Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)

Action following deletion and/or as well as deletion

 * Comment on the editorial history. Several editors -- Atlantictire, Soman, IZAK,  S n o w . Coretheapple -- have written here with passion about the troubled history of this page. They express concern that, after deletion, it will spring up again in slightly-different form, presenting the same canards in slightly laundered format and with the same intransigent defense of every phrase that has consumed so much time here. The reader will notice, too, how many of the handful of supporters of this page regard the responsibility of The Jews for killing Christ Communism to be self-evident and widely documented.  I agree that this is not the best forum nor the best time to address this question. However, several steps should be taken now:
 * The article should be deleted, but after deletion, the article and its edit history', including the talk page and its edit history, should be preserved so that it will be accessible should the matter arise again.
 * The community needs a forum to consider and address the problems this episode so clearly presents. Two or three editors, working together, can easily dominate a page, as they did here. At minimum, they can consume hundreds of hours of volunteer time, and enormous reservoirs of volunteer energy. This AfD alone is already up to 21,000 words, and it's on the edge of WP:SNOW! At worst, as here, they can cast a pall over the entire project, convincing the world that Wikipedia sanctions hateful pseudo-history . There will always be anti-semites and zealots and conspiracy theorists and fanatics eager to spread The Word and capable of "following the sources" to cram racism, anti-semitism, fringe science, and fanaticism into Wikipedia, and where just two or three are gathered together they are extremely difficult or impossible to oppose. Wikipedia has no future if we cannot address this soon. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So Mark, if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that it be "userified," which would allow both the article and its history to be preserved? I understand the reason for doing so, but it concerns me that having that trash on Wikipedia (even with a "noindex" tag so it doesn't get on Google) could be counterproductive. It might be used as a resource, perhaps, to build up new crap in place of the old crap. My suggestion is that concerned editors simply make a copy of the article in both this version and earlier versions. As for the edit history, relevant portions can be recorded as well. (Also, please do keep in mind that "it's not over until it's over." While this does look like a WP:SNOW situation, the article has not been deleted, so this discussion is premature and probably shouldn't be held here.) But I do agree with your second bullet point; very good idea. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * To be clear, are you asking for this article, along with it's history, to be archived somewhere within the depths of wikipedia rather than just obliterated (If I'm understanding you correctly?) I know that other wiki's, like some domains on Wikia actively do this to teach lessons to new coming editors, and to help clarify all associated guidelines. However, if you are proposing that we preserve the article in it's current state, you need to keep in mind that not everyone that wishes to access it will be there to "discuss" or "learn" from it (especially considering that people from Metapedia and the likes probably have alternate accounts here)? People who are truly OBSESSED with getting the article and it's content featured on wikipedia could copy/paste content right into an article with a new name from a userfied page, could they not? Still, I agree that this should be available for future debaters to consider so this damned discussion doesn't have to happen TIME AFTER TIME again, as it has in the past. The proclamation of ownership of articles has always been a problem on wikipedia, and has obviously gone rampant here, and is probably still rampant all over wikipedia. Something does need to be done, and we need to have a group of people dedicated to solving the issue, not just a bunch of angry editors squabbling about it on an afD page.  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  14:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Those are my concerns too. By the way, I assume you were responding to Mark, not to me, so I hope you don't mind but I adjusted the indent. Coretheapple (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Any discussion about a potential new article should be based on the new article, not on a previously deleted article that's been archived somewhere. That's like putting someone in jail because their older sibling is a serial killer. USchick (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur with the concerns expressed above. We'll want to preserve the evidence if possible, but of course WP:TNT means WP:TNT. And of course it's not over until it's over, but planning ahead seems prudent and we really don't want to do this again, thanks. Finally, I agree that this is the wrong place -- I said as much -- but it's not clear to me what the right place is. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasted many hours of my life arguing on the talk page and at ANI. As much as I hope not to waste any more time, it may be necessary to do so again and I'm willing. Crazy people are living in the world among us and I don't see any way to keep them off Wikipedia. I choose to see my wasted time as community service to keep crazy people at their computers and off the streets. :) Instead of keeping trash archived, wouldn't it make more sense to sanction the people responsible? A topic ban for example. USchick (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * At Jewish Bolshevism there were constant issues on how delimitate the article. There was a sort-of-consensus that the article would deal with the notion of Jewish Bolshevism as an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. The problem arose when material on Jewish participation in communist movements were added to the article, which then could be seen as validating the theory or at least contrasting the notion that the 'Jewish Bolshevism' theory was loony and weird. Moving ahead with deletion (or the WP:TNT proposal) would just lead to the same arguments popping up in other places as well. In order to move towards a more constructive solution, there would need to be a consensus on some basic points: 1) Anti-Semitism and anti-Communism were heavily conflated in Europe during the period between WWI and WWII. The notion that communism was an ideology alien to Western Christian culture was brought forth with anti-Semitic arguments. This feature was stronger in some countries than others, but nevertheless a notable feature overall. 2) Jews did represent disproportionate numbers, particularily in key positions, in the early communist movements. The communist movement was highly Eurocentric in its early phase, and many of the branches outside Europe (Argentina, Cuba, US, Palestine, South Africa) had even higher percentages of Jewish participation than most European parties. This is well documented and its extent throughly debated by scholars. The role of Jewish participation declined after WWII, partly as the communist movements grew in countries with no or marginal Jewish populations, partly in reaction to Soviet policies towards Zionism and the situation of Jewish communities inside the Socialist Bloc. 3) Minorities in general have been disproportionally attracted to communists movements, as these movements have offered alleviation from oppression of majorities. This is in itself by no means unique to Jews. What set Jews in the early modern communist movement apart is the fact that they a) existed as a transnational community spanning over many industrialized countries were the Comintern was active and b) had already begun to develop a number of transnational modern secular political movements (Bundism, Zionism) with whom the communists had to compete or relate themselves to, leading to extensive debate inside the communist movement on the Jewish question. This isn't the same with say, Romansh people. 4) In no way does discussing Jewish participation in the communists movement validate the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories which tried to portray communism as a Jewish conspiracy. Nor is there anyone saying that talking about Jewish participation in the communist movement would imply that all or most Jews were communists.
 * If consensus could be reached on these four points, we'd have a way forward. However, I feel very pessimistic, as much of the voting behaviour in this AfD goes along the line of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a knee-jerk wish to censor an important part of 20th century history. --Soman (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "In no way does discussing Jewish participation in the communists movement validate the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories which tried to portray communism as a Jewish conspiracy. Nor is there anyone saying that talking about Jewish participation in the communist movement would imply that all or most Jews were communists". No, discussing such may not imply that, but the article in it's current state does - the topic could be covered, but in a drastically different way than it is being covered now. I think that's why most of the people who are for deleting the article have suggested WP:TNT.. Flipandflopped   (Discuss,   Contribs)  15:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why any new article should be judged solely on the information presented there and not on some preconceived biased notion from a previously archived article. If someone needs a comparison, just look at Metapedia, it will still be there. USchick (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I think when Mark suggested archiving the article he meant for it to serve as a "What this article is NOT" type of reference. So, in future, if an article is created, reviewers could compare the newer article to the old one to see if it is obviously just a replica. Your point about Metapedia does serve, but unlike an archived article on wikipedia, we can not insure that the community on metapedia does not otherwise alter the article from it's current state, perhaps even with the purpose to manipulate us into allowing a new replica of the article to appear.  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  15:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy that would support doing that? This is not the only article where keeping the crazies away is an issue. Feminist and Muslim related articles face the same problems. The same arguments have to be made over and over again. That's life. Sanctions and topic bans against individuals would be much more effective than comparing articles and having new arguments based on old arguments from archived articles. That's just my opinion. Any archived article would need to be based on existing policy, not because editors want to make a point. USchick (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with this notion. I have seen many Islamaphobic articles on this websites, as well as feminist articles that are constantly chipped away at from an antifeminist stance, and it is largely the same editors who do both. In my eyes, at least, there is an Islamophobic and misogynistic undercurrent to the website, and I think it is largely the fact that most reliable topic sources are not racist /sexist that stops these ideas from spreading. That said, it would be an almost impossible decision for admins to make, and it is only really in cases such as this, where an editor clearly uses an antisemitic source, that such a ban could happen without discretion --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would recommend storing it locally on your computer using this . It wouldn't surprise me if admins would be reluctant to store it on-website due to its controversy and frankly how terrible it makes the website look. I have a copy and it is already stored off-website. I believe, if the article is remade, it should not recycle any content, and within limits, use mostly different sources, at least to the initial version. If editors truly think the topic is worth creating, they should be able to do so without the help of antisemitic papers --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree, especially about the part pertaining to the possible abuse of the archive, but you must admit that this whole fiasco needs to be avoided in the first place. The afD process, especially when relating to articles that have been heavily contributed to by Wikipedia Regulars and experienced editors like Director and Producer, needs to be changed to avoid becoming, well, precisely what this afD page has become. Some sort of change needs to happen so that these ginormous discussions don't keep repeating themselves over and over..  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  15:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly urge topic bans. That's exactly the argument used in one of the ANIs, that problem editors were allowed to do whatever they wanted simply because they were active contributors with lots of edits and barnstars. USchick (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Precisely. However, simply issuing a topic ban is much easier said than done (in my opinion), especially when pertaining to editors who are the likes of the creator of this article; defensive and adamant. If the topic is controversial especially;the user in question could easily draw support for their opinion, and a topic ban would be avoided. A topic ban could become as easily potential to escalate into a massive conflict, just as a proposal for deletion could, is what I'm saying.  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  16:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about other editors, I am relatively new to finding this, but the article creator should certainly receive a topic ban for lifting content from Neo-Nazi sources. The thought of them being able to edit further articles relating to Judaism after this is terrifying. That said, I cannot speak for others. Too many people were involved. If the article is recreated, I will certainly argue that any content that is copy-and-pasted from the previous article should be removed, and I would recommend that other interested editors keep local copies also. Considering the failure of the last deletion, it seems it was only when a source was screaming this page is antisemitic propaganda with definite proof that others could notice its clear antisemitic content. Then again, we all make mistakes, and this brings other questions as to the political alignment of the website itself --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Extreme amounts of edit warring and assertions of ownership were conducted by the creator and a variety of other contributors to the article. That in itself is worthy of a topic ban.  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  16:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The conversation developing above suggests that this is going to continue unless something is done to prevent it. USchick (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, USchick, what worries me more than anything in this whole business is the failure of the people who are supposed to oversee this site to intervene or take any action that I can see. They just look the other way and let these bureaucratic procedures proceed at the usual snail's pace, as they are doing right now, as you point out, this page is going off topic into a continuation of a dispute about identity/conduct, there is overwhelming support for the article to be deleted, why doesn't someone with authority step up and zap it, what are they waiting for?Smeat75 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They probably won't care until somebody writes an article or popular blog post about it that makes the website look bad --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The procedure is to wait 7 to 10 days in order to allow enough time for people to comment. This nomination is only 4 days old. So we wait. In the meantime, if someone knows how to start sanctions at "appropriate venues" whatever that may be, now would be a good time. USchick (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Technical note: I don't know if everybody is aware of this, but even deleted articles and their history remain in the Wikipedia database, and are visible to administrators who are willing to go some extra clicks. Maybe that is a sufficient compromise between conserving the evidence and hiding the filth? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand the point about topic bans, and would simply suggest that evidence for that be gathered while the article still exists. It's all in the public domain, and can be stored off-wiki in the event of deletion. At that point a discussion can be begun about how this article commenced and action can be taken if appropriate. In other words, I agree that editor behavior is relevant (in the "glomming stuff from racist website" sense), just not relevant here.Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no practice of preserving deleted artices in wikipedia as some sort of "historical lesson" or whatever. Some people may not be aware of it, but this is totally not the first article in wikipedia history that took lots of time to get deleted, and it definitely won't be the last one either (I am pretty sure that the record was over 10 AfDs). Also AfD is not the place to discuss any sanctions like topic bans etc. so such proposals should be taken to appropriate venues.--Staberinde (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The export mechanism, with which I was unfamiliar, solves the problem. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if all this discussion beginning with "comment on the editorial history" should go to the talk page of this AfD. Any objections? Coretheapple (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that's fine, but I'd leave a prominent (boxed?) note that the discussion was moved there for the benefit of the closing admin(s) and subsequent readers. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I second this notion, we should put a boxed link at the start of this section and also a link at the end for closing admins/readers. It would be best if this is as accessible and transparent as possible --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions
I proposed a topic ban here Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261. USchick (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This love-hate thing we've got going, Chick, its just not healthy ;). I'm glad you like me now I can only imagine what you'd do if you did't.. like tp my house? --  Director  ( talk )  19:55, 13 May 2014
 * It's called tough love, my dear! :-) xoxoxooxo (there must be some actual love or feeling of affection behind the harsh or stern treatment) USchick (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have it any other way, you know that :) -- Director  ( talk )  10:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Sock/Meat Puppetry Investigation
In case Director yet again succeeds in having me banned for accusations of sockpuppetry (he will try) before I have enough time to gather the evidence, I would like others to know what Wikipedia considers evidence of meat puppetry.


 * Note: I just realized the above is from a policy that failed to win consensus. I'm not actually able to find guidelines for building a case that meat puppetry is happening, which may explain why this keeps. happening. WikiFail.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Director/Producer fit every single one of these except new accounts. In addition they share a highly similar writing style, adopt a highly similar tone with other editors, exhibit the same pattern of making threats and tattling to admin boards, and share a proclivity for name changes when they've thoroughly antagonized the wiki community and embarrassed themselves. Direktor/Director, Producer/Potočnik.

The strongest case for sock/meat puppetry is the uncanny way in which they set other editors up for edit warring violations, or rescue each other from revert infractions. There definitely appears to have been coordination here. I suppose it's possible there are two Croatians living in the same city with a strong interest in Balkan nationalism and Jews who spend all day coordinating editing strategy. The likelier scenario is that a separate IP identity was contrived for the Producer account (call me crazy).

Also, when this was still an obscure, brand-new article Director immediately rolled back the first attempts made to moderate its antisemitic slant. I'm sorry, but isn't it usually the author of the article who does something like that?

Obviously one action proves nothing. You have to compile evidence of a pattern of behavior. I realize this is a giant drag and time suck, but in the long run I think it will save everyone time since we won't have to go through this again.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems the two have been editing on similar articles since a few days after Producers first edits a year after Directors. Again, this does not constitute meat puppetry, but if you check the edits from early October 2008, when Producer first started editing, they were in largely similar articles. That said, they also interacted around then  on the users talk page. Reading through this, I'm leaning towards them being friends compared to sock puppetry --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're the same person, but it does seem very logical that the two users could be working as a Tag team. Previous investigations have proven that they are unlikely the same person, but that doesn't mean that they don't otherwise collaborate or scheme off-wiki.  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  23:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that first interaction was almost six years ago, so it's possible --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What is this "proof" that Director and Potočnik are neither sock nor meat puppets that obviates the considerable circumstantial evidence that suggests they are? Sorry if this sounds snarky, but if all it takes to deflect accusations of puppetry of one form or another is to have your puppet make a change to your page that you would have otherwise made and leave a friendly note, I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. They also wish each other happy holidays.

I would have LOVED to have preserved some of IZAK or USchick's edits, but I had no idea what or when they would be editing and so never succeeded in doing this. Over weeks you have had an army of different editors attempting to transform this article into something other than an anti-Semitic canard, and somehow it could only ever be edited on Director and Potočnik's terms. How do you explain Director and/or Potočnik's ability to always intervene whenever IZAK made an edit before enough people sympathetic to IZAK could come to his defense and preserve the edit?

Being punished for things and wanting to avoid punishment conditions your sense of right and wrong. Director and Potočnik have succeeded time and time and time again in having people punished for noticing that they walk talk and squawk like sock and/or meat puppets. Maybe it's because they are. I say enough.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the proof for the sockpuppet investigation . It should stand up. It is most likely the latter of the two --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I was arguing that this would be evidence for it. There is plenty of time to set up a way of talking personally in that many years such as an IRC, especially when many users are open to be emailed --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * | This is the archive of DIREKTOR/Producer sockpuppet investigations. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see that an effort has EVER been made to collect and present evidence indicating a pattern of collaboration. Maybe we should, you know, do that. Maybe before he/they has another chance to cry alligator tears about slander and threaten more editors for pointing out the obvious. TIME TO STEP UP.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: The archive of the previous sock puppet investigation of Producer and Director does tell us that Director's past on Wikipedia isn't one of that of "esteemed respect" at all. It seems as if him and User:Иван Богданов were in such a conflict that (assumedly in anger), the aforementioned user created an account to parody/impersonate Director, entitled "Direktor Split".  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  01:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In 2011 he was "baned from editing of all Balkans articles and talkpages, broadly construed, for 6 months" USchick (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Questions: 1.) Is there a tool for doing this efficiently, i.e. locating examples of Director and Producer engaging in meat-puppety behavior? Here's an example of "Always there when needed" :
 * 15:14, 20 March 2014‎ Potočnik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,921 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (correct name, wikilink) (undo | thank)
 * 15:11, 20 March 2014‎ Director (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,914 bytes) (-31)‎ . . (undo | thank)
 * 15:10, 20 March 2014‎ Potočnik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,945 bytes) (-434)‎ . . (the "Ukrainian Community in Montreal" is not reliable) (undo | thank)
 * 15:09, 20 March 2014‎ Potočnik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,379 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (settled) (undo | thank)
 * 15:02, 20 March 2014‎ Potočnik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,413 bytes) (-17)‎ . . (take it to talk and discuss like the rest of us) (undo | thank)
 * 15:00, 20 March 2014‎ Atlantictire (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,430 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (Undid revision 600457208 by DIREKTOR (talk)) (undo)
 * 14:54, 20 March 2014‎ Director (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,413 bytes) (-17)‎ . . (This is not a template for "tagging" antisemitic articles, even if that nonsense were true.) (undo | thank)
 * 14:52, 20 March 2014‎ USchick (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,430 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (Undid revision 600446370 by DIREKTOR (talk)Very accurate template. Communism is not anisemitic, but this article certainly is.) (undo | thank)
 * 13:16, 20 March 2014‎ Director (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,413 bytes) (-14,738)‎ . . (Rollback to Pharos pending consensus.) (undo | thank)
 * Note how Director and Potočnik both justify undoing edits because of lack of "discussion" and "consensus", take turns rolling back and reverting edits so that neither is guilty of consecutive reverts, and then go about making their own edits unmolested with neither discussion nor consensus. Incredible. Note how neither USchick nor I attempted to re-revert a un-revert... probably because we had NO IDEA who would attempt what first, and thus gave up.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Atlantictire, don't waste your time in the past. We let them slide by assuming good faith in the past. In the future, I hope they will be less inclined to go on a power trip, simply because so much attention will now be on them both. Any future bad behavior should be reported immediately and linked to all the recent ANI discussions. I'm happy to see you back! USchick (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As long people are afraid of talking about meat puppetry, it will continue. This is wikipedia's fault for failing to come to a consensus about guidelines. It is our monster.
 * WP:TAGTEAM <--These guidelines on the other hand are totally rad and legit. If people don't want to spend another year on Jewish Bolshevism and Communism and Jews I encourage you to use them. That's what they're there for. Use.
 * Just a suggestion. Do your own thing! Whatevs!--Atlantictire (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you take a look to article history of Draža Mihailović and Chetniks from about 1-2 and more years ago you can see how the two worked together. Also, in my user page yu can see diffs about several cases I had with them. FkpCascais (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They are nominated for sanctions in a link right above this discussion. People there are asking for examples of disruptive edits and diffs. If you feel like contributing your comments there, please go ahead. Thanks. USchick (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll say this again, in case someone missed it: Atlantictire is a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppeteer. With two socks and an IP used to evade community blocks. Just putting it out there.. I myself, in my 8 years and 51,000 contributions - never once created a sock, nor do I ever "scheme". I did catch dozens of sockpuppeteers, though, including Atlantictire. I could be wrong here, but I think this may be what we in the business call "projecting".

I've known Producer for years on Wikipedia, longer than most here have had accounts on the project. And that's the extent of it.

Is this your only current account, Atlantictire? Is it your primary account, or would you prefer to be referred to by some other username? -- Director  ( talk )  10:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Director, you've proven your point that you and Producer are not socks, and that you both do have the potential to do lots of good in other areas of wikipedia. But the way you work together and the almost "perfect synchronisation" you have with each other leads me to believe that you collaborate off-wiki. If that's the case, there's not explicitly something wrong with that, but if it is, it's better to just say so now.. rather than have it come out later. :)  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  11:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yah, our synchronization is so perfect, except when it isn't, e.g when Producer isn't even around. Lets be real here: we supported the same point of view on one article, and we had usernames that appeared similar (even though their origin is entirely unrelated). And that's where this comes from. If that's what you're starting from, you're liable to impose patterns with your mind.


 * And that's really all I have to say. I've never collaborated off-Wiki with Potocnik, and I find accusations by Atlantictire of all people, quite hilarious. Not only was he already blocked for these sort of accusations, but he himself is a sockpuppeteer. -- Director  ( talk )  12:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Director, my current position is to place a Topic Ban on Potocnik and hold off on any sort of action on your part until more evidence was provided. Let's be realistic, Potocnik created the essence of that article, your part in the article only involved reverting the actions of USchick and Atlanticire (which is understandable yet still unorthodox). You have an excuse in not being knowledgeable of the origins of the content provided, but Producer, who "produced" the article, has no excuse. If you really had no knowledge of where the content of that article came from, then say so. Defend yourself. Snow and I can only advocate on your behalf to such a point.. you say you have realized that the article deserves a WP:TNT, and if you realize that, then you must also realize that the person who designed the article (Potocnik) is at fault too.. and if you have no ties to him, and did not collaborate with him in any way, as you claim, then you yourself has done nothing wrong.. but you need to advocate that point.  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  13:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Director keeps bringing up my having created a sockpuppet called "ProducerIsASockPuppetAntiSemitie" when I was blocked for saying Producer was an Anti-Semite and a sockpuppet like I'm gonna deny it.
 * Director, your synchronization was perfect enough to ensure that the article was edited largely on your terms, despite being vastly outnumbered in your editorial preferences.
 * Flipandflopped, you seem like a nice person and in light of how the community has dealt with Producer and Director in the past I don't blame you for erring on the side of defending them. But are you sure you really think they have wonderful things to contribute to Wikipedia and are acting in good faith? On what basis do you think they've been vindicated? The sockpuppet investigations where no attempt was ever made EVER to establish a similar profile and pattern of collaboration? Those are a travesty.
 * Here's the evidence:
 * Same Country: Croatia
 * Same City
 * Same obsessive interest in Balkan nationalist movements and Jews
 * Same controversial articles
 * Same tactics for controlling the editing process/tendency to tattle to admins on a dime
 * Same same tone in discussions
 * Improbable success at ensuring an article is edited on their terms, despite being in the minority.
 * Again, what am I missing?--Atlantictire (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh.. As far as I know, we're neither from the same city, nor the same country. You apparently just dreamed that up. The rest of your points are just gibberish.. We don't share the same interest in anything beyond WWII/Communist history, where all this neatly falls into, I have no interest in Jews specifically. That's just a part of my involvement of course, as well as his. I mean as I said the rest of your points are childish, especially the bit about "Balkans nationalist movements", that's especially laughable given how my interest there consists mostly of my opposing said movements.. I don't use any "tactics", nor do I "control articles", we have an entirely different tone, I'll take the "improbable success" bit as a compliment, etc.. And I don't care if you "deny" anything, of course that would be silly after your socks were confirmed ("Mazelov"? :)), I just wanted to make it clear you're exactly what you're accusing me of being..


 * Flip, I would defend myself, but I don't see how. All I can say is "no, that isn't true", and I think I said it about twenty times by now. You can't prove a negative. Plus I'm away now as of yesterday (great timing chick) and can only post from my phone. Also I don't think I should need to counter biased input from others with my own biased raving.


 * The content of the article did actually come from the listed reliable references. Its just that the specific excerpts used were apparently taken from some racist essay that also used pretty much the same ones. I did check up on the referencing and found no problem. It took Smeat going to the original article version and comparing its text with those from random texts on the internet to notice the distinct pattern. I gave him a detective barnstar, but he really deserves two or three because that's amazing detective work. As far as anyone can see, the text was reliably sourced, and it really still is no matter what, but the research showed it was put together by what a racist essay cherry-picked. And that is indeed inappropriate to say the least. -- Director  ( talk )  15:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, I believe that as of this point there is too much drama, resentment, and animosity flowing around in the current pool of people reviewing the article (not to say that the opinions of the likes of USchick, coretheapple, drowninginlimbo and the likes of myself are not relevant). If new reviewers were brought in, the situation would probably just reoccur. Perhaps Arbcom should become involved, not to make a ruling, but to be someone who is able to just get the facts straight. No one is on the same page in this investigation. Along with the "jews and communism" article, perhaps the topic ban should undergo WP:TNT as well.  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  17:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's easy.
 * The MMORPG is over now and you all should just stop with this lynching.
 * Most, not to say all, "contributors" to this discussion forgot for long the 4th pillar of wikipdia and should also come back to reality and more of all have some empathy for the "1 guy" whom each of you, one after the other, harasses.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * a 'lynching' ? bit hyperbolic, -- no wonder orwell lamented the draining of the meaning of language -its not a lack of 'empathy', its about the integrity of Wikipedia - as for harassment , you should practice what you preach imo - you went to davedials page to harass him didn't you? - its all about different  perceptions I guess. Sayerslle (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Lynching? Good grief, Pluto2012! That's not simply uncivil nonsense, it's deeply offensive to your fellow editors, not to mention to the victims of lynching. This in itself deserves disciplinary action.  Perhaps you said something you don't mean; don't you want to reconsider it?


 * Further, no one is being harassed here. Complaints have been made, and are being pursued through appropriate channels, over egregious and scandalous misbehavior that has persisted, perpetrated chiefly by two editors though your own role in this disaster might, when you reflect on it, make you less than proud. An anti-semitic page was copied from a notorious site. Although it should not have withstood a single intelligent reading, it survived months of discussion, an AfD, a deletion review, a firestorm at User:Jimbo, more discussion, two trips to AN/I, and more discussion. Through it all, two users were conspicuous for defending every word of every slur, and opposing every effort at fairness and balance. The number of individual editors who were personally insulted on the Talk page by Director alone must exceed a dozen, perhaps two. You complain of lynching: at long last, have you no decency? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Lynching and I add that antisemitism certainly took its root from people like you whereas people like Director was rather on the side of the Righteous among the Nations.
 * I can hardly imagine such a level of fanatism. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is indeed lynching, Mr. Bernstein, then I would venture to observe that using that term is considerably more civil than the "lynching". Considering the efforts of involved editors in pursuing what could indeed be seen as plain "revenge" at this point, I'd not describe the AN thread as being far from what could be called a Wikipedia equivalent of "lynching". Though I myself believe terms like "witch hunt" or "kangaroo court" probably fit more.
 * If it is indeed lynching, Mr. Bernstein, then I would venture to observe that using that term is considerably more civil than the "lynching". Considering the efforts of involved editors in pursuing what could indeed be seen as plain "revenge" at this point, I'd not describe the AN thread as being far from what could be called a Wikipedia equivalent of "lynching". Though I myself believe terms like "witch hunt" or "kangaroo court" probably fit more.


 * Producer is now gone, a user far more productive than most participants over there, and I share Peacemaker's sentiments regarding his departure: while he should have perhaps been banned from the topic of antisemitism, his hounding off the project is, overall, a loss. Our Balkans articles, sorely in need of experienced, serious editors, will suffer in quality and quantity.
 * I myself never wrote any of that article, and have already said several times (before the AN ban demand) that I have no intention of restarting this ugly business, as I had not in the first place. What is that thread about? --  Director  ( talk )  22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You never wrote any of that article; you merely defended every anti-semitic slur in it, fighting tooth and claw for months and deriding each and every editor with the temerity to correct your blunders. With regard to the term "lynching," its use in this context is deeply offensive to the memory of countless victims. You might be forgiven for not knowing better on that topic, though not for your failure to recognize blatant anti-semitism. Together with Producer, Qworty, and a handful of other miscreants, you have brought Wikipedia discredit and contempt and endangered its future. Even were wikipedia to impose the most severe conceivably sanction on you, you would still be enjoying a nice vacation and can, unless you are unemployed or you are paid to edit Wikipedia, you will still have a nice living. The victims of lynching have neither.  MarkBernstein (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Given there was no evidence of antisemitic bias, and every word attributed to a reliable source, I would have defended the article again in the same circumstances, tooth and "claw" (thank you for that) - but given the evidence, I would delete it myself. Because this project does not function by how you or someone else might be offended by its content, nor with regard to what you personally consider praiseworthy or shameful - but with regard to sources and evidence. All things considered, I am sorry to have caused you offense. If you are Jewish, I doubly apologize, and apologize once more. I was in the wrong, you were quite right. But I hope you see this project can never be a reliable, respectable source without editors willing to bear the scorn of others and stick to the sources, even if they lead to unpopular and difficult places.


 * You just can't stop yourself, can you? Even now, even here, you insinuate that my objection is simply because (you assume) I am Jewish. You were wrong to edit the page as you did. Many people spent days of precious time explaining why you were wrong. You treated them with vile contempt. Many people spent countless hours trying to minimize the worst sections; you restored them with insinuations that they were acting merely because they were Jews. This project can never be a reliable, respectable source while it harbors vile and slanted propaganda. But lynching has nothing to do with the Jews, and you haven't apologized for that disgusting and self-serving analogy. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The assumption is your own! I've not insinuated at any point that you're offended because of your background, whatever it is! To accuse anyone here of implying "lynching" has something to do with Jews is hateful and paranoid. Listen here and listen good: I would never knowingly support antisemitism. Whether you choose to take my word for it or not, know that my own family members suffered and perished at the Jasenovac concentration camp. And whatever antisemites and Nazis and Fox News might think or write, I don't see anything wrong in being a "Communist" in and of itself! I would apologize again, but you seem to find that infuriating, so I'll simply stop talking to you. I'm sure you'd like to,avoid talking to an "antisemite" about as much as I would to someone who calls me that. Best regards. -- Director  ( talk )  00:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Producer leaving the project could have been avoided. That said, I really don't think an editor who lifts contents from Neo-Nazi journals should be able to edit further articles relating to Judaism. I don't think that's an especially radical notion and although I disagree about a topic ban from Communism, I think most admins would have been happy to leave it at that --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think so too. I will support a ban on Jews and Judaism myself, but will request it not extend to Communism. That's just USchick being a bit simplistic, taking the title of the article as the topic. Much of the editors (acclaimed) work could be described as related to Communism, which is very significant in Yugoslav history. Hopefully the user will unretire in time. -- Director  ( talk )  23:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly, it is such a broad topic in world history that it would cover most political and historical articles. That is a shame. All considered, I would still prefer all-and-any bans that include a topic ban for Judaism to none at all. It is inexcusably extreme to use such a source and try to present it as neutral. Even more so to keep its true nature hidden when people try to defend it in good faith. The willful circulation of such hateful content sadly outdoes a lot of good they may and could still have done and should not be excused --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC
 * I have to agree. Just don't know why he went there... -- Director  ( talk )  00:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Me neither, it seems to have caused a great deal of upset to many people in the community. I just hope this is sorted quickly and efficiently so all of this energy can be put to a better use. Such hateful views don't belong anywhere, but especially not a website like this where there are supposed to be structures in place to prevent it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to explain my "simplistic" view. There are NO sources that link (all) Jews and (all) Communism (everywhere in the world). The only people who link these topics are Producer and Director. Based on their combined lack of understanding, they are not qualified to edit either topic. I don't understand how you can see the same information on a respectable site and then see it on an antisemitic site and only then realize that the information is ridiculous. It's the same information! What does it matter where it's located? A reasonable person with good judgment is able to judge the information no matter where it's located. For some reason Director has a mental block about this and doesn't see it. I'm not saying this as a personal attack, he just doesn't see it, "Well, I wasn't "sooo wrong", was I?" User talk:Director. That's why his apology doesn't come across as sincere, even though it probably is. Director and I have been inside each other's heads long enough now, so I feel fairly confident making this assessment. As far as losing Producer as a "valuable" editor, thanks for making me laugh! A valuable editor has good intentions AND good judgment. Producer lacks both! Director has good intentions. Probably. We'll see. Thanks everyone for your efforts! You too Director! :) USchick (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Every single one of you making as show of being good wikicitizens by characterizing Director's apology as "sincere" richly deserves to go through this again. When someone makes defending egregious racist content their full time job maybe that's when you should stop "assuming good faith."--Atlantictire (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Right.. I'm sure you're not the least bit out to get revenge for my reporting you as a sockpuppeteer, "User:Mazelov". Lets talk about that particular sock of yours, shall we? You actually created it to "congratulate" me, and tell me to (quote) "get those Jew bastards!". Of course, it was immediately obvious who it was, but it led me to wonder, which one of your accounts expressed your actual opinions? Care to elaborate on that? Because the way I see it, you were either sincere and wish to "get the Jew bastards" or you were creating socks and writing such things in a childish attempt to entrap fellow users and deliberately get them sanctioned? Which is it?


 * Atlantictire, after feats like that, I really can not believe you weren't indeffed on the spot. It sets a very bad precedent. If I were you, I'd keep a low profile, even longer than you actually did keep a low profile. -- Director  ( talk )  18:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Director, have I ever once denied this? Yes, that is bad behavior. I'd like to think I wouldn’t have become that frustrated and it wouldn’t have happened had this vile article not been successfully defended for so long.  I’d never done anything like that before.
 * In any case, I’m not sure how making this about me is supposed to exonerate you. If this sort of tu quoque has worked for you in the past, then--again--it says something about how readily manipulated this process is.
 * You flatter yourself that this is all just a grudge against you, but really it’s not. It’s about how the Wikipedia community seems to have conflated enabling bigotry with enforcing civility.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that your conduct is manifestly dishonest, deceitful, and malicious. I don't think you should consider yourself called upon to judge based on personal opinion whether others conduct themselves as underhandedly as you do. The fact that you don't "deny" any of the things you've been caught doing.. all that says is that you don't do really stupid things. Which I guess is good for you, but its hardly relevant. -- Director  ( talk )  21:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No it's not. It's manifestly provocative, irreverent, and relentless, and I'm not going to tell anyone they have to tolerate it. I'll just say if this tu quoque succeeds in distracting people then that's not entirely Director's fault and it's not entirely mine.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is entirely "your fault", others can not be responsible for the inner workings of your mind, and what you "thought you had to do" or whatever. And your trio of attributes is hardly exclusive to being underhanded. I also like to think I am provocative, irreverent, and relentless, but I am not such through trying to deceive people. I like to think a basic honesty is more important than relentlessness, which is why I relent when shown to be in the wrong. I do NOT lie. I did not create the article nor do I intend to recreate it. I did not edit in the topic of Judaism outside this incident, nor do I intend to start. I am not a sockpuppeteer - I'm a sock hunter. And I do NOT "scheme". I also own up to my mistakes, and do not try to pass them off as the fault of others. Best regards, -- Director  ( talk )  22:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Temporary blanking
Since this article contains substantial plagiarism (and therefore copyright violation) going back to its creation, I've temporarily blanked it pending the outcome of the AfD. If the article is deleted, no further action needs to be taken. If it is kept, new article text will need to be proposed to replace the copyvio version. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, - I daresay that is the single most unambiguously useful thing anyone, administrator or otherwise, has done in the duration of this sordid affair.  S n o w  talk 23:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Related AfDs and live articles
One systemic problem here seems to be that the various articles, discussions and AfDs over the years are rather isolated from each other, so I've tried to collect them here. Feel free to add if you find more.

AfDs:
 * Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism
 * Articles_for_deletion/Judaism_and_Communism
 * Articles_for_deletion/Żydokomuna
 * Articles for deletion/Żydokomuna (2 nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of Jewish communists
 * Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism
 * Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Judaism and Communism
 * Articles for deletion/Jewish subversion

Live articles:
 * Jewish Bolshevism (describes the canard)
 * Żydokomuna (describes the canard as applied specifically to Poland)
 * History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: The editors defending these older nominations are largely the same people defending it now.. that says something.  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  10:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I found User:Soman, User:Robert McClenon, and User:IZAK. Perhaps not largely defenders (I thought IZAK and Robert may have actually leaned towards delete now that I revise), but still, the pool of people involved is too narrow..  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  11:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that IP 184.101.78.153 is trying to add into History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia some of the material deleted as part of Jews and Communism (diff)

Same user has deleted content about Russian anti-semitism from Antisemitism in the Russian Empire (diff).

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Tactical Remorse
Of possible interest to those noting (a) that the defenders of antisemitic pages are a small circle noted for their dedication and persistence, and (b) Producer's retirement and Director's (very limited and circumscribed) contrition are very convenient for them:. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 100% agree. Director spent weeks fanatically defending an article with an extreme antisemitic POV. Fanatical racists are often people with narcissistic personality disorder . They don't appreciate and reciprocate a show of good faith. They congratulate themselves for having fooled everyone and gloat about how stupid we are.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Eh -- I don't believe we can, or should, speculate on things we cannot know. It doesn't matter why Director did this, or what he privately thinks about. Let's keep cool. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, we can't and it doesn't matter at all. But it is worth mentioning that the discussions involving the aforementioned users get always to enormous (and unjustified) dimensions. --Silvio1973 (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am requesting input on this. -- Director  ( talk )  00:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The accusation that I am part of some antisemtic "group" is a personal attack and slander.
 * The accusation that I defended a page I knew to be antisemitic is a personal attack and slander. Of the highest order.
 * Terms like "fanatic racist" and references to mental health are personal attacks.
 * Well, since you asked.......In my observation, you pushed and pushed Atlantictire until he snapped. Then he completely lost it, and due to his own bad behavior got himself blocked. I have no compassion for his bad behavior, but since he's a new editor and not at all familiar with policy, this is reasonable. Then you proceed to blame the victim, like it's his own fault, when in reality, he was naively reacting to your provocation. You obviously understand policy very well and the power of provocation, while Atlantictire has no experience at all. Wherever he comes from, it's not a skill he learned, but he's learning it now. This is my personal opinion, so feel free to tell me to go fly a kite, but you asked. Thank you for asking. xoxo USchick (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that fucking nobody agrees, but my "bad behavior" stems from the perfectly normal and sane ability to distinguish between "noticing racists" and "making personal attacks." I said Jews and Communism had obviously been created by an "antisemitic crank." Because it had. This resulted in my being blocked. If you guys want to go down this road again, tell me some more about my bad behavior.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh look what just happened:
 * Atlantictire is a user blocked for previous personal attacks of this nature against me, during which time he created sock puppets to evade his block, and continued posting them on his talkpage, showing no remorse whatsoever up to this very point, maintaining that its my fault for frustrating him. Prior to his block he created a sock,, to "congratulate" me, and tell me to (quote) "get those Jew bastards!". Presumably as some kind of attempt at entrapment. He (a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppeteer ) was blocked for repeatedly calling me a sock puppet, and you will find him doing the exact same thing in the linked discussions. -- Director  ( talk )  01:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Quelle surprise. Do your worst, wikipedia.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Atlantictire, your block and your bad behavior stems from your inability to control yourself at very obvious provocation. You're playing with people from the Communist block and you're in over your head. USchick (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What the fuck are you talking about? My block had to do with the perfectly normal outrage at being threatened with a block for calling racism what it is. This is batshit insane.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You will have plenty of time to think about it during your next block. Cheers! USchick (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * @Atlantictire, user Director is experienced and got a lot of time. He has the ability (and the time) to push the others to exhaustion, so that in the end they run away or end being on the wrong side. The best thing with him is to be patient. At the end of the day, even if he has not being blocked, this discussion has been detrimental to his reputation. Please don't become a martyr, we need you unblocked. :). Silvio1973 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You're playing with people from the Communist block--hahaha, that's funny! Atlantictire, please ask yourself what it will achieve to turn yourself into a martyr by getting yourself blocked. You are right to be outraged, you are right to express your anger, but I don't want you to be kicked off WP, it needs editors like you,please comment on content, not on the contributor.Smeat75 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's "funny", it ought to be more so if Yugoslavia wasn't a member of the Communist Bloc.. which isn't spelled with a "k". -- Director  ( talk )  10:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * People in and around the region are very familiar with the tactics and political strategy being used. People far away from it have no idea what's happening here. My sincere apologies about a spelling error. USchick (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "In and around the region" pretty much grabs the whole of Europe, Chick. -- Director  ( talk )  21:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you just like to argue? Or do you like to argue with me? Should I be offended or should I take that as a compliment? :) USchick (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Begging your pardon, but do try to get your stereotypes right. The Balkans stereotype is in a track suit and tennis shoes, with a leather jacket, a golden chain around the neck, unshaven, with the optional cigarette and M-70 Kalashnikov accessories. Hardly a student of world affairs :) -- Director  ( talk )  15:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Quelle suprise indeed. If I called someone mentally deranged I'd fully expect to be reported. Or did the fact that I just said I would write a report tip you off? You can't maintain this behavior. -- Director  ( talk )  02:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC) I said you're a fanatical racist. I know the "assume good faithers" will swoop in to denounce this but based on your behavior in Jews and Communism how could anyone in good faith say otherwise? Then I said fanatical racists are often people with NPD, meaning I don't know if you have it, but there's a possibility.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Director wants me thrown out of Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I "hate Jews" and "hate you", and I'm "out to get you". Its not that every post you write contains insults. No, you're the victim, and you're about to be "thrown out of Wikipedia" (which is highly unlikely). I'm starting to see a pattern.
 * @Atlantictire. Yes I'm sorry, "mentally deranged fanatical racist". My mistake. -- Director  ( talk )  02:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For all visitors to this thread, I kindly offer a chill pill Chill pill.jpg Please take two. USchick (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely a time to WP:COOL down. We all have situations where chill pills are needed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Closure at AN and AN/I
The discussion of consequences for Jews and Communism at AN has been closed with no action. The complaint Director lodged last night against me and others at AN/I has also been closed by the same editor, also without action. . I have posted my immediate reaction to this at AN: An Error and A Shame. MarkBernstein (talk)
 * Reopened by another admin. USchick (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks To Everyone
Thanks to all Wikipedians of good will for their support in this successful AfD. It's been a difficult effort and a trying time (and Director just launched a new request to get me sanctioned!). It's a pity it took so much work from so many editors, but Wikipedia is better this afternoon than it was this morning. Your generosity, intelligence, and patience have been rewarded. Some vigilance will be needed moving forward, but for now we can be happy that this episode has been concluded. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone!
 * "Director just launched a new request to get me sanctioned!" That's his standard procedure. He will try to bait you and then get you removed on a technicality. You're especially dangerous since you can put forth a reasonable and logical argument about content. USchick (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope everyone else that worked on this won't be offended if I pick out three people for particular thanks. saw the way forward and took it;  searched until he found;  treated a copyvio as a copyvio. Each might say anyone could have done the same - but they did it. NebY (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yay.. Champagne and cookies all round. USchick, I did not bait anyone - my posts mostly consisted of apologies to the point of distaste. While some of yours consisted of mocking references to my supposed region of origin. Did I "bait" you too? (Not that I'd necessarily mind reeling in a prize such as yourself ;)) -- Director  ( talk )  21:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted
Thank you ThaddeusB, but what a ridiculous, long spun out procedural fol-de-rol we all had to go through to achieve what should have been a simple and straightforward matter of removing outrageously racist content from one of the most heavily trafficked sites on the internet.Smeat75 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Success
topic ban for 2 editors
 * Wooo hoooooo! Party at my house! :) Thanks everyone! USchick (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yessss!!! I think we may be allowed a little backslapping and congratulating each other here! Well done USchick, Mark, and all of us,thanks to all of the good guys and gals!Smeat75 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not exactly in mourning myself. One thing I've noticed is how wrong I was down the line. I was wrong about the AfD being premature; I was wrong about commencing a discussion re editor conduct. Et cetra. But I think it needs to be mentioned that one person's success is another person's kick in the rump, and I fully expect that this article will be re-created in some form. However, I think that the atmosphere will be much better. Coretheapple (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I hear you, Coretheapple, and share your fear, but that's a worry for another day. And of course I have some sympathy for the page's few remaining supporters. But this is not a situation where reasonable people could readily disagree or where the disputed content was difficult for a typical reader to comprehend. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The end result speaks for itself. Gloating is kind of, I don't know..... probably not a good thing... but I don't want to press the point with people who worked very hard, and really do deserve congratulations, as this is not an ordinary article and it actually could have been an enormous blot on the project. It's not that I care about blots on the project, mind you. I'm not a stockholder. This is a 501C3 so there are no stockholders. But kids were googling "Jews and Communism" and this trash was coming up number one, right at the top. That was pretty awful and yeah, honestly, I'm glad, in a non-gloating way, that's not happening anymore. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I know I shouldn't gloat. Very bad. Sorry. Just for a moment though I couldn't help it.Smeat75 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No one else needs to gloat, I'll be gloating enough for everyone. I'm willing to carry that burden. ;) USchick (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, only the formerly-named Producer received a topic ban. There was no consensus for a topic ban for Director. Liz  Read! Talk! 23:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know. I did, anyway. I did not ask for a topic ban for Director, as I said in that discussion "Comment - Yes, Director's behaviour was very bad, however he has apologised. I would suggest keeping tabs on his activities in related articles and putting him "on probation", as it were, rather than a ban right now.Smeat75 (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2014." Hateful article gone and --- who created it topic banned. Good.Smeat75 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, what's done is done. I think that rather than gloating or celebrating (especially since nothing is ever really "over" or "won" at Wikipedia) it's better to be conciliatory, especially since the AN ended and all the drama seems to be over. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Coretheapple: I hear you, but you may not fully appreciate how much work this has required, how much investment of time and sweat -- much of it taken at considerable cost from important obligations of busy professionals. Some thanks are in any case due to those who have helped so much. I considered writing separate notes on each talk page myself, but some general acknowledgment and thanks seems sensible here -- not least because all those talk page messages would look like some sort of back room conspiracy and fear of such a conspiracy has bubbled near the surface of so many of the page's (few) defenders. Remember, too, that the matters that divide us are not mere pedantic question, but fundamental matters of memory and morality. I don't think they are going to be buying any of us a beer anytime soon, however conciliatory we may be.   Consider Lincoln's Second Inaugural duly read MarkBernstein (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I totally get it, believe me. I was involved in the article at the very tail end and the nastygrams started flowing in my direction immediately. I am in awe of how you guys withstood all that crap, and also with the finesse with which you utilized Wikipedia procedures to be sure that the right thing was done. I'm just worried that too much gloating (however well warranted) might result in a backlash. Coretheapple (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Core has the right of this, I feel. It is never appropriate to celebrate another contributor's sanction; it's quite clearly contrary to the principles of civility and keeping our participation in procedure non-personal, if not a violation of particular policies.  The "victory" here is over the influence of racism and misinformation, not any particular editors, and Core is correct that there is no knowing when this content may re-manifest itself, so those of you who can imagine yourselves taking part in those future discussions would do well to try to maintain a token representation of yourselves as unlikely to personalize these kinds of arguments.


 * Of more concern, the celebratory mood here is particularly inappropriate in light of the completely unacceptable personal attacks that started to manifest themselves here on this very page over the last couple of days. I trust I made myself pretty clear during the ANI, AN, talk page, and AfD discussions that I felt Director deserved the lion's share of the blame for the breakdown in communication and civility that surrounded this whole affair up until the point of the second AfD.  I reserved some tough language for him in that regard and held myself back from involvement with the objectionable material in order that said comments might have a better chance of registering (with him, preferably, or with an administrator or the broader community if necessary).  However, once that process began to get underway under the impetus of others, I found the lengths to which some parties took it incredibly distasteful and completely out sync with our standards on this project.   The persecution that Director spoke of throughout much of this affair -- which was at the time was little more than exaggeration and hyperbole -- began to become a concrete reality towards the end of this whole process, with one user in particular very clearly crossing the line into outright harassment.


 * So call me a buzz kill, but I feel that's enough reason on its own to avoid publicly celebrating the admonishments of involved parties here and pursue a more subdued response to the this (undeniably welcome) conclusion to this ugly affair.  Go out and buy yourself a drink or indulge in whatever way you most prefer after a hard-won accomplishment and try your best to explain that self-satisfied grin to the non-Wikipedians you are keeping company with.  But let's allow this whole affair die the death it should have months ago.  S n o w  talk 05:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To make sure I understand correctly, there's all kinds of policy against having this article, but it keeps reappearing, and when it does, it's almost impossible to delete. After it's finally deleted, no one is allowed to celebrate, even though there's no policy against it. Yes, of course! It seems like people have their priorities mixed up. USchick (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's not quite the point. The point is that you're dealing with a website in which a great many editors are half-wits, and in which even a lot of the administrators are barely old enough to wipe their own butts. So they see you guys celebrating and they don't have the maturity to understand what your doing, and before you know it, you are sanctioned, based on one of the many vague policies and broad admin powers. That's the point, that and the fact that it's not really over. Coretheapple (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, now, according to policy, we must assume good faith agains all halfwits! lol USchick (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I made no comment as to what is allowed and I was clear that what was being done was not against the letter of policy (though again, it doesn't jive well with the spirit of WP:Civility in my book). I just find it in bad taste and counter-productive to moving forward.  And judging from the number of "thanks" messages I got for that edit, I'm guessing I'm not the only one.  I also believe I was clear that there was nothing wrong with celebrating, and had it been kept to a matter of content, I'd not have commented at all, and I doubt Core would have either -- it was the thread celebrating that two editors had been censured by the community that stepped over the line into unnecessarily personalized and, frankly, tacky.  And if you want to get too terribly technical about it, there is a relevant policy for this sort of thing -- WP:NOTAFORUM.   Nobody expects contributors to act like robots, and an instinct to share a few pats on the back after the level concerted effort that was required in this case is totally understandable -- it's commendable commradery.  But when the tone of that conversation shifts to one in which it seems like a group of editors are celebrating the downfall of another faction (or even the restraining of said editors, if you prefer that terminology), then it's time for everyone to remember that this is not what AfD talk pages, nor Wikipedia procedural pages broadly, are for.  And again, there's the context of personal attacks against one of those censured editors having taken place here immediately before.   That alone should mute the festive inclinations of mature and experienced contributors looking to move forward rather than celebrate their victory, since you brought up the topic of what constitutes appropriate priorities in these circumstances.  But that's the last I have to say on the matter.  You ladies and gentlemen enjoy your party.   S n o w  talk 10:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * is giving sound advice. This particular thread didn't start as a celebration of the article's deletion. It started with celebration of the sanctioning of an editor and the purported sanctioning of another, a tainted beginning from which it hasn't recovered. Now, having seen how hard it was to have this article removed, you and others might well like to change Wikipedia policy and practice. To do that, a broader-based argument will be needed, with evidence that Wikipedia has a perennial, widespread and yet superable inability to deal with pages constructed to attack. As we saw in the UK with the consequences of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, a single case can be an effective starting point for major changes in policy and practice, but there's still a need to demonstrate systemic problems and for proposed solutions to be visibly just and fair across the board. It's all too easy for opponents to complain - as was seen in the Lawrence case - that you're "playing the race card", or the anti-semitism card or whatever, and that you're motivated by narrow self-interest or even have ulterior motives. If you can also be painted as vindictive grave-dancers too, then far from helping ensure that processes are more fair in future, you make it harder to deal with even a single repeat instance. NebY (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The "party" and "grave-dancing" only lasted for a couple of minutes, in the immediate afterglow of the successful results that some of us had been struggling for, with no particular indications that we would be successful, for months. Yes, I know and said gloating was very bad and apologised, just for a second I couldn't help it. But for about six weeks in my involvement with that article, admins did nothing to stop Director and PRODUCER from  operating like an obvious tag team, owning the article, constant edit-warring,over and over telling other editors, including me, to "go away, "leave", "take your political POV elsewhere", you "don't count" as a contributor to this article. This was all reported on two long AN/I threads, no admin said a word or did a thing or gave any indication they had even read any of it. When I made a reference on the talk page to an edit "PRODUCER/Director" would not allow, they said I was implying they were the same person and it was a personal attack. When I subsequently was careful to say, in referring to them in the same sentence, that I accepted they were two different people, they said I was being sarcastic and making personal attacks. When I started an AN/I thread and raised the issue of the article at the neutral POV noticeboard, they said I was canvassing. One of their supporters said since I did not think the article should exist I should not participate in the article at all since it was a conflict of interest.They made constant threats to "report" me or "have me sanctioned" (that just made me laugh). Whenever I said the content was anti-Semitic or racist, they would say I was accusing the editor who put the content in of racism and anti-Semitism, but most of the time I had not even checked the edit history to see who it was who had put it in the article. All the diffs that would show these things have now been deleted, they were all in the two AN/I threads, there could not be clearer and more blatant flouting of all sorts of WP policies and guidelines, but no admin issued a word of admonishment to Director, PRODUUCER or their supporters. All this time there was a grotesque anti-Semitic smear about Jews killing the Tsar being promoted in that article, they would not let me take it out, anti-Semitic slurs do not get any worse than that, it is a whole conspiracy theory about how those killings were ritual murders of Christ's deputy and his family by the enemies of Christ, the Jews. Given this lack of any sign of support from admins or those in oversight positions, nothing, zero, nada, zilch, we had no reason to think the article was going to be deleted or any sanctions issued against those who had perpetuated this outrageous anti-Semitism on this site. The relief and surprise when after all this long fussing around with these bureaucratic procedures the decisions actually went our way meant that we could not help going "yippee!!' for a minute, and then admins come down like a ton of bricks on us.This whole experience has been filthy, horrible, for me, I don't really know how I was able to stand it, if wikipedia were not such a widely read site and therefore it seemed important I could not have put up with it. I would really like to put all this behind me now and go back to writing articles about works of Handel, I don't want to think about it any more, but these rebukes for a moment of celebration rankle.Smeat75 (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well jeez I hope you didn't view anything I said as a rebuke. Mine was just a gentle warning, a fear that celebrating would be used against you. In fact, I see it was mentioned at the ANI. Look, you think I'm not glad or surprised? Though admittedly, I didn't have to put up with a fraction of the crap you guys did. Coretheapple (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, of course not you Coretheapple, I meant Snow and NebY and the comments that have been made on the (yet another) AN/I thread open about this right now.Smeat75 (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that ANI thread is winding down, or at least it will if Atlantictire stops prolonging it. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Smear75, I do not see a lot of support in favour of PRODUCER and Director but clearly those editors are very active (and if they are not the same person, clearly know one each other), I beg your pardon: active on the talk pages. Indeed, edits on talk pages are the main contribution of the 54,000 edits user Director is proud of. Expecially during the last 24 months. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Confusion
User:Coretheapple is anxious lest the (very modest) celebration here be viewed askance at AN/I and > User:Snow_Rise < urges that we "allow this whole affair die the death it should have months ago." Of course, if we had remained quiet and acquiesced and waited for the six months (or longer!) that we were told to wait, Jews and Communism would still blemish Wikipedia next winter.

NebY urges us to careful build a dossier against more widespread ant-semitic and racist POV pushing in Wikipedia, and to present this dossier in support of new policy. This is indeed the Wikipedia Way, though it has scant resemblance to the original WikiWay as Ward Cunningham imagined it.

But does NebY's approach make sense? Yes, such a dossier, suitable presented at the appropriate Wikipedia policy forum and debated over the course of months or years, might indeed yield new policy clauses. And successfully managing the process might, in principle, yield a few admin posts. But if such a dossier were amassed, would Wikipedia Policy Debate be the best use of it, either for accomplishing change or for the benefit of the people amassing the dossier?


 * If one were seeking tenure and academic promotion, some obvious places for the dossier are MIT Press, University of Chicago Press, or Basic Books.


 * If one were seeking advancement in business or politics, the obvious places for the dossier are The New York Times, The Guardian, Le Monde, and TED.


 * Either of these would exert a strong policy torque, but if changing policy were the goal, discrete but strongly-worded letters to government officials and agencies charged with protection against discrimination and racism could, with a convincing dossier, give rise to very rapid policy amendment imposed by the Foundation or by external authority. If someone wanted a hearing, would they prefer that be heard by an arbitrary Wikipedia admin or a by a House Select Subcommittee? Would they want to complain at AN/I or to watch as the question is put to the Prime Minister?

In any of these courses, the audience will want to know "Did Wikipedia know? Did they have an opportunity to correct things?" We have done that. This discussion may serve to underline that fact; as I recently suggested, Atlantictire's provocations may be viewed another approach to emphasizing it.

It’s true that not everyone can pursue these avenues effectively, and so for some individuals the best recourse may indeed be WP policy debates. Some people are unfairly denied an appropriately sympathetic audience because they are very young. Some might not be effective spokespersons outside Wikipedia because they made unrelated errors that mar their personal reputations, because they are constrained by the terms of their employment, or because fear of reprisals makes them prefer anonymity. And some people yearn desperately to be Wikipedia admins. But these, you will understand, are specialized and parochial concerns. I'm not going to be an admin, nor is User::Atlantictire. I'd like to see a better Wikipedia. But the record of this long struggle to achieve what should have been the work of a day casts serious doubt that the course NebY urges is in fact the most direct path toward a comprehensive solution.

It is possible, I suppose, that Jews and Communism was an isolated problem caused by an isolated pair of editors. If so, we can take some pleasure in having addressed that problem -- for today, indeed, if not for all time, but "all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us" -- and having at least partially addressed the cause. If the problem is not isolated, then Wikipedia does indeed have a problem. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Mark, I think it was Snow who made the comment about "dying the death..." etc. Haven't read the rest of your post, but did want to point that out. I did make the reference to ANI. Coretheapple (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right. Sorry!  I've made the edit above, using > < to mark the change. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's appreciated. As for the rest of your post: Mark, you've been 100% right in the way you've pursued this. You were right in bringing this to AfD and you (or whoever it was) was right to ask for topic bans. However, NebY and Snow are right too. The outcome of this can be used to strengthen policy. I don't think it's fair to be quite so dismissive. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You think all I'm suggesting is presenting a dossier at a Wikipedia policy forum? And then you insinuate that I'd do it for personal advancement? Oh dear. 'Bye. NebY (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * NeilY has a right to be teed off. By the way, the AfD has concluded. Is it really kosher (so to speak) to continue the discussion on this talk page? Coretheapple (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No, NebY needs to read what I wrote more carefully. I wasn't attributing motives to him, but rather to the notional person who would pursue the matter along the lines he had set forth. But I'm done here, and probably done with Wikipedia; this episode is disgraceful. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah it is, but really wish you guys would stop threatening to quit. You're now the second editor involved in this article, in terms of correcting it, who has taken that position. First you celebrate, then you quit! It is so perverse. Come on. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think editors should be reminded that this episode is not unique, that a fair case can be made that systemic bias exists often enough, depending on the topic, in the best mainstream newspapers and a considerable literature of academic value, and that quite a few areas, and many specific articles in wikipedia, have demanded of contributors a huge expenditure of time, research and effort to get them fixed. Patience and quiet persistence in the pursuit of quality and the rigorous defence of WP:NPOV are the only answers. Even innocuous stuff like the Shakespeare Authorship Question took ages, and endless disputes, before it finally managed to throw out the bad guys and pull the article by the scruff of the neck up to FA level. The same goes for Khazars, which was the object of cranky POV obsessions and suspicions of antisemitism for years. Any wikipedian worth his salt should get used to to the fact that collaborative editing can, at times, prove extremely arduous, but not for that should one throw up, or throw one's hands up (after gnawing past the nails to the pulp as one handles tough editing) in despair. The danger I see here is in regarding what happened, and the issue, as peculiar or exceptional.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The danger I see here is in doing nothing. By the way, why were you permablocked from Israel/Palestine articles? Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This last question does you no credit. Nishidani has not been blocked or banned from any part of Wikipedia for nearly 3 years (except for a few hours accidentally).  You can read all about it on his user page. He is in fact one of the most scholarly and patient editors in the area. Zerotalk 23:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So why was he permanently topic banned? I just wanted to know. His comment seemed to come from way out in left field, so I was wondering. Coretheapple (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think to remember all contributors involved in a discusison about the name of West Bank / Judea-Samaria were topic banned as a whole. The ArbCom had no patience or will to analyse deeper into details.
 * Anyway... "left field"... : a communist ? Brrrrr... Nishidani is just a contributor who relies on WP:RS in all matters. The biggest issue here.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors on both sides of the dispute were topic-banned but AFAIK Nishidani is the only one whose restrictions were later fully lifted. Incidentally the "West Bank" argument has generated at least ten times more words on the project than Jews+Communism has. This one is only in the medium-size category in terms of wasted time. Zerotalk 07:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I definitely am becoming acquainted with the "time suck" aspect of these things. I'm unfamiliar with the Israel-Palestinian Wiki dispute, or that West Bank stuff, but to me this Jews and Communism issue had serious and in my view singular implications. I don't want to repeat what they are, as we've gone over that ad nauseum as it is. I do want to say, concerning arbcom, that I've seen people on both sides of the dispute talk about arbcom as if it is a kind of golden staircase to redemption. I think disappointment is going to rain on all concerned if that happens. Once I saw an arbcom member comment on an issue in which I was involved and that person was utterly stupid. Coretheapple (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the proper term for the condition you describe is "intellectually challenged." USchick (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbcom cases take forever, months and months, it is like a judicial inquiry, and they do not deal with content at all, only behaviour, so it would not have been any use to us in this case where we felt there was an urgent need to remove racist content. I am curious as to what has happened to Drowninginlimbo, the talk page and user account have suddenly switched to redlinks and "no such user".Smeat75 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's right. He lamented (correctly) editors resigning and then he disappears himself. Strange. Well, this section is titled "confusion" after all. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this, it is a continuous effort to help prevent the circulation of POV-pushing on the website (which actually has a huge far-right editor base) and this is not a single instance case. Editing in contentious areas, particularly those relating to racism/sexism means you see it frequently. All that quitting or protesting from editing achieves is accepting that articles like this will be created in the future without you there to help prevent it - and this will happen. The problems are user created and they have to be used solved. Admins generally seem to be here to follow consensus, not set the rules or block by discretion --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, agree with whom? The indentation was a bit ambiguous. Coretheapple (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the comment by Nishidani. There are hundreds of edits made in the same spirit as the article every day - they are just on a much, much smaller scale, and are more subtle --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I understand the point, but what I think that misses is that this particular article was unusual in the scope of its issues. That's where I would disagree. By the way, I wasn't trying to give Nishidani any problems. I just noticed that permaban thing on his user page and I just wanted to know what happened. Here, one editor was topic banned and it was only because of very serious issues. I have no idea what that entire arbitration case is about, and I went to the arb case file and I still don't know. Coretheapple (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh definitely, I guess what I'm saying is it is sad that editors are feeling the need to resign based on it. The article is particularly bad in its scale and having read the talk pages it must have been hugely frustrating trying to contest with it for those months. Is there nothing about the ban in the archives? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'll bet, but I couldn't find it and I don't really care. I was just curious. Seems that this Jews & Communism article has a backstory stretching back to the George W. Bush administration. Coretheapple (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't believe it's been created and deleted that many times? I'm surprised that none of those have led to WP:SALT. Considering how many people were advocating for recreation you would think somebody would have been able to done it sensibly by now (that is, if it is necessary) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about disputes over articles with Jewish and Eastern European themes. Here we have the intersection of both, a perfect storm. Coretheapple (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. That isn't surprising sadly. I don't think there's much you can do to contest people with these views --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Coretheapple. I gave the explanation as to why I was banned at the bottom of that page in the section,Perma-banned by Arbcom, for the I/P area. My edit-warring consisted of 8 reverts over many pages in 1 and a half months, restoring 'West Bank' as the default neutral term which opposing editors wished to replace by using the highly charged Likud-party and right-wing Israeli preferred term, Judea and Samaria, in patent violation of WP:NPOV. I came back when an American-Israeli editor User:Ravpapa and an American-Arab editor, User:Nableezy asked, without my knowing anything about it, ARBCOM to allow me back in that area. Whereupon, ARBCOM rescinded the ban.Nishidani (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That doesn't seem terribly serious, so the people who have been involved in this article might want to take it seriously, as when they say "this ought to go to arbcom" it could result in that kind of draconian sanction. Coretheapple (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward
I agree with the suggestion that this event can be used to improve policy and lessen systemic bias on Wikipedia. Since User:Director is so knowledgeable about policy, perhaps he would be willing to use his skill and prowess for good instead of evil. Any other willing participants? And where is the appropriate venue to hold this discussion? USchick (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would suggest in the talk page of WP:NOT because that is the policy (subsection WP:PLUG) that bans propaganda. That is, I think, the main problematic issue here, if you boil it down to essentials. Coretheapple (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * USchick, you clearly must re-watch Star Wars :). Seriously, though, what exactly do you have in mind? There really isn't much to do besides advise more careful research into the usage of references. --  Director  ( talk )  16:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Au contraire! As the master provocateur who used the same tactics on Baltic topics, was sanctioned, and came over to a new topic, and continued to do the exact same thing, I think you have a lot to offer. Kind of like when hackers are hired to prevent other hackers from entering the system. :) You don't have to do anything right now, just think about it. USchick (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * B... Baltic?? -- Director  ( talk )  16:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha! Ahahahah! Sorry Chick, but that's really funny :D -- Director  ( talk )  17:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There I am wondering what the heck I ever did in the Baltic articles.. :) -- Director  ( talk )  17:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Balkan. You must have done something, to get banned for 6 months in 2011. :) Just because you haven't done anything in The Baltics, doesn't mean you won't in the future. Assume good faith, I didn't say you will do something bad! ha ha USchick (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they'd best hide their women and children over in the Baltics.


 * ..Chick, "the Balkans" is like an alternative name for the Balkan Peninsula. "the Baltic" refers to the Baltic Sea, or might be used to refer to the three Baltic states (possibly also sometimes to Finland and Sweden besides). What in the world makes you think they deserve to experience my reign of terror? --  Director  ( talk )  21:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the geography lesson, it's very educational and I hope to tour those places one day. Please let me know when it's my turn to teach you the difference between Jews and Communists. :-) USchick (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You two, get a room! --Pudeo' 02:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Director, that made me laugh. SHOTS FIRED, haha. So did this idea actually turn into anything? If so, I'd be glad to participate in it if you have a link!  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  20:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal
Based on a discussion here User talk:IZAK this is what we came up with so far. Please comment.

I suggest we all sign up at WikiProject Discrimination as Participants and in the Resources section we can list any useful policies and tools available for making a reasonable argument. It turns out, the reason Mark was successful in deleting the article is because of the way he framed the nomination. Well, who would know that? On Wikipedia, as in real life, there are lots of things you have to know if you want to accomplish anything. I believe being part of a group like WikiProject Discrimination will link us all to each other and to other people who can be called on to comment on a questionable situation. That doesn't mean we will all agree, and it doesn't mean people there will automatically agree either, but it's a resource we could have used if we knew about it. What do you think about this idea? USchick (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This page appears to promote new pages about anti-discrimination, not to fight discrimination. And the project that does fight discrimination, referred to in its lede, doesn't seem interested in things like anti-semitism and racism, but rather to avoid American-centric ethnocentrism. FWIW MarkBernstein (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, maybe we should form a sub-group there or somewhere else more appropriate. I'm interested in creating a toolbox that we and other editors can use in the future. I still don't know how to frame a nomination for deletion (like you did). That tool could have been used months ago, during the first nomination if someone knew about it. USchick (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You or I or us or anyone can start a new wikiproject if you/we want to,see WikiProject Council/Guide.Smeat75 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we have enough content to start a project?
 * From WikiProject Discrimination, "For the WikiProject related to actual discrimination or cultural bias in Wikipedia itself, see WikiProject Countering systemic bias." We could form a task force and create a toolbox that everyone can use. USchick (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't oppose it, but I feel that a more important step would be a specific increment to Wikipolicy regarding the systemic bias effects inherent in any sort of widespread discrimination--bias in terms of what sources exist, bias in terms of the volume of editors appreciative or knowledgeable about what's known about the particular type of discrimination involved, bias in terms of the existence of dedicated organizations that gain power and coherence from a particular form of discrimination, and so forth. Legal systems in the western world tend to counter this with concepts paralleling heightened scrutiny, but our existing WP:BLPGROUP actually prevents us from any similar mechanism at least in the case of article context, at least until and if it's amended. In this case, I think the legal systems have it less wrong than we do.  --j⚛e deckertalk 19:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you mention that policy. On numerous issues, I ran into a problem with WP:BDP. You can't say anything to damage a live person's credibility, but you can trash them after they're dead. Why is that? A revision to this policy would make a huge difference. USchick (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason for that distinction is purely practical: Wikipedia does not have the resources to fight lawsuits and dead people aren't known for suing anyone (though in some jurisdictions it is possible, apparently). But of course you exaggerate with "you can trash them after they're dead"; we are still bound by WP:NPOV and WP:V. Zerotalk 00:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Lawsuits? That's the reason? Wow..... One recent example of this is when Lenin and Marx were being labeled "Jewish" long after they were dead. Sources claimed they were "Jewish" and that was it. No discussion allowed. The fact that no one knew about it during their lifetime, or the fact that they converted to something else was irrelevant. As long as people are dead, apparently you can label them any way you want. We had an edit war in this article and in other places. So this is ok to do, as long as no one gets sued apparently. USchick (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do all WikiProjects need to be "content-centred" per se? WikiProject Grammar and WikiProject Spam don't adhere to a specific topic (well, Grammar and Spam obviously), but rather to a goal: avoiding Grammar Mistakes and Spam on wikipedia in general. We should create a WikiProject that aims to repair and fix content so it is not discriminatory, and where we can educate people about discrimination on wikipedia, just like WikiProject Grammar aims to repair grammar in articles and teach people about grammar on wikipedia. That's what I would be interested in, not joining the current WikiProject "Discrimination" as it stands, as MarkBernstein said. I would be glad to put in an effort to being a part of the Discrimination Task Force if we're going to create one!  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  22:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think this should be a WikiProject; that gives us all sorts of headaches in terms of governance and policy, and I see scant benefit. This doesn't need to be a big complex thing: I'd settle for knowing that there'd always be a bat-signal on (say) USchick's talk page if trouble were brewing. Or mine. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of a bat signal. Contacting individuals is probably against policy Canvassing. WikiProject Countering systemic bias seems like the designated place according to policy. If you put the talk page on your watch list, we will all be notified when someone posts a bat signal there and it will alert people watching that project. Go here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and click on the star at the top of the page to add it to your watch list. At a minimum, this will work. I'm willing to partner on further efforts with you Flipandflopped. Like a task force of some sort. What do you have in mind? USchick (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose Mark's suggestion would suffice, although I still think it would be rather 'cool' to have a WikiProject, as I said above, with all articles that are written in a discriminatory fashion being in it's domain for "improvement". I really do think a WikiProject would be doable, and it'd also be better in the regard that we could tag articles plagued with discriminatory content (like displayed in Jews and Communism) as being within the scope of the Project, and then grade them based on how well they've improved since they were tagged - with the prime goal being to salvage the article. It might not be immediate, but that would be something I would have a genuine interest in. Until then, I'd be glad to collaborate with you on some other sort of de facto version of this idea through anyone's talk page. Either way, Wikipedia does desperately need a group that functions in this way to avoid any reoccurrence of what happened here.. or simply to act as a voice of reason to users like Director whom might not realize the inappropriateness of the article that they're defending/contributing to.  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  01:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone tried to tag the article with an Antisemitism tag, and there was a huge edit war over it. USchick (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit warring will be a problem whether we act as a Project, a Group, or as an Individual in my opinion. We just have to trust that editors will act in good faith and accept our criticism, if not then it's the duty of the Admins at the noticeboard to sort them out so we can fix the article ;) Tag or not, If someone's going to edit war, they're going to edit war.. sadly, article ownership will always exist, but the efficiency of the way in which we combat it can change.  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  01:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * it's the duty of the Admins at the noticeboard to sort them out- that's just what they didn't do in this case and that was the real problem as far as I was concerned, it seemed as if they just ignored everything I said, not only about content but about behaviour, if they didn't recognise the content as problematic I just could not see how repeated and obvious breaches of WP guidelines about tag teams, edit warring and ownership of articles were having no action taken about them. I got the strong feeling none of them wanted to get involved because they didn't want the hassle of dealing with the complaints that would be made about any action they took, in fact one admin flat out said that none of them were going to go near the whole issue as it was obviously "going to ARBCOM" and two others made similar remarks in messages to me. But I would be happy to participate in any group or task force and have put the page USchick indicated on my watch list.Smeat75 (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, at least they deleted the article - in all honesty, I think the admins did what was best to end the conflict. It's unrealistic to say that Director is going to continue to behave in this way after this incident (he's not an idiot, and he saw what happened to Producer), and rather than brew an extensive, brutal controversy, they decided to see and wait if he does do it again. I respect their opinion from the viewpoint of someone who wants to end the conflict on both sides. As of this point as well, it's extremely unlikely that Director would get away with contributing to a possible revamp of the Jews and Communism article from a neutral standpoint.. I have confidence in the admins, even if the decision they had to make this time was understandably difficult and controversial.  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  01:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark is correct. Also, USchick, that will quite do with the Florence Nightingale shtick. Not helpful.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this means. USchick (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And neither do I, but that's besides the point. If you are really, truly so utterly outraged that an editor who has promised he won't do it again didn't get a topic ban (which I don't think you in particular are, USchick), then working with a proposed project that is going to be dealing with those types of people 24/7 might not be the best route for you if you want to avoid a stream of endless controversy. If you're trying to combat discrimination, but you come off as just as assertive and adamant as the people who were discriminating in the first place, soon outsiders will have a hard time differentiating you - compromise is important. Coretheapple has said it, it's time to move forward.  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  10:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I am not outraged that Director was not topic banned. I was angry that the two AN/I threads were closed with "no consensus" and angry to learn that the first AfD, which was before I knew about the existence of the article, was also closed with "no consensus". It should not have been such a titanic struggle to remove obvious racist content and ameliorate user behaviour that is specifically forbidden by WP policies and guidelines. But as you say, time to move on now, the lesson I have learnt from this is that we cannot depend on admins or "higher powers" to do anything at all, we cannot depend on anyone but ourselves.Smeat75 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed - if we can repair the articles before they reach the state of needing deletion we could avoid the situation of having to deal with admins  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  14:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not outraged, actually I'm very happy with the outcome. The bat signal works for me. USchick (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that, the comment was intended for Atlantictire and Mark. I added the little bracket part after to try to clarify I wasn't referring to you when I said that :) You seem to be getting along well with Director, but some people obviously still are not, which does more harm than just letting him have learned his lesson. Anyway, I posted on your talk page and I would love to collaborate with you and snow and core and everyone else I'm forgetting, through bat signal or project or whatever (though Project would be my preference)  Flipandflopped  (Discuss,   Contribs)  15:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) I'm the one discouraging people from going underground and forming vigilante groups. The most useful thing we can do is create a toolbox with links to helpful policies. Some things we knew about, and some things we didn't. I would be most grateful if User:MarkBernstein would explain exactly what kind of AfD nomination he used and why it worked when others didn't. USchick (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

So this page will be used to notify people when someone is aggressively defending anti-Semitic content. That's how we've agreed to address this problem. Sounds good. Archive it?

Those of you with confidence in the perspicacity of Wikipedia admins, check out TParis’ admonishment to Director on the latter's talk page. It’s like Snape killing Dumbledore or something. “You seem to be right about 90% of the time I see you in these messes…”

Ok!--Atlantictire (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you choose to go to arbitration, these same people will be the arbitrating. Welcome to the real world. ;) USchick (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * give me a few dozen editors, in different countries, all of whom write well and understand discipline and Wikipedia policy, and I will move Wikipedia, or you will. And we'll never see ArbCom.... MarkBernstein (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, by an irony of ironies, Lenin's formulation of Vanguardism, which was a subversion of Marx.Nishidani (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"You can't say anything to damage a live person's credibility, but you can trash them after they're dead. Why is that?" Libel law. In most jurisdictions you can't libel the dead. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)