Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.
The ANI thread Slrubenstein initiated about Noleander's editing has grown to such proportions and to such complexity over the past few days that a closure by any one administrator, and a decision about the proposed topic ban by any one administrator, is likely to cause further drama rather than resolve the situation. At the same time, the evidence is so complex that it seems to go beyond what can be competently handled either at AN/I, or at an RfC/U; the format of an arbitration case seems much more suitable, as it provides a suitable format for submitting, examining and rebutting evidence. The arbitration committee can only take a case if they are requested to do so, so this request is intended to give the committee the opportunity to do that. --JN466 03:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clerk note: I have shortened Slrubenstein's statement; the complete version is on the case talk page, here. SalvioLet's talk about it! 14:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not seek the normal avenues of dispute resolution, because I did not perceive this as a dispute between me and Noleander. At least, it is not a dispute in the narrow sense that usually operates at Wikipedia. Personally, I have no problem with Noleander. I do not think she has been incivil to me. She never attacked me personaly. Moreover, we have never been involved in an editing dispute. If I have ever reverted her, I do not remember. If she has ever reverted me, I do not remember.
I went to AN/I to propose a community ban; Slim Virgin proposed instead a topic ban, which I supported. I supported a ban because I perceived a pattern of behavior that I believe should be unacceptable at Wikipedia. The pattern of behavior is anti-Semitic. It has taken the form of creating what I consider anti-Semitic articles about Jews.
I do not believe that anyone would contest that there has been a pattern of behavior, the question is whether it is merely disruptive, or anti-Semitic as well.
There are three simple reasons why I consider the articles anti-Semitic.
They are by and large not about Judaism, the religion, but about Jews - individual people, and the collective i.e. the Jewish race (or People etc.)
The articles are neither well-sourced, nor do they use sources well. This was made clear by many people who have supported a topic ban, or who have supported the deletion of the article. The list of sources may appear impressive to a non-expert. Noleander cites books that sound relevant, but that were written by journalists, or by hobbyists, or by historians whose work is dated and no longer considered by other historians to be authoritative. More importantly, sources are used poorly. Noleander often provides summaries that flat-our misrepresent the author's views. Or she will provide a view that the source is challenging or rejecting, without providing the critique; the author of the work cited is thus presented as holding a view he or she actually criticizes. Finally, Noleander quotes selectively, and the selections are taken out of context. This is common in most if not all articles Noleander creates - to the point where, on this basis alone, one could reasonably characterize Noleander as a disruptive editor. One reason that Noleander has evaded this charge has been by creating articles. By creating articles, she avoids coming into conflict with editors who have put serious work into existing editors.
The effect of selective quotes, taken out of context, and other misrepresentations of the views of the authors of the sources is not random. The effect is to highlight slurs against Jews, or the facts that anti-Semites (e.g. the anonymous authors of Protocals of the Elders of Zion, or Henry Ford) regularly select in constructing their sterotypes of Jews. Simply put: Noleander systematically misrepresents sources in order to present anti-Semitic canards as facts.
The effect of promoting anti-Semitic views through encyclopedia articles, in my view, goes beyond simple violations of core content policies (NPOV, V, NOR). Certainly, every paragraph of Economic history of the Jews does violate NPOV and NOR. But if that is all that they did, it would just be another crappy article. As many supporters of Noleander have pointed out, Wikipedia is full of crappy articles, and being the on-line encyclopedia anyone can edit, we hope that over time crappy articles will be turned into good ones. The thing is, I don't think many of our editors are experts on the economic history of the Jews, or Jewish history, or economic history, and I do not think most editors have the time to research a whole new literature in order to spot -let alone fix - the errors in the article. In the meantime, people who come to Wikipedia not to edit but to learn, will read this article and, seeing all the citations - many to apparently Jewish authors - will assume it is a minimally reliable article.
And from this article they will learn that Jews historically have been drawn to money-lending, profit, and materialism, and are less moral than Christians. The usual disruptive editing, like vandalism, just makes Wikipedia look sloppy, which I like most of us consider a necessary and acceptable trade-off for being a wiki. Anti-semitic editing ... well, if we publish the same material as Stormfront as fact (rather than as an analysis of Stormfront's website), well, we end up looking like Stormfront. I do not want even just one of our articles to have that effect.
The effect of this article, like so many other articles Noleander has created, is not to provide an account of all significant views from reliable sources on a particular topic, in a way that will add to the reader's understanding of the world. The effect is to perpetuate racist stereotypes about Jews.
Because Wikipedia is edited by a mass of individuals, it has come up with good policies against personal attacks, and mechanisms for resolving personal disputes. But we have never found a good way to deal with impersonal attacks, attacks against whole classes of humans rather than individual editors.
Nevertheless, if Wikipedia is one thing, it is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is nothing, if it is not a means to add to people's knowledge. If we tolerate a series of articles whose purpose is to educate people only in ignorance and hatred, whether in the form of contempt or resentment or any of its other guises, then we discredit the whole project. And we undermine whatever trust we ask people to have in us.
Some people have suggested that we use this as a "teaching moment," to encourage Noleander to learn more about Jews. I appreciate this suggestion since it at least admits that there is something really wrong here. But Wikipedia is not a chat room, it is not a rehabilitation center. We ask a lot from our editors, to donate lots of time to research and write the world's largest on-line encyclopedia. That is a big enough task. It is not for us to try to re-educate anti-Semites. As I said from the beginning, I am not interested in what my fellow editors believe, only in their acts. Noleanders acts reveal a pattern of misrepresentation of sources that has one end, the perpetuation of anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews.
If this does not justify a topic ban, I really have no idea what could possibly justify a topic ban. If we do not enforce a topic ban on Noleander, we might as well revoke all topic bans we have ever imposed on others. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no objection to this proceeding as an arbitration case. Normally, the RFCU process should be exercised first, but in this instance it appears likely that RFCU would be no more conclusive than the ANI. I apologize to the arbitrators for imposing on you all ... I'm sure you have better things to do. But this case should be a very straightforward matter once the evidence is presented. --Noleander (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Viriditas, thank you for a thought provoking statement. I would like to see the evidence before deciding whether innovative measures are warranted. Irrespective of this, my main concern is whether the community can hold out two months (or more) while the committee attempts to pass a decision which tries to do more than merely eliminates the problem. I'm seeing more than a few pitchforks already. Finally, can we count on you putting forward proposals on the workshop? John Vandenberg(chat) 08:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: After having looked over the ANI discussion.. my thoughts: 99 times out of 100, we don't take a case without previous Dispute Resolution. This may be the 100th time, but I've noted the comments on the ANI page calling for a RFC/User on Noleander, as well as the counterpoint that it wouldn't lead anywhere. I'd like a sense of the community if this is one of the times we take a case without prior DR, and the likely/proximate results of having a RfC here. SirFozzie (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept. Obviously the parties have not yet been heard from yet on this request, so this is a tentative vote. However, it does not appear that the community discussion process on ANI is going to resolve this situation in any fashion that won't wind up here anyway. The ANI discussion has become almost too unwieldy to follow or to yield a consensus result, and its tone does not leave me optimistic that anyone will benefit from prolonging it much longer. Parties commenting may wish to respond to SirFozzie's question just above (with which this paragraph edit-conflicted), and to comment on what the scope of the case should be, if accepted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Confirming accept vote, no longer tentative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept. Yeah, I think this will go round in circles otherwise. Consider the committee the circuit breaker. Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grudgingly accept. This shouldn't be here, but DR will just be a lot of people shouting at each other and end up here anyway. – iridescent 12:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept. Due to the plague-ish nature of this topic, further DR will degenerate into partisan bickering, as it already has. Evidence should be on an expedited schedule. There appear to be serious complaints about misrepresenting references and POV plagiarism. This is either true or false, and it shouldn't take too long to investigate. Cool HandLuke 15:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accept - the discussion on ANI is somewhat polarised, and I'm not convinced a user conduct RfC would be a significant improvement. In this context, accept per SirFozzie and Iridescent. PhilKnight (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.
Passed 13 to 0 at 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Neutral point of view
2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. Similarly, undue weight should not be given to a particular aspect of a topic, to the detriment of a fair and balanced treatment of the topic as a whole.
Passed 13 to 0 at 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Accuracy of sourcing
3) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor certifies his or her good-faith belief that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes information contained in the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Misuse or misleading use of sources, intentional or otherwise, violates our policies requiring that article content be verifiable and prohibiting original research.
Passed 13 to 0 at 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Errors in editing
4) Editors are not expected to be perfect. It is completely understandable that a contributor may occasionally make a mistake, such as construing a source in a fashion that other editors ascertain is incorrect, or making an edit that too clearly reflects a partisan point of view. However, when an editor's contributions reflect a consistent pattern of errors such as slanted edits or mis-cited sources and violations of policies and guidelines, the situation is far more serious. This is especially so when the tendency of the errors and violations is uniformly in the direction of a particular point of view.
Passed 13 to 0 at 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Disruptive and tendentious editing
5) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.
Passed 13 to 0 at 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Sensitivities of subject-matter
6) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding article content apply to all pages of the encyclopedia. No topics are placed off limits, and "political correctness" is not required as a condition of editing. Nevertheless, certain subject-matters—such as articles discussing specific racial, religious, and ethnic groups, and the members of these groups identified as such—are by their nature more sensitive than others. It is especially important that editors working in these areas adhere to site policies and guidelines and to good encyclopedic practices. These include neutral editing as well as scrupulous sourcing, especially of controversial or disputed claims.
Passed 11 to 0 at 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Bias and prejudice
7) An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group.
Passed 13 to 0 at 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Remedies for biased editing
8) Where an editor's contributions, over a significant period of time and after repeated expressions of concerns, are reasonably perceived by many users to reflect bias and prejudice against the members of a racial, religious, or ethnic group, appropriate remedies or restrictions should be imposed. This does not necessarily require a finding that the editor is actually biased and prejudiced against any group or that the editor consciously intended to edit inappropriately.
Passed 11 to 0 with 1 Arbitrator abstaining at 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
References to fellow editors
9) Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.
1) The principal issue in this case concerns editing by Noleander (talk·contribs). Noleander has been the subject of a series of divisive threads on the Administrators' noticeboard. These culminated in a lengthy subpaged discussion on March 25-29, 2011 of proposals that Noleander be banned from Wikipedia or topic-banned from his current area of interest. Because this discussion failed to reach a consensus, the allegations were extremely serious, the disagreement was polarizing the community, and other methods of dispute resolution did not appear likely to resolve the matter, the Arbitration Committee accepted the case for arbitration.
Passed 13 to 0 at 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Underlying area of conflict
2) The underlying area of conflict is religious beliefs and cultural identity, and an intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour.
Passed 12 to 0 with 1 Arbitrator abstaining at 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Noleander
3) A substantial focus of Noleander's editing has been articles relating generally to Jewish people. The articles have ranged over a wide range of topics, ranging from lists of prominent Jews, to the role of Jewish people in economic and social history, to Jewish texts and traditions, to historical and cultural stereotypes of Jews, among many others.
Passed 13 to 0 at 16:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Noleander's editing
4) Noleander's contributions to Wikipedia concerning individual Jews, lists of Jewish persons, Jewish history, and Jewish culture can reasonably be perceived as consistently reflecting negative views of Jewish individuals and the Jewish people. There is a strong and persistent tendency to depict both individual Jews and the Jewish people in an unfavorable and/or stereotyped fashion. For example, Noleander's edits and articles often give undue weight to one particular aspect of a topic, and when they do, the undue weight is almost invariably placed so as to reflect poorly on any Jewish subjects of the article. Similarly, sources are sometimes used appropriately, but when they are misused, it is typically in a fashion that treats a Jewish subject as negatively as possible.
In reaching this finding, we do not rely on any single edit or group of edits, or even any single article or group of articles, but on considering Noleander's body of contributions taken as a whole. Our finding reflects our view of Noleander's editing on Wikipedia, not of his intentions or his actual beliefs.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Noleander topic-banned
1.1) Noleander (talk·contribs) is topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace.
Any disputes concerning the scope of the topic-ban may be raised on the Arbitration Enforcement page for prompt resolution. Unnecessary "wikilawyering" about the precise scope of the topic-ban is unwelcome and may be cause for further sanctions.
This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Noleander may request that it be terminated or modified after at least one year has elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Noleander has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project. Any perceptibly biased or prejudiced editing concerning any other group would weigh against lifting of the topic-ban and could also result in further sanctions.
Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility.
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals by sanctioned editors
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
