---

User:JOttawa16 has proven not to be able to be neutral when editing political articles. He has created "Decade of Darkness" twice and "Harper Derangement Syndrome" both of which were basically attack articles against liberals. Since the deletion of decade of darkness he attempted to add it to several articles, despite being told not to. It seems to be clear that he cannot edit political articles without being bias. JDDJS (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. "Harper Derangement Syndrome" was an eye-opener for me because it was such a blatant, even laughably biased attack article, from an editor who has been around long enough to know better. He knows full well about WP:NPOV. But I'd say he's demonstrated most recently that he doesn't really care much about it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My only other comment is that we'd also need to watch out for more WP:COATRACK articles like "Decade of Darkness," which was ostensibly a military article, even as it was clearly another anti-Liberal Party of Canada attack page, at least when I saw it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban. I really can't understand how any user could possibly create such a biased attack article. You don't have to be a long-time user, overly familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, or even particularly knowledgeable about Wikipedia decorum. Common sense would seem to indicate that this kind of disruptive trolling would be unwelcome anywhere. It shows an inability to edit political articles and a complete disdain for NPOV. To me, his behavior with respect to the "Decade of Darkness" is secondary, but it shows how determined he is to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. He seems to see nothing disruptive about his behavior and quotes "the truth" as his justification (see the discussion at the recent AfD). I don't think he's going to change. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban - Interacting with this user and the many pro-Conservative Party of Canada and anti-Liberal Party of Canada articles he has created and then which had to be deleted, it has become very clear that WP:NOTHERE applies. From his edit history this editor is clearly using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to promote his own political agenda and in a very blatant and unsophisticated manner as well. His user talk page has a list of these articles. The Canadian news media has carried stories discussing how the Conservative Party of Canada pays its members to flood forums, news and discussion groups, news site comments and other user-created content websites with pro-party propaganda and the behaviour of this user is consistent with such practices. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to see your evidence that I'm a paid person of any political party. Otherwise, I suggest you retract your ridiculous statement immediately. JOttawa16 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you actually read what I actually wrote I didn't say you were a paid political contributor. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems reasonable to me. That is quite a blatant attack. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I think it is good to be concise, I also think some evidence should be submitted in the form of diffs/links to support the proposal being sought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Decade of Darkness and Harper Deragment Syndrome have been deleted, so I could not provide links to them. JDDJS (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I looked at Harper Deragment Syndrome here, courtesy of google and it doesn't appear to be an attack page. He's writing about what has already been written, in fact, his sources show that it's a neologism covered by more than one source source 1 [ http://princearthurherald.com/en/uncategorized/james-the-harper-derangement-syndrome source 2 ] [ http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/05/24/peter-foster-get-stephen-harper-duffy-affair-has-exposed-a-pandemic-of-harper-derangement-syndrome/ source 3 - and yes this is an opinion , written by a staff writer ] passing mention occurs here where another politician is described as having harper derangment syndrome and finally this one - this one might not be reliable

His first link is broken to be sure , but it's easily fixed or replaced with this one . The article itself says what the sources themselves said, no coatrack, no syn nor any or. Now, I wasn't able to find the second article, but the first article appears to be ok and not an attack. KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 16:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I disagree with you. Just because it is sourced, does not mean it's not an attack article. He wrote the article as if it was an actual mental illness. If saying that people who disagree with you are mentally ill is not an attack, then what is? JDDJS (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you shitting me? "Harper Derangement Syndrome (HDS) is "a mental illness that affects Canadian supporters of the left-wing New Democratic Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada'..." isn't an attack page? It goes on and on like this, in just that tone. As I said at the Afd, yes, "foo derangement syndrome" is a widely used term. Plug in Bush, or Obama or yes, even Trudeau, and you get Ghits. But this article was written as a pure attack page. It wasn't about the term, it was using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAP for the term, in it's most extreme POV way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn I assure you I'm not. However, just so you know, I'm not a Harper hater, nor a supporter, I hadn't heard of him until this report. Howervr, a description of Harper's Derangment appears here and he didn't quote it word for word. He paraphrased it. Could that description be worded better ? Sure! However, it's not an attack page. KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 19:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't badger on this point. IMO it could not be more clearly a textbook Wikipedia:Attack page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I don't know what KV is talking about, clearly an attack page. BMK (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When are we going to delete Campaign for "santorum" neologism and War on Women as an attack pages, then?--v/r - TP 00:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never? The lead to the second one begins quite neutrally "War on Women is an expression in United States politics used to describe..." This is not at all what we have here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...certain Republican Party policies..." All article start out neutral, at least until they get to the "..is.." or "...used to..." And the Santorum page? Wikipedia should not be writing articles about all the crap that gets created and spread on election years to smear others.--v/r - TP 00:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the lead on War on Women to include "perceived" to clarify that it is opinion. As for Campaign for "santorum" neologism, it's well sourced and simply documents the facts that happen. It is very significant. The article is the first result when you google Santorum. JDDJS (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't neccessarily have done that. I'd just look at focusing "War on Women" to the feminist movement and remove the political coatracking. Then I'd delete Santorum altogether. Although I very much doubt it'll get deleted, my point is that all it takes is for a well known politician to bash their opponent and all of that politician's supporters to raise the banners and blog about it before the mainstream media reports on it and whatdalyahave - a fully sanctioned attack page. Our policies fully support this.--v/r - TP 02:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It might be useful if an admin could copy these deleted pages to a temporary space so that people can see them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban - this is an editor who, alas, seems unable or unwilling to drop the stick regarding the particular point of view that he's been pushing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban - per Bushranger et al. BMK (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban HDS was a clear attack on the opposition parties and their supporters. TFD (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block or topic ban Wikipedia is not a political toy for bashing others. It's bad enough when new editors think it is, but when established editors demonstrate clear abuse of this project while knowing better, they need to be removed from areas where they can not display proper judgement.--v/r - TP 01:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban Laurentian consensus seems to be the latest example. The user seems intent to make articles where they can put forward their bias. If you make an article on a term used only by people with your bias, you know that all the "sources" will agree with your bias, and you can pretend that you're just following the sources. This problem can't be dealt with by just AFD'ing each case. Because, the user still gets to put out their bias for as long as the article lasts, and then a new one is created after that. Editing an established article means an instant revert, but that's not possible with new articles, where all the content is bias, and there's no neutral version to revert to. At a minimum, there should be a limit imposed on creating new political articles. --Rob (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. Seems obvious this editor is not cut out to edit in this area. --John (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is ridiculous. I have a Masters degree in political science and I love helping my community however possible. I have only ever written non-partisan articles that are well-researched and supported by ample evidence. At the same time as this individual nominated me for a topic ban, he also nominated several of my articles for deletion, clearly as a form of harassment and attempting to silence the truth. This is obviously a violation of WP:PA and WP:HA. JOttawa16 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose, qualified. If the material is reliably sourced, then the wording may need to be changed to make clear that it is a section or article about ideas that are held by particular individuals. The narrower the segment holding them, the narrower the media and public interest, the less space should be given, but no one should be banned from a topic because they wish to report on unsavory perspectives. Specific sets of American attitudes in the South regarding slavery were abhorrent; no one would ever suggest we should not allow coverage of them. If, however, other interested editors provide necessary balance, and Mr Ottawa reverts or wars, then that would change matters. Bottom line, if reputable sources are talking about these subject, however ludicrous or offensive we might find them, it deserves mention here, with space allocated on the basis of the importance and magnitude of the discussion. (We need people to relay—not champion, but relay—reputable reports about Lars von Trier words at Cannes in 2011.) To not allow such perspectives to be voiced, or to slay the messengers (which, at times, will agree with the message, other time not) is a frightening course for Wikipedia. Rather than ever put this forward in the affirmative, I would elevate this. To topic ban for an editor's for choice of material alone is very troubling. There are things that each of us might wish silenced, for unsavoriness, at WP. Don't do it. Silencing dissent is a pernicious temptation. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main issue was neutrality in the articles, rather than whether they should have been written. One article for example began, "Harper Derangement Syndrome (HDS) is "a mental illness that affects Canadian supporters of the left-wing New Democratic Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada'..." In fact, the "disease" is not listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. We do not begin the article on Von Trier by saying he is the best director in the world, just because he said so. TFD (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you're proposing is that it's okay for politicians to use Wikipedia to gain coverage for whatever kind of foul sewage they spew as long as they can get the media to report on it. No need to worry about facts or truth, we're just going to be a gossip blog from henceforth - a reliably sourced gossip blog. The solution isn't to write "the crap stinks" in neutral words, the solution is to not allow the project to be used to bring attention to mudslinging in the first place. The BS that comes out of election years ins't at all notable. New BS will come out 2 - 4 years later that will get just as much "ooo" and "awe". WP:NOTPOLITICALTOOL.--v/r - TP 19:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here, Prof, is that the articles are not written as netural analyses of the subjects. They're written as attack-and-slander POV-pushing pieces, and the editor in question continues doing this, repeatedly, despite having been told in no uncertan terms that it's unacceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this is obvious and the editor will get off lightly if this is all that we do. Anyone who can create articles saying the Harper thing is a mental illness is probably shouldn't be here at all, but perhaps this will turn him into an acceptable editor. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban or site ban. I wasn't familiar with any of this, so I read some of the deleted articles, and was appalled. Harper Derangement Syndrome was a no-holds-barred piece of political much-spreading. The sheer dishonesty of it was staggering, claiming that HDS "is a mental illness" without any attempt to offer any evidence of any medical support for the term, let alone evidence of a clinical consensus in support of it. Decade of Darkness did it at least start by acknowledging that it "was a term coined", rather than presenting it as a fact, but it used the term as a coatrack for a highly partisan analysis of Canada's defence budget. In some ways this was worse, because it had better chance of sneaking under the radar. Some of the material might have been have usable in a broad article on military spending in Canada, but this was a blatant POV fork.
  The reason that I support a site ban is that an editor who does sort of thing in one topic area is quite capable of doing it elsewhere, and I see no benefit to the community in simply displacing this activity to other topics. JOttawa16 claims above to have a Masters degree in political science, and if it's true that they are educated to that level, then they will know perfectly well that what they have been doing is unacceptable. This is an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and the project should take an unequivocal stand against editors who abuse Wikipedia's purpose in this way.
  However, if there isn't consensus for a full site ban, I will support the proposed topic ban as a lesser but important step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• User's edit here[5] shows that he cannot understand consensus. Six votes for deletion (two of them suggesting speedy), two weak keeps (one from an IP) and a keep from the creator. And yet, he can't see the clear consensus for deletion. JDDJS (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TParis I wasn't going to mention the Santorum article, but yes, I agree, it's an attack article and needs to be delted as such. KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 10:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to mention the Santorum article, but yes, I agree, it's an attack article and needs to be delted as such.

Wrong. Completely wrong. Look at the list of references. The Washington Post, ABC News, Time magazine, The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Routledge, Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times, ricksantorum.com, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Chicago Tribune, Fox News, PC Magazine, MSBNC, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The New York Times, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, .... — goethean 15:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my point is that all it takes is for a well known politician to bash their opponent and all of that politician's supporters to raise the banners and blog about it before the mainstream media reports on it and whatdalyahave - a fully sanctioned attack page. Yes, we know there are sources. Any politician who opens their mouth will get repeated in reliable sources. That's a weakness and loophole in our policy.--v/r - TP 17:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to me? That may be an issue with the media, but Wikipedia can't fix the media. — goethean 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was replying to you, and yes I know. Which is why I don't normally bother arguing the point. But a fix in policy specifically aimed at election years would go a long way toward these 'fully sanctioned attack articles' and the editors who battle in political topics to create and bias them.--v/r - TP 18:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's interesting is that even the media which wants and intends to be neutral (i.e. they aren't running with the story because it supports their intrinsic POV) will repeat the story because it's "out there", and failing to report it would leave them open to charges of bias from the ideological media. The end result is that there's no longer any real barrier that prevents those kinds of stories from running pretty much everywhere. That is a systemic flaw created by the contemporary re-introduction of ideological mass media outlets (something which had almost disappeared), the 24 hour news cycle (which creates the need to fill time) and instanteneous reporting from practically anywhere on earth (which puts a premium on delivering stories and doesn't allow time for them to be checked before airing) - and we suffer from the fallout. BMK (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there are huge problems with the contemporary mass media, and BMK rightly notes some of the big ones.
But Wikipedia is not just another mass media outlet struggling for market share, nor is it like journalism the first draft of history; it is an encyclopedia, striving to document topics of long-term significance from an NPOV perspective. That means, for example, that we approach a topic from an NPOV perspective, rather than doing what JOttawa16 did, which is to take a soundbite and use it as a coatrack for a POV-fork of an encyclopedic topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of a programming principle: Garbage in, garbage out. If the media is producing the crap and that is what we use the develop articles, then are we really producing a high quality encyclopedia or a one-stop-shop archival service of crappy news? We have to have some kind of editorial filter, as we do for every other topic (notability guidelines), for election/politics related neologisms and political attack platforms. WP:Political Platforms (notability) would be a start.--v/r - TP 22:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVFORK covers a lot of this already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12 editors in favor of ban, only three editors against it, and that includes the editor in question, and the discussion has died out, so can we close this and institute the topic ban? JDDJS (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this has reached a conclusion. Please do. - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your censorship of topics you don't agree with is not cause to ban someone from writing about anything in that field ever again. JOttawa16 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not censoring topics I don't agree with. I don't know or care about Canadian politics at all. What I do care about is articles that are written clearly to insult the opposition, by saying things such as people who don't like a politician are mentally ill, and people who clearly don't understand when to stop beating a dead horse. JDDJS (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

The article Jews and Communism is currently going through a second nomination for deletion. After several ANI incidents and lots of discussion, two editors stand out as being extremely disruptive to the Wikipedia community. Instead of rehashing the arguments here, I would like to nominate two editors for a topic ban. WP:TBAN I'm asking for community consensus from involved editors to determine whether a topic ban for one or both editors is appropriate action. Comments from the community are welcome. USchick (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background. Recent threads at AN/I: [7] and [8]. Discussion at Jimbo: [9].

• More examples: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#Edit-warring, ownership and censorship by editor Director on the article "Jews and Communism"
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#General disruption, personal attacks, and sock puppet accusations
• Ownership issues [10]

Proposed bans for topics on Jews and Communism

First nominee

Second nominee

Additional discussion

First, I think you should be looking for feedback from uninvolved editors. Secondly, if you want to hear from the Wikipedia community, WP:AN/I is a better forum for this than WP:AN. You will also need to present diffs outlining specific acts of disruption. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is for ban proposals. ANI is for specific incidents. This proposal spans lots of incidents over a long period of time. USchick (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, it's patently obvious that Director and Producer need to be banned, and maybe not just from this article. But they're really symptoms of a bigger issue: how admins enforce the rules. Both Director and Producer are counting on admins who don't really investigate an issue before acting, and who become indignant at suggestions that they've made an ill-informed decision or acted defensively/impulsively.

I'd be in favor of a checklist of inquiries that ought to be made before punishing someone in response to a complaint. Maybe blocking shouldn't be at the discretion of just one admin.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either is allowable (to be fair to both of you, the guidelines in the headers have a bit of an identity crisis, between the version on the viewable page and the one on edit page), but I daresay you'd get more involvement if this were on ANI. Snow talk 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for admins: An in depth discussion of the behaviour of these two has already been discussed at a controversial afD page in which these two were VERY involved (and, in my opinion, overly controlling of). The discussion led to a near-consensus there calling for a topic ban to be made on Director and Producer/Potocnik. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 18:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Jews and Communism was adapted in late February 2014 by User:Potočnik, then known as Producer, from an article found on the site of a Holocaust denier. Producer and Director worked tirelessly and in concert to avoid changes to the article, almost invariably adopting a combative and threatening tone in Talk and edit comments. Despite its very evident problems, its rancid anti-Semitism, and the discussion at Jimbo, the article survived a March 2014 AfD as No Consensus. The article is again at AfD, where many thousands of words have been expended and where the article has attracted negligible support after the revelation of its roots. Director changed his position from Strong Keep to Delete; Potocnik has been silent.

The Problem: Literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of volunteer hours have been spent, and tens -- perhaps hundreds -- of thousands of words have been written, in order to keep a vitriolically anti-Semitic attack page off Wikipedia, or at least to reduce the worst aspects of that page. This is a terrible waste. It is clear that two or three dedicated and sophisticated editors, working together and cooperating closely, can tie the project in knots. This page would have been terribly embarrassing to the project if it had received wider media attention but it was also a comparatively easy call; we may not be as lucky in the future. The community needs a forum to consider and address the problems this episode so clearly presents. 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. We have strong policies against socks, but two or three coordinated ideologues can assume ownership of a page and do nearly anything provided they take care to cherry-pick sources and avoid concerted opposition. If Wikipedia does not address this problem, it will have no future. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's not panic here. Wikipedia does have processes for handling these situations, processes that have not even been exhausted in this case; ArbCom, for example, was never brought in on matters though I think a number of us anticipated it heading in that direction. For that matter, no manner of formal mediation was requested, though postings were made to ANI. It strikes me as a bit histrionic to prophesy the doom of the project over this scenario. You're of course more than welcome (encouraged even) to take any proposals or discussion about new guidelines to WP:Village Pump (policy), but I suspect you'll get mostly comments along the lines of what I have to say here -- that is to say, this situation is well-covered in existing policy and this situation became the chore that it did because those policies were not applied as elegantly as they could have been (venues that could have been explored weren't and administrator involvement was not what it could have been, both of which happen from time to time). Let's also remember that, meatpuppetry (for which we also have policies) aside, two or three editors working ardently against prevailing consensus is not in and of itself problem behaviour -- it's just the reality of Wikipedia and something we depend upon really. That said, clearly there was problematic behaviour involved here, but again, that can all be addressed through existing process (as is being done in this very thread for example), and it makes little sense to me to try to reinvent the wheel when only a portion of the possible solutions we have at our disposal have been tapped. Snow talk 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I personally think that article is appalling, as was the behavior of these two editors. During the brief time I was involved in that article, I was attacked by the two of them, and threatened by one. I didn't like some of the talk page comments I saw; I felt that some of them were ugly, raising, in one instance, the religious background of an editor in a gratuitous fashion. Even so, I'd like to see some diffs. Who did what. There is new evidence that much of the article was copied from a racist website. Whoever did the copying should be topic-banned. Whoever abetted that action, ditto. Other specific evidence of bad behavior should also be introduced. Similarly, I'm not sure the timing is correct, though I admit that it is easier to engage in this discussion now, while the article and its talk page still exist. Coretheapple (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The demonstration of the original version's reliance on an article from the Institute for Historical Research is [53]. The talk page's numerous archives -- all since February 2014 -- speak for themselves, as does the outcry at AfD. I'm very concerned by the amount of volunteer time and energy this is requiring, with seemingly unbounded demands for further demonstrations of diffs, evidence, argumentation, surely to come. What is to be done? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of diffs listed in the ANI examples. For anyone interested, they can see them there. My concern is with the attitude of the two editors and their tag team effort to shut down any discussion on the talk page and block other editors from participating. This is also documented in the archived talk pages of Jews and Communism and Jewish Bolshevism. USchick (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't require that much of a deep-dive into the evidence to see the justification for topic bans for both editors. See my comments above. Coretheapple (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple, can you elaborate? Was it producer or director that threatened you? Also, can you provide diffs to the talk page comments you speak of? My current opinion is that of a topic ban for Producer, and a 'temporary topic ban' for the likes of Director, but I could easily have their roles the wrong way around.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Director. See the repeated "warnings" and threats to "report" me at [54], especially the "Please consider yourself formally warned" at 07:27, 27 April 2014. These are the kind of bullying tactics that I found especially dismaying from Director. I don't recall if they came from the other chap too, but to be frank I found their tactics interchangeable. Coretheapple (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could write an entire essay here about the highly inappropriate behavior of a large number of editors on that article, the flaming, the accusations of antisemitism, the incessant use of edit-warring as a substitute for discussion, the accusations of sockpuppetry, etc, etc.. But I won't. #1 because the article is being deleted and this is a dead issue, #2 because I just now went away on business and hace nothing but my phone, and #3 because I don't care, tbh. To single out Producer and me for sanctions, imo, defies all logic. The article did turn out to be based in part on some IHR essay - but nobody knew that at that time. I didn't; and the sources checked out. When the IHR thing was revealed, I immediately supported deletion and repeatedly apologized to everyone. If someone wishes to "take revenge" for my defending the article, fine, I won't offer any kind of detailed defense. -- Director (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that you may not have known but it is highly unlikely that the Producer, who created the article, did not --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Director, I deeply appreciate your change of heart on the article. But the fact remains that the article that Producer created was, on its face, an act of anti-Semitic propaganda. One did not have to know chapter and verse or its precise origins to see that. But you dove right in and acted as his trusty right hand, Robin to his Batman, or perhaps the second Batman. I don't think that you should be punished. But I do think that you need to be separated from articles on this subject for the good of the project. Coretheapple (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and this is why we're here, it is not a dead issue. If indeed this article is deleted, as is entirely possible as it seems to be a WP:SNOW situation, I am sure Son of Jews and Communism will rear its ugly head in the blink of an eye. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Director, has it not occurred to you that the recurrent suggestion of antisemitism at work in the motives of those defending the content might be related to the fact that the content itself was perceived to be indicative of the type of synthesis of facts consistent with an antisemitic view, a fact that was borne out once we discovered the origins of the content? Other contributors saw that at once. You interpreted the content differently and did not detect that underlying motive at work. That's fine, and nobody expects every editor to catch something along those lines, and I for one take it on faith you were operating as to what you thought was the approrpiate approach to the content. But is unreasonable in this context to not understand the suspicion of others, when there was promotion of obviously antisemitic material at work and when you would like, presumably, for others to be understanding of your good faith support of that material. You may notice that, despite having considerable reservations about your behaviour on that article and it's talk page, I've gone out of my way to advise restraint in regards to sanctions against you, on the hope that your change of position reflects that you're capable of reforming your approach a little. But you're not helping the case for that approach when you don't own up to how you contributed to the mess that became of that situation. And here I'm not longer talking about the antisemitic issue at all, but rather your tendency to see everyone else as the problem and you as the besieged party. You went into full-on battle-mode on that page. You were unreceptive to opposing arguments and frequently uncivil, both in terms of denigrating your opposition's perspectives and, most especially, ignoring WP:AGF, the very principle to which you would now like to appeal, constantly. Having seen this situation play out many, many times on the noticeboards, I'm telling you that you have a very limited window here to get out ahead of things, but it requires owning up to your mistakes in full (that is, not just as regards being duped by material), and commiting to another approach. If editing on Wikipedia and in these areas is important to you, I'd do it fast, before the votes stack, even if your circumstances allow only a small message. Snow talk 20:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To justify a topic ban from 'Jews' and 'Communism' evidence needs to be presented of significant disruption in the topic area. One spat over a single contentious article is not enough to justify a topic ban from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption spans across Jews and Communism, Jewish Bolshevism, and Leon Trotsky with many discussions about What is Communism, [55] Who killed the tzar [56], Who is a Jew [57]. I would say a broad range of topics has already been covered. USchick (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that, while Only in Death's perspective (that disruption on a single, or low number, of articles does not constitute cause for a topic ban) is valid personal position on what is appropriate here, it is not a bar which is required by policy or the block process itself; many topic bans have been instituted for editors whose contentious behaviour was linked to a particular inflexible perspective deemed likely to spill over into other articles. I will say though that OiD's point as to the breadth of topics that would be banned is worth taking under advisement; between those two topics, a significant number of articles would be barred to the editors. That's part of the reason I have reservations in Director's case. With regard to Producer, I dare say it's obvious his issues with NPOV on the Jewish people are problematic beyond repair. Director, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have come into conflict with other editors because of a devotion to the subject matter; rather that conflict stemmed from what he perceived as a matter of editing principle. His issues are more with general civility and the ability to collaborate harmoniously with other editor's and are not tied up with any one particular topic. Which makes a topic ban a dubious solution for dealing with him. I think what is called for in his case is outreach as regards general behaviour and, if that fails in the long-run, a more general sanction/block. Snow talk 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely for this reason I nominated them separately, for individual consideration. Thank your for putting it so eloquently. USchick (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow, my opinion is practically a mirror of yours. I concur with Snow's stance on Director precisely. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in Director's editing history that makes you believe that his future contributions to Wikipedia outweigh the risk episodes like this one pose to the project? Yes, Director was staunch in defending policy and standing by his sources -- but only his sources were permitted throughout the article's regrettable life. Only two days ago, he prepared a spirited defense of the page, stating that the entire nomination was deceitful: "Folks, you're being lied to regarding what the article is and what its about. The deletion rationale is an appeal to emotion, and is aimed to gather WP:VOTES on such a basis. Nothing in it is accurate nor factual…. Furthermore: such ridiculous accusations push forward a right-wing, practically Reaganite political agenda.[58]. I particularly draw attention to the dog-whistle allegation about vote-gathering, but more generally to the tone and incivility. This is not the language of an editor who is working collaboratively to improve the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, the problem I have with the whole situation is that it IS largely unclear who did what. I'm not saying I agree with Director's ethic, but he has a right to say what he said on the afD discussion (no matter how mislead it may be) - we can't punish him in that regard. It's his opinion, and it may be blunt, but it isn't so far as being a personal attack. If you were to provide diffs and references proving that only his sources were permitted through the article's agreeably regrettable life, my opinion could easily sway.. but from an NPOV, I don't think we can judge his behaviour unless more raw proof is provided. Then again, if Director had been making these edits behind an IP rather than a fancy account, he may well already have been banned entirely by now.. all in all, I just don't want to judge pre-emptively.Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, much as I like to avoid using an essay in circumstances where a very fine policy determination needs to be made, it's rather hard to imagine a situation to which WP:Rope would better apply. I'll be clear on this -- I stuck to the ANI discussion and avoided the talk page and even a firm position in the AfD outside of behavioural arguments until the eleventh hour for the very specific reason that I was more concerned with the constant breaks with general civility than anything else and I anticipated that an uninvolved editor would be required to take the matter before another administrator or even ArbCom. I fully expected to have to take that action within a few days. Director's reversal in the AfD backed me away from that perspective, ever so slightly -- just enough that I felt it warranted to give him another opportunity to digest the situation and learn better of boring full steam ahead, deflecting the concerns of large numbers of editors and viewing such contributors as obstinate obstacles rather than collaborators with whom he must work. I am not in any way yet convinced he has taken that lesson to heart, but I think policy and the circumstances compel us to give him one very limited opportunity to prove that he can before we condemn him outright. If he can't do that, then the topic ban proposed here in insufficient and not well-targeted at his style of disruption, and a general block of at least six months to a year, if not indefinite, is what I would view as the recommendable course of action, though course, if it comes to that, the exact sanction will be at the discretion of the reviewing admin or committee. Snow talk 22:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I saw was "sources - reliable - attacked - defend!", and by an editor I've known for years to be highly careful about sourcing and very neutral in his approach (not just me either, see Peacemaker's input) - and the topic was one that could only be expected to draw emotional reaponses no matter how reliable and thorough the sourcing. There really was no evidence for SYNTH, or any kind of serious wrongdoing - until months have past and some really impressive detective work uncovered the collection of sources to have been those cherry-picked by a racist essay. At that point I actually felt physically ill, not only at discovering the source, but also at having wasted so much effort at being so utterly wrong. I had previously said I'd move for deletion myself if something like that turned out to be the case (I checked the sources, found them to be reliable, and was confident), so when it did turn out that way, I did a 180.

I still think I acted correctly given the information I had, but I nevertheless apologize for the sheer gravity of the error. I am always annoyed, perhaps to an undue degree, by arguments that I perceive to be borne out of prejudice or bias, hence my strong defense of the sources. It felt weird to me to, but ignoring my gut and going with cold principles, following protocol, its a big part of what I do in real life. And for that I don't apologize, that's how science works, that's how medicine works, that's how Wiki works.

At the AfD I apologized to anyone offended by my conduct, which, admittedly, stripped as it is now of its "righteous cause" (of defending reliable sources), does indeed render into sheer rudeness. But viewed in the context of what we had in terms of evidence at that time, I can't bring myself to view it as "disruption". I shall not grovel, nor will I now attack my fellow Wikipedian of many years, regardless of what he put me (and others) through. I find kicking one when he's down distasteful, regardless of whether he deserves to be down. -- Director (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know you like to present yourself as a scientific kind of guy. But then you let slip something like this: IZAK is a religious Jewish person with an agenda to disassociate Jews and Communism to the best of his POV-pushing ability. That's a fact. He should leave. Yeah, I know, you deleted it, you hoped people would forget you ever said it. But you did, and I have to tell you frankly that your entire approach seemed to reflect the kind of viewpoint that is reflected there. I.e., that your "opponents" were "religious Jews" and "emotional" and ought to get the hell out of the article. That's not what you said, except in this instance, but it was your attitude. It's not a very nice viewpoint, and in fact, I think it's downright ugly. Scientific? A product of "cold principles"? Eh, not exactly. I would feel a lot better if you were a little bit more upfront about your actual attitudes. Coretheapple (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yah. If you're a member of a group, any group, and if you're religious, you're likely to be offended by your group being connected to Communism - completely regardless of whether that's actually warranted or not. That's an objective fact, "scientific", if you will. And the comment was posted in light of yet another of IZAK's edit wars to introduce changes without consensus, or even proper talkpage discussion. Introducing lists of his favorite religious leaders and whatnot. I said he should leave because he just stopped discussing and simply reverted to edit war. Religious bias is not new as a problem this project has to face. Note also that I have not infrequently called out my own countrymen for nationalist bias when I see it blatantly raise its ugly head. The lesson there is: "science" (or rather objective observations) by no means need be pretty. -- Director (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, editing on Wikipedia requires more than just a nominal dislike of bias; it requires genuine patience with views you don't ascribe much value to. This need for tolerance of opposing perspectives is not just a matter of maintaining civility and keeping discussions from blowing up as they did in this case, though that role is crucial to our work here; it's also useful because sometimes you're really, really sure that you right about something...when in fact you aren't. You've just described the sources that informed upon the article as "cherry-picked" - that is in fact the precise argument that a number of involved editors used to call the article into question, suggesting that selective sourcing of trivial facts were being used to formulate a notion not supported by legitimate sourcing on the topic. High as your regard is for your approach as scientific, your empirical nose failed to detect the odor rising from these claims, whereas some of your fellow editors did sense it, many of whom you actively derided for the position. So it doesn't really serve to excuse your excesses in terms of defense against bias, especially given the level of virulence involved, when it seems that you were applying the most bias yourself, albeit partially as a result of an exercise in trust.

I come from a background in science myself, and I know of no academic or research institution, not any organization devoted to a genuinely "scientific" approach to tackling problems, that would have allowed you to try to make your arguments the way that you did in this case -- that is, in such an obstinate and uncivil manner; those kinds of attitudes are viewed very dimly in scientific literature, in lecture halls, at conferences, in debates, and anywhere else where scientific consensus is typically formulated. I wish I could say such attitudes and personal arrogance were absent entirely from the process of contemporary scientific process -- they certainly aren't -- but they aren't typically tolerated as appropriate to public discourse at least. And, thankfully, neither are they welcome on Wikipedia. Anybody can state that they have depersonalized "scientific" way of approaching problems, but the mere proclamation doesn't necessarily make them a particularly good standard-bearers for those ideals in reality, and I've often observed that those who make such announcements outside of context of actual science often have the most tenuous grasp of such notions.

And on the topic of empirical validation, I don't really have enough prior experience with you to know if this is an isolated incident or typical of your approach to discussion, but I do think that your perspective as voiced here...

"At the AfD I apologized to anyone offended by my conduct, which, admittedly, stripped as it is now of its "righteous cause" (of defending reliable sources), does indeed render into sheer rudeness. But viewed in the context of what we had in terms of evidence at that time, I can't bring myself to view it as 'disruption'."

...is really at the crux of the matter. You should be writing every single posting in a Wikipedia discussion, every last one, so that, if it is stripped of its "righteous cause" (or any motivation, virtuous or petty), it still will not come across as rude. Because if it's rude when you're in the wrong about the matter being discussed, it's almost certainly still rude if you're in the right; rudeness is not really directly correlated to the strength of your factual or policy argument -- it's about respect and how you make your argument. And if your comments aren't composed to avoid incivility, regardless of the strength of your positions, the behaviour is disruptive, by default. It's not really my place to lecture you sanctimoniously as to what lesson you should learn here, but if there is one I would hope you should learn from this fiasco, it's that. I certainly can't think of a better general piece of advice to give any contributor. Snow talk 01:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put it this way. I find that Director's continued ignorance of the ugliness and unacceptable character of his words, his utter absence of respect for other editors, his judging of them on the basis of their religion, his stratospheric arrogance, to be nothing less than chilling. I must say that I am starting to have a lot of trouble accepting the sincerity of his mea culpa. It strikes me as being purely expedient and not in any way reassuring that he won't "objectively" decide someday to go on the offensive in an article like this again. Coretheapple (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only time will tell. Snow talk 05:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@"You should be writing every single posting in a Wikipedia discussion, every last one, so that, if it is stripped of its "righteous cause" (or any motivation, virtuous or petty), it still will not come across as rude." - That would be the ideal, and I did apologize for the conduct you refer to. However, that is just not how the human mind perceives rudeness.. or else you would be reporting MarkBernstein for his outrageously offensive conduct, in my view far more vitriolic than anything I ever wrote. Of corse, him being right, it seems its ok if he repeatedly claims I support antisemitism, implying I knowingly did so. That's personal attack and slander of the highest order. Why isn't he "on trial" here? I'm not saying he should be, but I hope I got my point across. If I was "right", and I was opposing censorship of reliable non-cherry-picked sources against biased POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article, then I doubt my conduct would be perceived in such a negative light.

@Coretheapple, I think I have explained exactly and honestly what I'm sorry for, and what I'm not. I don't see what there is for you to speculate about. I'm not sorry for calling on an edit warrior to spare us his disruption, or to stop pushing a POV. You can perceive that as whatever you like, I can't alter your preconceptions. What I am sorry for is wherever I was unduly zealous in defending the cherry-picked sources, as well as for the error itself. -- Director (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "sorry" as much as it is one of whether there will be problems in the future. As I keep saying, the aim of a topic ban is preventive, not punitive. I think your declaration on your talk page [59] and above [60] that you're "self-banning" from topics relating to Jews is a positive step. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much said so from the start.. Didn't I say I had no intention of restarting all this? -- Director (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Spat" - seriously? You're characterising antisemitism as "a quarrel about an unimportant matter"? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Two editors who edited wikipedia for many years are faced with very serious accusations for travelling circus and all kind of disruptive behavior. Editors who made such accusations (and maybe administrator (Jehochman) who indeffed them) should present evidence (in form of diffs) for their accusations within reasonable period of time.
  1. I agree with opinion that "disruption on a single, or low number, of articles does not constitute cause for a topic ban". That is why it would be good, if accusations would be proven, to check if there are more members of their travelling circus (this should not be difficult because there are efficient tools for interaction analysis) and to define what topic areas they covered. Based on this it would be possible to determine who should be banned and from what topic areas.
  2. If accusations remain unjustified within reasonable period of time, something should be done to prevent unjustified accusations against those two editors in future.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional examples:

• In this lively debate [61] Director provides a source to prove his point about Lenin. Then when I attempt to use the same source to prove a different point, he wants to shut down the discussion.
• In a discussion about Secret Police there was a math error. [62] Director claimed that no one was allowed to make any edits until Producer showed up. Like no one else can count?
• Atlantictire was blocked over a dispute that was content related. And then he lost it. I tried to console him and Producer took me to ANI over this statement on his talk page [63]. I don't know how to find the ANI discussion. Really, there are plenty of diffs linked in this discussion already if anyone is interested in following them. USchick (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Trotsky poster discussion [64] went to ANI [65] and showed up again in an unrelated article. [66].

Director had a right to disagree with the AfD nomination, but he did not have a right to call it a lie. It was not. He did not have a right to claim that nothing in the nomination was accurate or factual; that claim was untrue. He did not have a right to call them ridiculous, or to characterize them as a right-wing; that's both untrue and a personal attack. Read the whole sorry talk page -- it's only two or three months, and you can read it all in a few hours. Director and Producer are counting on you not to bother. They can and will issue, just as they have repeatedly issued, personal attacks without sanction against any and all editors trying to improve their articles, and it seems people will continue to ask for more evidence and more WP:ROPE. Please turn out the lights when you leave, OK? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROPE can be better applied in case of the editors supporting these suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If your accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally believe such a cabal of editors exists. Frankly, I think that the collaboration between Director and Producer alone has been overemphasized, a determination I make from my own observations of the present article as well as procedural discussion of their past behaviours. An SPI failed to find an geolocative link between them, and though this does not rule out meatpuppetry, neither have we firm evidence along these lines that I have been able to turn up. There's also this discussion, in which the link is explored and users DeCausa and TParis imply that the two have frequently been at eachother's throats in other discussions pertaining to Eastern European articles. There were past issues referenced by FkpCascais concerning Director and Producer in this discussion on Jimbo's page, surrounding a past discussion surrounding Chetniks and collaborative behaviour between the two, but he references no other parties and I never dug up the discussion to observe the nature of their interaction there.. I don't know what to make of the ultimate likelihood that meatpuppetry is at work here. I rather get the feeling that what we are talking about is two very tenacious and combative editors who work in similar areas and that sometimes butt heads, but when their interests converge, they have no qualms with combining their considerably dogged (and frequently vitriolic) efforts to try to tear down any dissent to their preferred approach. They could be collaborating off-wiki, or these combined efforts could be the result of entirely incidental cross over in interests, but I think their motives at the very least could be said to be very different in most cases. In any event, I don't think a link needs to be established to prove that their behaviour has been collectively disruptive and generally inappropriate, but their violations of policy are not identical in form or context, so I'm doubtful of the "traveling circus" hypothesis or that it can inform significantly on how to deal with them. Snow talk 00:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Many, maybe most, of the editors supporting these suggested topic bans I have never seen at AN befroe, which worries me. How did they get here? Were they canvassed? Was the canvassing of all' participants in the various discussions, or only those on one side? If this truly a fair hearing or a kangaroo court? BMK (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only place this discussion was announced is here Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)#Proposed sanctions. Everyone commenting was personally involved in some way. USchick (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you're saying is that almost everyone -- or let's says a large percentage of everyone -- who has commented here is on the opposite side of the issue from Producer and Direktor. yes? Doesn't that strike you as a problem, that the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are those who strongly disagree with them on that topic? BMK (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To make matters worse, they are proposed for topic ban from Jews and Communism although the most important point at related AfD was that it is wrong to connect Jews and Communism.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's strange for 2 people to have created so much animosity toward themselves? If you can find any supporters they have, feel free to canvass for them. The people here all have different opinions about the topic, but strangely enough, they all agree to ban 2 very offensive editors. USchick (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had no association with Director or Producer before the AfD. Most people who have voted thus far first met the likes of Director and Producer at the AfD page, with a few exceptions. After making judgement there, as seen on the AfD page, we decided the best thing to do next was to pursue a topic ban. No "personal biases" against Producer nor Director existed for the vast majority of us, as most of us (I'd think) stumbled upon this whole fiasco via the Articles for Deletion page.. our initial judgement was made there and then was carried here. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 23:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Sorry, but I see a lot of personal animosity and groupthink in your statement above ("the likes of...", "we decided", "our initial judgment"). I agree with Liz that we need the opinions of uninvolved editors in this matter. BMK (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By "we", and "our", I meant those who came here from the AfD page by the means of consensus, not the entire group, although I do recognize your point.. from your perspective it's understandable. As you can see by the intense debate above, there isn't really any 'groupthink' amongst those who came here from AfD. I'm relatively uninvolved in the whole fiasco, and in fact I came in to contribute to the AfD as someone who was precisely that; uninvolved. Obviously, it would be better for more uninvolved users to come and contribute.. but just because a user has contributed to a discussion on an AfD page doesn't render them illegitimate in the regard of offering their opinion about related topic bans.. my choice of the word "we" held the meaning of "those who came from the AfD page", not "We, the group of collaborators". Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 23:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Animosities are not valid arguments for a ban. Not all editors here agree about the ban. At least not such widely defined, unless evidence is presented about members of the circus and all topic areas they covered. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, "the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are" certainly not "those who strongly disagree with them on that topic". That's not how Wikipedia works and I suspect everyone here knows that - yourself included. NebY (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you be clearer? BMK (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. You asked "If this truly a fair hearing or a kangaroo court?" and "Doesn't that strike you as a problem, that the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are those who strongly disagree with them on that topic?" I'm answering that your premise is wrong: the editors who are making a case for bans or other measures know full well that they will not get to decide, that they will not have the opportunity to be the judges in a kangaroo court. They are making a case - or rather several cases, as usual - and discussing the matter. This is normal, this is how the process works. You've been around a long time and I think I've seen you participating in ban discussions before, so you know this already. Or am I wrong? NebY (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Ah - I see I was. One editor didn't quite grasp the need for uninvolved editors to participate. Sorry. NebY (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me is that Director emphatically stated that the article was neutral and impugned the motives of editors who said it was anti-Semitic. Even now he suggests that there was no way of knowing this without seeing the comparison with the IHR article, and that editors who recognized this weakness in the article before the comparison was presented were acting in bad faith. He stubbornly defended the article instead of doing basic research to see whether this presentation was consistent with academic literature. I commend him for finally backing down in the second AfD.

But I think a break from this topic is in order. If any editors plan to revisit the topic and create new articles, I think his participation would continue to be disruptive. Furthermore, he has no particular expertise in the area and has not done any in-depth research. His participation was mostly fighting to maintain the status quo in the article.

TFD (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused - what is being asked for here, a topic ban from the intersection of the subjects "Jews" and "Communism", i.e. everything to do with the relationship between Jews and Communism; or a ban from the combination of those two subjects, i.e. everything to do with Jews and everything to do with Communism? BMK (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both subjects. Everything to do with Jews and everything to do with Communism. As stated in the original proposal. USchick (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't submit the report, but I think a topic ban for Judaism is more appropriate than Judaism and Communism, due to the main issue being the promotion of antisemitic views on the website --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone agrees that antisemitism is a problem in this case. Just like not everyone here agrees on the topic of Jews and Communism. However, everyone agrees that Director and Producer should be banned form these topics (Director to a lesser extent). USchick (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone agrees" - So, you're ignoring the one oppose !vote? BMK (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The one "oppose" vote is a non involved party. As the nominator, i specifically asked for involved parties on both sides of the Jewish/Communist argument (yes there are both sides) to comment. Maybe that's the wrong approach? Maybe only non involved parties should comment? The problem with that, is Producer/Director are very skilled at policy and at tag teaming against everyone else to the point where lots of us have been sanctioned because of this ongoing situation. Some people have been banned and are not here. My intention is to see if there is any community consensus for a topic ban and to do it while the evidence is still here. (Pending AfD) What's funny, is that early on, people were worried that no one would find this discussion to participate in it. USchick (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you've just proved me wrong - I told BMK everyone here seemed to understand the process. Everyone can comment but no decision to ban will be made without the participation of uninvolved members of the community. NebY (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non involved members voted here as well. But the one "oppose" vote is from a non involved party. To see who is involved or not is very easy. Anyone not voting on the AfD is not involved in any way. Here's a link of people voting in the AfD [67] USchick (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be massively oversimplifying if I said that the closing administrator will look for consensus among the uninvolved editors and ignore the involved ones. But you might do well to continue as if that was true. NebY (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made the nomination, but I honestly didn't expect this much support. I'm not looking to sway the jury, let the community decide what to do. USchick (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that a number of editors who responded to the AfD had no previous involvement in the article or the caustic situation on its talk page. Still others came to be involved through the ANI postings and did not contribute opinions to the content of the article itself so much as the behaviour of certain parties already operating there. A look at the talk page suggests that involvement in the discussion here does not seem to rely exclusively upon those who were already in conflict over the article, though of course those parties are welcome to have their say and their knowledge of specific incidents of disruption is necessary to make heads or tails of this situation. Snow talk 00:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that with a topic ban discussion which appears, from the nominator's comments here, to have been set up in a deliberately partisan fashion, it's likely that the closing admin will note the lack of !votes from uninvolved editors and close it without action -- especially when there's a distinct lack of evidence presented. BMK (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be unfortunate. Instructions at WP:TBAN don't explain that only non involved editors are allowed to comment. No where does it say how to nominate someone for a topic ban or what will be considered, only that it takes community consensus. So basically, you have to be an experienced admin to understand the process. Producer and Director are allowed to get away with terrorizing editors simply because they have experience with the system as repeat offenders and bullies. I don't know how many more diffs I could possibly provide as examples because no one seems to care about the examples already provided. I hope admins will consider the volumes already written in previous ANI complaints and the time required to babysit these 2 editors on complaint boards, not to mention wasted electricity by the combined effort of all involved. This is a recurring complaint, and if I knew how to link to all the other similar complaints, I would, but seriously, unlike the 2 editors nominated, who have lots and lots of Wikipedia edits, I have a life. Unless questions are directed at me personally, I don't plan to contribute anything else to this discussion. I trust that the Wikipedia community will do the right thing, whatever you decide that to be. I hope by bringing this to light, enough people are aware now of the Producer/Director duo. Save this link, because someone will want to link to it again in the near future. USchick (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Some of the complaints can't be found because they happened at The Jewish Bolshevism article which has since been deleted along with the edit history. This is why this nomination is taking place now, before the AfD for Jews and Communism is finished. USchick (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that in my decade on Wikipedia, I've rarely or never seen any discussion which was primarily lead by "uninvolved" editors, at least not if one uses such a narrow definition of "involved" as "voted a particular way on deletion of an article". I've been at the article in question since April 28th, in response to an ANI discussion asking for more eyes back then. I've seen Director (mostly) and Producer (a little) in action, and that enables me to have an informed opinion about their behaviour in this topic. Does that make me "involved" or merely "informed"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the nom's original posting may not have made the case it might have, lacking diffs, but there are now dozens of diffs and links to discussions above which supply a pretty cohesive picture of the behaviours being weighed here; I'd say there's as much evidence as you're ever likely to find for such a proposal, whatever one's disposition to that evidence. Mind you, I'm one of the few editors who has commented so far who doesn't feel that the case is an open-and-shut one for both editors, but even I don't contest that the behaviours of both have been disruptive in the extreme -- one need only look at the one talk page to establish that much. I'm simply uncertain as to whether the solution being proposed here is the ideal one under the circumstances. With regard to Producer, my hesitation hinges on the fact that I have not seen the side-by-side of the source which the article was apparently lifted from and the article itself, but if blatant plagiarism is involved (from an antisemitic fringe source, no less) then it's unlikely the responding administrator will find reason to stop and count !votes as they aren't particularly necessary or relevant in that context. Director is a more nuanced case, and though I would have preferred to have waited to see whether he would continue to operate in the same manner as he has before launching such a discussion as this with regard to him, it's hard to fault those who wanted to curtail his combative behaviour.

In any event, I must, with respect, also disagree with your characterization that there is a dearth of uninvolved editors voting, as a number of those who have commented here were not involved in any form of content dispute with either editor, and commented here seemingly as a result of coming to a dim view, through the prism of one of the ANIs or AfDs, of the pair's tactics. Editors who were not involved in said content disputes, or who gave only an opinion within the narrow context of the most recent AfD without having had any opportunity to come into conflict with either party, can generally be said to be about as uninvolved as anyone who came across this matter just by checking the noticeboards. Administrators operating in this venue are familiar enough with this song and dance to know how to review the pertinent discussions in enough detail to see which editors have a truly neutral disposition to the matter, and which might have been biased by the ongoing arguments surrounding the article, and weight their perspectives accordingly in determining the broader consensus. Unless unduly influenced by our very conversation here on the matter, this is not an example of a situation where I anticipate the responding editor would be likely to dismiss the concerns raised as not backed by sufficient neutral voices or as generally lacking in evidence. I still don't favour a topic ban for Director at this time, not under the circumstances, but at the same time, I hope your concerns as to the prospect of a non-committal close prove unfounded, as process has already failed to arrest this situation at several points where it might have and I am concerned the situation will only renew itself without some form of finding, whatever the sanctions or lack there-of. Snow talk 06:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the call for involved editors to reach a determination on this strange and unusual. A TBAN needs to be determined by the community at large whether involved or univolved. Sure, AN discussions are typically led by the involved, but that's something different. I tend to agree with BMK that it sounds like a partisan call to their enemies at the AfD. I doubt it's so bad that it invalidates the apparent consensus - most likely, in this case, uninvolved would have appeared here as much if the involved call had not been made - but, IMO, any closing admin should make it clear it was incorrect to launch the discussion in that way. DeCausa (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am highly suspicious given I have looked over the diffs that have been presented as evidence. At the worst they consist of multiple people edit-warring to add/remove reliably-sourced information. The repeated bandying about of that ridiculous indef block is certainly interesting given the strong consensus it was ill-thought out in the first place (see why it was removed), but also in the sheer amount of editing that went on while it was in place. Unsurprisingly more than a few of the support voters above are represented there. A good sign of tendentious editing is seeing what happens when one party to a dispute is unable to edit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm inclined to think the same. I've just been looking through many of the diffs, having not been involved before, and a big "so what?" is growing in my mind. I've had tangles with Direktor before (not on this) and yes he can be dogmatic and a pain in the rear sometimes, but frankly in the diffs presented I'm seeing similar from his opponents. DeCausa (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. I am uninvolved in this case, but have edited alongside both editors for over two years in the Yugoslavia in WWII space. They are neither socks nor meat, they regularly disagree, sometimes vehemently (as do I with them on occasion). I recently watchlisted PRODUCER's talk page because I had left a comment there about an unrelated issue, and that is how I come to be here. I have made a comment above on my view about the scope of the proposed bans. IMO there is insufficient basis for a ban on the topic of communism, regardless of the success or otherwise of a push for a ban on the subject of Jews. This is a similar concern to that expressed by Drowninginlimbo above.

• I note that Antidiskriminator pops in now and again to try to get some interest in other areas that these editors edit in the apparent hope of expanding any bans to other topics and other editors. So far, unsuccessfully, although I note that he has now opposed a ban unless his "travelling circus" allegation is properly explored. All I will say is that this is a blatant attempt to "pile on" and stick the boot in to two editors he has sparred with over a number of years, and the attempt does not paint him in a good light. His allusions to a "travelling circus" is an allegation he has made in the past when disputes have arisen. He has significant history with both editors, and his comments about them should be assessed with that in mind.
• I have edited alongside both of these editors in the Yugoslavia in WWII space, and while I occasionally find Director's approach to certain matters frustrating, I have found PRODUCER and Director to be meticulous about using reliable sources, and was very surprised to read the allegation that PRODUCER had used an unreliable source and that Director had defended it (at least until he became aware of its origin).
• PRODUCER and I have collaborated on several FAs and MILHIST A-Class articles, and he has always been a stickler for reliable sources in what is also a controversial area.
• I agree with many of the comments made by Liz, Snow Rise, Flipandflopped, DeCausa and BMK, and urge caution here. I will observe that USchick comes across (rightly or wrongly) as harbouring quite a bit of personal animosity, despite saying that "I'm not looking to sway the jury, let the community decide what to do". Descriptions like "terrorizing editors simply because they have experience with the system as repeat offenders and bullies", "Producer/Director are very skilled at policy and at tag teaming against everyone else to the point where lots of us have been sanctioned because of this ongoing situation" and "Don't you think it's strange for 2 people to have created so much animosity toward themselves? If you can find any supporters they have, feel free to canvass for them. The people here all have different opinions about the topic, but strangely enough, they all agree to ban 2 very offensive editors". There is a level of personal attack that I consider unwarranted, and it was continued with dubious accusations about Director's apparent admiration for Watson and "scientific racism".
• I am also very concerned that the only place this ban proposal was advertised (by the nominator, I understand) was on the talk page of the article about which the dispute arose. This was problematic, because it drew editors that were already involved, with the fairly predictable result above. There do not seem to be many really uninvolved editors here, to me at least. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realised that last bullet point - and have struck my comment that the call for "involved editors" wouldn't affect the outcome. The avalanche of "supports" is, I think, the grinding of axe's from that article talk page. (Btw, I too have seen Producer and Direktor squabble - I assumed that sock/meat allegation had been burried. If not, it is ridiculous to anyone who's been around Eastern european articles for the last few years.) DeCausa (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That comes close to dismissing everyone who's contributed to the article or discussions on it as axe-grinders, bearers of long-standing grudges and the like. I only came to the article a week ago and the last time I looked at contribution histories I was struck by how many had also arrived quite recently - long after the first AfD and the ANI discussions and so on. Again without running checks with wikitools, I think I've never interacted with Director or Producer before and I suspect that's true of others here. (I had seen the names on the drama-boards before, true, and had a vague impression that they often squabbled.) NebY (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to long-standing grudges (although that may be present in some cases) but to the preponderance of opponents of Direktor and Producer on the article talk page appearing here and the lack of signifificant univolved comment, until recently. In other words, the axe to be ground originated at that article. That's not to say that every post in support is grinding an axe, but, taken overall, this AN thread supposedly about behaviour is largely (but not entirely) a mirror of the content dispute with the content majority on one side and the content minority (a very small minority) on the other. There are editors within the content majority whose behaviour at the article talk page is at least as problematic as the content minority's behaviour, but there appears no interest in holding that up to scrutiny. DeCausa (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Director expressed below far more succinctly what I meant by axe grinding: "The vast majority of editors commenting here were just now on the opposite side from me in a highly contentious and emotional content dispute". DeCausa (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that USchick's involvement is problematic. One of the relatively few diffs prsented by them is this: "In this lively debate [68] Director provides a source to prove his point about Lenin. Then when I attempt to use the same source to prove a different point, he wants to shut down the discussion." But I would characterise that diff as Direktor rightly ddismissing an off-point and tendentious response to him by USchick. In fact, much of the disruption around this article seems to be generated by USchicj - see this. DeCausa (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67, Thank you for pointing to the collaboration between you, Director and Potočnik in ARBMAC topic area which paint all of you in a good light. You somehow overlooked to say that you were blocked at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia (link to your block log). Three of you are top three active contributors of this article (link) whose title remained unchanged because three of you opposed on the talkpage, where you and Director alone made 1649 comments.link. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is barely worth responding to. All I will point out is that Antidiskriminator was ARBMAC-banned from an article for tendentious and disruptive editing. He comes here with unclean hands, and should be pointedly ignored in this case. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The vast majority of editors commenting here were just now on the opposite side from me in a highly contentious and emotional content dispute. If the community wishes to impose sanctions I would appreciate it if the decision was made by uninvolved editors, objectively evaluating the exchanges in question - not a collection of biased, angry editors quite possibly out for revenge after my having dared to oppose their positions on an article talkpage.

If the community considers user conduct on that article worthy of review, then I suggest the whole mess be brought before ArbCom for an objective overall assessment of everyone's conduct, rather than singling anyone out like this. -- Director (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have some support for this notion. There's no guarantee they will take the case, but if they did, there'd be some genuine resolution. You should bear in mind though, Director, there is an outside chance this approach could end with more significant actions than just a topic ban. As an observer to that page, I'll be blunt with you -- you didn't come off well, especially in the civility department -- to my assessment anyway. Utilizing this solution may serve to spread the blame around a little, but if it's pure vindication you are looking for, I think you're likely to be disappointed. Right now, in the present discussion, a lot of energy is being wasted on the debate concerning whether the fight to introduce and maintain antisemitic material disqualifies you and Producer from contributing in certain related areas. ArbCom is unlikely to be distracted for long by such red herrings; they'll focus very quickly on the substantive policy matters, and I should be not at all surprised if WP:Civility becomes the chief issue in that discussion, whereas it has been severely underrepresented so far in discussions about what went wrong on that talk page. That being said, you will at least be afforded every opportunity to defend your position on equal footing with your detractors. In that respect, I think it may be the best way forward for all parties. Snow talk 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said "if". I don't care about "spreading the blame", I just care that we do this fairly, objectivity is kind of "my thing". I don't care if I'm the only one who gets sanctioned, but I don't want it to happen because biased users with a specific interest gathered and posted a lot of "Support" votes. Input by new, uninvolved editors should be what matters here. The term "kangaroo court" does come to mind. -- Director (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I need to state a few things: This pdf that is being persistently pushed is by some individual named "Valdas Anelauskas" and titled "Zionism and Russia" and readily available on Archive.org alongside thousands of other works by various authors. In any event I did not know that reliable sources are absolutely off limits if they've happened to have been quoted elsewhere by less reputable sources. For what it's worth my interest on the subject was piqued by Stanford University's "Jews and Communism" publication (hence the article name), later Slezkine, and more later by other sources. All that being said this article and this area of Wikipedia has put out such a toxic environment with its nonstop drama that, regardless of the outcome above, I'm willfully barring myself from editing in it ever again. I had been contemplating retiring from Wikipedia for a while now even prior to this whole ordeal and have chosen to follow through with it and do so. Therefore I am retiring indefinitely and am ceasing all further editing on any portion of Wikipedia. This my final and only comment on the matter and on Wikipedia. --Potočnik (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is sad, because en WP has lost a productive editor who contributed to featured content of which en WP should be proud. Editors bringing such matters to this or similar fora should remember that throwing a WP:BOOMERANG can result in your being hit in the back of the head when you least expect it. Some of the above has not been done in good faith, but in pursuit of personal agendas. This discussion has only included a very narrow and largely involved slice of the en WP community, and this should be taken into account by closing administrators. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Valdas Anelauskas, member of the white nationalist Pacifica Forum? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we can hold Producer/Potočnik to his self imposed exile, I think that in itself will make many people very happy. No further action will be necessary. USchick (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't care about the exile either way, I still think the user should receive a topic ban for Judaism to prevent them spreading further ideas about the Jewish people at their discretion. It would otherwise be a good thing if they were able to edit other parts of the website. I think the very least administrators should do is show initiative and prevent the potential circulation of further anti-Semitic propaganda on the website? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. A person who retires can unretire. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see the supposed "animosity" that Peacemaker67 and Antidiskriminator speak of. Where has any any one on here expressed any strong hostility towards director? Just because I have an editing history on the afD page for Jews and Communism, one of the several articles in question, my opinion becomes invalid? My first direct interaction with Director happened after the creation of this topic ban proposal, so how could I have had a "vendetta" against Director? In fact, at this point, I don't even agree with the nominator in regard to giving Director a topic ban, only Potocnik. The notion that an editor has to be entirely clueless of a situation when he joins the discussion associated with it in order to have a valued opinion makes no sense. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there clearly isn't all that much animosity toward Director because, at the moment, a plurality of people oppose his topic ban. He has definitely won over a lot of people by his apology, and that is how it should be. The question is whether a topic ban is needed to prevent further damage to the project, not whether he needs to be dragged to the town square and horsewhipped. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is some animosity, especially between Atlanticire and Director, but not enough to render the entire topic ban irrelevant, or to render the opinions of everyone who contributed to the afD page irrelevant (as some people above have suggested). My opinion on Director has been that I'm incapable of judging him because no one is on the same page as to what it is he actually did, but to me it's clear that Potocnik/Producer is incapable of editing Judaism related articles from a NPOV. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To User Potocnik @ 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC) above. Sorry to see you go. Somehow I suspect it is just a case of a "broken-wing defense". Time will tell. You know, whenever I see you or Director edit or opine during this entire laborious labyrinthine byzantine Jews & Communism discussion, the words of an English poet I studied many decades ago come to mind:

"...A truth that’s told with bad intent

Beats all the Lies you can invent.

It is right it should be so;

Man was made for Joy and Woe;

And when this we rightly know

Thro’ the World we safely go..." (From William Blake's "To See a World..."[69]).

Based on the unyielding ongoing self-righteous defenses you and Director offer up all the time, evidently you fail to grasp the profound import and implications of what the words "...A truth that’s told with bad intent Beats all the Lies you can invent!" mean. If you would, or could, then none of this horrendous and divisive debate would be necessary as the discussion would stop being one of "chalk and cheese" as the two of you try making it all about "sources" when the real problem is one of the core underlying negative and malicious intent of the way it's set up that comes across based on its presentation and your torrid defenses of what is ultimately indefensible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Good point on a "broken-wing defense".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic failure to provide oversight in this case

The article "Jews and Communism" was created, as we know now, using material from an extremist anti-Semitic website as a source without attribution. Two days after its creation, it was nominated for deletion but the result was "no consensus"[70]. I find it disturbing that closing admin RoySmith says in his closure that one of the charges against the article is that it is "Attack page (anti-semetic)" but does not address that in his remarks, saying "what this really comes down to, is this a POV fork of Jewish Bolshevism?" and the answer is that there is no consensus, so he allowed this very clearly anti-Semitic attack page to continue to be promulgated on this site. Then there was a deletion review, closed by Sandstein as "no consensus" [71], again, the very clear anti-Semitic content did not seem to be disturbing any admins or oversighters on this site. A long AN/I started by Director [[72] with the stated aim of removing "those folks who hang around being disruptive obstructions" from the article and which developed into a discussion of his behaviour, was eventually closed by v/r as "no consensus". "No consensus, no consensus, no consensus, not to become an anti-Semitic website, go away and leave us alone, and don't edit war or call each other names or you will be expelled from school for a day or two." I must say I was very disappointed that Jimbo Wales, in the discussion on his talk page, said he would look at the article and give his opinion, but he never did, and the discussion was archived with no further comment from him [73]. All this did attract the attention of two admins who honourably did try to intervene and improved things a little,Jehochman and Stephan Schulz, but what were all the rest of you doing? Another AN/I I started about edit-warring [[74] was also just ignored by admins for days and days until it was closed by Spike Wilbury as, guess what, "no consensus" [75], but at least he did then step into the article talk page and try to do something. Maybe because I know a little about early 20th century Russia, that stuff in the article about Jews killing the Tsar immediately indicated to me that this was as clearly pushing extreme anti-Semitism as if there were an article on WP about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" saying that it shows a Jewish plot to take over the world. I said so over and over but no one in authority seemed to take any notice, you would have hoped that someone might have looked into it. I am the person who found the connection between the article on the white supremacist website and the original WP article, and it really wasn't that hard,all I had to do was google the quote about "Jewish violins" killing the Tsar and there it was. All these bureaucratic procedures, lists of rules, blah blah blah, should not have prevented somebody doing something to remove poisonous racist crap from this website but the people who could have done that seem to be timid and afraid of doing anything and wait for someone else to deal with it or for it to "go to ArbCom", oh yes, spend five months collecting "evidence" and going through infinite quasi-legal hoops. The article is still onsite, though at least without the horrible "Jews killed the Tsar" stuff. Please excuse the rant, I needed to get that off my chest, it can be hatted if someone wants to do that.Smeat75 (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat75 identifies the central issue in this matter: Can Wikipedia resist concerted efforts to contaminate it with lies, hate, and deception? In the time from February through May 2014, it signally failed to do so. The virulent anti-Semitism of the original article should have been evident to all, and much of it persists to this day despite the efforts of literally dozens of editors and the investment of hundreds of hours. The attention of administrators, and indeed of Wikimedia board members, should have been focused by the original AfD, the Jimbo discussion, the two long, long threads at AN/I, and plenty of direct correspondence.

This was not an obscure or difficult issue requiring expertise, some dispute about mathematical series or the best name for some forgotten Balkan outpost. The article was filled with evident canards -- and it linked to a fairly extensive Wikipedia article filling in the historical background on the smear! We have the whole cast: the ugly Jews, the Jews in banking and finance, the secretive Jews, the Jewish traitors. We argue that all sorts of people were really Jews because their ancestors were Jewish. And on the talk page, as here, we have the repeated dismissal of opposition because, after all, it's just those Jews again coming to WP:VOTE, and everyone knows how they stick together.

Wikipedia is in serious trouble. It is hemorrhaging editors. Its reputation is already low, and scandals like this page diminish it. Worse, it seems clear that Wikipedia cannot and will not resist serious efforts by a small team of concerted editors who, as was the case here, can easily override policy and consensus by pretending to adhere to the forms. I've used Wikis since Ward’s Wiki was new; I've been keynote at WikiSym and I've been program chair; I’ve written wikis. Never -- not even during the great wiki mind wipe of 1999 -- have I so completely doubted the efficacy of the WikiWay. The conclusion seems inescapable that Wikipedians have lost the ability to distinguish routine contention from opposition to racist and anti-semitic distortion; if we cannot do that (and I see scant evidence that we can), the wind will blow through the empty corridors of Wikipedia?

Could it happen? If you think not, think again. Events like Jews and Communism bring Wikipedia into disrepute. If Wikipedia becomes sufficiently disreputable, an engineer at Google can press a button and, overnight, Wikipedia could go back to Page Rank 3, taking our traffic. If Wikipedia becomes sufficiently disreputable, donations will dry up. If Wikipedia becomes sufficiently disreputable, the remaining editors will be even more dominated by the hacks and the charlatans, the zealots for obscure movements, the gamified WikiLawyers looking for one more scalp and one more barnstar. This can still be fixed, but it can not be fixed by kicking the can down the road and nodding sagely that, if the anti-semites were regrettable, some of their opponents were sometimes intemperate. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, with our current policies and guidelines, Wikipedia can not manage this, even if it had the manpower. Part of what I believe is required is no more and no less than a very careful reconsideration and revision of WP:BLPGROUP. Legal systems around the world have often recognized that marginalized classes of people are the subject of a systemic bias (in fact, this is almost tautological), and respond to this fact with positive (that is, proactive) structures, such as heightened scrutiny, which attempt to address said bias.

The belief that one can address this bias with better intentions but without that sort of teeth has been disproven time and time again, there's quite a bit of research that a blind approach leads to likely unintentional (if not intentional "turning a blind eye") discrimination (e.g., [76]. See the research on stereotype threat, not just our article, but the actual research, to understand one of the dynamics that may underly this intractability.)

There are very, very difficult questions ahead if people were to agree with me, about how to construct such a system. Legal systems in the United States and around the world continue to struggle with those same questions, in part under the guise of standards of scrutiny. I don't know what the best solution looks like, one that actually provides some reasonable protections but that is resistant to gaming. But I think it has finally come time to admit that we need something more in the way of policy than what we have. Propagating this material has and continues to do harm to living people, even if that harm is diffuse. BLP requires we do something, but BLPGROUP denies us the tools required to do anything. If months of propagating Nazi hate literature isn't a good enough reason for change, I don't know what the (redacted) is. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above two comments. I am not Jewish, by the way, so not recognising that article as horrendous anti-Semitism because how are you supposed to know if you're not Jewish, is no excuse. All anyone had to do was google "Jews killed the Tsar" and see what sheer evil they were confronted with, but it seemed no one wanted to make that small effort and almost all just looked the other way.Smeat75 (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is the portion of this issue that concerns me the most. We had over two-thirds of editors stating in the 1st deletion attempt that the article was an attack page based on the antisemitic canard of Jewish Bolshevism, but User:RoySmith overruled the community and ruled "no consensus". I am well aware of the fact that admins have to take all relevant arguments into consideration, and that AfDs are not a vote. But when you have two-thirds of the community pointing to what looks exactly like what it was, Roy should have been damn sure he was right with his overruling. He was not. And that should have been obvious to people who are informed about these types of issues. If he wasn't(or isn't) then he should not have taken the AfD. If he was, then I have to firstly question the competence of someone who couldn't see the obvious. Then to see it discussed in multiple venues, with no action, was disheartening. To say the least. If editors think it's just melodramatic for the editors who stated they don't want to edit someplace that would allow such malfeasance, they haven't been involved enough with the disgusting minds of the Institute for Historical Review(shudder). The worse kind of antisemites. Smart, educated, informed and with a hatred of Jews that can't be matched. Like Uncle Bilbo one minute, and then when they see the ring/Jew, they attack. Should never have gotten to this point. Dave Dial (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Been following this with increasing horror in the past few days. Made my first edits tonight, though recall having a brief run in on this a week or so ago on the articles for deletion discussion. I left before a closure was made. (I think I was in denial since) :/) Has the closing admins given a full explaination of their rationale in closing? If the admin have clue - I have always respected Sandstein's judgement before - then they showed a huge lack of horse sense and gut based clue. Shit stinks. We can all smell. Sounds like the majority of the community smelt the stench. The admins didnt get it. This shows a worrying insensitivity to elements of the comminity IMO Irondome (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does show significant oversight in this instance, I don't think having an attitude that the article is only antisemitic because an antisemitic source was found to scapegoat is a good thing, although it certainly proves it without question. I think I speak for many editors, at least reading through the comments here, in saying that the article read as antisemitic propaganda before the source was found that designated it as such, and the admins in question should have listened to the communities outcry concerning it. After all, one of the principles of the website is ignore all rules if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and the policies of the website were definitely used intelligently here to defend the article. I'm not sure whose discretion it is whether or not a particular group is worth defending from hate speech, or if this website, with its global influence, should have a clear stance on this, but if I were asked, I would certainly say that antisemitism has no place here, and that it should indeed make rules against hate speech --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That will just lead to the circular argument, already represented on that talk page ad nauseum -- that it wasn't really hate speech, just sourced facts that happened to make some uncomfortable for "personal" or otherwise small-minded reasons. Look a number of people here have commented that this situation was more complicated than it needed to be and that we ought to have new rules to deal with this type of situation, but there are two problems with that as I see it: 1) It's all well and good to make such a statement, but no one has proposed specific mechanisms or procedures that could be employed for such scenarios that wouldn't cause more problems than they solved and that wouldn't be subject to the same kind of mental/semantic gymnastics that kept this article alive for as long as it was despite being in conflict with existing policies. And 2) Complicated is just the way Wikipedia is sometimes. We had a heated content discussion compounded by battleground behaviour; welcome to the project and bear in mind that such debates have gone on for a lot longer, including on topics of significant social sensitivity. As of today, the page is blanked, likely to be briefly deleted. It won't be coming back in it's recent form, though I daresay claims found within it will rear their ugly head elsewhere. And there will be dedicated contributors with common sense and the will to protect the project in those scenarios too. Yes, administrators acted with perhaps an excess of caution, but don't we like (and demand) caution in our admins, typically? They balance a lot of different considerations, and possible vandalism for the purposes of fringe ideologies are just one of them, if one of the more serious ones. If anything I'd say this situation is just reflective of the need for more admins, as they do seem stretched thin at times of late, and getting administrator attention, let alone attention admin possessing both the time and will to weather the storm of a situation where they can only choose amongst courses of action that are all going to be contentious with one group or another can be difficult at times. But I don't think we need new policy for this contingency, and if we do, it needs to be more refined than "Do something!". If anyone feels the need for new more specific rules is pressing, though, take the matter to WP:Village Pump (policy) after the conclusion of this discussion and the AfD, and don't forget to ping me. Snow talk 02:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was an argument earlier in the debate that suggested a revision of WP:BLPGROUP. That may help in this instance. I think you're probably right about the request for more admins. It's possible that they simply didn't have the time to look it over properly. It's a difficult situation and I guess that returns to the matter of Producers disruptive editing. This sort of behaviour generally leads to admin response, and events such as this will serve well as an example for future possible article creations --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I forgot about the BLPGROUP suggestion. Well...maybe. It's quite difficult to say anything definitive about how useful it would be without knowing the exact change proposed. And altering BLP to include protections to broad groups would redefine the concept of uphill battles. Now, as I said above, I'm not sure what change is warranted by these circumstances, but if someone were convinced that a new level of oversight was required here, I'd suggest they look in the direction of the recently updated discretionary sanctions system. It could be put before ArbCom that Judaism (or more specifically, the Jewish people) should be added to the "current areas of conflict" list for the DS system. This would allow admins to apply discretionary sanctions relating to activity on the topic without as much concern about fall-out, since sanctions are allowed for even moderate violations of policy in such cases. Using it to combat the creation of an undesirable article would be a little bit of a twist on the system's usual purpose, which is to maintain and protect existing articles from disruptive activity, but I daresay the general function -- protecting the project in a specific content area prone to heated debate, vandalism, and general disruption, are the same in both cases. I think if you take this and the related discussions to ArbCom, you've a decent shot at getting some significant oversight. Snow talk 06:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do raise some good points. These things aren't always the fault of admins. Once enough of the community had been made aware of the article, the consensus seemed to sweep towards delete. Maybe we could also push to using Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias more frequently as a resource? It has some utility on the Talk page but not a significant amount. If it were more popular and had an amount of active watchers, it could help deal with the creation of articles such as this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see it differently. The decision to close the AfD as "no consensus" was perverse. 9/10 administrators would have closed it as "delete." Let's hope the current AfD is not also closed as "keep." At DRN, many of the "Endorse" keep votes said they thought it should be deleted but respected the discretion of the closing administrator. To me that makes no sense, because what then is the purpose of DRN. Add to that many of the regulars there are "inclusionist" tipped the balance. But it's precisely because many editors are sensitive to anti-Semitism that most editors favor deletion.

The main policy reason for deletion is notability. If the topic were notable, we would be able to identify a body of literature to use as a source and could determine what was significant to the subject and what the different views were. It would not be possible to base the article on an IHR article, because it would not reflect the weight shown in a hythothetical article about the subject in a reliable source.

The problem I see is that there are lots of articles that are just synthesis, where someone picks two words and puts them together and creates their own topic. Generally these pass AfD where the odds of getting an article deleted that should be deleted are about 50%. For example left-wing nationalism and right-wing socialism have survived AfDs, although no one has agreed the definition or scope. So a libertarian writer said the Republican Party is right-wing socialist because both parties are socialist, and a New York Times reporter in the 1950s said Peron was a right-wing socialist because he was right-wing and his policies seemed socialist. And of course Tony Blair was on the right of the nominally socialist Labour Party so that's multiple uses of the term.

TFD (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

agreed,'Wikipedia's existence is contingent on preserving a modicum of respect from the mainstream public. One more episode of wikipedia's admins deciding to tolerate a bit of "well-sourced" racism could well land the uproar on the front page of he Times or Le Monde. the next day, Google demotes wikipedia's page rank, and it's all over. Easy calls need to be easy; this was not a tricky question, and the corps of admins failed abjectly. If we can't find policy to bar anti semiotic and racist cant, what the *** are admins, or policy, for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 03:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that "anti semiotic" writing would cause Google's algorithms to react that way. Bus stop (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, a deletion review is only to determine if the closing admin acted within policy. Not for deciding if the AfD was decided "right". Most closing admins know how to close an AfD or RM within policy so that it cannot be overturned by review. So I wouldn't spend too much time focusing on the review, because even if the closing admin used IAR, it would be within policy to endorse the close. Dave Dial (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - can anyone suggest an appropriate venue to continue to discuss this issue once this thread is closed? By "this issue" I mean the failure of the system to remove gross racist/anti-Semitic material, the reluctance of admins to deal with the matter and what I would describe as a widespread tendency among them to avoid contentious disputes and leave those to someone else.Smeat75 (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smeat, the appropriate locations for such a discussion are WP:Village Pump (policy), or this very noticeboard (in a new thread, of course, though I do tend to think the Village Pump is a better location in general and especially under the current circumstances). Wherever you host the discussion itself, a posting concerning it at WP talk:Centralized discussion is advisable to increase participation. I've also suggested above that those looking for additional oversight in this area might consider viewing the recently overhauled discretionary sanctions system, with an eye towards petitioning ArbCom to add topics concerning the Jewish people to the list of topics covered by the system. Snow talk 06:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thought that the article should stay, but that the content should be modified to be more appropriate. So the first AfD wasn't only about "removing gross racist/anti-Semitic" content but whether the topic itself should stay. You are not summarizing the first AfD accurately. Content can be always modified later. If you are claiming that everyone who voiced that the topic of Jewish people in historical communist movements is a notable topic are racists, anti-Semitic and somehow linked to sites like Stormfront, you are bordering on a personal attack. --Pudeo' 22:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is something disturbing in how long time it took to root this out, including the first failed AfD. I think that Jimbo Wales and others who feels some overall responsibility for the project should look into this and in general we as a community should do an evaluation of what went wrong like it’s done here by Smeat75 and Bernstein It’s a case that deservs broad attention so people keep it in mind if something similar happens. Some kind of formal recognition that this was something else than an ordinary content dispute may be in order One point of learning may be that when there is sincere concern that an article is fundamentally flawed and unsound (extremism, hoax or similar) the concern can not be put aside by «no consensus»; one solution would be to direct such cases directly to ArbCom (and blank the article until the case is settled). In this particular case there most probably was a consensus to delete, but the point is that "no consensus" with no formal follow-up shouldn't be an option when there is very deep concern for the state of an article. Iselilja (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment Iselilja, I think that is an idea worth pursuing. I noticed that on RoySmith's talk page, he is the admin that closed the first AfD, there are two warnings from bots telling him that he shouldn't have removed the template for Articles from Deletion from Jews and Communism the day it was nominated for deletion and he shouldn't have removed other peoples' comments from the discussion. I looked at the edit history of the deletion discussion and the article and talk page but I could not see any edits from him removing comments. I don't know if there is some way that admins can erase things from edit histories as well as removing comments. I have asked him to explain on his talk page [77].Smeat75 (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forget that comment above, he has replied and it seems to be confusion caused by a malfunctioning bot.Smeat75 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this edit for what appears to be a logical explaination for how this happened. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User RoySmith (talk · contribs), a few points:

1. Until this moment I had no idea you were an admin, why don't you indicate that on your own user page with some sort of icon or statement so that it avoids confusion and misunderstanding and it be clear you are one when you get involved in controversially closing controversial AfDs such as the now notorious Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism especially? In some previous discussions I had no idea you were an admin, and now I had to do a special search to find out and confirm that you are an admin. Or maybe I am missing something and my PC just doesn't pick up the icon?
2. It would be fascinating to know your thoughts now that as a direct result of your initial decision to override a clear more than two thirds majority, actually almost a two to one majority (22 in favor, three to merge into other articles, and 14 to keep) of many users in the original AfD -- who all said then what is now going to happen as a result of the second AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination)), i.e. WP:TNT because the original article is a direct copy of material taken from a bunch of disgusting neo-Nazi pseudo-research -- it has now come to this sorry state that has created so much bitterness, a huge split in the WP community and possible sanctions against the creators and defenders of the Jews & Communism article. Just look at what they are going through now, they could have been prevented from harming themselves had you nipped this in the bud based on a solid majority, not to mention what this is doing to WP as this cancerous topic metastasizes and grows even more toxic in its ongoing mushroom cloud radioactive fallout.
3. It is not too late to explain yourself. Even Director it's staunchest defender now realizes the sheer blunder and sees the wrong of it and calls for the article to be blown up, even though he was obviously very fond of the topic and fought to the death to defend it regardless of how rotten it all was as anyone with a working nose/conscience could smell that. There needs to be a rational answer that shows some remorse and retraction on your side and not some gibberish about "policies" or whatnot in a distracting flurry of WP:LAWYERING as to how you could have allowed such a disaster to go on and unfold as it has been doing still with no end in sight (and certainly no responsible oversight) at this time. You overlooked a simple rule of real life or in any democracy as Abraham Lincoln put it "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." [78]
4. You must take your share of the responsibility for what has transpired and you must offer an unconditional apology for allowing neo-Nazi hate onto WP, even if out of massive ignorance or well-intentioned motives, but there cannot be any excuse for a gross failure of judgement on your part and your part alone. If you don't you should be subject to some sort of very serious sanction for your failure and the damage it has brought upon WP and its good name.
5. You should also reverse your closing of the first AfD with the simple explanation that it was taken from an indefensible source and had you known you would never have done what you did.

To sum up, not only was there no oversight when there were many chances to do so especially during the frivolous ANI requests launched by Potocnik and Director [79] [80] and others' pleadings at ANI [81] and even on Jimbo Wales' page [82] but in your case the "oversight" (and as an admin you have that responsibility at all times) that allowed this to happen was not just passive but actively counterproductive right off the bat as is evidenced right now by all the fallout from this fiasco and the abyss it has opened up at the feet of WP. Your response is awaited. Thank you so much in advance, IZAK (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I just assumed if people wanted to know if I was an admin, they could look me up on Wikipedia:List_of_administrators. I certainly don't make a secret of it. However, if you think it would be useful for me to put something on my user page, I would be glad to oblige. As for the rest of the rant above, my explanation was in my closing statement for the AfD. If that doesn't satisfy you, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get dragged into this slugfest. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that post Izak, well said, I completely agree with all of it.Smeat75 (talk) 12:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was brought up at deletion review and there was "no consensus" to overturn the "no consensus" decision of the AfD.[83] While that is not a ringing endorsement, and does not mean the closing of the first AfD was correct, it does mean that we are not likely to get anywhere pursuing this it. TFD (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved / uninvolved editors

• Comment on the issue of involved versus uninvolved editors:

I first became aware of this article when it was mentioned at ANI following the first AfD. The title alone drew my attention rather strongly.

I suspect a large number of editors may be in the same position, because the increase in the number of respondents between the first AfD and the second AfD is really very substantial.

I would suggest (but leave it to others to judge) that the line between 'involved' and 'uninvolved' be drawn at those editors who were involved before the first AfD, because surely part of the point of the AfD and ANI process is to get input from the wider community; it could seem perverse to then ignore the views of those members of the wider community who choose at that point to comment.

L&K, Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case, I was made aware of it just under a week before the second AfD was opened due to the two RfCs on the article talk page. I imagine many of the "involved" editors may be recent due to the amount of controversy Jews and Communism has been generating and the different boards it had been put up on --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"many of the "involved" editors may be recent due to the amount of controversy Jews and Communism has been generating and the different boards it had been put up on". Exactly. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's going/gone away as an issue now as "non-involved" have since posted and made the response more balanced. But the issue was not so much involved/noninvolved but one side of a content dispute (call it "involved") loading a discussion on behaviour here with little input from those who had not taken a position in that content dispute. DeCausa (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, there are very few editors who support blatant anti-semitism (or other forms of racism and bigotry), and hence in this case most editors will be on one side of the content issue. In this case, these editors also were the ones on the receiving side of Directors comments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I understood the concern to be as well. But then, clarification on this matter was ignored for a good bit as several editors pointed out that a majority of the editors who had responded to this thread (even at the time this issue was first raised) had never been involved in any form of content dispute with either party, having become "involved" at the juncture of the still-ongoing AfD. Despite these efforts at clarity, the characterization of this discussion as mostly the effort of a mob with an axe to grind against the pair being discussed persisted, and I fear it will now muddy the waters some for the duration of the discussion. I do tend to agree with DeCausa that the concern has been addressed some by the arrival of more editors through the normal noticeboard traffic, as was largely inevitable, but this aspect has now gained so much traction, I think the spectre of "revenge" votes stands a good chance of being factored into any response taken here at a much higher level than it ever should be, as the parties out to make an example of these two, while present, are only a slim, slim minority in the discussion. Two, maybe three contributors, depending on how you parse their motives.

Allow me to clarify the extent of my own involvement in the pages and discussions of relevance here -- not because I want to make the case for why my perspectives on the whole affair should be given non-mitigated weight (this whole discussion is going to get absurdly congested if each party feels compelled to delineate where they came into the matter and in what context the operated, which is what I was afraid was about to happen), but because I think my case is fairly indicative of those editors who might be described as quasi-involved -- that is to say, they participated in the most recent AfD, the ANIs, or the article talk page, but were never on opposing sides of a content issue with either of the editors who are the subject of this discussion. I came to be aware of the toxic situation on that article through the more recent of the two ANIs and I commented twice in that discussion (here and here); the gist of my comments was that, while no one should be proud of what was going at that page, the two most problematic personalities, from what I had observed, were Director and Producer, who were vastly more likely to denigrate the perspectives of their opposition, to make personal attacks, to make implications of bad-faith and ulterior motives without evidence, and generally fail to observe WP:Civility broadly. The two just seemed completely incapable, at least by that point in the discussion, of coping with the notion that others disagreed so strongly with them and every one of their responses to opposition contained some degree of vitriol. I had hoped that a little community attention, including from admins, might put the pair, and others tending towards a combative mindset, on better behaviour, but I saw no really productive benefit in getting involved in the ongoing, and devolving, debate on the article talk page over the crux of whether the content in the article itself was antisemitic and/or synthesis and stayed well-clear of it, but I continued to be concerned about the abandon with which civility standards were trampled there and the general battleground attitudes at work, so I put the talk page on my watchlist. I made one brief comment on the talk page, directed at Director after he speculated on the motives of another editor in a matter that didn't even directly concern him and then told said editor to "go away"; I informed him that neither action was in his purview, that it was uncivil and that it seemed consistent with the WP:OWN behaviour many involved editors had accused him of. I never had a direct exchange with him or any other party over the content itself, nor was I personally the subject of derogatory comments from anybody (which may make me unique in the history of that article). My last involvement with the article was inthe second AfD wherein I never made a formal vote and tried to make it clear that my main concern was not the content itself, but how broke the process of discussion itself was on the page and that, regardless of whether or not the content was antisemitic or not, or appropriately sourced, some editors there were in their right to believe the situation could never be fixed through usually collaborative effort because of the battleground mentality that presided there.

I think this type of story is much more common to the editors who have commented above than is the scenario of an editor who duked it out over the content of the article (and more lucky me, for the fact that I didn't have to step into that quagmire). Was I involved? Well, only to the extent that I observed a great deal acrimony and editors with less than acceptable stance on civility and commented as such. In the cases of others who did the same, or even commented narrowly within the last AfD and never interacted with Director or Producer, I think it's a serious mischaracterization to dismiss their perspectives as biased, given the entire point of a discussion such as this is to consider behavioural issues. Again, I think the call for a topic ban is premature, for Director at least. But that doesn't mean I want the valid opinions of other editors quashed or treated as tainted simply because they happened upon this mess a little earlier than others. Snow talk 21:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Balaenoptera, that's pretty much everyone. I don't agree with that. I'd rather go for the second AfD since the point of having "uninvolved" editor input is that those editors haven't been advocating content changes and hence are more objective in viewing behavior as such. -- Director (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I imagine most of those involved in the second AfD had not been directly involved with you on the article, that is to say, the "history of disruptive editing" in question --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I said before the second AfD, and I was just going along with the notion of an "AfD-based" criterion. Editors viewed as "involved" should I think obviously be simply those involved in content disputes on the article talkpage. -- Director (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I misread "I'd rather go for the second AfD" as meaning those involved in it. That makes more sense --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all need to stop talking about this in terms of a timeline and specific landmarks, prior to which no editor who observed the mess is capable of being given full weight here. That approach, aside from being artificial and reflected nowhere in policy, removes any consideration of context. Administrators are not simpletons and we do not need to provide guidelines as to which editor's perspectives are to be "trusted" more than others -- nor do I think we would be welcome in making the effort. Any responding admins have every link at their disposal here to review the comments and involvement of all parties and to decided whether they are presenting a factual account of events or being led by prior bias. I don't think you have much to be concerned over, Director - as things are moving, it seems you will likely avoid any kind of topic ban, if not by the hugest margin. But regardless of whether or not that prediction bears out, it's not our place to be deconstructing the motives and general capacity for neutrality of one-another with regard to this already convoluted situation, at least not with the broad strokes that are now being suggested. Snow talk 22:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm an AfD regular. I noticed this at AfD the first but didn't comment because I didn't understand the content (so i was unlikely to provide a unique insight) and saw that there appeared to be a significant number of different voices. I'd probably do the same if a similar situation arose again with similar content and similar arguements at AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the content as presented was not understandable. That's why people were trying to edit it to something that made more sense. It says a lot about an article, when you come across an encyclopedia article and walk away with no better understanding of the subject matter. lol USchick (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I noticed the nomination (2nd one) on the "Articles for Deletion" page as I was defending another article that had been nominated the same day, so I suppose that would qualify me as "uninvolved"? Even so, if we are to say that only 'uninvolved' editors can exert opinions about an issue, we would have to consider that without involved parties to exert their testimony on what happened, we would be largely clueless as to what actually happened. Of course we shouldn't interpret the opinions of involved editors as a "neutral and unbiased perspective" that should directly affect the outcome of the case, but the opinions of involved editors are still valuable in the regard that they help us understand what actually happened. You're never going to have a "witness to a crime" sitting on the jury, but that doesn't mean their opinion and what they have to say shouldn't be said. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 10:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point.
  • DIREKTOR and PRODUCER/Potočnik are subjected to very serious accusations
  • it is necessary to present evidence for such serious accusations. Such evidence can, of course be presented and discussed by all editors, both involved and uninvolved. Closing (uninvolved) administrator will consider the strength of the argument when deciding if accusations are justified
    1. if such accusations are proven not to be justified all editors who made unjustified accusations should be boomeranged
    2. if accusations about some kind of travelling circus (active not only in topics relating to Jews, but also in other topic areas like communism, ARBMAC, ... ) would be proven, then all members of that travelling circus should be banned from all topic areas they were active.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) cut out the hysterics and histrionics please. It's an open and shut case as anyone can see. First of all on Potocnik's current user page [84] it says he has "{{retired}}", it would seem as an open admission of mea culpa and therefore you should quit your defending him when he himself has gone and even Director admits that the original offending article must be deleted, so what you are doing now makes absolutely no sense at all! Kindly calm down and reconsider your actions or you will land up defending what cannot and should not be defended. This summarizes the situation in simple terms. On 27 February 2014‎ Potocnik posted an article on "Jews & Communism" [85]. This is what the behavior of Potocnik and Director has amounted to as evidenced by almost every diff from them since (far too many to list here, feel free to click on them all at Potočnik (talk · contribs) and Director (talk · contribs)) their behavior throughout is a classic case of violating WP:POINT; WP:DONOTDISRUPT, WP:WAR, WP:BATTLEGROUND and of violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPA for which they were eventually blocked and warned [86] [87] [88] [89] by user Jehochman (talk · contribs) and that is just the tip of the iceberg. What is happening to them now can be explained in four simple steps: 1 Potocnik, then known as "PRODUCER" with lots of "citations" posts an article called "Jews and Communism" that he and Director, then known as "DIREKTOR" working in almost indistinguishable tandem like in a WP:GANG, defend to the death, ridiculing, belittling and attacking any users who get in their way to keep their WP:CONTROVERSY material up all the time in violation of WP:OWN. 2The article is eventually proven to be a proven "cut and paste" carbon copy of tendentious pseudo-research from an indefensible and hate-mongering antisemitic neo-Nazi site and organization (this is assuming you understand the implications of doing that). 3 Potocnik and Director realize they have been caught red-handed. First they change and downgrade their user names and then Potocnik says "goodbye" and Director admits his blunders and joins calls to "delete" the offending article. 4 However, every single edit, revert, rollback, attack that Potocnik and Director undertook, and a vast majority of their comments and actions on the talk pages and beyond, shows the vehemence, nastiness, downright scariness and open and arrogant disregard for the contributions of others, of the many experienced editors also too many to mention by now but they are all in the article' edit history, for anyone to see just how much effort went into salvaging even this wreck of an article and even so facing a barrage of unjustified and unjustifiable harassment from the Potocnik and Director team and a few others who thought it was just "marvelous" to help them in an effort to defend every detail and especially the original article's clear and obvious anti-Jewish and antisemitic slant (that Director euphemistically used to refer to as its "scope") all in the original article and much in it during its existence that easily can be seen by anyone with clear unbiased eyes and has the time and stomach for it by clicking on virtually most of the diffs available on their user histories at User Potočnik (talk · contribs) and Director (talk · contribs). Feel free to do so, it's all there, but please do not create panic and confusion when it is all very clear. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical Remorse

Above, Director writes:

...However, that is just not how the human mind perceives rudeness.. or else you would be reporting MarkBernstein for his outrageously offensive conduct, in my view far more vitriolic than anything I ever wrote. Of corse, him being right, it seems its ok if he repeatedly claims I support antisemitism, implying I knowingly did so. That's personal attack and slander of the highest order. Why isn't he "on trial" here? I'm not saying he should be, but I hope I got my point across. If I was "right", and I was opposing censorship of reliable non-cherry-picked sources against biased POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article, then I doubt my conduct would be perceived in such a negative light. -- Director (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This false equivalence (and this personal attack) should make clear to any reader that Director's remorse is merely a tactic. Once again, Producer and Director are working in apparent concert here: Producer retiring in silence while Director is shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that he has been defending anti-semitic cant. Note, too, how even now Director stands by his "reliable non-cherry-picked" sources; the only thing wrong with the ghastly article, and with his staunch defense of every insinuation, distortion, and lie it contained, is that it was also plagiarized. Those, like myself, who wish to preserve NPOV are "biased POV pushers" and attempts to remove specious arguments are balance the article are "disrupting". Director sees only the technical violation -- the indefensible plagiarism -- and is expressly prepared to do it all over again. He doesn't, even now, regret the faults of the article; he regrets getting caught in a copyvio that makes it harder for him to defend it right now.

Note, too, that once more Director chooses to single out an editor he thinks to be Jewish, claims to be deeply wronged ("personal attack and slander of the highest order"!) and emphasizes the collective danger of plural "POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article", which he intends to be heards as a reference "other editors" by admins but which will be understood as an allusion to "the International Conspiracy Of The Jews" by certain other parties [90]. And once again he threatens editors with reports, trials, sanctions (If he were I, I bet he'd point to the word "slander" above and escalate WP:NLT immediately.)

After all, how could Director be expected to know the anti-semitic leanings of an article he didn't write? How could the admins be expected to know? Perhaps by reading it? Director is correct to observe that one difference between him and me (and almost everyone else!) in this matter is that he has been wrong, and in the wrong.

Director hopes that this very limited display of remorse will save his Wikipedia account, and with it some time, inconvenience, and some small residual influence. The effort is clumsy: thorough contrition would have cost him nothing, but clearly he cannot stomach that. Whether Producer will be rejoining him here under the same name, under a new name, or whether the two were ever distinguishable, is an interesting question to which it seems unlikely we shall ever learn an answer. Once more, two editors acting in close cooperation are poised to emerge from this shameful and costly disaster with scant effective sanction.

What damage could editors this dedicated wreak if they thought things though? Director and Producer act in such tight concert that they seem to be socks; more clever operatives would adopt more distinct personae who sometimes agreed, sometimes differed, and who had distinct interests. More resourceful operatives would recruit a parcel of agents to work with them from distant locations -- a few people in Bangalore, a few in Russia, perhaps a small office in Ireland -- each editing quietly and each prepared to chime in when needed at AN/I or Arbcom or AfD to back them up. Smarter operatives would choose a cause (or perhaps a client?) less hideous. Two zealots pursuing a lost and discredited crusade have tied Wikipedia in knots; what couldn't a sensible and unscrupulous PR team with achieve with a few dozen internet accounts and a few thousand dollars? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. Editor who worked with them and chimed in at this AN to back them up... That resembles what one editor did here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiskriminator, if you have an accusation, you should be brave enough to make it. Please don't hide behind a vague allusion of impropriety. MarkBernstein is actually doing something after years of neglect from the entire community. What are you doing? You seem to be supporting people who knowingly discriminate. As Antidiskriminator, the only question is why? Does your personal relationship to their part of the world have anything to do with it? Is this some sort of nationalism? I'm not accusing, I'm asking in an effort to understand. Please enlighten us. USchick (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was related to editor who is, like me, opposed to ban here. I already presented an explanation about him coming here to create a false narrative which paint all three of them in a good light, forgetting to mention their block logs. One (diff) at Ante_Pavelić article (to which three of them are one of main contributors) made me additionally worried and convinced that it is necessary to:

1. gather as much evidence as possible about the activities of this group and if evidence prove accusations
2. to reveal all members of this group
3. to reveal all topic areas in which they operated
4. to impose appropriate bans to all of them in order to prevent them to continue their activities in future

Limiting discussion only to one article (Jews and Communism) and one nation (Jews) would probably be discriminatory.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. Your comment "That resembles what one editor did here" sounds like a veiled accusation against MarkBernstein. Based on your explanation, that's not the case, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood. I would caution about expanding this nomination to include other areas outside Jews and Communism, because that would be a witch hunt. They have previously been sanctioned in other areas. It appears, after that, they took their show on the road to other areas of interest, using the same tactics. My goal is to separate these two, and if they wish to separate by choice, that's fine with me. It would be nice to back it up with some sort of enforcement, just in case they change their mind. If people wish to do an in-depth investigation of a potential terrorist plot that may involve lots of other people, I think that's outside the scope of this nomination. USchick (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to User Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs): Stop living in the past. In the past few days, much water has passed under the bridge that you seem to be blind to. Potocnik has voluntarily "retired" from WP and Director agrees that the "Jews and Communism" article must be deleted because it's essentially a fraud now proven to be copied from an article from a neo-Nazi organization. In fact, the entire article has now been completely blanked by an admin [91] as a copyright violation because the material comes from NAZIS. Do you even know what that means?? Nazis, yes Nazis, writing about the "history" of the Jews, that's like having Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf become the official WP version and the evil "standard" of all things Jewish!!! Do you even see the absurdity of that?? And that is what Potocnik wanted to sneakily foist on WP and what Director defended to the death til it blew up in his face!! At this point in time, by blindly defending Potocnik and Director you are verging into behavior than can only be classed as trolling and flaming in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. I would strongly suggest you quit whilst you are still ahead and go edit in some other non-controversial area that you enjoy. You would be well-advised to read WP:REICHSTAG that may help calm your frustrations and jitters at this point. Thank you so much, IZAK (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You did not understand my position here. I do not defend PRODUCER/Potocnik and DIREKTOR. Many editors presented very serious accusations against them for tag-teaming aimed to tendentiously edit wikipedia. My position here is that it is impossible to deal with this partially.
  1. If gathered evidence justify accusations, the bans should be issued to:
     1. all members of this group
     2. for all topic areas in which they operated
  2. If not, editors who wrote serious accusations without justification should be boomeranged.
• I sincerely apologize if I am wrong, but I think that issuing ban only to one member of the team for only one limited topic area is what is absurd here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiskriminator is right; I did not understand Izak's point, it seemed way off-base. He was actually saying the opposite of what Izak was criticizing him for. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Error, And A Shame