Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Dougweller (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk)

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Avoid labeling editors[edit]

Some users have labeled some of the parties as "Chabad editors",[1][2][3], "pro-Chabad editors"[4][5][6] and "pro-Chabad POV warriors"[7][8][9]. Labeling editors based on their edit's or perceived religious affiliation is wrong and should be avoided. It would seem wrong to call particular editors "Jewish editors", "Christian editors" or "Muslim editors" because they edit those articles. It would be very wrong to call someone a "gay editor" because they edit gay topics. Editors on Wikipedia should not be labeled, period. Note: I've recently been called a "pro Israel editor" [10][11] for trying to change an article name to a more NPOV name on a controversial Arab-Israeli related article[12] (successfully implemented). I've also recently been suspected [13] of having a close connection with the National Council of Young Israel because I used their criticism of Richard Goldstone in the latter's article. This is unhelpful and disrupts the WP project IMO. Shlomke (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Shlomke has a good point here, just because we can recognize a behavior doesn't require us to label the editor. Consider the difference between "blocked for edit warring" and "edit warrior blocked" - both make the same point, but the second personalizes the issue. Its good to remember this difference since avoiding personalization can help keep a heated discussion calm and cooperative. Shell ^babelfish 03:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't expect to make any sort of motino, etc., directly addressing it, it is good advice that parties and commenters to this case should consider when posting here, and it will be considered when creating the proposed decision. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Disagree, because the permissible term Wikipedia:POVWARRIOR implies that some editors, based on their own long-established edit histories and obvious WP:POV's, are in fact working from only one POV and it can be named and applied to them. Of course as long as it is objectively true and does not go beyond WP:CIVIL. Even when editors edit in a totally WP:NPOV fashion there is no crime or fault in talking about such editors belonging to WP:JUDAISM or of them being Judaic or Judaism or even Jewish editors and pro those subjects, not meant as an insult at all. No need to stir the pot here. There are science editors, movie editors etc etc with many being pro many topics within them. Also, let's keep the subject to Chabad and avoid red herrings. IZAK (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The (recently created [14]) link you provided is a redirect to WP:Edit warring. No where there does it state that it is permissible to label editors. If individual editors are confirmed by admins to violate WP policy, it would be up to the admins to label them, though I doubt they will. They would probably label their behavior instead (e.g. "user X blocked 31 hrs for edit warring" vs "user X is an edit warrior and is blocked for 31 hrs"). This is relevant to the discussion at hand. Shlomke (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. A POVWARRIOR is any editor who, based on his/her, edit history is engages in all forms of Wikipedia:Edit warring be it hard-core or more soft-core varieties of same. While at the same time, editors who do not engage in this, can still be called pro any POV if they are known to be in favor of editing topics they favor constantly. There are pro-abortion POV editors and anti-abortion POV editors and they do not object to being called by the positions they advocate for their own good reasons. It makes no sense to be ashamed of being called by what you believe in. It is not an insult to known as supporter of team-X or team-Y or being Pro-team-X or Pro-team-Y. IZAK (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who made up the Wikipedia term POVWARRIOR, its definition, and who may be called so? Shlomke (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now we need pilpul to muddy the obvious. As the old saying goes: "If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's a duck!" With this line of "argumentation" you have clearly crossed into WP:LAWYERing. And again, this type of red herring distraction has nothing to do with the core verifibale problems in this case. IZAK (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Shlomke. Such words are a conviction in themselves. Using them does not further respect, and makes it harder to work things out. Also, one can not be found guilty until tried. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dbresser: Of all people you are the one that has stated openly a few times already that you are a Chabad rabbi [15], [16], so therefore there should be no problem in referring to you as a Chabad editor/rabbi or a pro-Chabad editor/rabbi or when you fight for Chabad views that you are a pro-Chabad POV editor/rabbi and when you do so strongly=warrior/rabbi. You seem to want it both ways, to engage in POV battles from a pro-Chabad POV while at the same time "demand" that others adhere to rules you ignore. IZAK (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a rabbi, not a "warrior". Nor a "Chabad-editor". An editor of Wikipedia who is also an adherent of Chabad is not the same as a "Chabad-editor". Debresser (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser: You openly admit "I definitely have a POV towards Chabad, since I am a Chabad rabbi." So no need to back-pedal. Thanks, IZAK (talk)

Having a POV is allowed. Letting it show in your edits is was is to be avoided. As I said before, and explained at length on the evidence page: I am a rabbi, and I am an adherent of Chabad. That is by far not the same as being a "Chabad editor". Even if you personally do not see the difference, I am sure it will not be lost to ArbCom. As well as the fact that your insistence in this shows your own POV. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note To User:Shell Kinney, User:Hersfold and ArbCom. RE: Case name changed from Chabad on Wikipedia to Chabad movement editors to Chabad movement: (1) When I initiated the request for arbitration I in fact struggled with the question of what to label this case. (2) In wishing to keep it as general and neutral as possible I posted it as "Chabad on Wikipedia" [17] with no refernce to editors. (3) However, it was changed by the ArbCom clerk MBisanz to "Chabad movement editors" [18] who stated: "renamed it to something that I hope makes it clear it deals with editors who are members of the Chabad movement and not the Chabad article." (4) MBisanz's wording "Chabad movement editors" remained as the name of the proposed case during its acceptance by arbitrators who agreed to take it on, under that name: Vassyana, SirFozzie, Hersfold, Shell Kinney, Fritzpoll, Mailer diablo, Carcharoth, Rlevse none of whom objected to the case being called by its name at that time of "Chabad movement editors" and I therefore took that as a clear indication, affirmation and validation that it was legitimate to be specific who the case dealt with, namely, the Chabad movement editors that obviously means those editors who adhere to the Chabad POV that was the basis of the original COI case against them, and it is what has brought us to this ArbCom case. (5) When this case was subsequently opened by User:Lankiveil it underwent yet another change of name to "Chabad movement" [19] a title, that while it stepped back from the word "editors," moved forward to encompass the broad range of issues involved be it Chabad editors' POV editing and activities based on their edit history and behavior who clearly belong to the Chabad movement or the worldwide Chabad movement online as it interfaces with Wikipedia, with admissions from some that they are official Chabad rabbis. (6) If the ArbCom feels there is an officially better way to refer to the Chabad POV editors it would be appreciated by all parties. However it should not be a case of word games, of say, trying to change the name of a zebra with black and white stripes into a "two colored horse" thereby removing the uniqueness of the zebra and causing confusion about what horses are or not. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Edit warring at Elazar Shach now locked, probably requires check user/s or block potential socks[edit]

As the present case has unfolded concerning the 4 Chabad editors, who have been known to contest material "flattering" of Rabbi Elazar Shach who had been a major critic of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of Chabad, and any comments not approved of by the Chabad editors is disputed and nitpicked. A new pro-Chabad user familiar with Wikipedia policies Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) was in an edit war, (edits), in which he was supported by Users Debresser (talk · contribs) and Zsero (talk · contribs) (who has yet to respond to this ArbCom case involving him) who have solidly defended Winchester2313 (talk edits), (edits), as well as by PinchasC (talk · contribs) and Shlomke (talk · contribs) in the past until the article was locked [20], [21] due to expire 4 February 2010, at which point the same thing will start all over again. This is not the WP:BATTLEGROUND that Wikipedia should become over such articles. It's only about a rabbi for pete sakes, but to the pro-Chabad editors it becomes a struggle for life and death. Prior to that the article was inundated by various anonymous pro-Chabad editors all inserting the same anti-Shach and pro-Chabad POVs and even vandalism "SNAG"= derogatory term in Chabad for outsiders, [22], [23] etc. The same thing has been going on for years at the Barry Gurary article as the pro-Chabad editors see red over any shred of validating the man they hate so much, he was the only grandson of the 6th Rebbe and nephew of the 7th and last Rebbe that attarcted pro-Chabad and anti-Barry Gurary editing by Users Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) and Chocolatepizza (talk · contribs) and PinchasC (talk · contribs) and an array of other lesser known and anonymous pro-Chabad editors, who then brought all editing to a standstill because editors simply tired of putting up with their tiresome WP:LAWYERing and soft core edit warring. The Elazar Shach article is typical of how articles targeted by pro-Chabad editors degenerates quickly into WP:WAR that it must be locked, which also suits the pro-Chabad editors by tying up in knots those who do not adhere to its party-line POV. Such editors and editing must be monitered, checked and abusers should be blocked. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

The appropriate place to seek investigation of sockpuppetry is at WP:SPI. Steve Smith (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve: Your suggestion is well-taken, and I have modified the heading to read "probably requires" -- but because this situation is directly tied in with the present case it needs to be brought to the attention of the ArbCom here, otherwise the case becomes splintered. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Please check the history of this article, and find that I have edited it only once, on 14 August 2009. So why does IZAK say this edit war has been supported by me? Debresser (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser: This is a case brought by one party, me, against 4 pro-Chabad POV editors including you but not only about you, (we are now all in it together), and I do so on the basis that their pro-Chabad POV edits and defenses are usually done in relay-fashion. All 4 follow one basic pro-Chabad pattern but the numbers of edits in selected topics obviously varies. This is not just about you alone, this is about the three others as well, in the context of a similar history by others previously, and still others or even editing anonymously (as in the now locked Elazar Shach article) making for an over-all pattern when seen as a composite and as part of comprehensive uniform editing style by all the pro-Chabad editors that conforms to the Chabad party line in violation of WP:COI that does not allow for the easy insertion or discussion of material that Chabad does not approve of or dislikes. IZAK (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you shouldn't have accused me specifically and by name of being part of this edit war, as you did (see my evidence). Debresser (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, I don't enjoy bickering. My central point is that ALL Chabad editors automatically develop an understanding with each other. Some obviously have stronger contact with each other than others, but they all work in one way and for one goal, to protect the official party-line Chabad POV in articles and to attack what they perceive as "anti" Chabad POV's in articles. They do this in different ways, some subtle some blunt. A clear pattern is when they edit/defend/attack in articles and talk pages in "relay race" fashion with one passing the "batton" to another, or to use another metaphor as in soccer by kicking the ball from one team-mate to another keeping possesion of "their" ball and keeping it rolling, defending or attacking as the need may be, and you are clearly part of this process based on your edit history. To try to "disembody" what you do from the totality of the broader pattern of what all Chabad editors do when aligned in articles or their talk pages is to miss the point of what I am saying. IZAK (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Linkage to all Chabad-related sites[edit]

Members of the ArbCom have noted that there are over 1,000 links to Chabad.org [24], [25]. That should only be a starting figure. The ArbCom is requested to check and add in to the total, links to other Chabad websites that have been found on articles that would be of interest to Chabad editors but in reality stealthily violate WP:UNDUE (see also WP:TEND and WP:RSUW) as well as WP:SPAM aka WP:ADVERT, such as: youtube.com/user/AskMoses; chabad.edu; chabadnews.us; chabadlibrary.org; lubavitch.com; sichoskodesh.com; lahak.org; sichosinenglish.org; audio.chassidus.com; www.wlcc.org; harabi.org.il; jemedia.org; beismoshiach.org; psakdin.net; chabad.info; chabad.kiev.ua. There are more in other Judaic articles. The ArbCom is requested to look into this matter. IZAK (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

One recurring question is whether so-called pro-Chabad editors are creating an overabundance of non-notable articles. Has there been much in the way of AFD discussion on that? I'm aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public menorah; if there are other contentious AFDs on Chabad-affiliated subjects, I would very much appreciate having them pointed out. Steve Smith (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve: It was in fact the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public menorah that was the reason that evolved into this case rather quickly. That case was akeep but 5 others at the same time were not: (1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tefillin campaign. (The result was merge to Mitzvah Campaigns.) ; (2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign. (The result was delete.); (3) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noahide Campaign. (The result was merge to Seven Laws of Noah.); (4) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House (2nd nomination)=2009 December 24. (The result was delete.); 5) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad of South London. (The result was delete, with no prejudice towards turning it into a redirect.)IZAK (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is more information pertaining to your question at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Questionable notability of many Chabad articles. There are many more to be looked into. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposals by User:JzG[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Undue weight[edit]

1) Wikipedia aims to cover subjects without giving undue weight to minority views. This is part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a non-negotiable foundational policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

External links[edit]

2) External links fall within the scope of the policy on neutral point of view. Links to websites advancing a minority position should not normally be used except in relation to documenting that minority position.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

All 4 Chabad editors in this case have continued to add and improve on links to Chabad.org and to similar Chabad sites: User:Yehoishophot Oliver [26]; User:Shlomke was working on the Chabad.org article [27], [28], [29], [30] as early as 2006, preceding User:PinchasC (aka User:Truthaboutchabad aka User:Eliezer) who also played a big role in overseeing it. (With all due respect, but with PinchasC having had 3 known identities and then gaining access to admin powers eventually, one wonders about the identity and methods of other Chabad users who may be his WP:SOCKs? It is admitedly a tough call, but one should not back off from checking out every angle, and users, in this ArbCom case.) Shlomke has also added links to other Chabad sites [31] especially Chabad messianist sites, often concealed in quotes, [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] and Chabad sites [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]; User:Zsero (who so far has not bothered to state his case in this ArbCom action) makes sure that links to Chabad.org predominate [50], [51], [52], [53], and adds links to Chabad sites includimg messianist ones [54]; User:Debresser inserts pro-Chabad website links [55], [56], [57], [58], Chabad needs 9 links, [59], [60], [61], [62]. They are very focused on bringing Wikipedia content into line with official Chabad websites' views, and keep a close eye on any changes they do not like. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have voiced objection [63] to the removal of messianist links in Chabad articles. It was for this reason that I (reinserted) the links mentioned above a few times. I have barely, if ever inserted links to Chabad.org and there is certainly nothing wrong in improving the Chabad.org article. Shlomke (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomke I think you miss the point of what was being objected to [64], the issue then in 2006 was why PinchasC was COVERING UP and COVERING FOR the messianist links that would show another important side of Chabad, it's much disputed controversial Chabad messianism but it was not meant as a "green light" or an encouragementor an "invitation" to use messianist links as "holy writ" references. Nevertheless your edit history clearly shows that you continued the pattern of adding links to Chabad sites, only that you diversified from Chabad.org. The ArbCom still needs to add in the total number of links to other Chabad sites on Wikipedia to the over 1,000 links to Chabad.org, and no doubt the figures to Chabad sites will rise with the tide. Thus far, from what I found, there are probably more, Wikipedia has two articles about two Chabad websites already Chabad.org and AskMoses.com, and more links to other Chabad websites: youtube.com/user/AskMoses; chabad.edu; chabadnews.us; chabadlibrary.org; lubavitch.com; sichoskodesh.com; lahak.org; sichosinenglish.org; audio.chassidus.com; www.wlcc.org; harabi.org.il; jemedia.org; beismoshiach.org; psakdin.net; chabad.info; chabad.kiev.ua. The ArbCom is requested to look into this matter. IZAK (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If, let's say, the Vatican published a really well-written and neutral description of contraception down the ages, we should not link to that in the article on contraception because the Catholic church has a strong minority view on contraception, so its internal links around the article will promote that agenda rather than the mainstream view. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Guy's example is intended to be ironic. It's been the majority view in previous periods of history, and remains a substantial minority now. It would be an excellent EL to document the opinions of the Catholic church, past and present. There is a difference between minority, and splinter. The proposed rule might apply to a very small splinter group, not to one of the major sects within a religion. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. I mean, if the RC Church had a webpage which was a peerlessly neutral description of the technical and medical advances in contraception, this would not be an appropriate source because their POV on the underlying subject is not neutral. This would not apply to, say, the WHO or one of the national medical institutions. There's no problem with using the Vatican website as a source for what Catholics think about contraception, it's when we use a site tied to a group with certain minority views outside the context of those minority views that we run into problems. I hoped this was clear by reading the example in the context of the proposal. If you want a more unambiguous example you could consider a timeline of the WTC collapse on a Truther website, but that is a caricature whereas I was rather intending that my example was not - the RC church, unlike Truthers, are not barking mad. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but disagree. I consider that POV sources known for editorial responsibility can be used for uncontested areas of a topic, especially if the page can be shown to be referred to by other RSs as an accurate presentation. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's dangerous. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the EL section in the Prem Rawat 2 case is relevant, especially the second paragraph. Perhaps you could borrow that wording? Them From Space 19:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the implication in this discussion that chabad.org is a POV source? When it comes to treating general subjects in Judaism, I don't think it is. Debresser (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

1) The Chabad Lubavitch movement is a minority group within Hasidic Judaism, a minority sect within Judaism, itself a minority religion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I understand what is being driven at but I don't think we would put things in this way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Only true in a very narrow sense. Using the data in the Wikipedia articles, there are 500,000 Hasidic Jews, or whom 200,000 are Lubavitch. 40% is close to half. Additionally, and perhaps more important, it is certainly the best known of the Hasidic sects to people outside Judaism--and perhaps even to many people within it. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are not "200,000" Lubavitchers! It's closer to about a tenth of that size. They may have many admirers but those admirers are not Lubavitch followers. Chabad-Lubavitch can be counted by those Lubavitchers who live in Crown Heights, Brooklyn (9% of residents=14,000 Lubavitchers), Kfar Chabad (pop: 5,100), some very much smaller satelite communities around the world with numbers unknown, and the official Shluchim/emmisaries about 3,000 couples worldwide. That makes for about 25,000 confirmed Lubavitchers, make it 25-45,000 to be very liberal. What Chabad does have is a huge presence on the Internet [65] [66] and use of PR campaigns beyond any other Orthodox or even religious Jewish group which creates the impression that they are larger. IZAK (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You support my point. It is a minority (within a minority within a minority). That does not make it any less valid but it informs the weight we should give. I'm sure there are many more people who support Biblical creationism than support Chabad Lubavitch, that does not undermine the status of Biblical creationism as a minority POV. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, Chabad editors are entitled to their minority POV but they are not entitled to violate WP:OWN [67] and WP:COI [68], [69] in all Chabad-related articles. They have a record of fighting to edit out unflattering sourced material e.g. [70], [71], [72], [73], [74] etc, and do their utmost WP:LAWYERing and WP:WAR that only a glossy pro-Chabad view is maintained so that the differnce between Chabad.org content and a Wikipedia article on any given subject start looking like identical twins. This has been going on for quite a few years now and it's what this case is all about. The Chabad editors will try to portray it as "POV vendetta" against them, and it's a huge mistake to fall into that trap. IZAK (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think this statement is outside of the Arbcom's scope of interest/jurisdiction. I don't think, that Arbcom would make a comment about any outside organization that is not directly Wikipedia related. Arbcom usually does not comment on content, and this statement is even beyond that. Findings such as "This is a minority religion", "this is a minority sect" etc would be unprecedented. M0RD00R (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant. WP:NPOV says:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.
— WP:NPOV as of 10 Jan 2010

It is important to qualify, when handling an issue such as this, whether the viewpoint in question is a minority one. This is more often an issue in relation to fringe and pseudoscience topics but applies just as much to minority religious groups. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case "minority"≠"not notable" because of the "significant coverage" factor. Chabad's significant presence on the Internet is already mentioned in the Evidence section or as IZAK put it just below "other Judaic editors simply cannot match their resources nor are they able to come up with links or the amount of sites or links the way proponents of a Chabad POV can". I'm afraid FoF "Chabad is the best known Hasidic movement" [75] would be equally true as FoF proposed above, and equally inappropriate. Besides what this FoF is actually saying that all involved parties (Chabad POV vs. other Hasidic POV vs. non-Hasidic Judaic POV) are minorities. And what conclusions are supposed to be drawn out of that?M0RD00R (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering writing something very much along the same lines as the previous post by M0RD00R. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to chabad.org[edit]

2) As of 9 Jan 2010 there are over 1,000 links to chabad.org on Wikipedia. This is out of proportion to the significance of the group.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would appreciate any specific examples where the inclusion of a link has been controversial (for example, if it has resulted in edit-warring). Failing that, I can do a spot check of these links, determine who added them, and evaluate their appropriateness and the conduct surrounding their addition, but that is likely to be both time consuming and less useful than having illustrative examples brought to our attention. Steve Smith (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Steve Smith. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

possibly true, but we need to know how many there are to other Hasisidic sects, and how many to the entire Hasidic movement. A raw number like this can be deceptive. And insisting on adding inappropriate links can be a conduct dispute, and the proof of this is that it is one of the standard reasons for blocking. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Without such evidence, this is pure speculation. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Chabad movement is so heavily invested, as a movement, in promoting itself in any shape size or form on the Internet. Other Haredi and Hasidic movements not only do not do this but many of them outright ban access to the Internet [76] [77] and forbid its members from being online except when the needs of a livelihood demand it. There are many websites run by Orthodox organizations but "Hasidic sects" neither have nor approve of promoting themselves on the Internet. Thus this has indeed created a huge imbalance in the Chabad movement's favor as editors favoring that movement have promoted abundant links, especially to the vast Chabad.org [78], using the plentiful resources available to them, while editors wishing to convey information about other Hasidic or Haredi groups are often at a loss. This has often resulted in WP:UNDUE in favor of Chabad and for its proponents on Wikipedia, as the at least 1000 links prove, and there are more to other Chabd sites on Wikipedia [79] because other Judaic editors simply cannot match their resources nor are they able to come up with links or the amount of sites or links the way proponents of a Chabad POV can and do on Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve: FYI, it,s not just about Chabad.org: The www dot kingmessiah dot com site cannot even be diffed on Wikipedia, because it was blocked per Wikipedia:Spam blacklist from being on Wikipedia’s servers. The circumstances surrounding that are worth checking into as they serve as important background about how pro-Chabad editors in the past thrust into Wikipedia with a messianist POV until their resource was point blank blocked. What was stopped then, is continued now, e.g. [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] etc by soft-sell by the present 4 pro-Chabad editors. IZAK (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Chabad websites linked to Wikipedia's Chabad-related articles

Steve: Note, that Chabad's official websites are available in all the world's major languages and are on ALL Wikipedia sites in most languages. Wikipedia has two articles about two Chabad websites already Chabad.org [85] and AskMoses.com [86], and other Chabad links to websites on Wikipedia are (there are more): youtube.com/user/AskMoses; chabad.edu; chabadnews.us; chabadlibrary.org; lubavitch.com; sichoskodesh.com; lahak.org; sichosinenglish.org; audio.chassidus.com; www.wlcc.org; harabi.org.il; jemedia.org; beismoshiach.org; psakdin.net; chabad.info; chabad.kiev.ua. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Chabad has eveloped under its last leader to be one of the most active and well-know movements in Judaism. They are well know in all Jewish circles and active in public life the world over with outreach campaigns. They are more open to modern technology than other orthodox Jewish movements. There is a wealth of websites available in many languages that are affilated with Chabad (officially or by way of their managers being affiliated). Some of these sites, notably chabad.org contain much information about general Judaism. This is in accord with the Chabad outreach idea. This is the only and obvious reason so many Chabad affiliated websites can be found in external links. It is unreasonable to accuse chabad editors of using these important sources of information, which are available on the web at places familiar to them. Obviously, if there are isolated cases of overlinking to such sites, that should be taken care of. Debresser (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That gets a great big {{fact}} from me. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What precisely? 15:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement by User:Debresser that "They [Chabad] are more open to modern technology than other orthodox Jewish movements" is not true. In this case his words "modern technology" should rather be taken to mean "modern public relations", because modern technology in all its forms and facets are embraced and used by all Orthodox, Haredi and Hasidic groups. It's part of their lives, private businesses, communications and more. What most of them do not do is invest in PR (polite word and euphemism for propaganda) and are forbidden to push their POV onto the Internet even if they support or are committed to Jewish outreach on the scale that Chabad does. Chabad has had the view that the Internet is their ultimate weapon and resource to capture the world's Jews and gentiles alike and win them over to the Chabad POV. Even very modern outreach groups open to modern PR, like NCSY affiliated with Modern Orthodoxy and USY affiliated with Conservative Judaism, who in real life probably have a combined greater numbers, reach and impact than all of Chabad in the USA, do not work as seriously to project themselves online as the Chabad movement does. IZAK (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be correct to say that I meant "technology of mass information", yes. Why does IZAk use such loaded words as "propaganda", "weapon", "capture"? If he has a case, surely it could be presented in neutral terms. Debresser (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser: You see, this is the problem, you keep on equating Chabad with yourself, and therefore you take it personbally when I try to describe and explain the way Chabad works using descriptive words and in turn you feel it's necessary to attack me or my words. What "neutral terms" would you suggest for the fact that Chabad want to do those things? The reason we are in arbitration is because we have this problem: You seem to think that the world must see and react to Chabad the way a Chabad rabbi does, otherwise he is to be attacked the way you attacked me multiple times [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96] because you keep on equating Chabad with yourself. Why not try to be objective and not glorify your movement in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING and not attack me all the time simply because I see things in a broader light and use different words. IZAK (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this principle, although it could be expanded. Them From Space 08:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one editor has added links to one site, that is hardly a reason to sanction other editors. Apart from the fact that chabad.org is a large online resource that is appropriate for external links in tens of articles at least. Debresser (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser: I spent a long time on your edit history that is spread far and wide so no doubt there may be more than what I found, but you inserted pro-Chabad website links many times: [97], [98], [99], [100], and stated that Chabad needs 9 links, [101], [102], [103], [104]. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser: It is appropriate that the activities of User:PinchasC (aka User:Truthaboutchabad aka User:Eliezer) be cited because with his arrival he introduced a style of defending Chabad POVs in a far more complex and broad ranging manner. He came along after having learned the rules of WP and with that kind of wiki-lawyering he was able to push the pro-Chabad POV in a manner that went beyond writing content to actually policing editors and content he deemed hostile to Chabad-related articles when he got himself nominated as an admin and was voted in without most users then having a clear idea of how much a devotee of the Chabad movement (as based on his/her edit history, and not on speculation or "slander') would go to the lengths of defending and promoting the Chabd movement, as is now revealed in his role promoting, placing and policing so many Chabad links. It was PinchasC who fathered-in the three other pro-Chabad editors in this case Shlomke, Zsero, Yehoishophot Oliver, who hit the ground running and were themselves evidently well-taught when they followed in PinchasC's footsteps, one can see this pattern in the edit history of the Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson article and a few others. You arrived later and have complimented the team of Shlomke, Zsero, and Yehoishophot Oliver, even though there are some VERY minor technical and ideological differences between the four of you. ALL of you have continued the line of work of PinchasC by updating and inserting various links to various Chabad sites, so it's one ongoing, unified and coherent continuum when it comes to the pro-Chabad POV editors, and it is futile to plead "innocence" when you are part of that movement and its POV's expression on Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four links, but all in one article. And in the end I agreed we don't need them. That's no prove of anything. Stop making things look so much worse than they are. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser: Do not minimize the seriousness of being in arbitration. The issue of links to Chabad.org is a serious one. In the past, Chabad advocate PinchasC inserted hundreds of them and monitered them carefully. He did so at a time when 3 of the Chabad editors involved in this case were at his side doing the same thing. I tried to track down as many of the links they put in, no doubt there are many more that I missed, but those that I cite are proof enough. You came along a little later and have joined in the same pattern of advocating for and promoting official Chabad links. You even advocated that Chabad deserved to have 9 sites as links in articles. To repeat, here are your efforts to promote Chabad-related links, as if Wikipedia didn't have enough of them already: [105], [106], [107], [108], and stated that Chabad needs 9 links, [109], [110], [111], [112]. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Steve Smith and Newyorkbrad, there have been times in the past where the abundance of chabad dot org links has been pointed out. As I pointed out in my evidence section, the links have been questioned here, here, here, and here. Also, as I pointed out in my evidence section, there has been inappropriate spamming done of this link, but it was done by a party outside the scope of this case and years ago. Because of this, I still believe a finding on the inappropriate nature of these links is warranted, even if the wording is different than is presented here. Them From Space 03:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there was a case relating to this entire problem brought by User:Abe.Froman in 2007, see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad. IZAK (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK articles and sections[edit]

3) A "coatrack" article is an article which is ostensibly about one subject but in practice is about another. For example, a biography of someone who has converted to a given faith that exists mainly to extol the faith to which they converted.

3.01) A "coatrack" article is an article which is ostensibly about one subject but in practice is about another. For example, a biography of someone who has converted to a given faith that exists mainly to extol the faith to which they converted. There are examples of articles and sections within articles that appear on the face of it to exist primarily to promote the Chabad Lubavitch group.

Yes, these examples need moving to Evidence. I will do that in a bit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The repeated creation of articles falling clearly below the community's notability standards by users who either have been warned about or ought to know about these standards is sanctionable conduct, in my view. However, the examples above do not involve any of the parties to this case (Tonica Marlow has not been edited by any of the four "pro-Chabad" parties, and Noahidism has been edited once by each of Shlemke and Yehoishophot Oliver, both in fairly minor (and I presume to be uncontroversial) ways. While these examples are still of use in providing evidence of an alleged pattern, it would be more helpful if people contributing evidence could either focus on conduct by the parties or identify other parties whose conduct has been such that they should be added as parties. Steve Smith (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's three weeks later and I think Steve Smith's point is still valid. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

COATRACK, though an essay, is a good statement of a generally accepted principle, one on which article are consistently deleted. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Very sound argument for an AfD, but Arbcom probably is not a right venue for this.M0RD00R (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded slightly; these are examples to support the general point. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article. I acknowledge the weakness of the previous versions of the article. The current version([114]) of the article is probably sufficient to establish notability, since several references have been added. However, the article does not include criticism of the author or her books, and may benefit from attention by other editors with specialized knowledge. - Eastmain (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ARBCOM does not comment on content but rather on user conduct so wording of this finding should be modified accordingly. M0RD00R (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:IZAK[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Editorial balance in Chabad-related articles[edit]

1)

All articles in Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism, like all articles in its parent Category:Hasidic Judaism and Category:Haredi Judaism, must avoid a tendency to pro-Chabad hagiography and editors must avoid any appearance or actual violation of WP:COI in favor of the Chabad movement.
Critical thinking and opposing views, often derived from and stated by well-known historical and academic figures, not found on pro-Chabad websites in formulating, editing and writing articles is not automatically a "violation" of WP:NOR or of WP:NPOV, when presented by established editors, based on WP:N and WP:RS. Such well-established important information, without which articles lack true balance, must be respected and incorporated into all articles.
Usage and abuse of WP:LAWYER and WP:WAR must be avoided.
Contentious and controversial information should not be deleted because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but placed on article talk pages or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism for further discussion by more Judaic and other editors.
WP:CONSENSUS with Judaic and other editors not sharing a pro-Chabad POV should be attained and maintained. IZAK (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Guidance for pro-Chabad-editors when editing Chabad-related articles[edit]

2)

In general Chabad topics: When critical material is inserted into general articles like Chabad itself, or about any one of its 7 Rebbes in its dynasty, and an editor wishes to insert points that are not hagiography or worshipful of the movement, particularly if they are sourced, the pro-Chabad POV editors must avoid edit wars to remove and fight to have that content cut and removed. Move all disputed sections to talk pages of articles. Avoid running to WP:ANI, take disputes to WP:TALKJUDAISM first.
In articles devoted to internal Chabad controversies: Articles that have been specifically named and designated to controversial topics about Chabad, such as Chabad messianism and Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies, Rabbi Barry Gurary (the only grandson of the 6th Rebbe and the disowned nephew of the 7th Rebbe), the pro-Chabad POV editors must ensure that the way the controversies are presented will not be neutered and neutralized and not stand the topics on their heads to try turn them around into "praise" for the movement and cut down to size any edits or editors who try to insert critical comments that they think are harmful and not approved by the official doctrines of Chabad as espoused by its teachers and leaders through its own literature. All edits removing content must be moved to talk pages for discussion and review.
In articles about external controversies/personalities connected to Chabad such as about Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh (who wrote a controversial defense of Baruch Goldstein), Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and the singer Matisyahu (both of whom broke with them and were disowned by the movement), or defending the actions of Moshe Rubashkin and Sholom Rubashkin (who faced legal problems and jail time for their actions), or just cutting out cited references to other controversies all over the world involving Chabad rabbis and leaders, the pro-Chabad POV editors must not act individually or in unison by working to strong-arm any opposing editors who have other reliable information and not harrass them with all sorts of tactics to remove and limit as much material harmful to the movement.
Stop attacking leaders and topics not part of Chabad: Not to go all out to insert harmful and even libelous information, or cut down to size articles about outside opponents of the movement such as Rabbi Elazar Shach, the Vilna Gaon, (both deceased), and Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller, Rabbi Dr. David Berger (professor) (both alive).
Stop revisionisism of Chabad history: Stop the fighting to make sure that old-time historical rivals connected with the movement are shrunk, minimized, trivialized and kept as far away from the main Chabad movement and topic as much as possible, such as Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty), Malachim (Hasidic group), Rabbi Shaul Shimon Deutsch (the Liozna Rebbe, a living published author), Rabbi Barry Gurary (deceased). Not to become livid if anyone questions this, and not use presumed inside knowledge and commitment to a one and only "correct" view ("I know more than you" or "I am a Chabad rabbi -- who are you to question?" type of argumentation), forcing other editors to give up even when there are other reasonable reliable sources. And not to delete valuable sources and edits after editors have left editing contested articles.
Stop infiltrating Israeli and Judaism topics with Chabad hard-line views: When entering into topics relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict to avoid espousing the official Chabad party-line of their movement which is almost always hard-line.
Stop soft-selling messianism and belief in their Rebbe as the ONLY true messiah that is a general feature of many edits that defend Chabad messianism and not to deny it from one side but promote it by stealth by cutting cited criticism to it (and not to call criticism "lies" and "slander" and "libel"), at the same time to avoid inserting links and comments that soft-pedal this controversial belief that Chabad holds dear. IZAK (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

All of the above sound great. The question is whether this is needed. Debresser (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to nominate nor promote pro-Chabad editors to admin/sysop status[edit]

3)

Background: Problems with User:PinchasC were already evident in 2007, see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Existing admins and all concerned responsible decision makers are requested to ensure that the four pro-Chabad POV editors, User Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) and User Shlomke (talk · contribs) and User Zsero (talk · contribs) and Debresser (talk · contribs) and others with similar pro-Chabad editing histories NEVER be allowed to attain admin status, if they ever survive other sanctions against them.
If pro-Chabad POV editors were to attain sysop powers they would undoubtedly wield them to enforce from a higher status what they have been trying to do by dint of editing away over the last few years to move articles in their favor.
In-depth reviews of the diffs of all four pro-Chabad editors in question, one needs to ask what are serious Chabad rabbis and scholars doing editing over such a wide range of subjects when they are not editing, monitoring or controlling the articles important to Chabad? They spend relatively almost NO time on other important Judaic topics, but they do spend lots of time on all sorts of relative trivia, and the only rational conclusion one can come to is that they are each in their own way preparing the road for their own hoped-for nomination and coronation to admin status.
The way to become an admin was/is by getting their name/s known as active editors in other areas and gain name recognition, in political campaigning style, without saying as much, so that when the time comes, and they are now at the cusp of it, to be nominated as admins, they will get the support of other users who do not realize that these four have a "higher agenda" to fight for their cause of Chabad on Wikipedia as a literal fifth column, there is no clearer way to say it, in full knowledge that they are going to violate WP:COI as they enforce and ensure the type of editing on Chabad-related topics as evidenced from the diffs at each one above. If they are let off the hook, nothing will change, and things will get worse. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

ArbCom generally leaves promotion of administrators to the community (except in some cases in which it resysops previously desysopped admins). If there was a case so egregious as to warrant abandonment of that tradition, I would expect that the target editors should just be banned (note that I am making no comment whatever about the editors in this specific dispute). Steve Smith (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is shocking to me. I don't think anyone should worry that we will enact anything like this; creating second-class Wikipedians based on religious identification will not happen. If they are so bad, they will be banned. Cool Hand Luke 19:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In response to those who oppose this motion, they are missing an important criterion here: Namely, this motion is not meant to "discriminate" against anyone based on their religious or personal beliefs or views in any way whatsoever. Obviously that would be absurd. The sole and clear-cut basis of the proposed is that, if, BASED ON A USER'S EDITING HISTORY, it is clear that any editor is functioning as a pro-Chabad editor defending that movement's views and cutting down its foes, forgetting that Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org, then, and ONLY then, MUST such an editor be permanently blocked from ever becoming an admin because he/she inherently lacks the ability to function in a NPOV and impartial manner in that area but rather see themselves as "defenders of Chabad on Wikipedia" primarily, as happened in the case of User:PinchasC who spent his time setting up and maintaining hundreds to Chabad.org as he protected articles and turf important to the Chabad movement. IZAK (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree this is problematic; I don't think that saying "yes, editors of a particular religious persuasion are not eligible to become administrators" is a viable course of action. Thankfully. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- No, that is NOT the point at all, but based on the concrete evidence that editors based on their long-standing editorial history of editing in a one-way direction, in this case promoting and editing in a pro-Chabad POV manner, inherently failing the golden rule of WP:NPOV when it comes to their favorite hobby horse, should not be given any levers of power to lord it over others they may oppose. This is precisely what happened when pro-Chabad POV editor PinchasC (talk · contribs) (now retired) was granted admin powers, he enforced what was good for Chabad and cut down what he saw was any threat to it. That type of person does not belong being an admin. IZAK (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to happen. We judge an editor by their edits, not by their affiliations. Admins who take administrative actions in support of conflicts of interest are not admins for long anyway. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JzG: This is only based on edits, not affilitions. Edits that reveal an editor to be a pro-Chabad POV pusher should disqualify him/her from admin status. Nothing to do with affiliations as such. IZAK (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is more properly a matter for the community than for the committee - and it's one that's really outside of ArbCom's power to regulate. If someone really is a pro-Chabad POV pusher, then presumably people will vote against them at RFA. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Lankiveil: Your sentiment is appreciated, but raw experience and the data from edit histories shows that the community may not be aware of a particular pro-Chabad editor's edit history because they edit over a wide range of subjects pretty fairly, but when it comes to this one grand subject of Chabad-related articles they are uniform in their defense of it and in their attacks against designated rival topics and editors. That is what has always been true and it is at the core of this present case. The ArbCom is being called upon to look deeper and wider and not be misled by disguised editing, meant in effect to help the pro-Chabad editors get appointed as admins, at which time they will use those powers to impose their POVs, using clever WP:LAWYERing, as happened with User PinchasC (talk · contribs) (now retired) in the past. IZAK (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mention PinchasC (talk · contribs). I've been in dispute with him a number of times. I don't recall him ever using his admin powers in Chabad related topic disputes either with myself or anyone else. Shlomke (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with User:PinchasC were already evident in 2007, see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:PinchasC used three identities. First one was Truthaboutchabad (talk · contribs) (commenced editing Nov 04) an ID explicitly devoted to defending the Chabad POV whence "truth about Chabad"; then switched to Eliezer (talk · contribs) also defending Chabad topics; then used ID of PinchasC (talk · contribs). From all 3 IDs there was a clear pattern of pro-Chabad POV editing, altho as time went on he was more skilled at WP:LAWYER. His rise to admin was a fluke. Diffs for himx3 can be produced if requested by ArbCom, see his violations here. IZAK (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even necessary. Individual editors known for non-neutral work would presumably not get consensus for selection as admins. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal shows how little IZAK knows about proper procedures and their enforcement on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Debresser, stick to the subject. You can agree or disagree, but you yet again violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF when you accuse me of knowing "little" when everyone can express a valid view and it will be decided by the ArbCom as part of their final decision/s and not by your nitpicking at me personally. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Debresser, please do not make this personal. Shlomke (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comes to show that when a person has a POV, all his arguments are likely to be tainted by that POV. It was not meant as a personal attack. Debresser (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make the attack and then you say it's not an "attack" as if you are not "tainted" by your own outlook when editing articles and defending them based on your own POV. IZAK (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:PinchasC, who I referenced in my evidence statement, is an admin. Perhaps it would be relevant to the case to review his administrative actions that fell within the jurisdiction of this case to see how dangerous a pro-Chabad admin might be. Them From Space 08:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Problems with User:PinchasC were already evident in 2007, see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another hugely problematic pro-Chabad editor was User Ariel Sokolovsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was behind spamming the hard-core Chabad messianist www dot kingmessiah dot com site that was blocked per Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Circumstances surrounding that are worth checking into as it casts light on the true WP:COI aims of such editors. IZAK (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is even within the ArbCom's powers. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do not block people from becoming administators because they hold a certain POV or work in certain areas. Their edits will be looked at as a whole and the community will make a judgement about their worthiness as an admin. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact by Debresser[edit]

1) User:IZAK has started an inquiry into Chabad adherents editing on Wikipedia. Examination of the diffs he provided has shown that he is assessing them incorrectly, often going as far as interpreting edits of excellent Wikipedia standard in various other ways. His accusations have taken the form and wording of an active campaign to discredit adherents of Chabad as editors on Wikipedia, as well as making slanderous accusations about a worldwide religious movement.

2) Propose notifying User:IZAK that his negative POV towards Chabad adherents has been noted by the community; reminding User:IZAK of the relevant policies and guidelines, notably WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DISRUPT, as well as WP:SLANDER, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE; warning User:IZAK that he must stop letting his POVs influence his editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree because I refute all these false allegations: (a) I had been the one to start the articles about Chabad 2002 and most of its 7 Rebbes [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121] and both then and in years after that there was never any objective accusations of slander/battling/disrupting/undue/NPOV. Note: Genuine criticism is not "slander". (b) On the contrary I was asked not to write hagiography [122]. See especially Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson/Archive 1#Let's not make this a hagiography, where Users Danny and Zoe tell me (User:Danny:) "Essentially, what I was trying to say to IZAK is that this is a hagiography, not an article, and that the subject is still at the center of a virulent controversy." (User Zoe:) "For someone who claims not be a devotee, your words both on the original page and here belie that. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not a list of saints." (User:Zoe:) "IZAK, this article is reverting back to hagiography." (c) And for years I was Chabad's best advocate not even belonging to the movement, but that was a time when input from all sides was welcomed and included. (d) That all changed with arrival on the scene of User:Truthaboutchabad aka User:Eliezer aka User:PinchasC who went about cutting out as much material that the Chabad movement would not and does not favor, in a very clever and adroit fashion. He was joined by a number of others, but before his own "retirement" he fathered-in Users Shlomke, Zsero and Yehoishophot Oliver, who were then joined by User:Dbresser who continued to place an ever tighter stranglehold on the content of Chabad-related topics reflecting (through their edit histories) their loyalty to the Chabad party line in violation of WP:COI. (e) The first time I came across this problem was in primarily editing two articles in years gone by about two personalities considered controversial and outcasts by the official Chabad movement: Rabbis Elazar Shach (presently locked due to edit warring by others) and Barry Gurary. (f) What ensued shocked me, and many others. The tenacious outright bullying and edit warring and wikilawyering by these Chabad editors to ensure that the Chabad POV prevailed and fighting for it as if their lives depended on it. (g) This was something new and unhealthy, and I came to realize that a red line had been crossed. From my peaceful editing of some Chabad-related articles, things changed and I was being harrassed and challenged over every minute detail the new editors disliked. (h) The straw that broke the camel's back was when other editors challenged the Chabad POV during the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public menorah, as well as 5 other such AfDs and it became clear to me beyond any shadow of a doubt that a critical mass had been reached and that even general Judaic editors could not cope with the monolithic party line editing habits and behavior, now openly arrogant and easily violating WP:OWN, at every twist and turn, must be challenged, not out of any malice, but to preserve Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and independence. That is how the COI case started and that is how this case has landed up before the ArbCom. Therefore (i) All of User:Dbresser's allegations only reflect how he sees things and have nothing do with an objective assessment of the situation and they should ne ignored and dismissed. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with all the good things you did and surely will still do. And I have appreciated some of your work in the past. My problem is that each and every one of the links you provided shows not how I am misbehaving, but how I am a good editor. The only possible conclusion is that you are having a issue with me/Chabad-adherents on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Themfromspace[edit]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as a consequence of the apparently deeply engrained inability to edit responsibly towards NPOV in this domain, as shown in the evidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steve Smith: I have absolutely no prior experience with this whole situation, or with any of the parties in this case. I happened to be called in to comment on that incident and that was my first contact with Debresser. But comparing his conduct there to the descriptions of the overall situation here, I find not reason to assume that it is not "part of a broader pattern". The evidence is not just about a few editorial actions (e.g. edit-warring), which might well be a one-off thing, but also about an attitude towards editing and towards sources/WP:V/NPOV. I find it hard to believe that if Debresser can fail so badly at NPOV in this incident, and displays such utter inability to step aside from his own POV agenda, he could be much better at it in related cases elsewhere. But that's for people with more experience to demonstrate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact by Shlomke[edit]

(removed with comments per clerk advice[125] Shlomke (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment by parties:

Note: this section seems to be displaced; it wasn't originally related to the "Proposals by Fut.Perf." section where it now stands. Could somebody fix this? -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now carefully restored it retaining past discussions, but striking Shlomke's proposal as he should have done. Comments of other users should not have been wiped out when Shlomke wished to erase only his own comments. IZAK (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did precisely as Dougweller suggested, to remove my own and their comments[126]. The section heading is now fixed. Please do not make an issue out of this. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidim and Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis (many in the latter are of very marginal notablity and probably should be put up for AfD's) disprove User:Shlomke's contention because every Hasidic community is a tight controlled enclosed totality under the leadership of a Rebbe. There may be esoteric splits within the movement over various issues, but the movement as a whole remains as one entity. Its leadership, clergy, executive, laity, business people and simple people are all part of one tightly-knit socio-economic religious entity. It is impossible to split any components from each other. Wealthy Hasidim support their own Rebbes, communities and schools. Thus, as key examples, in the case of Chabad, Joseph Gutnick is not just one of its wealthiest patrons, but he is a 100% dedicated disciple of its Rebbe and of the movement (there is even an article of what happened when he did not like waht was said, see Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick, who was appointed the official Chabad representatives on matters relating to Israel. Lev Leviev a billionaire diamond dealer supports Chabad education and its rabbinate in Russia. And Aaron Rubashkin was until recently the largest provider of kosher meat in the USA and one of Chabad's wealthiest benefactors until he was hit with problems, see Agriprocessors: Recent developments. Often time lay men are also rabbis, and rabbis function as businesspople with unclear boundaries between religion and business. There are many lesser Chabad laymen and rabbis, but they are all part of one Chabad movement, there isn't another one, so that therefore when there is newsworthy or noteworthy controversy about any one of them, and it meets Wikipedia's criteria of WP:RS it should not be edited out or blocked out simply because the Chabad editors don't like it. IZAK (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Shlomke[edit]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Scope of the controversy[edit]

The following are some of the Chabad related topics that have been controversial between editors:

Chabad. Describing the Chabad movement with exceptional praise on the one hand, or excessively negative and controversial on the other.
Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Describing the Chabad rebbe with exceptional praise on the one hand, or in negative terms and as an excessively controversial leader on the other hand.
Chabad messianism. Describing the messianism belief as increasingly extreme, cult like, etc. by some editors, or hiding its existence and moderating it by others. Also in dispute is whether to include extreme minority and fringed beliefs as part of the general belief of Chabad messianism
Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies. Some editors are of the opinion that anything controversial that ever occurred and can somehow be associated with Chabad ought to be included in the article. Other editors feel that only something that was part of the Chabad movement as a whole and was defined as a controversy by RS ought to be in the article.
[[Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism]]. Editors have voiced disappointment and concern regarding the amount of Chabad related articles on Wikipedia compared to other branches of Hasidism, Orthodox Judaism, and Judaism in general. Specifically that many of these articles are reportedly poorly sourced.
Articles about individuals who had strained relationships with Chabad are not neutral and full of OR. For example Barry Gurary is beefed up to make him look like the true "should be" rebbe of Chabad.

I may edit and expand this list later. Shlomke (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What is the point of this list? Obviously there is controversy in those articles. They are key flashpoint articles in this over-all dispute as the multiple diffs have clearly proven. This should not be a time to rehash and start long discussions about the content of those articles. The time has come to deal with the stonewalling and obstructionism by the Chabad editors when a non-Chabad POV needs to be inserted and then all editorial hell breaks loose which just tires out even the average interested editors leaving the articles in the hands of the Chabad editors to run and control the way they like it to be, which is precisely what the Chabad editors want, having over-all editorial power over Chabad-related articles, even ones dealing with controversy all to themselves, which simply cannot be on Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It occurs to me that the above list is one of the most helpful things on this page. As I've seen by the current discussion to dismiss, the biggest problem in this case is defining scope. There is so much info here that we don't quite understand what we are doing here. As such I feel that working on this list to come up with an agreed upon definition of scope of relevancy is important. This will then define where we should be looking for challenges and where solutions should be applied. Joe407 (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies[edit]

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree because this suggestion by Shlomke (who cannot resist to continue with advocating his Chabad party line POV yet again) is purely an attempt to end-run and circumvent the very principles of this case as it's called "Chabad movement" and not these or those articles only. The issues of this case, as set forth in all the discussions thus far, relate to comprehensive problematic editing, not just in controversial topics per se, but in all Chabad-related topics as in the articles and diffs presented by IZAK and others, such as problems with massive linkage to Chabad sites, presented in the evidence section of this ArbCom case. And because the problem of violations of WP:OWN and WP:NOTADVERTISING applies to all Chabad related topics by the Chabad editors that leads to violations of WP:COI and of WP:WAR as they undertake it, either by stealth, insults, harrassment and wearing down opponents with WP:LAWYER, makes this case a serious comprehenisve attempt at curbing the abuses and problems that the decisions of the ArbCom must deal with comprehensivley and not on a case by case basis that would only take us back to the starting point of the disputes. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, kindly stick to the issues and don't personalize this. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way that Chabad editors, as based on their confirmed and verifiable editing histories, inherently function and edit is the issue, it is not a case of "personalising" anything. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Parties' participation in disputed articles and their associated AfDs[edit]

	Debresser (talk · contribs)	Shlomke (talk · contribs)	Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs)	Zsero (talk · contribs)
Tefillin campaign (closed as merge)
Article	None	Expansion (during AfD)	Created	None
AfD	Weak merge	Comment	None	Comment (concurring with Shlomke)
Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign (closed as delete)
Article	None	None	Created	None
AfD	None	None	None	None
Noahide Campaign (closed as merge)
Article	None	None	Created	None
AfD	Merge	None	Keep	Keep
Upper Midwest Merkos – Lubavitch House (closed as delete)
Article	None	None	None	None
AfD	None	None	None	Delete
Chabad of South London (closed as delete)
Article	None	None	None	None
AfD	None	None	None	No comment on the debate's substance, but issue taken with IZAK's comments
Public menorah (closed as keep)
Article	Minor edits	Substantial edits	Created	None
AfD	Keep	Keep	Keep	"Keep for now"

Comment by Arbitrators:

The above table summarizes the participation of the four "pro-Chabad" parties to this case in six Chabad articles whose notability is disputed and which are cited as evidence of a proliferation of non-notable articles on Chabad topics. I produced it to test the hypothesis that these four editors have been major factors in this proliferation, either by creating the articles or by preventing their deletion. The results are decidedly mixed: Yehoishophot Oliver created four of the disputed articles, and Shlomke substantially edited two of them (note that creating and editing articles later found to be non-notable is not itself a sanctionable offense, and I am not drawing any final conclusions based on these editing patterns). Zsero did not edit any of them, and Debresser made only two minor edits to one of them. At AfD, there was little consistent pattern. Zsero participated in four of the deletion debates, Debresser participated in three, and each of Shlomke and Yehoishophot Oliver. However, other than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public menorah, in which all four editors participated on the "keep" side (along with many other editors, such that the debate, unique among these six, was closed as keep), there was no other debate in which all four participated, and only one in which three of the four participated. Moreover, two of Debresser's three AfD comments were "merge" !votes (the exception was Public menorah), and one of Zsero's was "delete".

If, for the sake of this exercise, we take it as a given that there is an undue proliferation of non-notable Chabad articles, the above table provides some evidence that Yehoishophot Oliver is a contributor to the problem through article creation. There is little evidence on the basis of this table that any of the other three are contributing to the problem either through article work or AfD participation. I fully understand that the scope of the case extends beyond this alleged proliferation of articles; this analysis is intended only to address that component of it. I welcome parties' (or others') comments on these findings. I would especially welcome more examples of articles and AfDs that might more conclusively demonstrate or disprove any alleged pattern by these editors. Steve Smith (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, Shlomke. "While the article is definitely missing third party sources right now, that can be fixed by tagging the article." was the part that made me put the "de facto keep" in, but I've now removed it. Steve Smith (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

There is a differnce between fringe and weight policies, and the conflation of the two is probably something to sort out. One and a half million ghits, if nothing else, certainly proves there are lots of people willing to maintain Chabad websites. Stating their position on issues could be warranted if it's distinct enough from other orthodox opinions. The links however certainly need to be pruned, it is quite pointless to have numerous links to numerous websites for every little topic. The behavior of the editors in handling the issue on all sides seems quite detestable. Each of them tried to pin the blame on each other and threw out defamatory accusations on others in order to reduce the scrutiny on themselves, forming a tangled web of accusations and counteraccusations. Catfights are never acceptable as a way to sort out content issues. Then there are the promotional issues which brings to mind the Scientology case; Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform for those wanting to take advantage of web 2.0. Religion is a sensitive issue and people get very passionate about it. Users who are unable to put their opinions aside cannot work on this project by nature and should not be allowed to if they only cause needless disruption.--Ipatrol (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]