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

Action following deletion and/or as well as deletion

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

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

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

Precisely. Those are my concerns too. By the way, I assume you were responding to Mark, not to me, so I hope you don't mind but I adjusted the indent. Coretheapple (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Any discussion about a potential new article should be based on the new article, not on a previously deleted article that's been archived somewhere. That's like putting someone in jail because their older sibling is a serial killer. USchick (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the concerns expressed above. We'll want to preserve the evidence if possible, but of course WP:TNT means WP:TNT. And of course it's not over until it's over, but planning ahead seems prudent and we really don't want to do this again, thanks. Finally, I agree that this is the wrong place -- I said as much -- but it's not clear to me what the right place is. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasted many hours of my life arguing on the talk page and at ANI. As much as I hope not to waste any more time, it may be necessary to do so again and I'm willing. Crazy people are living in the world among us and I don't see any way to keep them off Wikipedia. I choose to see my wasted time as community service to keep crazy people at their computers and off the streets. :) Instead of keeping trash archived, wouldn't it make more sense to sanction the people responsible? A topic ban for example. USchick (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

At Jewish Bolshevism there were constant issues on how delimitate the article. There was a sort-of-consensus that the article would deal with the notion of Jewish Bolshevism as an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. The problem arose when material on Jewish participation in communist movements were added to the article, which then could be seen as validating the theory or at least contrasting the notion that the 'Jewish Bolshevism' theory was loony and weird. Moving ahead with deletion (or the WP:TNT proposal) would just lead to the same arguments popping up in other places as well. In order to move towards a more constructive solution, there would need to be a consensus on some basic points: 1) Anti-Semitism and anti-Communism were heavily conflated in Europe during the period between WWI and WWII. The notion that communism was an ideology alien to Western Christian culture was brought forth with anti-Semitic arguments. This feature was stronger in some countries than others, but nevertheless a notable feature overall. 2) Jews did represent disproportionate numbers, particularily in key positions, in the early communist movements. The communist movement was highly Eurocentric in its early phase, and many of the branches outside Europe (Argentina, Cuba, US, Palestine, South Africa) had even higher percentages of Jewish participation than most European parties. This is well documented and its extent throughly debated by scholars. The role of Jewish participation declined after WWII, partly as the communist movements grew in countries with no or marginal Jewish populations, partly in reaction to Soviet policies towards Zionism and the situation of Jewish communities inside the Socialist Bloc. 3) Minorities in general have been disproportionally attracted to communists movements, as these movements have offered alleviation from oppression of majorities. This is in itself by no means unique to Jews. What set Jews in the early modern communist movement apart is the fact that they a) existed as a transnational community spanning over many industrialized countries were the Comintern was active and b) had already begun to develop a number of transnational modern secular political movements (Bundism, Zionism) with whom the communists had to compete or relate themselves to, leading to extensive debate inside the communist movement on the Jewish question. This isn't the same with say, Romansh people. 4) In no way does discussing Jewish participation in the communists movement validate the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories which tried to portray communism as a Jewish conspiracy. Nor is there anyone saying that talking about Jewish participation in the communist movement would imply that all or most Jews were communists.

If consensus could be reached on these four points, we'd have a way forward. However, I feel very pessimistic, as much of the voting behaviour in this AfD goes along the line of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a knee-jerk wish to censor an important part of 20th century history. --Soman (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"In no way does discussing Jewish participation in the communists movement validate the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories which tried to portray communism as a Jewish conspiracy. Nor is there anyone saying that talking about Jewish participation in the communist movement would imply that all or most Jews were communists". No, discussing such may not imply that, but the article in it's current state does - the topic could be covered, but in a drastically different way than it is being covered now. I think that's why most of the people who are for deleting the article have suggested WP:TNT..Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That's why any new article should be judged solely on the information presented there and not on some preconceived biased notion from a previously archived article. If someone needs a comparison, just look at Metapedia, it will still be there. USchick (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think when Mark suggested archiving the article he meant for it to serve as a "What this article is NOT" type of reference. So, in future, if an article is created, reviewers could compare the newer article to the old one to see if it is obviously just a replica. Your point about Metapedia does serve, but unlike an archived article on wikipedia, we can not insure that the community on metapedia does not otherwise alter the article from it's current state, perhaps even with the purpose to manipulate us into allowing a new replica of the article to appear. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a policy that would support doing that? This is not the only article where keeping the crazies away is an issue. Feminist and Muslim related articles face the same problems. The same arguments have to be made over and over again. That's life. Sanctions and topic bans against individuals would be much more effective than comparing articles and having new arguments based on old arguments from archived articles. That's just my opinion. Any archived article would need to be based on existing policy, not because editors want to make a point. USchick (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this notion. I have seen many Islamaphobic articles on this websites, as well as feminist articles that are constantly chipped away at from an antifeminist stance, and it is largely the same editors who do both. In my eyes, at least, there is an Islamophobic and misogynistic undercurrent to the website, and I think it is largely the fact that most reliable topic sources are not racist /sexist that stops these ideas from spreading. That said, it would be an almost impossible decision for admins to make, and it is only really in cases such as this, where an editor clearly uses an antisemitic source, that such a ban could happen without discretion --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend storing it locally on your computer using this [1]. It wouldn't surprise me if admins would be reluctant to store it on-website due to its controversy and frankly how terrible it makes the website look. I have a copy and it is already stored off-website. I believe, if the article is remade, it should not recycle any content, and within limits, use mostly different sources, at least to the initial version. If editors truly think the topic is worth creating, they should be able to do so without the help of antisemitic papers --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, especially about the part pertaining to the possible abuse of the archive, but you must admit that this whole fiasco needs to be avoided in the first place. The afD process, especially when relating to articles that have been heavily contributed to by Wikipedia Regulars and experienced editors like Director and Producer, needs to be changed to avoid becoming, well, precisely what this afD page has become. Some sort of change needs to happen so that these ginormous discussions don't keep repeating themselves over and over.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly urge topic bans. That's exactly the argument used in one of the ANIs, that problem editors were allowed to do whatever they wanted simply because they were active contributors with lots of edits and barnstars. USchick (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. However, simply issuing a topic ban is much easier said than done (in my opinion), especially when pertaining to editors who are the likes of the creator of this article; defensive and adamant. If the topic is controversial especially;the user in question could easily draw support for their opinion, and a topic ban would be avoided. A topic ban could become as easily potential to escalate into a massive conflict, just as a proposal for deletion could, is what I'm saying. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 16:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure about other editors, I am relatively new to finding this, but the article creator should certainly receive a topic ban for lifting content from Neo-Nazi sources. The thought of them being able to edit further articles relating to Judaism after this is terrifying. That said, I cannot speak for others. Too many people were involved. If the article is recreated, I will certainly argue that any content that is copy-and-pasted from the previous article should be removed, and I would recommend that other interested editors keep local copies also. Considering the failure of the last deletion, it seems it was only when a source was screaming this page is antisemitic propaganda with definite proof that others could notice its clear antisemitic content. Then again, we all make mistakes, and this brings other questions as to the political alignment of the website itself --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Extreme amounts of edit warring and assertions of ownership were conducted by the creator and a variety of other contributors to the article. That in itself is worthy of a topic ban. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 16:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The conversation developing above [2] suggests that this is going to continue unless something is done to prevent it. USchick (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, USchick, what worries me more than anything in this whole business is the failure of the people who are supposed to oversee this site to intervene or take any action that I can see. They just look the other way and let these bureaucratic procedures proceed at the usual snail's pace, as they are doing right now, as you point out, this page is going off topic into a continuation of a dispute about identity/conduct, there is overwhelming support for the article to be deleted, why doesn't someone with authority step up and zap it, what are they waiting for?Smeat75 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

They probably won't care until somebody writes an article or popular blog post about it that makes the website look bad --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The procedure is to wait 7 to 10 days in order to allow enough time for people to comment. This nomination is only 4 days old. So we wait. In the meantime, if someone knows how to start sanctions at "appropriate venues" whatever that may be, now would be a good time. USchick (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Technical note: I don't know if everybody is aware of this, but even deleted articles and their history remain in the Wikipedia database, and are visible to administrators who are willing to go some extra clicks. Maybe that is a sufficient compromise between conserving the evidence and hiding the filth? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand the point about topic bans, and would simply suggest that evidence for that be gathered while the article still exists. It's all in the public domain, and can be stored off-wiki in the event of deletion. At that point a discussion can be begun about how this article commenced and action can be taken if appropriate. In other words, I agree that editor behavior is relevant (in the "glomming stuff from racist website" sense), just not relevant here.Coretheapple (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed sanctions

I proposed a topic ban here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban for 2 editors. USchick (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This love-hate thing we've got going, Chick, its just not healthy ;). I'm glad you like me now [3] I can only imagine what you'd do if you did't.. like tp my house? -- Director (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014

It's called tough love, my dear! :-) xoxoxooxo (there must be some actual love or feeling of affection behind the harsh or stern treatment) USchick (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have it any other way, you know that :) -- Director (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Sock/Meat Puppetry Investigation

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

• New accounts possibly showing a short or precocious edit history. Just because an account is new does not make it a sock or meat puppet. But in some cases, this may indicate the user when instructed or coached what to do.
• Excessive support for one's cause: This is not always a sign of meat puppetry. Sometimes, a cause inherently is really popular, or others may be following the leader. But this may in some cases indicate one has been soliciting others to support one's own cause.
• Editing warring: If an edit war is taking place, and at first, only one editor supports a cause, but suddenly, this increases to more, this may indicate that the one holding the minority view has solicited this help. This is not always the case; it is very likely for others to hold the minority view as well.
• Participation in discussions: If, in a discussion, one or more accounts support a particular cause (such as keeping an article proposed for deletion), and it appears these accounts are held by those not holding their own independent view, it may be worth examining if meat puppetry is occurring. This is not always the case, and accusation should not be automatic.
• Knowledge that an obscure article exists: There is nothing wrong with telling your family and friends about an article you created. There is nothing wrong with them editing it either. But if there seems to be no other apparent reason one should know about such an obscure page, this could be a sign the other editor was informed about the page's existence.
• Always there when needed: This is one of the more suspicious signs of all. If there are two accounts that frequently are seen commenting in occasional common discussions, but rarely are involved in discussions otherwise, this could be a sign that one person is actually there to support the other. If the evidence shows these accounts are not operated by the very same person, it is more likely to be meat puppetry.
• Editors live near one another: If the article in question is about something that is not a local or regional interest, and two or more editors live in close proximity of one another, it is possible, but not definitive that meat puppetry is occurring.
• Note: I just realized the above is from a policy that failed to win consensus. I'm not actually able to find guidelines for building a case that meat puppetry is happening, which may explain why this keeps. happening. WikiFail.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Obviously one action proves nothing. You have to compile evidence of a pattern of behavior. I realize this is a giant drag and time suck, but in the long run I think it will save everyone time since we won't have to go through this again.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems the two have been editing on similar articles since a few days after Producers first edits [4] a year after Directors. Again, this does not constitute meat puppetry, but if you check the edits from early October 2008, when Producer first started editing, they were in largely similar articles. That said, they also interacted around then [5] on the users talk page. Reading through this, I'm leaning towards them being friends compared to sock puppetry --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they're the same person, but it does seem very logical that the two users could be working as a Wikipedia:Tag team. Previous investigations have proven that they are unlikely the same person, but that doesn't mean that they don't otherwise collaborate or scheme off-wiki. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 23:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that first interaction was almost six years ago, so it's possible --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What is this "proof" that Director and Potočnik are neither sock nor meat puppets that obviates the considerable circumstantial evidence that suggests they are? Sorry if this sounds snarky, but if all it takes to deflect accusations of puppetry of one form or another is to have your puppet make a change to your page that you would have otherwise made and leave a friendly note, I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. They also wish each other happy holidays.
I would have LOVED to have preserved some of IZAK or USchick's edits, but I had no idea what or when they would be editing and so never succeeded in doing this. Over weeks you have had an army of different editors attempting to transform this article into something other than an anti-Semitic canard, and somehow it could only ever be edited on Director and Potočnik's terms. How do you explain Director and/or Potočnik's ability to always intervene whenever IZAK made an edit before enough people sympathetic to IZAK could come to his defense and preserve the edit?
Being punished for things and wanting to avoid punishment conditions your sense of right and wrong. Director and Potočnik have succeeded time and time and time again in having people punished for noticing that they walk talk and squawk like sock and/or meat puppets. Maybe it's because they are. I say enough.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the proof for the sockpuppet investigation [6]. It should stand up. It is most likely the latter of the two --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I was arguing that this would be evidence for it. There is plenty of time to set up a way of talking personally in that many years such as an IRC, especially when many users are open to be emailed --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the archive of DIREKTOR/Producer sockpuppet investigations. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see that an effort has EVER been made to collect and present evidence indicating a pattern of collaboration. Maybe we should, you know, do that. Maybe before he/they has another chance to cry alligator tears about slander and threaten more editors for pointing out the obvious. TIME TO STEP UP.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: The archive of the previous sock puppet investigation of Producer and Director does tell us that Director's past on Wikipedia isn't one of that of "esteemed respect" at all. It seems as if him and User:Иван Богданов were in such a conflict that (assumedly in anger), the aforementioned user created an account to parody/impersonate Director, entitled "Direktor Split". Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 01:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

In 2011 he was "baned from editing of all Balkans articles and talkpages, broadly construed, for 6 months" USchick (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Questions: 1.) Is there a tool for doing this efficiently, i.e. locating examples of Director and Producer engaging in meat-puppety behavior? Here's an example of "Always there when needed":

15:14, 20 March 2014‎ Potočnik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,921 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (correct name, wikilink) (undo | thank)

15:11, 20 March 2014‎ Director (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,914 bytes) (-31)‎ . . (undo | thank)

15:10, 20 March 2014‎ Potočnik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,945 bytes) (-434)‎ . . (the "Ukrainian Community in Montreal" is not reliable) (undo | thank)

15:09, 20 March 2014‎ Potočnik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,379 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (settled) (undo | thank)

15:02, 20 March 2014‎ Potočnik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,413 bytes) (-17)‎ . . (take it to talk and discuss like the rest of us) (undo | thank)

15:00, 20 March 2014‎ Atlantictire (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,430 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (Undid revision 600457208 by DIREKTOR (talk)) (undo)

14:54, 20 March 2014‎ Director (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,413 bytes) (-17)‎ . . (This is not a template for "tagging" antisemitic articles, even if that nonsense were true.) (undo | thank)

14:52, 20 March 2014‎ USchick (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,430 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (Undid revision 600446370 by DIREKTOR (talk)Very accurate template. Communism is not anisemitic, but this article certainly is.) (undo | thank)

13:16, 20 March 2014‎ Director (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,413 bytes) (-14,738)‎ . . (Rollback to Pharos pending consensus.) (undo | thank)

Note how Director and Potočnik both justify undoing edits because of lack of "discussion" and "consensus", take turns rolling back and reverting edits so that neither is guilty of consecutive reverts, and then go about making their own edits unmolested with neither discussion nor consensus. Incredible. Note how neither USchick nor I attempted to re-revert a un-revert... probably because we had NO IDEA who would attempt what first, and thus gave up.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Atlantictire, don't waste your time in the past. We let them slide by assuming good faith in the past. In the future, I hope they will be less inclined to go on a power trip, simply because so much attention will now be on them both. Any future bad behavior should be reported immediately and linked to all the recent ANI discussions. I'm happy to see you back! USchick (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As long people are afraid of talking about meat puppetry, it will continue. This is wikipedia's fault for failing to come to a consensus about guidelines. It is our monster.

WP:TAGTEAM <--These guidelines on the other hand are totally rad and legit. If people don't want to spend another year on Jewish Bolshevism and Communism and Jews I encourage you to use them. That's what they're there for. Use.

Just a suggestion. Do your own thing! Whatevs!--Atlantictire (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If you take a look to article history of Draža Mihailović and Chetniks from about 1-2 and more years ago you can see how the two worked together. Also, in my user page yu can see diffs about several cases I had with them. FkpCascais (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

They are nominated for sanctions in a link right above this discussion. People there are asking for examples of disruptive edits and diffs. If you feel like contributing your comments there, please go ahead. Thanks. USchick (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Is this your only current account, Atlantictire? Is it your primary account, or would you prefer to be referred to by some other username? -- Director (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, you've proven your point that you and Producer are not socks, and that you both do have the potential to do lots of good in other areas of wikipedia. But the way you work together and the almost "perfect synchronisation" you have with each other leads me to believe that you collaborate off-wiki. If that's the case, there's not explicitly something wrong with that, but if it is, it's better to just say so now.. rather than have it come out later. :) Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 11:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yah, our synchronization is so perfect, except when it isn't, e.g when Producer isn't even around. Lets be real here: we supported the same point of view on one article, and we had usernames that appeared similar (even though their origin is entirely unrelated). And that's where this comes from. If that's what you're starting from, you're liable to impose patterns with your mind.

And that's really all I have to say. I've never collaborated off-Wiki with Potocnik, and I find accusations by Atlantictire of all people, quite hilarious. Not only was he already blocked for these sort of accusations, but he himself is a sockpuppeteer. -- Director (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, my current position is to place a Topic Ban on Potocnik and hold off on any sort of action on your part until more evidence was provided. Let's be realistic, Potocnik created the essence of that article, your part in the article only involved reverting the actions of USchick and Atlanticire (which is understandable yet still unorthodox). You have an excuse in not being knowledgeable of the origins of the content provided, but Producer, who "produced" the article, has no excuse. If you really had no knowledge of where the content of that article came from, then say so. Defend yourself. Snow and I can only advocate on your behalf to such a point.. you say you have realized that the article deserves a WP:TNT, and if you realize that, then you must also realize that the person who designed the article (Potocnik) is at fault too.. and if you have no ties to him, and did not collaborate with him in any way, as you claim, then you yourself has done nothing wrong.. but you need to advocate that point. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 13:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Director keeps bringing up my having created a sockpuppet called "ProducerIsASockPuppetAntiSemitie" when I was blocked for saying Producer was an Anti-Semite and a sockpuppet like I'm gonna deny it.

Director, your synchronization was perfect enough to ensure that the article was edited largely on your terms, despite being vastly outnumbered in your editorial preferences.

Flipandflopped, you seem like a nice person and in light of how the community has dealt with Producer and Director in the past I don't blame you for erring on the side of defending them. But are you sure you really think they have wonderful things to contribute to Wikipedia and are acting in good faith? On what basis do you think they've been vindicated? The sockpuppet investigations where no attempt was ever made EVER to establish a similar profile and pattern of collaboration? Those are a travesty.

Here's the evidence:

• Same Country: Croatia
• Same City
• Same obsessive interest in Balkan nationalist movements and Jews
• Same controversial articles
• Same tactics for controlling the editing process/tendency to tattle to admins on a dime
• Same same tone in discussions
• Improbable success at ensuring an article is edited on their terms, despite being in the minority.

Again, what am I missing?--Atlantictire (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh.. As far as I know, we're neither from the same city, nor the same country. You apparently just dreamed that up. The rest of your points are just gibberish.. We don't share the same interest in anything beyond WWII/Communist history, where all this neatly falls into, I have no interest in Jews specifically. That's just a part of my involvement of course, as well as his. I mean as I said the rest of your points are childish, especially the bit about "Balkans nationalist movements", that's especially laughable given how my interest there consists mostly of my opposing said movements.. I don't use any "tactics", nor do I "control articles", we have an entirely different tone, I'll take the "improbable success" bit as a compliment, etc.. And I don't care if you "deny" anything, of course that would be silly after your socks were confirmed ("Mazelov"? :)), I just wanted to make it clear you're exactly what you're accusing me of being..

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

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

Personally, I believe that as of this point there is too much drama, resentment, and animosity flowing around in the current pool of people reviewing the article (not to say that the opinions of the likes of USchick, coretheapple, drowninginlimbo and the likes of myself are not relevant). If new reviewers were brought in, the situation would probably just reoccur. Perhaps Arbcom should become involved, not to make a ruling, but to be someone who is able to just get the facts straight. No one is on the same page in this investigation. Along with the "jews and communism" article, perhaps the topic ban should undergo WP:TNT as well. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 17:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's easy.

The MMORPG is over now and you all should just stop with this lynching.

Most, not to say all, "contributors" to this discussion forgot for long the 4th pillar of wikipdia and should also come back to reality and more of all have some empathy for the "1 guy" whom each of you, one after the other, harasses.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

a 'lynching' ? bit hyperbolic, -- no wonder orwell lamented the draining of the meaning of language -its not a lack of 'empathy' , its about the integrity of Wikipedia - as for harassment , you should practice what you preach imo - you went to davedials page to harass him didn't you? - its all about different perceptions I guess. Sayerslle (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Further, no one is being harassed here. Complaints have been made, and are being pursued through appropriate channels, over egregious and scandalous misbehavior that has persisted, perpetrated chiefly by two editors though your own role in this disaster might, when you reflect on it, make you less than proud. An anti-semitic page was copied from a notorious site. Although it should not have withstood a single intelligent reading, it survived months of discussion, an AfD, a deletion review, a firestorm at User:Jimbo, more discussion, two trips to AN/I, and more discussion. Through it all, two users were conspicuous for defending every word of every slur, and opposing every effort at fairness and balance. The number of individual editors who were personally insulted on the Talk page by Director alone must exceed a dozen, perhaps two. You complain of lynching: at long last, have you no decency? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If it is indeed lynching, Mr. Bernstein, then I would venture to observe that using that term is considerably more civil than the "lynching". Considering the efforts of involved editors in pursuing what could indeed be seen as plain "revenge" at this point, I'd not describe the AN thread as being far from what could be called a Wikipedia equivalent of "lynching". Though I myself believe terms like "witch hunt" or "kangaroo court" probably fit more.

Producer is now gone, a user far more productive than most participants over there, and I share Peacemaker's sentiments regarding his departure: while he should have perhaps been banned from the topic of antisemitism, his hounding off the project is, overall, a loss. Our Balkans articles, sorely in need of experienced, serious editors, will suffer in quality and quantity.

I myself never wrote any of that article, and have already said several times (before the AN ban demand) that I have no intention of restarting this ugly business, as I had not in the first place. What is that thread about? -- Director (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You never wrote any of that article; you merely defended every anti-semitic slur in it, fighting tooth and claw for months and deriding each and every editor with the temerity to correct your blunders. With regard to the term "lynching," its use in this context is deeply offensive to the memory of countless victims. You might be forgiven for not knowing better on that topic, though not for your failure to recognize blatant anti-semitism. Together with Producer, Qworty, and a handful of other miscreants, you have brought Wikipedia discredit and contempt and endangered its future. Even were wikipedia to impose the most severe conceivably sanction on you, you would still be enjoying a nice vacation and can, unless you are unemployed or you are paid to edit Wikipedia, you will still have a nice living. The victims of lynching have neither. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Given there was no evidence of antisemitic bias, and every word attributed to a reliable source, I would have defended the article again in the same circumstances, tooth and "claw" (thank you for that) - but given the evidence, I would delete it myself. Because this project does not function by how you or someone else might be offended by its content, nor with regard to what you personally consider praiseworthy or shameful - but with regard to sources and evidence. All things considered, I am sorry to have caused you offense. If you are Jewish, I doubly apologize, and apologize once more. I was in the wrong, you were quite right. But I hope you see this project can never be a reliable, respectable source without editors willing to bear the scorn of others and stick to the sources, even if they lead to unpopular and difficult places.

You just can't stop yourself, can you? Even now, even here, you insinuate that my objection is simply because (you assume) I am Jewish. You were wrong to edit the page as you did. Many people spent days of precious time explaining why you were wrong. You treated them with vile contempt. Many people spent countless hours trying to minimize the worst sections; you restored them with insinuations that they were acting merely because they were Jews. This project can never be a reliable, respectable source while it harbors vile and slanted propaganda. But lynching has nothing to do with the Jews, and you haven't apologized for that disgusting and self-serving analogy. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The assumption is your own! I've not insinuated at any point that you're offended because of your background, whatever it is! To accuse anyone here of implying "lynching" has something to do with Jews is hateful and paranoid. Listen here and listen good: I would never knowingly support antisemitism. Whether you choose to take my word for it or not, know that my own family members suffered and perished at the Jasenovac concentration camp. And whatever antisemites and Nazis and Fox News might think or write, I don't see anything wrong in being a "Communist" in and of itself! I would apologize again, but you seem to find that infuriating, so I'll simply stop talking to you. I'm sure you'd like to,avoid talking to an "antisemite" about as much as I would to someone who calls me that. Best regards. -- Director (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Producer leaving the project could have been avoided. That said, I really don't think an editor who lifts contents from Neo-Nazi journals should be able to edit further articles relating to Judaism. I don't think that's an especially radical notion and although I disagree about a topic ban from Communism, I think most admins would have been happy to leave it at that --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think so too. I will support a ban on Jews and Judaism myself, but will request it not extend to Communism. That's just USchick being a bit simplistic, taking the title of the article as the topic. Much of the editors (acclaimed) work could be described as related to Communism, which is very significant in Yugoslav history. Hopefully the user will unretire in time. -- Director (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, it is such a broad topic in world history that it would cover most political and historical articles. That is a shame. All considered, I would still prefer all-and-any bans that include a topic ban for Judaism to none at all. It is inexcusably extreme to use such a source and try to present it as neutral. Even more so to keep its true nature hidden when people try to defend it in good faith. The willful circulation of such hateful content sadly outdoes a lot of good they may and could still have done and should not be excused --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC

I have to agree. Just don't know why he went there... -- Director (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Me neither, it seems to have caused a great deal of upset to many people in the community. I just hope this is sorted quickly and efficiently so all of this energy can be put to a better use. Such hateful views don't belong anywhere, but especially not a website like this where there are supposed to be structures in place to prevent it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to explain my "simplistic" view. There are NO sources that link (all) Jews and (all) Communism (everywhere in the world). The only people who link these topics are Producer and Director. Based on their combined lack of understanding, they are not qualified to edit either topic. I don't understand how you can see the same information on a respectable site and then see it on an antisemitic site and only then realize that the information is ridiculous. It's the same information! What does it matter where it's located? A reasonable person with good judgment is able to judge the information no matter where it's located. For some reason Director has a mental block about this and doesn't see it. I'm not saying this as a personal attack, he just doesn't see it, "Well, I wasn't "sooo wrong", was I?" User talk:Director#What really happened. That's why his apology doesn't come across as sincere, even though it probably is. Director and I have been inside each other's heads long enough now, so I feel fairly confident making this assessment. As far as losing Producer as a "valuable" editor, thanks for making me laugh! A valuable editor has good intentions AND good judgment. Producer lacks both! Director has good intentions. Probably. We'll see. Thanks everyone for your efforts! You too Director! :) USchick (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Every single one of you making as show of being good wikicitizens by characterizing Director's apology as "sincere" richly deserves to go through this again. When someone makes defending egregious racist content their full time job maybe that's when you should stop "assuming good faith."--Atlantictire (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Temporary blanking

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

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

Related AfDs and live articles

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

AfDs:

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

Live articles:

• Jewish Bolshevism (describes the canard)
• Żydokomuna (describes the canard as applied specifically to Poland)
• History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia#Jews_in_the_revolutionary_movement

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

Note: The editors defending these older nominations are largely the same people defending it now.. that says something. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 10:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I found User:Soman, User:Robert McClenon, and User:IZAK. Perhaps not largely defenders (I thought IZAK and Robert may have actually leaned towards delete now that I revise), but still, the pool of people involved is too narrow.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 11:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Tactical Remorse

Of possible interest to those noting (a) that the defenders of antisemitic pages are a small circle noted for their dedication and persistence, and (b) Producer's retirement and Director's (very limited and circumscribed) contrition are very convenient for them: [7] . MarkBernstein (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

100% agree. Director spent weeks fanatically defending an article with an extreme antisemitic POV. Fanatical racists are often people with narcissistic personality disorder [8]. They don't appreciate and reciprocate a show of good faith. They congratulate themselves for having fooled everyone and gloat about how stupid we are.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a forum/Distracting comments USchick (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For all of the nice people who in their infinite civility have made it possible for racists to manipulate the project and create and spend weeks defending Jews and Communism. File:WikiIdiot.jpg Good ass job. May Director continue to work his magic until the world starts to wonder when the hell Wikipedia became overrun by bigots and who let that happen.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC) You know you're going to get banned again, right? And then the only person I will have left to back me up is Director right? Well, since Director is now looking for a new tag team partner........ Just kidding! USchick (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Atlantictire, I would be careful if I were you. There's quite a likelihood that an administrator or Arbcom or the likes of which are going to end up judging everyone's behaviour that was involved in this whole fiasco. Just because Director and Producer are the ones under criticism right now doesn't mean your actions can't come back and bite you in the long run. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 12:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Well, Flipandflopped I'm not you, and I don't feel like being complacent about the rising tide of bigotry here. Someone posted links to previous AfDs on antisemitic articles. Compare how relatively quick and painless those earlier deletions were to the tortured hell this has been. Whether or not Wikipedia punishes me is frankly not my top concern. Since we now appear to be having a discussion, is it ok if we get rid of the hider thing-y? I for one have nothing to hide.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC) I'd really prefer it if we didn't remove the hider. I think the image is offensive in itself and although I do feel your frustrations I still feel uncomfortable about people seeing it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Well if it makes people feel uncomfortable, I'm perfectly ok with that. It's the pictorial equivalent of the racist vile caricature Director spent weeks defending. People should have felt just as uncomfortable about that but they didn't. Horrifying. I'm probably going say this somewhere else, but fanatical racists are often people with narcissistic personality disorder [9]. They don't appreciate and reciprocate a show of good faith. They congratulate themselves for having fooled everyone and gloat about how stupid we are.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)