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

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

Case Opened on 06:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed on 07:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

IZAK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Shlomke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Clerk Note: In addition to the parties above, there were a large number of inactive users listed in the initial request. They are not repeated here, but the full list is available on the talkpage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Requests for comment[edit]

Statement by IZAK[edit]

A serious ongoing discussion about WP:COI violations by pro-Chabad editors remains unresolved in spite of a number of admins intervention, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver. Some have already suggested arbitration [1]. Other editors very familiar with Judaic issues on Wikipedia have voiced their own independent opinions, 11 so far, namely Users RK (talk · contribs); Joe407 (talk · contribs); Yoninah (talk · contribs); Jmabel (talk · contribs); Redaktor (talk · contribs); Yossiea (talk · contribs); Shuki (talk · contribs); Nsaum75 (talk · contribs) and diplomatic instructions to the pro-Chabad editors from DGG (talk · contribs); Avraham (talk · contribs) and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs).

The issues mainly revolve around the WP:OWN and WP:WAR defenses attitude of 4 pro-Chabad users at this time who expressly edit in a fashion that protects the Chabad movement’s POV and they resort to WP:WAR, WP:NPA and WP:LAWYER to protect their turf in key articles such as Chabad messianism and Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies they fight tooth and nail to keep out and control comments and edits the movement dislikes. The comprehensive complaints against them with diffs, going so far as calling to block them or at least to restrict their aggressive and obstructionist tactics, are at the COI discussion:

Instead of answering to the complaint the pro-Chabad editors have resorted to multiple violations of WP:NPA and obfuscation, going so far as to open their own frivolous not-to-the point red herring complaints that so far no admins have taken seriously at:

Additional concerns about the direction the pro-Chabad editors are taking are expressed at:

The discussions are at a total impasse and the matter has been developing for a number of years, but have now boiled over following a series of AfDs that resulted in the merging or deletion of 5 out of 6 very minor topics concerning Chabad, but the situation over-all has been effecting many members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism and others who do NOT adhere to the official teachings, beliefs and policies of the Chabad ideology, but while not being opposed to it, who wish to edit and write about it in a more open and critical fashion from all points of view befitting an independent encyclopedia without being harrassed.

Therefore the situation is such that arbitration is the only choice, and following that there should be an official policy guideline stated for Chabad-related articles and pro-Chabad editors and users as exists for those about other tightly conformist groups such as applies to articles about Scientology and the LaRouche movement as examples. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Debresser[edit]

As I have stated in my first response (timewise) to the COI/N thread, I definitely have a POV towards Chabad, since I have been an adherent of this respected world-wide religious movement in Hasidic Judaism for approximately 19 years. Everybody has many POV's, and I am not an exception. Nevertheless I try, and I think with success, to refrain from making POV edits when editing on Wikipedia. I can show edits that clearly prove I am doing a very good job at that. Without claiming to be flawless, I think my edits are generally of acceptable-good quality. Including in the cases mentioned in/alluded to in the COI/N thread. Obviously, as any Wikipedian editor in good standing, I would have no problem with a third-party assessment of my behavior in this issue (or any other issue connected with my behavior on Wikipedia).

At the same time I think that any and all accusations of WP:COI and "conspiracies" are void. Such accusation may stem from insufficient understanding of the workings of this organisation (if it even may be called such). I also think that User:IZAK has been motivated largely by his own POV on Chabad-related issues, both in his recent posts on talk pages and noticeboards, as well as in his own edits regarding Judaism-related articles. In addition, his posts related to this issue have been quite belligerent in tone, which has been an additional reason for me to doubt his objective assessment of those issues.

I can not answer for the other editors being accused, whom I do not know in real-life. As to myself I can only say that I was not in need of a reminder of our POV guidelines. In conclusion, as I stated in this edit to the COI/N thread, I think that a general reminder of our POV guidelines to all five involved editors would be enough to consider this issue properly dealt with at this stage. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (8/1/0/0)[edit]

Accept. I normally demand more pursuit of dispute resolution options, as arbitration is the last resort. However, indications that a matter cannot be resolved at the community level are a consideration as well. I am convinced that this matter requires the attention of the Arbitration Committee. I believe the community has had difficulty in parsing the topic and the behavior of involved editors. I also believe that arbitration, reputation of the process considered, would produce significantly less confusion, consternation, and drama overall than kicking this back to the community. I would see the scope as conflicts involving Lubavitcher topics, broadly construed, and the related behavioral issues. There are a number of conduct allegations that need to be examined, sorted out, and provided with a final determination. This is not inclusive of the broader Hasidim topic area, except as Chabad-related issues have been a focal point. Similarly, it is not inclusive of the broader conservative (small "c") Judaism topic area, except as above. Vassyana (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept I would have preferred more DR, but there's something we probably need to look at here. SirFozzie (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. There's some indication of severe behavioral concerns, and what links are provided above don't indicate that the community is having, or will have, much success in dealing with this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've sifted through the COI/N subpage and read all statements here in detail but, try as I might, I cannot find anywhere in them a basis on which I could recuse. However, I'm more concerned than my colleagues with the lack of formal dispute resolution (i.e. not noticeboards) to date. Is there a reason that a conduct RFC surrounding the COI and POV-pushing accusations would not be expected to clarify this matter somewhat? Steve Smith (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline - I'm not persuaded that an RFC on both the content and conduct elements of this would be unhelpful. It's possible that there's a strong community consensus here that just hasn't been drawn out. Even if that's not the case, any ArbCom case would proceed better once the issues had been discussed and presented in the relatively orderly format of an RFC. Steve Smith (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. This is a little light on prior resolution attempts, but the complexity of the situation leads me to believe that a case would be the least confusing way to handle the situation and provide the community with some tools going forward. I also agree with Vassyana about the limiting the scope to Chabad-related issues and the behavior problems that have been noted. Shell ^babelfish 15:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - I see no agreement to collegial editing amongst this group, making this a suitable behavioural issue to warrant arbitration. More DR would be nice, but the reality is that the community isn't having much luck with this issues. Giving the community some tools to handle bloc disputes would be a good outcome of this case. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, am on the opinion that eventually the behavioural issues will still wind up here anyway if we were to pass through DR. - Mailer Diablo 03:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - though noting that this doesn't appear to be a case that will take too long to sort out, a bit of orderly presentation of evidence and findings may help resolve current and subsequent disputes in this area. Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, including, but not limited to, advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Passed 10 to 0, 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and undue weight[edit]

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

Passed 10 to 0, 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Decorum[edit]

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Passed 10 to 0, 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

4) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive. Specific forums, such as Articles for deletion for deletion discussions and the Reliable sources noticeboard for source-reliability discussions, have been created to seek and where possible attain consensus on specific types of content disagreements.

Passed 10 to 0, 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

5) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 10 to 0, 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) This case involves allegations of improper editing on articles relating to the Chabad movement of Judaism. The case was accepted for arbitration based on numerous allegations of misconduct by editors with differing views on editing issues surrounding these articles.

Passed 9 to 0, 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Content disputes[edit]

2) Upon review of the evidence, it appears that most of the parties' disputes concern disagreements over article content, rather than user misconduct. In many instances, available content-dispute resolution mechanisms, ranging from AfD to Requests for comment, have not been used.

Passed 10 to 0, 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User conduct[edit]

3) There have been instances of problematic user conduct by certain parties to this case, including uncivil remarks, unsupported assertions of bad faith, and instances of edit-warring. While we do not find sufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant an arbitration finding against any of the parties, all conduct of this nature should cease immediately.

Passed 10 to 0, 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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.

Editors reminded[edit]

1) With respect to topics related to the Chabad movement, all editors are reminded to edit these articles, and to collaborate with other editors, in full compliance with all applicable Wikipedia policies, including those mentioned in this decision.

Passed 10 to 0, 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors encouraged[edit]

2) Editors on Chabad articles are encouraged to use talkpage discussion and, if that fails, other available content-dispute resolution techniques, in connection with any remaining content disputes. This includes, among other things, disagreements concerning the weight to be given to Chabad views versus other Jewish points of view in Judaism articles, concerning whether articles about Chabad-related topics or persons should be deleted, and concerning inclusion of links.

Passed 10 to 0, 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Future proceedings[edit]

3) It is hoped that good-faith efforts as described above will be sufficient to address disputes on the Chabad-related articles. However, if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed. Editors are requested to allow at least 60 days from the date of this decision before filing any such request, to give renewed efforts at collaboration in light of this decision a reasonable chance to succeed.

Passed 10 to 0, 07:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

No enforcement proposals were passed.

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions[edit]

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.