific Blue individuals and negative aspects of Blue culture to other appropriate articles. Significantly, although the overall tone of Y's contributions about Blue people is largely negative, each individual edit is neutral in content, appropriate in weight, reliably sourced, and compliant with policy.

I understand that one could construct a theoretical argument based on NPOV that the value of both editors' contributions to Wikipedia is exactly the same. But in the real world, wouldn't most of us think that X's contributions were laudible (whether or not we might suggest that X widen his horizons a bit) while Y's contributions were creepy? And after a certain point&mdash;after a thousand edits by Y, every one of which inserted a negative fact about a Blue person, wouldn't many of us start to think that of Y as a highly problematic editor?

As I said, this is an admittedly extreme hypothetical example&mdash;and it is not this case, which concerns an editor who (I believe) has made problematic contributions individually, not merely as a whole. But perhaps thinking about the issue in these terms may help some of the commenters see the issues as I see them. It explains, for example, why principle 8 in my workshop section (it will be principle 7 in the proposed decision) will remain "unidirectional." And it will respond to the suggestion by several commenters that the sum of individually acceptable edits can never be collectively unacceptable. It's probably a theoretical rather than a realistic issue, but this example tests whether that is really the case.

Comments on this thread are welcome; flames and hostility are not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Wnt
I think that the relative "creepiness" of the contributors depends on who the Blue People are and what we think of them. If we think that the Blue People run a sinister cult where they interrogate members under lie detectors and keep records about them to use if they ever turn disloyal, or that they force the children of members into underage sexual relationships, then those documenting the cult's criminal associations feel themselves at the forefront of public service. Those on the other side, detailing the celebrities and movie stars who say they've been helped by therapy sessions, or the women who say that they love their elderly arranged husbands - they are the ones who become the sinister minority. And in truth, there are quite a few ArbCom decisions in the archive in which editors favoring various cults have been warned about advocacy, conflict of interest, violating NPOV, etc., up to and including the Scientology purge. Additionally, there's the matter of groups such as gays and the obese that I raised on the other page. Doubtless there are some who feel that documenting the health risks of promiscuous homosexuality or a heavier-than-usual body weight are well worth documenting. It seems like deciding which side is good and which is bad will turn out to be a personal political opinion. Your wording, excluding these groups, suggests a third status with no protection for either side. Thus, adopting your principle seems to imply that ArbCom is entitled to proclaim an Official Point Of View for Wikipedia. Through a series of arbitration cases, it might be established, for example, that Scientology is bad and needs to be restrained, Jews are good and need to be protected, and the obese are pretty much out there on their own. If such a policy is allowed to grow that far, what can stop it from growing further, to cover political parties and issues for example? To be clear, this is the expected fundamental error that I initially came to this discussion in the hopes of preventing. Wnt (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Noleander
Yes, that is a very good thought experiment. It brings out some of the "big picture" issues that I've been asking about, but no one seemed very interested in discussing. Better late than never :-)  I couple of thoughts on the experiment:  (1) If the Blue topic articles were primarily created and authored by the positivists like X, then it is natural that the articles would omit (deliberately or inadvertently) some negative information, so it is reasonable (not to say enjoyable) to find editors like Y that spend time filling in those gaps.  No surprises there.  (2) The predominantly negative edits of Y may appear "creepy" to some, but provided they are based on reliable sources, they are valid.  There is no WP policy against being creepy.  The question is: is the coverage of the Blue topic getting broader and more complete?   And isn't that the primary goal of the encyclopedia?   (3) There is a major difference between this hypothetical and my editing:  you say "... after a certain point&mdash;after a thousand edits by Y, every one of which inserted a negative fact about a Blue person ..." but in fact in my edits a large proportion are positive edits. But you wouldn't know that from the evidence, would you? Other editors cherry-picked my edits to portray them in the most unfavorable light. But they conveniently omitted all the positive edits I've made. To pick some random examples, in the recent Economic History article (which was deleted) I included material on (a) how important philanthropy is in Jewish culture; (b) how college education rates are double that of non-Jews in the United States; and (c) how Jews were responsible for boosting prosperity of Europe in the 19th century. [These are the statements of the secondary sources - not my personal observations]. I was also the editor that added material (in another article) pointing out that the many early leaders of the NAACP were Jewish. Those are just a few of hundreds of similar "positive" edits I've made. I didn't bother cataloging them in the Evidence because it didn't occur occur to me that WP had a policy which dictated a minimum ratio of positive-to-negative edits :-)  --Noleander (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Pseudo-Richard
(ec)I pretty much agree with Wnt. On the other hand, like Brad, I think the assertion that "a collection of individually acceptable edits can never be unacceptable as a whole" is not quite on the money. I would propose that we step back and focus on the article and not on the editor or his edits. [Below is what I wrote before the ec with Wnt and Noleander]
 * Thank you, Brad... I very much appreciate your willingness to consider this question. Until your post, I had been feeling that Noleander's assertions in this regard were getting short shrift.  My feeling is that the Wikipedia editing community should focus on the result viz. an encyclopedia that is comprehensive and yet well-sourced and striking an NPOV stance per WP:RS and WP:NPOV.  It's not so important whether a single editor writes an NPOV article covering both positive and negative points or if one hundred editors write it as long as the result is well-sourced and NPOV.  Now, if 99 editors are putting in positive assertions and only 1 editor is putting in negative assertions, things are likely to get a bit uncomfortable for that solo editor and that is, I believe the situation that you are describing.


 * IMO, the question isn't whether the 1 editor is being disruptive by consistently putting in negative assertions. The question is whether the resulting article is encyclopedic.  And here's the thing... the only way to know if the resulting article is encyclopedic is to consult the most respected sources in the field.  It's not sufficient for the fact to be true and sourced.  It must be set into the context of what the mainstream sources say about the fact.


 * For example, if you find respected sources on Blueism talking about the role of Blues in international banking, then that is something that belongs in an encyclopedic article. However, if you are not likely to find those sources asserting that Blues conspiratorially controlled international banking for the purpose of profiting from wars, then you cannot imply this by building a chain of logic even from true facts.  That's synthesis.  If that assertion about the Blues controlling international banking is to be included in a Wikipedia article, then it must be cast the way you would find it in the respected sources i.e. as an antiBlue canard.  Noleander's "sin", if you will, wasn't the adding of negative assertions or even the creation of negatively slanted articles.  It was compiling those negative assertions into an article in such a way that it was difficult for the average reader to recognize that the mainstream opinion is that these true facts and half-truths had been presented in a manner that was too close to the line of reasoning of one or more antiBlue canards.  There were a couple of places where he presented opinions (of arguably antiBlue sources) as facts and a few other places where he misrepresented sources making them to seem antiBlue.  In my book, those are serious errors.  When Wikipedia says "X is true", it is critical that the reader can trust that "X is true".  If "X is true" is an opinion, theory or interpretation to which some reliable sources disagree, then we must make that abundantly clear.  In the case of highly sensitive topics such as religion or ethnicity, this dictum has an even higher priority.

Thank you for giving me a chance to share my views on this issue.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from JoshuaZ
So I see the point Brad is trying to make (this is the sort of thing that a lawyer would construct, and obviously Brad is very good at what he does for a living) and the question is whether or not one wants to bite the bullet and say that X and Y exhibit the same problem. There's definitely a part of me that wants to bite that bullet. The problem with that may be more practical than anything else, for many different values of "blue" we have a lot of people who spend their editing time doing that sort of thing. Moreover, we've actually had problems with different blue editors adding material that was overly promotional of their own groups in ways that does result in inaccurate impressions. This may be connected to simple societal issues that we as a society seem to think that irrational ethnic pride is somehow good even as irrational dislike of another group is bad. Should that societal attitude impact what is considered NPOV? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Ched Davis
Interesting read Brad. Although we do have articles on murders, war, and even poop, I think most people prefer to accentuate the positive things in life. Technically I'd have to imagine though that both the "pros" and the "cons" have to be documented in order to achieve true neutrality and fairness. (no comment on the actual case involved however) — Ched : ?  01:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from SlimVirgin
The thought experiment, and this case, have highlighted what's often a weakness in the way we use sources. No one should be focusing on adding positive material, or negative material, about the Blue people, even when it's well-sourced, because each position involves cherry-picking. The way to use secondary sources is find the highest-quality, most-comprehensive ones available—sources reflecting majority- and significant-minority views—then summarize them in a way that, to a large degree, reflects both their tone and content. The overall direction of the sources should be the overall direction of the article (with exceptions for borderline BLPs where we may have separate concerns). This is why the choice of source is so important.

It's often very difficult to do that, particularly when dealing with material for which no specialist sources are available. But when the topics are issues academic or other high-quality sources have covered comprehensively—as they were in this case—it's considerably easier, though it does require that we make ourselves very familiar with those sources; and ideally, it requires some specialist background. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with SV. When approaching a properly encyclopedic topic, editors should locate the best sources, which can take some time, and then summarise what they say as accurately as possible. That includes reflecting the tone of those sources. In that sense, the article should be evaluated by how well it reflects the sources, including their overall tone. As Newyorkbrad suggests, this cannot always be seen in individual edits: for example an individual edit may be fine, but, if the editor has chosen to disregard 90% of the content in the source,—the "sin of omission,"—that requires assessment on a different level. Mathsci (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with these comments in theory but we can't forget that 99% of our editors are not truly experts in the subjects they write about, and that the project is collaborative. I think almost all of us can be accused of the "sin of omission" at times.  The beauty of Wikipedia is that we have many minds at work on the same entries.  Where one editor might err slightly because they have not done a thorough lit review on the topic, another may catch the error.  There is nothing wrong with adding negative material as long as those additions help an article conform with NPOV and DUE, and as long as they accurately reflect what high quality reliable sources say.  I think it is wrong to imply, as Slimvirgin does, that adding only negative or only positive material is always a matter of cherry-picking.  If an article is titled "Criticism of X" adding only criticism of X is clearly not "cherry-picking".  If an article on X has been unduly weighted with positive, flattering material, then balancing the article by adding critical or negative material is clearly not simply a matter of "cherry-picking".  Indeed, doing a thorough literature review, or having actual expertise on a topic may give an editor the understanding that our coverage of the topic is currently very skewed and to balance it edits need to be made in one of two general directions - positive or negative.Griswaldo (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Griswaldo
My first reaction to the thought experiment was in line with Wnt's. For most people the experience of "creepiness" is absolutely a function of who the Blue people are. If the Blue people are Scientology, the LaRouche Movement, etc. the tables turn rather drastically. Some might find an editor creepy not for adding negative materials about these groups but instead for defending the Blue people against excessive negative material, or indeed against negative material that violates policy. Those who add the negative material, however obsessively, are seen by most as fighting the good fight, and therefore are not creepy. When Newyorkbrad proposed principle #8 my question to him was about groups on the fringes of mainstream society and whether or not we were going to afford them the same protections against excessive negative stereotyping that we do for mainstream groups. Note that, while the above experiment makes mention of "minority" groups, such a designation is unfortunately an unhelpful distraction, because there are plenty of mainstream minority groups, while there are groups, sometimes much larger in number who remain in a realm of distrust, suspicion and even hate within the mainstream mentality. The reaction to negative material about a specific group is often a good test of how accepted that group really is in mainstream society. It is interesting to consider that in the year that Noleander was adding negative materials about Mormons to the project few seemed to find him creepy. When he started to add negative materials about Jews and Judaism his editing surpassed the creepiness thresh hold. Now it might be arguable that his edits to Mormon topics were not the same as those being discussed in this case, perhaps because of a competence problem, or perhaps for other reasons. But I don't think that explains it completely. Brad I applaud the idea of your thought experiment, now just take it all the way into the realm of actual editing and adjust it to match that reality.Griswaldo (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering Noleander's edits on Mormons vs. his edits on Jews introduces too many variables to the discussion (e.g. the difficult question of whether he is more antisemitic than is he antiMormon). Let's not go there in this discussion.  As other editors have pointed out, the problem is whether we consider some topics more sacrosanct than others i.e. should Editor X be considered "creepy" because he focuses on antiJewish topics but Editor Y be considered "OK" because he focuses on anti-Scientology or anti=NAMBLA topics.  I really hope that we are not sanctioning Noleander for focusing on antiJewish or antiReligion X topics.  First of all, his edits have made both positive and negative assertions about Jews although I admit his errors have tended towards the antisemitic.  More generally, there are many, many topics in Wikipedia where editors have a single POV about the topic and push that POV with their edits.  We can't and shouldn't attempt to sanction them all.  Wikipedia's strength is not that every editor comes to the project with a scholarly, objective NPOV approach.  It is built very much on the combined efforts of many "non-experts" who contribute what they "know" (even if some of what they know is POV or even downright wrong).  Eventually, a real expert might come along and "put things right".  However, until that happens, the policies and guidelines help the non-experts build the best article possible under the circumstances. Contrast Wikipedia's 3.6 million+ articles with Citizendium's 15,000 articles.  The strength comes from letting everybody edit and then cleaning up after some and ejecting the really incorrigible ones. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Richard a majority of your post appears to be in agreement with what I wrote in response to SV and Mathsci above ... we can't forget that 99% of our editors are not truly experts in the subjects they write about, and that the project is collaborative. I think almost all of us can be accused of the "sin of omission" at times. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we have many minds at work on the same entries. Where one editor might err slightly because they have not done a thorough lit review on the topic, another may catch the error. Regarding the sanctioning of Noleander, I was not commenting on why he was being sanctioned but reflecting on the reaction, by others, to his editing more generally. I think we do end up treating some subjects as more sacrosanct than others, and I think this is a problem.  Arbitrators like Newyorkbrad make sweeping statements that appear to level the playing field when it comes to bigotry, but the dirty reality is that some groups will continue to treated worse than others.  That the person making these declarations against bias has not answered the direct questions about what groups are really included or what effect really applying these principles across the board would have, also troubles me. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment from LessHeard vanU

 * My response would be that how is it that User Y can find so many negative elements about a culture/religion/ethnicity to equal the positive ones provided by User X, and still claim NPOV? Perhaps historically the subject matter may have almost as many villains as heroes, bandits to lawmakers, regicides to poets, murderers to philosophers, but in the matter of BLP's relating to that subject? Should every writer, artist, musician, political appointee, member of the aristocracy/clergy whatever be "balanced" by every criminal, crook, killer with a creditable source? Perhaps NPOV says that we should, but I would still question the motives of User Y for doing so. However, my main concern is if User Y was using those examples to draw an inference upon the wider subject matter - that that group is defined by those worse examples. That is where it stops being NPOV, and becomes bias. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LHvU, what you describe as problematic is apparently acceptable when editing about groups that are on the fringes of society. Does that mean Wikipedia has a problem?   When racism of any kind rears its ugly head on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, it is usually dealt with swiftly. Why are we fretting over the kinds of bias that we are dealing with and not the kinds of bias that apparently no one cares about? I think there is an elephant in the room here, and while Newyorkbrad has proposed laudable workshop principles, final decision proposals and interesting thought experiments he has not dealt with this elephant.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes why an identified group is considered fringe is because of their behaviours (e.g. murderers) or beliefs (murdering is simply self expression and should be lauded) and can be difficult to portray in a positive light even with the most vigorous examination of reliable sources - it is the references that define the NPOV, even if that results in a negative article. However, a group that is defined by ethnicity, race, (major/mainstream) religious belief, (major) political system, culture, etc., should, through the use of reliable source, be portrayed in a fairly positive light because - as part of the human condition - the triumphs and beneficial aspects of that group will form the larger part of what the sources report. That such a group will have also spawned some evil individuals or classes or periods of history is inevitable, but is not a meter by which such a group should be measured. Finally, and this relates to how the Blues (and the Blueish state of Isitreal) are reported, there is a question on how some of the sources used in referencing those aberrations of that society (and some misrepresentations and downright lies) are themselves tainted. Once in a while, even a reference that is peer reviewed and properly founded in good research and meticulously presented is really an exercise in prejudice wrapped in a veneer of respectability. No matter how good a source may appear, it needs to be reviewed in the context of the total references available. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you include all ethnicities, races and cultures but single out only "(major/mainstream) religious beliefs," and "(major) political system"? Groups sharing minority religious and political beliefs should not be shown in this same positive light enjoyed by their mainstream counterparts?  I hope I'm misreading that because it seems prejudicial.Griswaldo (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am acknowledging that there are political belief systems and religious practice adherents that have little or no mainstream legitimacy or neutral reference sources. Sometimes even the best and most neutral sources available are dedicated to deprecating the subject, even if in a learned and responsible manner. What "positive" sources there are tend to be published by parties with ties to the subject matter, if not by the subject themselves. This is not the case, I suggest, in respect to ethnicities, races and cultures. I am commenting on the possible prejudicial nature of verifiability where it deals with some fringe subjects, rather than parading my own bias' (oh, and they exist I assure you - the trick is keeping it to oneself!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Tryptofish
First of all, before I comment, I want to say thank-you to the entire Committee, for dealing with what has been a case that has, indeed, asked you to confront things that you may have found to be creepy. I think that you have listened thoughtfully to all sides, and it looks like you are going to arrive at an outcome that will be beneficial to the entire Wikipedia community.

OK, Mr. New York lawyer, I have thought repeatedly during this arbitration about National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie and Snyder v. Phelps. Talk about "creepiness"! The worst that anyone has ever claimed about Noleander, here, pales in comparison to what was under discussion in those two cases. Yet the Supreme Court decided in both cases to uphold free speech at the cost of creeping out a lot of people. (How many current Arbs would have dissented if they had been on the Court?) I've been thinking about how that does, and does not, extrapolate to Wikipedia.

The Court decided that democracy benefits on balance from permitting even the creepiest of speech. (Apologies for the US-centrism here.) Wikipedia isn't a court, and ArbCom doesn't follow courtroom protocol. It's reasonable to expect, even to insist, that Wikipedia require more of our community than the Court required of the US population. There are excellent reasons for Wikipedia to exclude content that is plainly wrong. And there are excellent reasons for Wikipedia to require anyone who edits here to do so in a manner that treats both our readers and the rest of our editing community with not only civility, but with a level of professionalism that requires a sense of decency and a willingness to respect one's colleagues in editing. There's no question that Wikipedia would not benefit from the kind of speech the Court allowed. We don't allow the editing equivalent of the conduct of the groups in those legal cases. And what's more, we don't allow the content equivalent of their twisted ideologies. Rightly. We actually have a higher standard than the Court has, and we should.

But what could the Court have thought would benefit democracy from making those decisions? It was the belief that vigorous speech, vigorous give and take, would be a good thing, and that the very definition of democracy requires the state (albeit not the editing community of a website) to refrain from stifling it. And in a very important way, Wikipedia also requires give and take. That's how consensus works here. If someone obstinately insists on adding content, we can come to dispute resolution and seek to prevent it from continuing to happen. But if someone argues for something in talk, and does so in a way that respects consensus, it's a problem if someone comes to ArbCom crying "He's arguing for something that I find creepy, so I need you to protect me from having to listen to those arguments." Editors should accept that they have to discuss things with "Randy from Boisse" even if "Randy" says something creepy. If "Randy", in turn, doesn't listen to what the others say, then ban the guy. But we, you, have to be careful about banning someone simply because other editors don't want to engage with an idea. This case, with Noleander, was somewhere in between those two poles. Noleander did continue to add content without really taking on board what the community had been saying. But he also engaged constructively in talk, while other editors (some, not all) refused to engage with what he tried to say. So I agree with what looks like an outcome that includes a ban to article space, and I'm respectfully concerned that you are getting it wrong with respect to talk space (perhaps out of an unfounded fear of Wikilawyering).

With any decision about freedom of speech, it's not a bad idea to do a there but for the grace thought experiment. I've certainly been in editing situations where I think I acted correctly and with integrity, but other members of the community might well have thought I was a creep. A while back, an external website recruited mostly IPs to make some pretty horrid threats on my user talk, all because I defended the inclusion of some Japanese popular culture in what is now Crucifixion in the arts. I probably would see Japanese culture as being "blue", whereas they probably saw Christianity that way, and considered it creepy to have something pop culture in an article about crucifixion. And I've certainly had my share of discussions with another editor who commented just a bit above, about articles on animal rights. I might see scientists whose labs were vandalized as "blue"; others might see the animals in the cages that way, instead. From where I was sitting, I was coming to pages that suffered from POV problems, and trying to correct that POV. The other editor saw me as only saying bad things about animal rights. Of course, Brad defined the "Blue People" more narrowly than I am doing here, but sooner or later these things on Wikipedia come around to POV disputes, and just saying POV is different when it comes to certain groups of people will eventually get complicated. Noleander is right to express concern about who gets to decide what is "creepy", and Noleander is also right to point out that, sometimes, editors have to come to an article, or a group of articles, with the purpose of correcting an existing POV. Just saying that it's "creepy" when someone consistently adds negative information is too simplistic. It depends on the baseline, the condition of the article content to begin with. If the content was pretty much NPOV already, then it's a problem to just add lots of negative information—and that is, to a large degree, what happened in this arbitration case. But sometimes someone who seems to disproportionately focus on the negative may be correcting past edits that disproportionately focused on the positive. Perhaps that didn't happen here, but it might happen next time.

Happy editing, everyone! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Mackan79
Well I can't help commenting on such an interesting question. In fact there are groups, such as proponents of Intelligent design, in regard to which many Wikipedians are negative in all of the ways Brad mentions: as to the group, its views, and individual proponents. This is not strictly a religion, maybe, but the distinction is not entirely clear. Similarly, I knew of one competent editor who edited on many issues related to secularism, I believe solely to highlight violence committed in the name of secularism. That is an interesting example in that, according to a particular view, atheist violence has been far under-appreciated, even as people often speak of violence committed in the name of religion. Some believe this is terribly unfair (I'd like to say I'm agnostic on the issue). But, as Tryptofish points out, who that editor perceives to be the "blue people" and whom I perceive to be the blue people may be entirely at odds. Does protection only fall on major religions? Frankly, I think it would be rather offensive if either of us tried to sanction the other because our edits could, on whole, be portrayed as negative toward a group.

Of course, seasoned Wikipedians know that if your edits are only negative toward any group you run a certain risk, and for this reason a smart editor may watch his tracks. So if you are going to add critical material about a group, whatever your reasons, a cynic might say you better make it look like you're actually just supporting a competing group. Let's say I'm a secularist but I think those Dawkins/Hitchens types are over-hyped: well, it couldn't hurt to make some pro-atheist edits before I set upon their biographies. But isn't it a bit cheap? And doesn't it imply a superficial and, ultimately, a mediocre standard?

In my view it must come down to the quality of the edits. If someone wrote only biographies on Asian criminals, but they're all well-sourced, fair and accurate, there wouldn't be a problem. If someone adds articles about antisemitic canards, but the coverage is appropriate, nobody will probably even think to complain. If, on the other hand, material is biased but positive, that could be a problem (if articles started to look like scripture, or propaganda), just as the flaws were a problem here and could be clearly analyzed as such. Inviting a more nebulous analysis, in my view, is thus simply unnecessary, even if ArbCom knew how to apply it. Mackan79 (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment by TotientDragooned
What an interesting question, NewYorkBrad.

The TL;DR summary of my thesis are the following points:
 * 1) Granted, Editor X probably contributes more value to the encyclopedia than Editor Y.
 * 2) Editor Y positively contributes to the encyclopedia.
 * 3) You may or may not find Editor Y creepy; that is your prerogative.
 * 4) But it is a complete betrayal of WP:NPOV to act on that personal moral judgement and sanction editor Y in any way.

I will elaborate on each of these points below.

Relative Value of Positive vs Negative Edits
Objectively measuring the relative "value" of Wikipedia edits is notoriously tricky business and I will try to descend as little as possible into that particular madness. Suffice it to say that we probably all agree that coverage of some topics (Erasmus for instance) is much more important than coverage of others (Bulbasaur). I think it's also evident that positive aspects of Blue are probably considered, by the average reader of the English Wikipedia, to be more important than negative aspects. For this reasons, said average reader would probably view Editor X's contributions, overall, to hold more value than Editor Y's.

I say probably because there are some specific instances of Blue for which the average reader would find the negative aspects of Blue more important than the positive aspects. For the English Wikipedia I'd propose that the Church of Scientology and (sadly) Islam are two concrete examples.

Editor Y Adds Positive Value to Encyclopedia
By hypothesis Editor Y's edits are "good" edits. This means that after each of his edits, the encyclopedia is 1) more complete (ie, more comprehensively reflects our understanding of the subject as presented to us by reliable secondary sources), and 2) at least as neutral (since his edits by hypothesis did not add undue weight to any one POV) as the article was before his edit. Editor Y has clearly improved the encyclopedia, for all reasonable notions of "improved." (Adherents of Blue might dislike his changes, but if so their metric explicitly contradicts WP:NPOV.)

Editor Y may or may not be "creepy"
There are plenty of articles and editors on Wikipedia that I personally find creepy. (Forensic pathology is one example.) I'm entitled to my opinions, and provided that I remain civil I am free to hold whatever private opinions I like about other editors, and befriend or avoid them as I see fit. Similarly, you are within your rights to view Editor Y as creepy...

Sanctioning Editor Y Wholly Inappropriate
... but that in no way gives you the right to try to sanction Editor Y because his pattern of edits conflicts with your personal views. We are trying to build a neutral encyclopedia, not a celebration of human culture or somesuch feel-good work. Our past mistakes influence us today just as much as our past triumphs, and as long as this balance is reflected in reliable secondary sources, both belong on Wikipedia. It is contrary to our founding principles to editorialize one point of view over the other, or to coerce editors into expanding the encyclopedia to favor one view over the other.

Closing Thoughts
Although I am glad that you raised this issue here for discussion, I am deeply disappointed that the Committee has monolithically supported Principle 8 without participating in or reviewing this discussion. We now face the unintended consequence where an editor interested in contributing to, say, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, Operation Snow White, My Lai Massacre, etc. has to "cover her tracks" by making a scattering of unrelated positive edits, lest a cadre of vocal editors sanction her for making a series of good edits exhibiting "appearance of bias." TotientDragooned (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: All this talk of blue people shows that NewYorkBrad is clearly biased against people with Methemoglobinemia ;)
 * Not at all. Brad is clearly prejudiced against the Blue Man Group. Or, wait, in favour of them. Not sure which. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC).
 * We never came into this discussion with power; our role was only to ensure that what needed to be said, would be. Then again, one might say ArbCom never came with power; at least, some of us might say that it was never intended to be a legislative or executive government.  Their sanction of Noleander would be defensible enough simply on the basis of POV misrepresentation of sources, without appeal to other dubious principles.  The test of whether this decision is allowed to have real-world consequences will wait until a more innocent editor is challenged.  I would predict that the eventual battleground of these issues will be in Islam. (and yes, so long as WP make a legislative decision either for or against a religion, it is a battleground). Wnt (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The precise scope of Arbcom's authority is an interesting topic for another venue. Regardless, no matter how much power they have de jure, unless they plan on writing and maintaining the encyclopedia all on their own they are servants of the community de facto. TotientDragooned (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Response from Newyorkbrad

 * I'd like to thank everyone who commented here. I was going to continue the conversation, but I got tied up on other matters for a few days, and at this point the case is closed and people have moved on. I anticipate that we'll have other opportunities to follow up on the discussion that was started here. Regards to all (and any specific questions can be taken to my talkpage). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Respect and appreciation
The arbitration has come to a conclusion. I cannot say I agree with the result, but I respect the process, and will abide by the decision. We are all unpaid volunteers, doing the best with what we have. In the end, WP gradually gets better and better. I appreciate the time that arbitrators and others took - everyone was acting in good faith, and doing what they thought was right. Of course, I'll keep working in WP: I think it is a wonderful tool for helping people around the world, and I like being part of that. I'll endeavor to improve my editing practices to make sure no issues like this come up again. --Noleander (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)