Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by IZAK
My Summary is the essence of a more complex and far-reaching pattern by four highly-skilled and sophisticated Chabad editors. The Summary compresses my comprehensive combined evidence using almost all the diffs of the comprehensive evidence. The more detailed evidence pertaining to each of the four editors must be retained so that each one's problematic editing behavior is placed in context and dealt with individually and not just collectively. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary
The following is a summary along the lines requested by User:Fritzpoll supported by User:Dougweller :

Allegations being made

 * As requested by User:Fritzpoll :

Fritzpoll's questions:
 * "I see the general allegation as being that there is a bloc of pro-Chabad editors who are making POV edits, undoing other edits made to neutralise text, etc.
 * It is further alleged that these same editors act in some manner as both individuals and a group, preventing the formation of consensus-driven processes that would resolve the dispute (which is why we are at arbitration) through various means such as personalising disputes, etc

Question: Is this essentially correct? If not, I want to see a tighter description of what is alleged - two to three sentences maximum, no diffs are required. "

Response from IZAK:
 * 1) Fritzpoll you are 100% correct. Pro-Chabad editors are a strong force monitoring, editing and controlling Chabad-related articles, including of foes, along Chabad party-lines.
 * 2) They are sophisticated and deploy WP:LAWYERING, engage in WP:OWN and WP:NOTADVERTISING revealing a WP:COI ignoring WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND that often results in WP:WAR as well as WP:NPA.
 * 3) There are four such prominent editors now, there have been others in the past, and more lesser-known ones now who log on briefly, familiar with WP procedures (perhaps being WP:SOCKs), to support editing along the Chabad movement's POVs. In past discussions, I have formulated a principle: "Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org". Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence

 * As requested by User:Fritzpoll :

NPOV

 * As requested by User:Fritzpoll :

Fritzpoll requests: "Diffs that the parties believe show POV editing on the part of the alleged pro-Chabad editors. Categorise them so that your descriptions are brief and to the point."

Note: ALL editing by the 4 Chabad editors reflects and or defends the official Chabad POV. The problems start when the Chabad editors must interact with other editors who do not share their POVs IZAK (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC):

I. Chabad POV edits against people and entities Chabad opposes 
 * 1) By Yehoishophot Oliver:, , , , , , , , ,  , ,
 * 2) By Shlomke:, , , ; , , ; , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * 3) By Zsero:, , , , , , , , , ,
 * 4) By Debresser:, , , , , , , , ,.

'''II. Devaluing and revising the importance of historical rivals from Chabad's POV'''
 * 1) By Yehoishophot Oliver:, ,.
 * 2) By Shlomke:, , , , ,.

'''III. POV removing information about Chabad and its leaders that Chabad regards as "unflattering"'''
 * 1) By Yehoishophot Oliver:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * 2) By Shlomke:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ; , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * 3) By Zsero:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * 4) By Debresser:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.

'''IV. POV promotion of "official" heros of Chabad and editing to monopolize topics important to Chabad'''
 * 1) By Yehoishophot Oliver:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * 2) By Shlomke:, ,.
 * 3) By Zsero:, , , ,.
 * 4) By Debresser:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.

V. POV promotion of pro-Chabad links and sites as "NPOV" "reliable sources"
 * 1) By Yehoishophot Oliver: ,
 * 2) By Shlomke:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * 3) By Zsero:, , , ,.
 * 4) By Debresser:, , , , , , , ,.

Behaviour

 * As requested by User:Fritzpoll :

'Violations of AGF and NPA and CIVIL by pro-Chabad editors
 * 1) By Yehoishophot Oliver:
 * 2) By Zsero:, , , , , , , , , ,.
 * 3) By Debresser:, , , , , , , , , , , ,.

Introduction
Note to ArbCom: Because this case, as it stands, involves 1 party bringing evidence against 4 other parties, all of whom have extensive edit histories, it is necessary for evidence to be stated here against each one individually, since to combine it all would create confusion. The evidence below, copies the evidence cited in the original unresolved COI complaint, now at:
 * 1) User:Yehoishophot Oliver's pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs
 * 2) User:Shlomke’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs
 * 3) User:Zsero’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs
 * 4) User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: RE: identifyingchabad.org is not a "spam site". It cites key WP:RS, , and is not "anonymous" with ownership listed ,  published by Center for Torah Demographics listed on Amazon. IZAK (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above site is verified by works such as The Rebbe the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference (a book by Rabbi Dr. David Berger on the topic of Chabad messianism and the mainstream Orthodox Jewish reaction to that trend.) IZAK (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Yehoishophot Oliver's pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs
Regarding :


 * 1) By working in coordinated "relay fashion" but in synchronized near identical edits with the others cited and by reviewing his edit history User  is committed to insert as much pro-Chabad information into Chabad-related articles, and to remove as much critical information of it as possible without arousing too much suspicion:
 * 2) Attacking persons that are not officially favored by the movement, including Alan Dershowitz, Matisyahu (singer) , Shmuel Schneurson , and against the last Rebbe's nephew Barry Gurary , and other non-Chabad rabbis ,.
 * 3) Devaluing the place and importance of historical rivals and offshoots, such as the Malachim (Hasidic group)  renamed to "group", see Category:Hasidic dynasties.
 * 4) Casting aspersions on rival individuals and groups,  and organizations, such as Vaad Hatzalah  and Zionism   and disconnects Jewish from Israeli holidays he does not like , ,
 * 5) Removing compromising and unflattering information about favored leaders and insiders, such as Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, , ; Moshe Rubashkin , Shalom Dov Wolpo.
 * 6) Attempts at monopolizing ALL concepts and notions important to Chabad, blog, and even minor ones such as Mashpia  while pushing  Chabad.org.
 * 7) Defending to the hilt Chabad messianism, , ; diplomatically promoting the Rebbe as the Jewish messiah ("Moshiach") and removing or neutralizing as much criticism of it as possible ,.
 * 8) Working to transform, undercut, remove criticism in articles devoted to "controversy" such as Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies, , and Chabad messianism , , , , , ,.
 * 9) Working to keep out criticism and keep along approved pro-Chabad party lines key articles about Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, ; Chabad , , and control to the benefit of Chabad any articles the movement would deem important , , , , , , , ,.
 * 10) The above diffs prove a subtle, ongoing and determined focus of this pro-Chabad POV editor to ensure that the official policies of the Chabad movement are enforced, and opposing views are edited out, by the usually well-written and crafted responses and edits of this editor and his pro-Chabad POV editors allies cited in this complaint, in clear violation of WP:COI that undermines the modus operandi, especially of WP:CONSENSUS EVEN AMONG the non-Chabad Judaic editors, and independence of Wikipedia. When challenged, as one saw in the original COI complaint, they all reverted to all-out WP:WAR mode, violated WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA  and as is their practice they do not let go until they EITHER INTIMIDATE OR WEAR DOWN THEIR OPPONENTS AND GET THEIR WAY. This misuse of Wikipedia's open door and welcoming policies must stop. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC):

User:Shlomke’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs
Regarding :

Below is a selection of important diffs that reveal the pattern of the pro-Chabad POV editing by this user over three years. In the last couple of months User:Shlomke's edits have not been focused on Chabad-related topics entirely, but over the last three years he has edited lots of Chabad articles and displayed a consistent pattern overseeing Chabad articles as in WP:OWN, editing out what he does not like, that proves that he is editing as near as anyone could get for the Chabad movement, in particular defending its messianist wing, in clear violation of WP:COI. His tactics are careful and clear. He deploys all the rules of Wikipedia and defends it with WP:LAWYER. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC):


 * 1) Officially designated enemies of Chabad are harassed like Rabbi Elazar Shach, , , ; Barry Gurary , , ; Vilna Gaon (all deceased); David Berger (professor) , used "against" himself; Gil Student , Shaul Shimon Deutsch ,  (all alive); Misnagdim , ,  , , ,  will have the contents of their articles removed and tagged with harassing fact , , , ,  and not verified  templates, while all biographies of Chabad heroes will read and be protected as hagiography.
 * 2) Controversial topics like Chabad messianism, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ; Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies , Gutnick-Feldman feud, , , , Lew case, Sholom Ber Levitin case; Jewish schisms , , , are constantly watched and supported and criticism is neutralized.
 * 3) Controversial topics within Chabad itself will be modified and edited to protect them and spread their message, such as in Chabad, , , , ; Menachem Mendel Schneerson , , "is" messiah, , he is here "physically", a living messiah, ; Yechi ("long live the messiah") (now moved) , , , , , , , living with "moshiach", , , and many more ordinary pro-Chabad topics that are set up almost as advertising and preened in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING with as many as possible redundant pro-Chabad and pro-messianist links inserted.
 * 4) Movements and rabbis who Chabad and its messianists wishes to downplay and move away from succession, like Kapust, Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty), Shemaryahu Gurary , Yehuda Krinsky , , Shlomo Carlebach , and Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) will get their wings clipped with edits that cut them down to size and sanitize them, but those who are OFFICIALLY favored by the movement get puffed up and widened.
 * 5) Like this is a DIRECT thrust to interfere with Wikipedia's independence by two pro-Chabad POV editors. They are subtle but very focused and determined all the time. This is a clear pattern by User  to use his ever-growing Wikipedia skills to further his pro-Chabad messianist POV agenda in violation of WP:COI. User:Shlomke and his allies have placed a stranglehold on the ALL the Chabad-related topics they favor, and related topics important to them, , and in violation of WP:OWN they make it impossible for other editors to enter into their self-delineated “Chabad terrain” on Wikipedia. They have turned every single one of the articles relating to Chabad on Wikipedia into reverse WP:MIRROR sites of not just Chabad.org  with links to many Chabad sites  and other Chabad messianist sites, often concealed in quotes, , , , , , ,  and Chabad sites , , , , , , , , , ,.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Zsero’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs

 * NOTE: User:Zsero has not responded to a notification from the ArbCom about this case involving him.

Regarding :

This user has a more broad ranging editing history, but whenever User:Zsero's attention is drawn to any key Chabad-related article, he will edit according to pro-Chabad POV lines with tenacity to put spokes in the wheels of any other editors that try to insert material that does not make Chabad look great. He will spend many edits and time on talk pages defending his removal of material he does not like and attack those who he deems to be less informed than him. He is notable for:


 * 1) Downsizing those whom Chabad does not like, such as Rabbi Elazar Shach , , (deceased), and Rabbis Shmuley Boteach , , , ; David Berger (professor) , ,  (living), and praising the official rabbis of Chabad as in a hagiography in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE.
 * 2) He will push off and try to create distance from Chabad by claiming that certain Chabad-connected jailed personalities have "no connection" to the movement, such as Moshe Rubashkin and Sholom Rubashkin  of Agriprocessors,.
 * 3) Find ways to steer around controversy in articles about controversy such as Chabad messianism, , , , , , , ; Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies plaque controversy, , menorah disputes, , control of 770, , Gutnick-Feldman feud cut, and the core topics of Chabad , eviction case, and of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson , , , , , , ,.
 * 4) He is a strict adherent of the pro-Chabad POV party line, defends Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky's position, , , but also support messianism  and edits and acts accordingly violating WP:COI, to the extent of WP:NPA and violating WP:WAR (see his blocks) and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, as he singlemindedly pushes one approach and deprecates and negates all others.
 * 5) This user makes skilled use of WP:LAWYERing, and he does tend to get impatient , , ,  with other editors who don't see it his way. Six admins  have blocked him at various times for his violations.
 * 6) His diffs relating to Chabad topics show his strict adherence to the pro-Chabad POV party line, almost in line with Chabad.org, , , , and add links to Chabad sites including messianist ones and his absolute determination to enforce that outlook on Wikipedia at all costs in violation of WP:COI, as his edit history of Chabad-related topics reveals.
 * 7) Violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, ,.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs
Regarding :


 * 1) This user has a broad ranging edit history, but whenever he focuses on topics relating to Chabad, User:Debresser becomes a pro-Chabad POV editor. Note, he openly admits "I definitely have a POV towards Chabad, since I am a Chabad rabbi" and "I have been an adherent of Chabad only for the last 19 years, and a rabbi for only 9 of them":
 * 2) He edits out criticisms of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, , , cuts link to grave, , one and only "The Rebbe", , , , ; Chabad messianism , , , , , , , , , ,  and therefore of the entire Chabad movement.
 * 3) He will subtly deprecate the traditional Chabad "enemies" like the Vilna Gaon ; Rabbi Elazar Shach, Misnagdim , , , ; Yated Ne'eman (Israel) in joke, and supposed rivals like Rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv . Or from other scholars like Gershom Sholem.
 * 4) He will find time to praise and defend controversial Chabad rabbis like Rabbis Shmuel Butman, Yitzchak Ginsburgh , , , ; and Berel Lazar while subtly putting down those less messianic like Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky ,.
 * 5) Inserts pro-Chabad website links, , , , Chabad needs 9 links, , , ,.
 * 6) He will try to wear down with WP:LAWYERing editors, , , , , who oppose his pro-Chabad POV edits. He will turn around the views of a known critic like David Berger (professor) , , , , , , . Conflicted editing over whether Chabad has a connection to Belarus ("White Russia") or not , ,
 * 7) When confronted by this citation of violating WP:AGF, ;
 * 8) He is in clear violation of WP:COI and WP:OWN,.
 * 9) He resorted to violations of WP:NPA by repeatedly calling into question the "sanity" of the nominator: "mentally ill",, , inserts "FBI", , "Food for psychiatrists", , "insane ranting", ,.
 * 10) Violates WP:NOTADVERTISING, , Chabad "policy" related, , , , , , , , , ,.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My proven verifiable positive attitude to Hasidic Judaism and to all Hasidic Rebbes and Jews

 * I have done more than most to improve articles relating to ALL areas within Category:Hasidic Judaism across the board.
 * I had worked hard to create the first articles about Chabad and its Rebbes. I began as a Wikipedia editor seven years ago beginning important articles concerning Chabad and its seven rebbes, all my edits were friendly: ,; ; ; ; ;.
 * Therefore I greatly admire the Chabad movement, that being said, the tone changed with the arrival of aggressive, albeit diplomatic, pro-Chabad POV defenses of inactive Users User:PinchasC (who edited first under the names then as  -- why??) and inactive Users  and, followed by the present 4 most active pro-Chabad POV editors assisted by other anonymous or short-term users espsousing the same Chabad movement POV.
 * Wikipedia should not be allowed to become a reverse WP:MIRROR site for Chabad.org and of hundreds of pro-Chabad websites to protect WP:NPOV.
 * I have worked hard to improve all Hasidic-related content on Wikipedia over the past seven years, such as Hasidic categories I created: ; ;, ; with many others like this and hundreds, if not thousands, of edits by me that show I am a great friend and admirer of all Hasidim and Hasidism.
 * I have worked hard and mighty to salvage and improve hundreds of stubs relating to Hasidic Judaism and biographies of many Hasidic Rebbes. IZAK (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors who have had to deal with pro-Chabad POV pushing

 * The following are editors whose attempted to edit Chabad-related articles objectively and fairly, citing excellent and reliable sources, who faced constant harassment and attacks of their edits simply because pro-Chabad editors did not like it. IZAK (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC):

Inactive:

Including:


 * User (has returned to comment).
 * User
 * User
 * User
 * User:Abe.Froman initiated an earlier official case in 2007 involving problems with Chabad editors, see Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad

Active:


 * User

IZAK refutes Yehoishophot Oliver
''Note: I do not agree with any of Yehoishophot Oliver's allegations and comments. Space does not allow a fuller response. This is not a comprehensive reply to each point but it tries to deal with as many of the most important "complaints" alleged by Yehoishophot Oliver below. Kindly request clarification if you wish on any point mentioned or not mentioned here. Thank you.'' IZAK (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Everyone may have a religious affiliation, it's not the question. Wikilawyering must not be violated. Wikipedia expects editors NOT to deploy its own rules against itself in defense of POV positions or undercut views one does not like. Yehoishophot Oliver's admission: "It is technically true that I have removed critical information" is serious because he leaves it up to his subjective POV view to decide what he regards as OR or not.
 * 2) Yehoishophot Oliver persists with his attacks against Alan Dershowitz: "Dershowitz is not an expert on religion" as if Wikipedia relies on such experts "only" which it does not. Matisyahu was a prominent Chabad disciple and fell out favor. He cannot be treated on Wikipedia as if he was in an official Chabad court martial. In the context of closed-knit Hasidism, especially in its formative years, it is laughable to allege that "black sheep" Shmuel Schneurson "may have had Chabad ancestry, but lineage does not prove belonging to a group" especially for a group like Chabad with an official ideology of reaching out to all Jews and making them feel part of their movement, let alone a family member related to the Chabad dynasty cannot be cast aside. With regards to Barry Gurary Yehoishophot Oliver admits that he "added relevant biographical information that was indeed not complimentary" a POV task. Only when it comes to non-Chabad rabbis like Abraham Isaac Kook does Yehoishophot Oliver know how to say that he "polished the article to make it sound less hagiographic", in this case "polishing" denoting downsizing, something that Yehoishophot Oliver does not know how to do to Chabad's heros.
 * 3) There has been general consenus among almost all Wikipedia Judaic editors to refer to all Hasidic groups, not as "sects" or "groups" which can be demeaning but as "dynasties" that is the way it's been as one can see in Category:Hasidic dynasties because Hasidim rule themselves in a literal monarchical system, and sometimes some kings have small domains while others rules over empires. It is not nice when subjects of the bigger emperors devalue the lesser smaller kings and call them "groups" abrogating the title of "dynasty" for themselves.
 * 4) Yehoishophot Oliver admits that "As for Vaad Hatzala, I indeed 'cast aspersions', but it was necessary to provide balance in a lopsided controversy section" when there are NPOV ways of doing such things.
 * 5) This attitude of deciding what is "POV" or "OR" and acting on it summarily in Judaic articles is dangerous. It can lead to eviscerating good articles that are built from the ground up. I am big bleiver in the guidleines of NOT violatinng INSPECTOR because it takes time to build good articles and lots of goodwil is required. Often valid information is added that is verified with time, but care must be used so that it not be lost in the interim by trigger-happy editors eager to remove POV's they feel go against the Chabad movement embodying JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
 * 6) Defending Chabad.org is a loaded question as can be seen from the workshop page.
 * 7) The links are indeed soft-selling Chabad messianism.
 * 8) When Yehoishophot Oliver and the others don't like certain information, they have learned to use words like "unsupported, blatant, slanderous OR," "removed outrageous, slanderous, unsourced OR," "Reverted outrageous, unsupported claim," that convey a sense of self-righteousness more appropriate to a sermon than to an objective discussion. Criticising rabbis, especially one's own, is alien terrain, so it must mean in their eyes when such criticsim is produced that it is just, well, "outrageous, slanderous, unsourced" etc.
 * 9) Makes fun of diffs applying to more than one violation, rather than answering the complaints in context. His citation of policy violations is random and unrelated to me. He fails to see his own failings. There is NO criticism of his personal faith, but of his editing track record.
 * 10) I (IZAK) do NOT "consistently defends POV, OR, and blatantly slanderous edits" but I DO know that an encylopedia cannot be built with one side claiming it has the "ultimate divinely-sanctioned seal of approval" on a topic, rather sometimes all options and views must be explored, when presented by credible editors, so that articles are truly informative and objective and not just PR pieces coming out of some organization's advertizing office.
 * 11) The ONE site that I cited a handful of times, does not espouse a Chabad view is NOT a "spam cite" it has the views verbatim of many reliable published sources and rabbis opposed to Chabad on this subject. identifyingchabad.org not a "spam site". Cites sources, not "anonymous", ownership listed,  published by Center for Torah Demographics listed on Amazon. Contrast that with the hundreds of links to blatant Chabad shallow propaganda inserted by pro-Chabad editors over the years.
 * 12) This case is an ArbCom case and all evidence must be stated on it, even if it was stated previously anywhere. That should not be a "complaint." IZAK (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

IZAK refutes Shlomke
''Note: I do not agree with any of Shlomke's allegations and comments. Space does not allow a fuller response. This is not a comprehensive reply to each point but it tries to deal with a few "complaints" alleged by Shlomke below. Kindly request clarification if you wish on any point mentioned or not mentioned here. Thank you.'' IZAK (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It is not "disruptive editing" to post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism devoted to this subject. The admin there was part of an ongoing discussion, he has still not posted any evidence here to date. The past case I was involved in goes back 5 years ago, and began much earlier when I was abviously not as familiar with Wikipedia, and related to now DEFUNCT editors who were subsequently identified as troublesome ,.
 * 2) Shlomke confuses the truth about Chabad editors' obvious problems with WP:COI and uses the word "conspiracy" as if it will wash away some harder truths being pointed out.
 * 3) The point about WP:MIRROR that I had made was that with the abundnace of links to Chabad and Shlomke has done that too, it is Wikipedia's articles about Chabad-related topics that stands in danger of becoming a de facto mirror site of Chabad.org. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

IZAK refutes Zsero

 * NOTE: User:Zsero has not responded to a notification from the ArbCom about this case involving him.

IZAK refutes Debresser
''Note: I do not agree with any of Debresser's allegations and comments. Space does not allow a fuller response. This is not a comprehensive reply to each point but it tries to deal with a couple of the most important "complaints" alleged by Debresser below. Kindly request clarification if you wish on any point mentioned or not mentioned here. Thank you.'' IZAK (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Debresser covers no new ground in his own responses. He merely repeats himself. The "evidence" he cites is insufficient and beats around the bush. Altho he has no problem self-identifying an official Chabad rabbi and.
 * 2) It needs to be emphasized for the record that in the discussions and COI debates leading up to this arbitration case, of all the Chabad editors it was Debresser who enaged in the most abominable and outrageous violations of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, , , , , , , , , being unable to to control himself in order to engage in rational dispassionate and scholarly discussions befitting such serious topics surrounding Chabad-related articles. IZAK (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad has a theological obligation to promote it's ideology
Part of the theology advanced by the late Rabbi Shneerson is that Jews have a positive obligation to spread their knowledge/perspective of God, Torah, and ritual observance. This applies to Jews assisting other Jews in becoming aware of Jewish knowledge and ritual obligations and this applies to Jews educating non-Jews about the Jewish perspective of God and the world and encouraging non-Jewish observance of the Noahide laws.

This is an openly stated tenet of modern Chabad theology. Schneerson placed a tremendous emphasis on outreach. He made great efforts to intensify this program of the Chabad movement, bringing Jews from all walks of life to adopt Orthodox Judaism, and aggressively sought the expansion of the baal teshuva movement. Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson An example of a 3rd party record of this: ...[Chabad-Lubavitch] was relatively small and little known when Schneerson became rebbe in 1951. During his 43-year tenure he pioneered a system of shluchim, or emissaries, charged with going out into the world to open Chabad centers, spreading knowledge of the Torah and Judaism. National Geographic feature 2006

This is not evidence against a specific editor. I cite the above as something for the committee to be aware of when questioning Chabad COI or POV-pushing. It is not a matter of a specific editor but rather: If an editor believes that he or she has a religious obligation to promote a particular POV, that is a conflict of interest with the tenet of NPOV. Joe407 (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {Debresser}
As I have said in my opening statement, 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. What User:IZAK has been trying to show in 86 diffs is that this POV has lead me to POV edits on Wikipedia. I will try to show this is untrue. In order to do so, I will have to answer to the accusations inherent in those diffs, and I will try to show a few other diffs that show clearly that I am not editing in accordance with my POV, but in accordance with the standards of NPOV editing.

In addition I shall try to explain a little about the Chabad movement and its goals in as far as this is relevant to refute the slanderous accusations made up by User:IZAK in this regard.

I shall also try to show that User:IZAK himself is editing in accordance with his POV, and shall pose that his POV is one of the driving motives behind his recent "protests" against Chabad adherents on Wikipedia.

Doing all of this will take me a few days, and the allotted 1000 words will hardly suffice. I apologise for this, and I welcome any suggestions how to shorten my reply without loosing essential information. Debresser (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been very busy this week, with a twofold increase in my studies amd various family issues. As you can see on User:Debresser/Draft, I am working on it. I hope just a few more days will be enough. Debresser (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I started working on this. I was shocked to see how IZAK has been twisting and misinterpreting my edits and edit summaries. They actually prove how good an editor I am. Debresser (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I will now copy here what I worked on in my user space. I must add that this is preliminary, and I might add to this later, but will try not to change the present text, to avoid confusion. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

About Chabad generally
Chabad, which has greatly developed in the post-war era under the leadership of the last Lubavitcher rebbe, is a religious movement within Hasidic Judaism, not an organisation. Many individuals and organisations have or claim to have various jurisdictions in relation with "Chabad". In actuality, many of these are contested, and even where uncontested, they still leave a lot of space for independent action by organisations and individuals the world over.

In view of the above, and in accordance with my personal knowledge about this religious movement, it is obvious that there is no "Chabad presence" on Wikipedia. It is however equally obvious that individual Chabad adherents are likely to have watchlisted more or less the same articles, and are aware of more or less the same facts, which might give a false impression as though they are acting as a coordinated group. In reality, please be assured that I am not personally familiar with any of the other accused editors, nor have I made any arrangements with them whatsoever. Doing so would be contrary to my principles, which expect me to abide by the rules of Wikipedia when editing on Wikipedia.

About Chabad websites specifically
Chabad is well know in all Jewish circles and active in public life the world over with outreach campaigns. Chabad is more open to using carriers of mass information than other orthodox Jewish movements. There is a wealth of Chabad affiliated and/or related websites available in many languages. 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 one of the foremost reasons so many Chabad-related websites can be found in external links. A point that was significantly conceded by Yoninah. Obviously, if there are isolated cases of overlinking to any site, that should be taken care of. In any case, if one specific editor were indeed found to have been engaged in excessive linking of a certain website, that is still no reason to sanction other editors.

In reply to diffs from IZAK
I knew I was not a "bad" editor, but still I was surprised when I started working on refuting these links. IZAK has actually done me the favor of collecting links that prove I am a good Wikipedia editor, and that he is incorrigeably POVed against me.

(diffs as gathered by IZAK copied from here)


 * works to add more redundant Chabad links
 * I thought these links were relevant. I was a rather new editor at the time. The links were removed by Shlomke, referring to a talk page section which I think is very relevant to the accusation. Talk:Chabad If I have made only 1 edit to add a Chabad affiliated external link in my over 50,000 edits, then that proves that I am not campaigning for Chabad.


 * makes petty insertion of what Lubavitchers think
 * I added a relevant fact. It is not what anybody thinks, it is a fact. And why is this insertion called "petty"?


 * polishes link to click to Chabad news
 * Since the title of the links was "Chabad News", it should not link to the general Chabad site, but to its news section only. This edit actually made the link less general, and thus less fit for propaganda purposes. Which proves that this has never been my aim.


 * insists on redundant links, with focus on Chabad “news”, fights for it again, calls it “censorship” when his link is removed, and complains that Chabad deserves 9 links no less from its own sites, he wanst “official” and “unofficial” sites, an internal spat for more not less links, justifies redundancy, says that FOUR Chabad news sites are needed because “each lightening its own corner of Chabad and with its own points of view”, he and User:Shlomke come to an agreement over links, after Shlomke gives lengthy explanations. They sure WP:OWN this article
 * I followed Wikipedia guidelines, to discuss disagreements on talk pages. I started the discussion by laying out my point of view.


 * “welcomes” an anonymous user only for the reason to attack him/her for “censoring Chabad
 * I (almost) always welcome new users when I see they started off problematicaly on Wikipedia. Only after that do I mention the problem. I do so, because I think that may help the new editor feel he is not under attack. I must have done that at least a hundred times in the course of my daily wikignoming. I think this is one of my best behaviors on Wikipedia.


 * makes sure than common Hebrew term for Lubavitchers is redirected and thereby deprecated
 * Huh? I created a helpfull redirect. IZAK says himself this is a "common Hebrew term for Lubavitchers". So what is the problem here?


 * advertises his services for “Chabadniks” even as he redirected the term and here for building up the in-group
 * I am actually very proud of making a userbox with its own user category. I liked learning wiki markup, and user categories are welcomed, whenever they are likely to help improve the project.


 * bringing everything into line with “various small changes, either factual, stylistic or Chabad POLICY related”
 * My edit summary said "various small changes, either factual, stylistic or policy related". What I was referring to was the removal of the word "famous", which is in accordance with WP:PEACOCK policy. It was WIKIPEDIA policy. This shows to the contrary, how I place Wikipedia policy above my Chabad POV.


 * talks like he’s in an “in-discussion” about the fate of content
 * I see all editors as my colleagues, and especially on talk pages of things that are close to my heart.


 * creates article about obscure Chabad rabbi, saves speedy delete of obscure Chabad rabbi
 * I copy&pasted it here from where I found it. (I don't remember where that was, nor do I remember why I didn't move it. Perhaps I didn't yet know how to move pages.) And this rabbi is not obscure. He is a chief rabbi. Such was precisely the conclusion of the editor who removed the speedy tag. See User_talk:WilliamH.


 * works to improve pic of Chabad rabbi uploaded by the rabbi’s 12 year old son and * sees the problem, helps the kid instead of calling up his father to protect him since Wikipedia is not a game, and more help for the 12 year old, is this sane? and more help for a 12 year old * here, always ready to help with Chabad links
 * I think helping a kid is universally appreciated. It is called "be kind to kids".


 * inserts divisive Chabad-preferred terminology into article about paper not in Chabad camp –it was founded by the perennial Chabad bugaboo Rabbi Elazar Shach and
 * I clarified an awkwardly formatted situation with unneeded brackets. Feel free to use any better term.


 * plays games by pawing at the articles name (must be a Chabad “in-joke”, he’s ignored, rubs in the shame
 * I admit this was a joke, but a personal one. Hey, I often make jokes on WP:CFD as well. See FUN.


 * edits controversial topic, cuts the Vilna Gaon down to size, Chabad hates the Vilna Gaon because he excommunicated them
 * That was a good edit of mine, actually. I described a controversial topic in an informative and neutral way.

Do I need to go on? (If an ArbCom member would urge me to go on, I would have no problem to finish the list.)


 * cuts out TODAY’S leading non-Chabad rabbi as if he were a nobody
 * minor, but inserts his own POV since this is done in many non-Chabad synagogues
 * worries when a Chabad image is axed and
 * worries here as well and here
 * keeps hammering away Belarus, he should read the White Russia=Bela-Rus article, maybe it’s because Chabad is strong in present Russia and not in Belarus
 * while he admits that it can be in Belarus as well as here
 * he doesn’t like the Krinskys? Is he in the faction that opposes Krinsky’s leadership? while
 * here he has no problem with messianist leader Butman’s kids and family in the article
 * crowns Chabad rabbis as chief rabbi over a rival
 * axes and sanitizes well known negative scholarly view of Chasidism’s rise
 * burnishes rabbi who justified the Goldstein killings
 * supports axing negative analysis of Rebbe
 * burnishes the messianists and sounds like an apologist
 * removes key outside link to Rebbe’s grave, may be because he thinks he’s still “alive”
 * fighting to fudge messianism and
 * fudge and
 * fudge
 * axes cited origins of messianism
 * quietly, under cover, cuts out cited quote from Rabbi Elazar Shach, the bugaboo man of Chabad
 * he doesn’t like the NON-messianist label, cuts out cited quote for rise of messianism
 * feels he OWNS the subject of messianism
 * tries to finesse messianists
 * insists that there is only ONE Rebbe in blatant act of WP:OWN
 * standing David Berger on his head to announce why the Rebbe is the messiah, the hint/wink to fellow pro-Chabad editor is “cool head” and
 * again, they love that Berger says there is no text to refute messianism
 * friendly spat, soon resolved, wink-wink, “keep it cool” and
 * teaches survival skills on Wikipedia and
 * kiss and make up
 * sometimes your friends don’t think as deep as you do
 * fights for quote that actually says there is “no text” against messianism
 * admits to the trick of using Berger’s quote
 * defends the views of a highly controversial Chabad rabbi and
 * fights for it while
 * criticism of a Chabad rabbi is “racist” and
 * calls it “defamation” to criticize a controversial Chabad rabbi
 * claims that an editor is suffering from COI if he questions the use of blog as source and
 * doesn’t like being challenged about sources and
 * demands that he knows best and
 * fights and
 * still thinks he can quote himself as a source and
 * more arguments over one thing
 * now we know why he’s fighting so hard here, because there WAS a second will! and
 * yet questions the “behavior” of opposing editor for disagreeing with him
 * au contraire, “falsification” of the will is what he has been fighting about to SUPRESS. THEN to add insult to injury lacking any defense of his position he first tried this:
 * here, and he was rejected, without informing the party he wished to address, which he already attacked, and continues
 * calls nominator "mentally ill"
 * sees his error (no apology, though)
 * returns to "mentally instable" (sic)
 * introduces lies about the "FBI"
 * is warned, but again cites "mental problems"
 * adds need for "psychiatrists" to insults
 * imagines he's against "crusaders and fanatics"
 * calls this post "insane ranting"
 * calling this COI discussion "ranting" & "fanatically obsessed"
 * calls those who disagree with him as having a "distorted perception of reality"
 * denies that Chabad has interests in cyberspace.

My anti-POV edits
Diffs that clearly show that I am willing to edit against my personal POV whenever I think that is the right thing to do:


 * Reverted removal of information about controversy surrounding a prominent Chabad rabbi.
 * Agree that Wikipedia must not overly stress the Orthodox Jewish point of view over other points of view in Judaism.
 * Restored header that stresses contoversy surrounding Chabad rabbi. Note that this is one of the articles that I have been accused of defending.
 * Undid my own edit to a sensitive article when I was shown wrong in the talk page discussion.
 * I right away agree with merging a not so notable article. That was at the same time I was strongly opposed to a related Afd.
 * I have recognised that I was overreacting to IZAK with a personal attack on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot_Oliver. I have taken to heart the advise I sought and received on Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive588, and have only addressed IZAK's editing ever since.

Problematic edits of User:IZAK
These are only the cases I personally have had interaction with IZAK. More are mentioned by Shlomke on COI/N, but I have not examined them for accuracy and relevancy.


 * Makes slanderous accusation about a worldwide religious movement: "There are probably even discussions and guidleelines from the top echelons of Chabad about how to deal, co-opt and negate the power of Wikipedia as a rival to Chabad's desire to take ovet the Jewish segments of the Internet".
 * More baseless and offendingly worded accusations: "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".
 * Goes against consensus he was aware of, and overly stresses a non-Chabad institution. (The diff presented here is my undo of his edits.)
 * Lets his opinion about the subject of an article influence his opinion about that article.
 * Antagonises all editors at WikiProject Judaism by posting what should have been a simple notification in POV terms.
 * Welcomes editors who agree with him, but advises uninvolved admins who disagree with them to remove themselves from discussion. ,
 * Engages in long and off-topic diatribes to defend his point of view which is not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Accuses me of supporting an recent edit war at Elazar Shach, while my only edit to that article was on 14 August 2009.

Reply to incident
In reply to the posts of Galassi and Fut.Perf.:

Please notice that I posted on Galassi's talk page proposing to bring our issue in front of an uninvolved third party. Galassi has not replied to that. Instead he insisted on continuing this edit war.

That is even without noting that adding a verify credibility tag had been discussed in a section on the talk page Talk:Cantonist, and that an uninvolved third party has agreed it should stay. 

Also I would very much like to hear an admin's opinion about the following edit summary by Galassi "a haredi source is not scholarly, and cannot be reliable". I mean I really would like somebody to address that!

As to the issue itself: if a source makes statements without bringing any evidence, there is no reason not to tag it with the Verify credibility tag, even if he is a professor.

Rabbi
I have no idea what IZAK means when he calls me an "official Chabad rabbi". I am a rabbi by virtue of my studies in institutions of higher talmudic learning and receiving rabbinical ordination from several rabbis recognised by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. An adherent of Chabad I am by conviction/belief. I can only guess IZAK is trying to somehow discredit me in relation with Wikipedia POV policies by calling me an "official Chabad rabbi".

There are apparent WP:COATRACKs in support of the Lubavitcher mission
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.


 * The current version of  includes three links to editorials at chabad.org, this is a common scenario. The article is, apart from these links, woefully under-sourced and fails to establish the notability of the subject; it has been tagged as such since November 2008.
 * The current version of  contains a section, B'nei Noah in popular media, whose contents is actually a description of the Lubavitcher position on noahidism. All the examples of "popular media" refer to the Chabad Lubavitch movement.

Excessive linking
The level of linking to chabad.org appears to be excessive for the size of the group. There are 1,022 links to chabad.org as of this time. Many of these are not directly relevant to a distinct and notable Lubavitcher view on a specific subject.

Guy (Help!) 17:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unpleasant dealings with pro-Chabad editors
My first interaction with the 4 Chabad editors named above occurred during the initial AFD request on Articles for deletion/Public menorah. To explain my vote for "merge or redirect," I mentioned my belief that public menorahs are more a public-relations tool than a fulfillment of the actual mitzvah of lighting the Chanukah menorah. I was immediately zinged by Yehoishophot Oliver with a statement accusing me of "POV pushing". In my five years on Wikipedia, I have never been attacked so rudely in my first and only interaction with another editor. I then decided to look up some other Chabad spinoff articles which Oliver had started and realized that they were all one-source forks of the main Chabad mitzvah campaigns article, but I was too intimidated to file AFDs for them. (Fortunately, Yossiea agreed to do the job for me.) As I've followed the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver discussion, I've noticed that Debresser and, especially, Zsero, can be even more vicious in their attacks on people questioning their motives, violating all rules of AGF and NPA. Just for the way they have responded with personal attacks rather than sane dialogue, I think these editors should be censored.

Questionable notability of many Chabad articles
I would also like to alert the arbcom board to the fact that many Chabad-related articles are really orphans in disguise, which may be contributing to the overrepresentation of Chabad articles versus articles about other Hasidic groups on Wikipedia. All the pages listed on Template:Chabad sidebar, from the History section on down, have as their first 50 "What links here" all the other links on the template; the next 50 or more links are all Chabad sites or sites which have the Chabad template on them. (One particularly telling example of the latter is Kapust, which includes on its "What links here" page an impressive list of other Hasidic dynasties &mdash; since all these dynasties have the Template:Hasidic Dynasties on them which includes the Chabad-based Kapust dynasty!). For more examples, see "What links here" on Agudas Chasidei Chabad, Chabad library, Chaim Mordechai Aizik Hodakov, Colel Chabad, Gan Israel Camping Network, Hadar Hatorah, Hillel Paritcher, Itche Der Masmid, Jewish Children's Museum, Jewish Learning Institute, Jewish Released Time, Jewish Relief Agency, Kehot Publication Society, Kol Menachem, Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Nissan Neminov, Oholei Torah, Ohr Avner Foundation, Ohel (Chabad), Shneur Zalman Fradkin, Tzivos Hashem, Yehuda Krinsky, and 770 Eastern Parkway. Many of these pages have been sitting for years as is; I think it's time to ask the editors to provide more sources than the organizational website, and to add more links to other, non-Chabad pages to prove notability. Yoninah (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Response to Yehoishophot Oliver: As I said here (21st paragraph; sorry, I can't find the diff in the history), I think you responded quite civilly in the initial COI discussion. I'm sure your response on the AfD merely reflected the tension you were under from this whole process. However, I was pretty surprised that you attacked my comment by calling it "POV". If I said something that was wrong, I would have expected you to correct it without slapping a name on it. It was certainly not POV; just my mistake about what the public menorahs are all about. Yoninah (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of civility is a serious problem in this dispute
Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia. Accusations of Conspiracy on the one hand and mental illness on the other are not productive. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Yehoishophot Oliver
 * User:Debresser
 * User:IZAK

Minor addendum
It was pointed out that my ambigious wording might have implied User Y.O. had suggested another user was mentally ill, and I don't think he has. I meant to make note of accusations by one side and the other but should have been more specific. Thank you. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to IZAK's diffs

 * 1) I am committed to editing articles on Wikipedia about which I have knowledge. It is technically true that I have removed critical information, but I did so because it was OR or the like, and IZAK's speculative opinion of my intentions is a gross violation of WP:AGF. In a similar vein, IZAK has consistently promoted the position of Orthodox Judaism in various arguments on talk pages; should he then be barred for apparently having a religious affiliation and POV?
 * 2) IZAK consistently distorts my edits to make them seem highly objectionable, but in fact he is picking at straws. In none of those edits did I "attack" anyone; I merely corrected incorrect information based on my knowledge. (If I missed an edit, please let me know.) a. Dershowitz is not an expert on religion, and never claimed to be one, so his religious theories are not of note; so I removed them from the relevant page (to which no one protested). No personal attack there. b. Matisyahu declared that he no longer identified as a Chabad Hasid, so I removed him from that cat. Again, it is absurd to paint this as an "attack". (The claim of lack of "official favour" concerning Dershowitz is odd, as he was a keynote speaker at a shluchim conference, which is "official" as you get; likewise, what is the basis for the claim that Matisyahu is not "officially favoured" by the movement? Does IZAK have an official site or other source to support that claim?) c. There was no proof that Shmuel Schneerson ever identified as a Chabad Hasid; in fact, the article implied that he clearly didn't, although he may have had Chabad ancestry, but lineage does not prove belonging to a group, so I simply removed him from that cat. How this qualifies as an "attack" is beyond me. d. Concerning Gurary I added relevant biographical information that was indeed not complimentary, but was completely relevant in terms of contrasting his mother's response to his father's. e. In the list of rabbis I merely removed names that didn't qualify, and I stated my reasons; seeing some sort of anti-Chabad bias in this is ridiculous. f. Concerning Rabbi Kook, I merely polished the article to make it sound less hagiographic (which is apparently only problematic in IZAK's book if it's in a Chabad article, but when someone attempts to correct such language in a non-Chabad article, he is "attacking"--and yet IZAK would have us believe that he has no anti-Chabad bias).
 * 3) a. I removed a brief, altogether minor episode that was clearly not notable in any way in terms of rivalry. If something more would have come of it, then it would have been notable, but nothing did. b. Likewise, the definition of a dynasty is a chain of leadership. If there is only one leader, then the term "dynasty" is incorrect. To call this "devaluing" is absurd.
 * 4) a. IZAK mentioned this link already. I don't see where I cast any "aspersions"; I simply pointed out reasons why some rabbis didn't qualify for the list. And in what way are these individuals "rivals"? b. As for listing other groups as antiZionist, in what way is this "casting aspersions", when these groups openly identify as such? Especially since I include Chabad in the list that I put back! If, as IZAK claims, I have some sort of hidden agenda to make other groups look bad compared to Chabad, why would I have done that? c. As for the Chardal article, I added a sourced relevant section, which no one disagreed with; how exactly is that "casting aspersions"? d. As for Vaad Hatzala, I indeed "cast aspersions", but it was necessary to provide balance in a lopsided controversy section. e. I removed POV (in 1st link) and OR (in 2nd link) about Zionism. This too qualifies as "casting aspersions"? f. How does IZAK know that I don't like these Israeli holidays? I simply believe that it is incorrect to lump secular holidays with religious ones; although many people refer to them as Jewish, in reality they are vastly different. But I guess IZAK has a different POV.
 * 5)  a. Removed OR. b. Corrected POV wording. c. Removed unsourced, blatantly incorrect claim. d. Removed OR and parent category, copyedit. e. Removed detail unnecessary in intro.; removed OR. f. What info. did I remove about Wolpo? I simply copyedited the article.
 * 6) "Monopolising"? That's a very strong, emotionally charged word. I was just correcting information that I know to be incorrect, or putting in relevant information. And if there were many edits, so what? I edited on a subject that I knew. I have edited more than others, perhaps because they know less, or have less interest. No proof has been adduced of "monoplising". And how is simply correcting an existing reference to Chabad.org "defending" that site?
 * 7) a. Removed blatant OR. b. Ditto. c. Ditto. (Is there no end to the outrageous extent that IZAK seeks to maintain OR that appears to conform to his POV?) d. A simple copyedit; please explain why this is some sort of POV. e. Again, I removed blatant OR, and one that has nothing to do with messianism as such. In not one of these links did I "promote the Rebbe as the Jewish messiah".
 * 8) a. Removed quote from unreliable source. b. Removed unsourced, irrelevant issue. c. Removed blatant OR. d. removed unsupported, blatant, slanderous OR in general and of a living person e. Ditto, which lobojo accepted. f. removed outrageous, slanderous, unsourced OR g. Reverted outrageous, unsupported claim. h. Corrected blatant distortion in quote from a biography of living person. i. remove OR and parent category, copyedit. j. Removed irrelevant paragraph, as explained on talk page; corrected inappropriate POV expression "mantra".
 * 9) a. Explained role of Rabbi YY Schneersohn and his successor; does IZAK deny these facts? b. IZAK again repeats a diff--see my response in 8d above. Replaced relevant primary source. d. Removed blatant POV and OR. e. This again? As I said earlier, I removed OR. f. What this simple copyedit has to do with Chabad is beyond me. Where is it mentioned?  IZAK's ability to see what he thinks is a POV agenda is astonishing. g. Ditto. h. Sigh. Again a diff IZAK already referred to--see a. above. i. Nothing to do with Chabad. j. Explained traditional emphasis of Chabad according to my knowledge--does IZAK disagree? k. Ditto. l. Another repeated link, to which I already responded in 4b above. m. Replaced sourced information. n. IZAK linked to this diff already, remember? Anyway, this has nothing to do with Chabad.
 * 10) On what basis does IZAK continue to claim that I have a COI? Based on IZAK’s personal interpretation of my religious affiliation? I have not made one statement of my personal affiliation on Wikipedia (as far as I can recall). And even if I had, Wikipedia does not discriminate on the basis of religion, as an admin has pointed out to IZAK on the COI page. IZAK seems to believe that I am editing based on my POV. But I am editing based on the rules of Wikipedia. Whether I have a POV or what it is, is irrelevant; I have been following the rules, as I have explained in my response above to the diffs that IZAK lists. When an issue has been discussed on the talk page, I have followed WP:CONSENSUS; let Izak point out a case in which I haven't, and I will be happy to apologise. Why does IZAK refer to "non-Chabad editors"? Other than Debresser, no one here has declared himself or herself of that religious view. IZAK, please cite proof from diffs that I have violated WP:WAR, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA and the like, as IZAK claims. IZAK neglected to mention those diffs. As for the COI, what I did was point out the ridiculous nature of IZAK's conspiracy accusations, and I also pointed out his constant violation of NPA and AGF. If anything, it is IZAK who has violated WP:WAR, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA incessantly.
 * We see above that IZAK consistently defends POV, OR, and blatantly slanderous edits, and instead of thanking me for using my more specialized knowledge to correct them, he attacks me for doing so.
 * Note that as soon as I corrected a factually incorrect article name, IZAK, instead of stating some substantial reason why he disagreed (which he has not done here either), saw fit to add an anti-Chabad spam site to that page here.
 * Note also that on almost none of the links that IZAK refers to did he himself make any comment or express disagreement.
 * Even if IZAK maintains that some of my edits are still problematic, he chooses to reproduce almost every single one even after I specifically addressed them one by one on the COI page. He makes no reference whatsoever, either here or there, to my responses there to the diffs that he lists, which I have reproduced here, albeit with additional elaboration. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Responses to others
Further Response to Yoninah: Now I see what you meant. I apologise for the misunderstanding. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kaisershatner, I made no suggestions that someone has mental illness; you must be confusing me with someone else.
 * Galassi, I never added an unreliability tag to the non-Chabad source. I thought that a consensus was reached to include both sources, which I believe is the correct decision.
 * Yoninah, I agree that the exchange was unpleasant, but my comment was made in response to your very POV statement that I found highly unpleasant, as can be seen there. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Valley2city: Your complaint has nothing to do with the topic of this case, which is Chabad per se; rather, it is an unrelated complaint against my edits on a general Jewish topic. And your claim that your view of Jewish holidays is “mainstream” is just as blatantly POV as you are accusing my edits of being. I continue to maintain that the view that secular holidays and religious ones are equally Jewish is a minority view amongst Orthodox Jewry, and thus the templates should be separate. But consensus seems to point otherwise, so I dropped it. Thus, your examples prove that I DO follow consensus. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:IZAK

 * 1) Canvassing at WP:TALKJUDAISM:  (admin response ). (See Requests_for_arbitration/IZAK regarding IZAK's canvasing).
 * 2) Accusations of a Chabad Wikipedia conspiracy:

Shlomke (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to UserShlomke’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs : Nearly all my edits concerning Chabad related articles were made over two years ago. I started editing in January 2006. For over two years between August 31, 2007 and September 30, 2009, I've barely edited at all. Since I came back, I've also barely edited anything Chabad related. It's possible I made some mistakes as I was learning WP policy, but I'm certainly not a Chabad POV pusher and certainly not editing on behalf of the Chabad movement. I think I've generally stuck to WP policy, and my goal here is to make the Wikipedia project better. That said, I'll respond to a few diffs IZAK posted which may need additional clarification. I think most are self explanatory though.
 * 1) Here I reverted back to another editors version since the previous edit was censoring out important sourced information. Here I deleted words specific to one criticism, because R. Shach criticized R. Schneerson on a multitude of topics, not this one exclusively. Here I removed total unsourced OR as discussed on talk. Removed a full description of his book that does not belong in the article. No one disagrees. Here I was quoting straight from the same source as the other info in article. Removed Blatant OR POV by IZAK. Removed unsourced blatant POV.
 * 2) This and this are actually sites critical of Chabad. It was later removed per WP:EL. This was a direct quote from a publication, which I was later made aware did not satisfy WP:V and WP:RS and was removed. Removed per talk. Removed, Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies should not be used as dumping ground for anything negative that somehow or another is connected to Chabad. Rather only for issues pertaining directly to the movement. Removed unsourced and patently false. Unlinked. Never classified as such by WP:RS.
 * 3) I admit these links would probably not qualify  for WP:EL and should not have been there. Linking to a book that gives on overview on an under explained topic (at the time). Glitch that was self reverted.
 * 4) reverted WP:Soapboxing.
 * 5) None of the sites I've linked to are MIRRORs.

Evidence presented by Galassi
The same 3 editors (Shlomke, Debresser, Oliver) doggedly insist on inserting a self-glorifying chabad source that is considered historiographically unreliable on the academic level - while adding unreliability tags to the academic source that is the most authoritative in this particular field of study, but is very unfavorable to the Lubavich POV. The article in question is Cantonist. The issue was resolved by the administratiof Fut.Perf. who removed the entire paragraph that was a WP:COATRACK created to glorify Schneerson. - Galassi (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Themfromspace
From a glance at the workshop, I noticed a dispute over the abundance of external links to the site chabad dot org, so I decided to look into the prevelance of the site as a neutral observer as I am rather familiar with EL practices on Wikipedia. The first thing that caught my eye was this (now outdated) compilation of most linked-to sites from Wikipedia. Chabad dot org is listed as our 126th most linked-to site as of 23 November 2006, which is stunningly high, just a spot above the Yale University site.

After looking through the articles that contain the links to chabad dot org, I found that many of them have been placed by a single user; a retired administrator, User:PinchasC (who was also known as User:Truthaboutchabad). Looking over his total contributions, I have to say that the sole purpose of these accounts was to cultivate and protect a network of external links leading to Chabad dot org. This is most evident beginning in October of 2005 with edits such as this and this repeated on a mass-scale. This behaviour was extremely prevelant throughout November and into December (the time of his RfA). It is obvious that he was keeping track of the link additions, as he would return to them and update them, such as here, here, and here. Each time that possible spamming was investigated, such as here, here, here, and here, the accusations were either dismissed without much investigation or fought tooth-and-nail. Through my glance over PinchasC's edits, I have counted over 200 times which he has added the Chabad link - and this was just until early 2007. The protective behaviour has lasted into 2009.

For all who would doubt the severity of this spam behaviour, or would think that I would cherry-pick diffs, please look through PinchasC's contributions for yourselves. The relevant policies here are WP:NPOV (as opposed to the "Jewish point of view" he has stated on multiple occasions that he is providing), WP:SPAM (linkspamming in particular), and multiple points of WP:EL. I don't really have any great suggestions for how to deal with these transgressions, as the behaviour is all in the past. I just want to confirm that the link is overly-represented here on Wikipedia and in no small part due to PinchasC. Whether ArbCom should desysop or not is beyond my call, but I would highly suggest something be done if he ever returns to active editing. I would also like to suggest that a discussion regarding a possible cleanup effort be started, as many of the existing links to chabad dot org are in violation of our EL guidelines.  Them From  Space  08:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Fritzpoll
In response to Fritzpoll's request on the talk page, since I have not had any experience editing these articles (I didn't even know what Chabad was before looking at this case), I can't confirm or deny any POV edits being made by the parties of this case (although I do believe that the linking behaviour I described above was motivated by a POV). The only example of inappropriate behaviour I remember coming across when researching the origin of the chabad dot org links was an edit war on the Chabad messianism article between Zsero and Debresser. See the following diffs for the exchange,. Even though this is an example of inappropriate behaviour dealing with two parties of the case, the argument there isn't over the Chabad ideology as a whole but rather what a scholar has said in a source. It is also interesting to note that these are two "pro-Chabad" editors, as described by IZAK in his evidence. Also regarding IZAK, I note that in most every article I checked over, he had edited at least a portion of the content, and all of his edits that I have seen were beneficial and encyclopedic.  Them From  Space  22:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Yossiea
I first of want to say that I'm not the best poster out here, so I won't necessarily be the best one to post. Izak and others have done a far better job at it. That being said, I have been aware of certain posters with agendas who don't let thinks lie. There has been a poster (totally unrelated to this ArbCom) who never let someone post something he disagreed with. He ended up being banned, along with his 10 sockpuppets. Sadly, something similar is going on here. Putting a link to chabad.org is one thing, putting it on every article you can get your hands on is something else. What makes it worse, is that when they are called on it, they don't attempt to justify their edits, they merely attack and antagonize posters. This way they scare posters away and have free reign with "their" articles. I just think something should be done about it. Yossiea (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Debresser engaged in tendentious revert-warring
User:Debresser has engaged in longterm slow edit-warring and abusing editorial tags over POV issues motivated by his Chabad allegiance, at the Cantonist article.

He inserted a Verify credibility tag seven times during an edit war that lasted several weeks ( 18 Oct 18 Oct, 28 Dec, 28 Dec, 29 Dec, 13 Jan, 16 Jan). The source he tagged, an academic book, was undoubtedly a "reliable source" and correctly summarised; the only issue he had with it was that he didn't like its conclusions because they contradicted some writings by Rabbi Schneerson. He also revert-warred over the insertion of a corresponding tag at the source citing Schneerson (28 Dec, 10 Jan, 11 Jan).

Debresser as well as his content opponent,, were warned against disruptive edit-warring under the "Digwuren" clause by me today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Debresser refuses to heed WP:V
In this edit, related to the Cantonist issue above, Debresser openly abrogates WP:V, reserving for himself the right to exclude a reputable academic source because he personally finds its opinions "absurd". Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Pushing against mainstream view of Jewish and Israeli Holidays by Yehoishophot Oliver
The argument over Israeli holidays has already been brought up above but I think I should bring up this template. This was from a long time ago, but I would be remiss if I did not bring it up. In the span of 2.5 to 1.5 years ago there was a discussion on the talk page of Template talk:Jewish and Israeli holidays (formerly Template:Jewish holidays). Originally all of the holidays, including those Israeli holidays added in the past 60 years, were part of a single template. After discussion on the talk page it was decided to have separate sections for strictly Jewish Holidays and another one for those holidays that were created in recognition of the Holocaust and the State of Israel to appease everybody. Yehoishophot Oliver objected to the holidays being in the same template and after a week of going unchallenged after suggesting on the talk page to split the two he made the change. This is fine, but it is possibly because nobody noticed it that nobody commented (I would wish that it appeared on WP:Judaism or somewhere else for a more centralized discussion for a template that appears on so many pages, but that's another matter entirely). What was not okay, however, is how he immediately reverted it herebecause he claimed consensus was on his side, where the only consensus was that nobody weighed in. Zsero and Shlomke  also weighed in as against having the two types of holidays in the same template, with pretty much all other involved editors supporting either the combination of the all holidays together or the compromise. What resulted was a slow edit war of constant reversions in the midst of discussion. There are identical examples of this you can find in the history.  Valley  2 city ‽ 04:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing standard must be rigorously enforced on Chabad related articles
I have not edited wikipedia in nearly two years - for various reasons - but primarily because I got bogged down in editing Chabad related articles and fighting the obscurantists that patrolled these articles like hawks deleting large chunks of information using tag team tactics and anon IPs that a lone editor simply could not counter.

However, I have been following and watching carefully, and at this juncture I feel I should chime in to shed some light on the chaos that is the Chabad on wikipedia and what I would like to see done about it.

Chabad are by far the most eccentric and well studied major group in Judaism today. There is endless high quality academic research coming on out on the movement all the time. They are also self publicists on a huge scale and perhaps as a result of this they are constantly getting press, both good and bad.

Chabad have a detailed hagiographic account of their movement and its leaders and anything that even threatens to prick this is a threat that they will use all means to neutralise.

We on wikipedia must understand that when we as a fundamentally enlightenment orientated project are faced with a fanatical cultish leader-worshiping group like Chabad, Scientology or the Moonies etc., we need to be extremely vigilant.

We don't need special rules and we needn't necessarily ban users on CIO grounds, the rules are already in place they just need to be enforced with special rigour:

1. No unsourced statements can be allowed and all sources must be reliable to wikipedia's standards.

2. No sourcing from organ's that are part of or tied to the organisation - these are inherently unreliable.

3. No removal of sourced material, "the answer to sources you don't like is more sources (that you do like) not less" - this must be the message hammered into the minds of partisans.

What should be done?
I concur with what many have said above about the main chabad POV editors - they are particularly difficult to work with and they consistently work as a team and they have been doing this for over seven years without abatement - their prime mover User:PinchasC is now apparently gone, but clearly they continue to fight on as before.

I am sorry I have been away from Wikipedia for so long. If I can see that the rules are being enforced to ensure that Chabad articles are to be rigorously forced to comply with wikipedia's policies then I will gladly return to edit for a few hours a week, something I used to enjoy until the Chabad guys wore me out.

Lobojo (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Some evidence
Here is the type of thing I am talking about. I spend a couple of hours updating the "philosophy of chabad" section of the main article, cutting out unsourced rambling prose and replacing it with a scholarly and fully sourced summary of Chabad philosophy in an organised way. This was reverted as soon as Yehoishophot Oliver woke up, a revert that was repeated over and over by him and the other Chabad editors. Compare the version that the Chabad editors were fighting for with the one that didn't read like it was trying to convert the reader to the movement - .Lobojo (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is another example this time from Shlomke. . The proofs are not "purported", they are now proofs! Magic! Lobojo (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Another: removing sourced pertinent information and replacing it with blogs. This was done over and over by the Chabad tag team for example here  until they were finally taken to ANI where they were told (as if they didn't know) that blogs are not sources. Lobojo (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * More linkspam: from a far right chabad blog site.Lobojo (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This particular quote is particularly difficult for Chabad editors to stomach and they have been going nuts about it for up to a year. It touches on deep philosophical issues about the messiah becoming mute no doubt.Lobojo (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This removal of a refernce to an infant son of Schneerson's brother in law, is perplexing. I woudl not be suprised however to find that there is something in Chabad philosophy that finds the existance of this son troubling.Lobojo (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Users: Yehoishophot Oliver; Zsero; Debresser, involved in neutralizing text/promoting historical revisionist views
My only experience with these users was at Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Their activity there has had the effects of (1)stymieing contributions by reverting and insisting on lengthy discussion; (2)inserting text consistent with a radical revisionist account of the massacre which contends that it was self-defense because, in Zsero's words, "the Arabs were openly declaring their intention of slaughtering the Jews".

By working in concert, editors maintain consensus against reasonable additions. By being obnoxious and dismissive, they flame good faith editors over time. Debresser is remarkably manipulative; he took me to ANI here to suggest that "maybe we should just block this guy". He has utilized ANI frequently against people he disagrees with, often without attempting to communicate with them first, as IZAK can attest.

Debresser knows the rules, and he will continue to push them to the limit, and occasionally beyond. Here is a good example of Debresser's work: I find deceitfully-rendered text (see google books, for reality); I tag a source which is not available online, and which contradicts dozens of online sources, as 'verification needed'; Debresser blanks the tag, and edit summaries that my edit is "quite the propaganda", threatening retribution if I insist; I am obliging in order to avoid conflict and his vitriol; and he writes that I need to consult the newspaper's archives if I want to 'invalidate' the text. So my research is wasted, the tag is blanked, and I move on, because he will continue to use his undo button for weeks, months, years, and so will his buddies, and I do not want to be bogged down in insolence and intransigence when there are so many lovely pages to visit on Wikipedia. (Here is one user at that page getting his good faith edits reverted five times by Debresser, for no substantial reason:    . He's hit me with the same a few times, too.) DBaba (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have found the same thing, I totally sypathize. Only yesterday he did this - removing sources from an already poorly sourced artilce because he does not like what they say. Obfuscation on the talk page about the issue will continue for years while his team chime in to "build consensus" (LOL) and sap the life out of all the good faith editors who just want to see a subject treated in a encyclopedic fashion. They delete sourced material they don't like while adding material soruced to partisan blogs they do like - . There is no self reflection of intelectual honesty.Lobojo (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem here
I have had either no--or exceedingly little--contact with almost all of the involved editors, as well as with the articles that are the subjects of this dispute. But having waded through the diffs on both sides, I do feel that Izak has raised a legitimate concern. While there is no problem with editors editing articles on which they have knowledge, and of course we all have personal POVs, it is imperative that we edit from an NPOV standpoint. In addition, if an editor is editing in a manner that is not facially NPOV, then it is not a violation of AGF to allow that evidence to move one past the preliminary assumption of AgF -- this is reflected in the AgF rule. And I must say, I found the accusation flagged above by one editor that another editor has a mental illness to be especially disturbing; there is no place for that low level of discourse on wp.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.