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

Advice needed
Since I have no experience with arbitration, I'm not sure how and when to proceed. Since the case was opened against me, am I supposed to respond to the complaints now, or wait for the arbitrators to ask questions. If I can or am supposed to respond now, where do I post my responses? If I have complaints regarding other editors, where and when do I post them? Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded to you on your talk page 10 minutes after this edit, sorry about the delay in responding to your question on my talk page. Basically, for others, the arbitrators will not ask questions, and the evidence page is the place to put your complaints. Arbitration/Guide to arbitration is the official guide and there's a draft guide by someone with a lot of experience as a clerk and who is a new Arb at User:Hersfold/ArbGuide. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests and questions from Fritzpoll
Over the course of several days I have read over this evidence several times and the problem is that there is too much text, too little focus. So I have some points that need clarifying for my benefit, and perhaps that of other arbs:

Request 1: Allegations being made

 * 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.

Request 2: Evidence
Assuming my analysis of the allegations being made is correct, then I need specific, focussed evidence of the following

NPOV

 * 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.
 * Diffs that the parties believe show that the alleged pro-Chabad editors are editing in respect of NPOV. Again, categorisation so that descriptions are brief and to the point
 * Rebutting each other's analysis is not necessary - leave that to neutral arbitrators and comments from other, uninvolved editors - I would ask that such analysis and commentary takes place on this talk page, and that the clerks act to move materials to the correct locations

Behaviour
Editors are requested to reformat their evidence where necessary to make the answers to these requests obvious. Uninvolved commentators are asked to provide analysis on this talk page, and highlight diffs where necessary that support that analysis - parties are always welcome to comment. I may add to this request at any time as the evidence unfolds, but in my opinion, the evidence is presently very difficult to understand. I note that I am making this request as an individual arbitrator, not on behalf of the entire Committee. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Diffs showing evidence of inappropriate conduct during discussions. Categorise these by the type of inappropriate behaviour to keep the format succinct.  For example, if an editor makes repeated personal attacks, list all the diffs, with a single description of what they all show.
 * This request is to both sides of this dispute, but again, rebuttals are not necessary unless there are diffs showing that, for instance, a diff was taken out of context.
 * Hello Fritzpoll: Following your suggestion I have "reformatted" by way of a Summary that then deals with six categories. However because this case requires a deeper context and background and the fact that it involves four Chabad editors who vary in some very small ways in their views based on their editing history, but each is part of a greater whole, it would be appreciated that the more in-depth segmnts still be retained. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fritzpoll: I'm not sure what you mean by "reformat". Above it was written that a rebuttal to the diffs is not necessary. So I won't make one. I have already spent many hours painstakingly responding to the diffs Izak cited against me--first on the COI page that he opened up against me, and all over again on the arbitration page against me and others. I believe I have responded more than adequately (nor has Izak responded at all on either occasion to my responses to his diffs). Anyone interested in seeing my responses can look at my above responses. I continue to maintain that most of his diffs against me are ridiculous and spurious on the face of it, or simply explained, as I have done. Conversely, he is guilty of soapboxing and violating agf and npa on many, many occasions. That is the summary of my response. Sorry, I am not willing to repeat myself responses to the diffs all over again. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Yehoishophot Oliver who seems to be underestimating and insulting the intelligence of the large number of ArbCom members who have agreed to take this case on. I have taken the time and the advice of Fritzpoll and spent many hours setting up the new Summary introduction in my evidence that presents the whole case to make it easier to get into. I have repeatedly stated that there are many subtleties in this case. The Chabad editors are very sophisticated and well-honed in their Wikipedia skills as they go about attaining their objectives of controlling Chabad-related content on Wikipedia by building up pro-Chabad articles in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING as if Wikipedia were hosting Chabad.org; acting to "protect" and defend or undercut articles they deem important to the Chabad movement in violation of WP:OWN; when questioned or confronted about their uniform front against those they deem to be "outsiders," they will resort to an array of obstructionist and delaying tactics in violation of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND that makes it unpleasant for non-Chabad editors to deal with them and to then withdraw which suits the Chabad editors just fine; and then as we see now here, when pressed against the wall they will resort to no end of WP:LAWYERing in order to fudge and escape from any real consequences and project guilt onto any party that questions them for having the problem when it is they who have set the whole situation up to be one of edit-conflict between pro-Chabad editors and any other editors who wish to insert or even discuss topics and material that is not sanctioned or approved by the Chabad movement. This situation has been brewing for years and can no longer be avoided or ignored. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not "withdrawing" at all. I spent many hours responding to your claims, and I'm not interested in writing it up all over again, nor do I have the time. And we all heard your challenges against certain editors; it's not necessary to repeat them at length in your every comment. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Question by Debresser
Should I change anything in the things I wrote, which are divided into sub-sections already? Debresser (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Contemplated motion to dismiss
Despite the volume of evidence, I'm not at all persuaded that Izak has made out a case. Or perhaps I'm simply I'm not seeing the wood for the trees. It also seems to me that the other issues (EL, COATRACK etc) are best handled by the community as they're primarily about content. Perhaps the various parties could see what could be done to sharpen this up? If nothing radical happens, I shall probably post a motion to dismiss in a week or so's time.

Roger Davies talk 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. I couldn't really find any substantial conduct disputes here,  and I'll probably start up some discussions about the spammed chabad dot org links at a noticeboard somewhere to clean that issue up.  Them  From  Space  03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we took this case myself. Looks like content. Cool Hand Luke 15:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't disagree - there just doesn't seem to be enough of a conduct dispute for us to do anything with. The rest, as Luke says, is content and we can't adjudicate on that Fritzpoll (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The comments below all seem to indicate that this is a dispute over content; I agree that the evidence doesn't bear out any serious conduct issues. Shell  babelfish 04:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (A) Dear Shell and others above: On the contrary, the comments below (as well all the evidence and diffs) clearly indicate and support the position that it is the negative controlling behavior  behind the way content is dealt with by Chabad editors that is the crux of the problem and why the case reached ArbCom. This was never about content then and it's not about content now. No one has issues with properly sourced content as such, but everyone has issues with the way the negative editorial behavior and actions by the Chabad editors intimidates, bullies, sabotages and ruins the good faith efforts of editors who do not share the Chabad world view/POV. I stated at the outset that this was a complex case and that the Chabad editors were always very skilled at WP:LAWYERing (especially: ...2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles; 3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express; 4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate action) and that they have mastered the rules of WP in many other ways in order to undermine them in order to push their Chabad POV forgetting that Wikipedia is not Chabad.org and it should never be allowed to become that. IZAK (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (B) Perhaps the ArbCom is losing sight of how this case got here, and it may be worth a serious reminder. The case was brought to ArbCom after a COI complaint was opened. By the time everyone had their say, it was decided that given all the grievances being vented that taking the case to the ArbCom was the only way to settle the major issues and disputes. (WP:COI states: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interest of Wikipedia"). Without looking at every single diff at the COI case, that have also been presented at the Evidence separately, please take the time to read through the thrust of the argumentation at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver that resulted in this case landing at ArbCom. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Objection
This case is a long overdue attempt to correct a serious issue within those editors who have to interact with the Chabad editors. "Solving" the multiple links issue is the easy part. The hard part is to see it from the point of view of those in the editorial trenches who have to deal with the problems presented. Is this an admission by some ArbCom members that they lack the ability to fully understand this? Instead of throwing in the towel they should perhaps seeks some expert input from neutral Judaically experienced admins who have stayed out of this entire dispute. Only three Chabad editors have objected, while almost all users casting the votes and presenting their evidence, starting from the original COI case and continuing into this arbitration case see the fundamental problems and have not held back from supporting this arbitration case. '''In all fairness to the many users who have taken the time to present evidence and state their case, they should be informed of this proposal and allowed enough time to react. Respectfully, IZAK (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Most users who have contributed evidence and some who were part of the COI discussions have been requested to express their opinions about this new motion either way. IZAK (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep this case open and the ArbCom should render a fitting judgment. Do not dismiss it because it addresses major issues of importance to all editors devoted to WP:JUDAISM. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep open. As a community, WP:JUDAISM could use some guidelines of how to deal with the conflict between NPOV and personal theological obligations.  While it may be everyone's personal responsibility to create these for themselves, the diffs cited in this case show a lack of neutrality by the involved parties.  I'm not pushing for a decision in one direction or another, but don't just walk away. Joe407 (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And that _is_ misconduct. -Galassi (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this subject has now been declared to be a discussion, I'd like to say that the simple fact that so few editors from WP:JUDAISM have come over and added their opinions, despite the notification a month ago , clearly shows that the editors at WikiProject Judaism do not agree there is a problem here. Rather to the contrary, I have had many pleasant interactions with them on Judaism-related articles and talk pages in the time leading up to this ArbCom case and during it. Debresser (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Debresser: (a) There are not that many active users at any given time that are active at the WP:TALKJUDAISM page. (b) The banter there is usually polite, you are not getting "special treatment" in any way. (c) A number of user, who thus far have chosen not to post their diffs on the Evidence page, have had very negative editing interactions with Chabad editors over the years, and I can substantiate it. (d) Do not mistake the silence as a mark of "approval" for what the Chabad editors have been up to. They haven't come over here to "approve" of what you do either. (e) Over the years experienced editors have seen how anyone wishing to insert material not approved by the official Chabad party line will be henpecked to the point that they will give up, handing control of the Chabad-related articles to the Chabad editors by default. (f) Bottom line, it has reached the point where many editors are sick and tired or even afraid of tangling with Chabad editors out to protect what they imagine to be "their turf" on Wikipedia. Such a situation cannot be allowed to exist. Do not count your chickens before they hatch. IZAK (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With all respect, but I do see my productive interaction with other editors, as well as their refusal to join this discussion, as an implicit agreement that I and other editors are not in systematic and/or coordinated violation of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and ethics. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What truly significant "productive interaction with other editors" are you referring to? IZAK (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep open. I would like to echo joe407's point. The Judaism wikiproject needs to be a encyclopedia not an ongoing theological debate between various competing devotees. This cannot happen unless something is done to ensure that editors are not allowed to run riot deleting properly sourced information that they don't like and replacing it with link-spam from chabad.org etc. A shape-shifting team of Chabad devotees have been suppressing all dissent from their POV for seven years now. If wikipedia can take on scientology it can take on Chabad. Lobojo (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep open. This is CONTENT issue, as all assues really are. And Chabad content shouldn't have more weight than any other.-Galassi (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly - Arbcom does not adjudicate on content disputes, only issues of conduct Fritzpoll (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is the main problem of Wikipedia in general. All conduct problems are based in the content. IMO the content must be policed at least as much as conduct, as more and more interest groups realize the power of Wiki.-Galassi (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep open. While an Arbcon case is not usually the place to settle what might be called content disputes, other venues have failed. We're not talking about a dispute that can usually be rectified with findings of fact, but here we are dealing with people trying to push their ideology into the articles they edit. Yossiea (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No other venues have been tried, apart from one discussion with a wild conspiracy theory and proportionally high running emotions. This was noted by a few members of ArbCom when they decided to accept this case, see here. Debresser (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * False, Debresser! You have yourself been guilty of dragging many cases to ANI any time you do not get your way. Multiple series of edit-wars and failed attempts to co-edit articles with Chabad editor including frustrating discussions on many related talk pages. The COI case dragged on for a long time and there was near-universal agreement there that the case should go to the ArbCom. Please do not resort to revisionism of what has been going on between Chabad editors and those who have had to tangle with them for many long years. This is a very serious matter. IZAK (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of trying to "get my way" through WP:ANI, or trying to impress me with the "serious"ness of this "matter" is not going to lend your claims any more weight. You had better accept that no "Chabad conspiracy" exists. Furthermore, a conflict is not part of dispute solution, so what it comes down to is that you admit yourself that no other venues have been tried. Now that COI noticeboard discussion was artificially blown up by you, which is why a few people suggested to go to ArbCom, not because they saw any merit in your arguments per se. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop gloating, just take a look at what the experienced editors in this "Objection" column are stating. None of the users in the ArbCom have had personal experience editing with Chabad editors in Chabad-related topics. Please stop putting words in my mouth, I have not spoken of a "Chabad conspiracy" -- that is you spinning, as usual. What I have said, and it has been backed up by others, is that Chabad editors work in tandem or in relay-fashion that essentially co-ordinates their moves. You have been a late comer. The problems we face now with Chabad editors started with User PinchasC, who inducted Users Shlomke, Zsero and Yehoishophot Oliver. The methods and skills of Shlomke, Zsero and Yehoishophot almost exhibit a level of "training," for lack of a better word, by PinchasC (in his day he had User Chocolatepizza to help him, as well as many anon editors quite familiar with Wikipedia policies who may have been well-trained socks and trolls) who by the time he became inactive ensured that he had a brood of editors, namely Users Shlomke, Zsero and Yehoishophot Oliver well-trained. That is why they are so elusive to the ArbCom because they have obviously been well-educated *never* to resort to "personal attacks" but to *always* rely on Wikipedia rules to attain their monopolistic stifling goals of edging out all opposing voices on any articles of importance to Chabad. It is that underlying manipulative, controlling and harassing behavior that underpins the way they edit content to attain their objectives. You have joined later and are still learning the ropes, proof is that you could not control yourself in the COI case from uttering vile WP:NPA as cited in the diffs of the Evidence against you, supported by other users as well. IZAK (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was you who introduced the concept of a "Chabad conspiracy" (see my evidence), and likewise it was you who grouped me together with Shlomke, Zsero and Yehoishophot in this ArbCom case. And it still worries me that you continue this conspiracy theory of yours. Debresser (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have I also endowed you with your POVs about Chabad or have I made you into a self-admitted Chabad rabbi, or am also I responsible for your COI in Chabad's POV trumping everyone and everything else's on your say-so alone? Sorry that I am spoiling your Chabad fun on Wikipedia. You seem to think that if you harp away on what you imagine to be *my* unique "conspiracy theories" that it somehow means that "all is fine and dandy" with the Chabad editors on Wikipedia, including you. You needn't "worry" about me with your not-so-veiled negative implications you are still throwing my way, when the problem for the ArbCom is that they are now caught between a rock and a hard place in divining the true motives, aims and troubling behavioral patterns that guide all Chabad editors when any Chabad-related articles are involved on Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (Disclosure: IZAK emailed me asking me to weigh in.) I'm inclined to Keep open. Yes, on some level this is a content dispute, but so are the issues with the followers of Lyndon Larouche (not to say that Chabad is at all equivalent to Larouche and his followers, just that the process issues for Wikipedia are similar). I can't imagine being able to resolve this in any manner other than by arbitration. - Jmabel | Talk 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a vote. I know IZAK has framed it that way, but Roger is quite clear - the evidence presented is not convincing us that there is anything of value here.  Your time would be better spent trying to generate evidence to respond to Roger's comment, rather than holding a poll that is not going to have any direct impact Fritzpoll (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I too was asked to weigh in here, and I respond hesitantly. I presented my evidence hesitantly as well and probably should have stayed back, but I thought it more prudent to present my previous interactive evidence. At issue here seems a long term trend of POV editing. Everyone has a POV. I haven't done any studies but I assume that editors tend to gravitate to articles in which they have an interest. Whether "interest" means "fascination" or "vested" is at issue. I would consider myself an expert on Judaism and mainly edit articles about Jewish topics in which I am interested. However I never let my POV interfere with the neutrality that should be inherent in articles. But in matters of faith it is almost impossible to not have a point of view! I'm not particularly set on any outcome; I only presented my evidence so it would be on the table as further information for ArbCom to make their decision. Though it may be beneficial that the case remain open so we can determine a precedent on how to respond to matters of faith and ideology on Wikipedia (especially those in which there are multiple POVs), this is something that also may better be determined through a community decision of policy. I might compare this to the conflicting views of the First Council of Nicaea (I hope I don't offend with this comparison) where people with vastly diverging views had to sit down together and hammer out the details on what they would believe. I honestly don't think anything punitive should come of this but rather that perhaps this sow the seeds for some sort of guideline on how to deal with diverging views when writing on matters of faith. Perhaps we should shortly create a centralized RfC, perhaps through WP:Judaism or even some sort of ecumenical discussion among many faith traditions (the term we use at my interseminary discussions) on how to deal with such matters in which different denominations will resort to denominationalism. Sorry for the longwindedness. I think being informative is especially important here. Anyway, I appreciate everyone's hard work here and ArbCom's arduous task.   Valley  2 city ‽ 18:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Open - This issue is an ongoing issue which will probably not go away without a definitive response from ArbCOM. Other venues have failed and given the nature of the dispute, failing to adequately address it will only cause further disruption to Wikipedia. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 22:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No other venues have been tried, apart from one discussion with a wild conspiracy theory and proportionally high running emotions. This was noted by a few members of ArbCom when they decided to accept this case, see here. I have said this above, but since you repeat the same untrue statement, I though it necessary to repeat my answer. Debresser (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dismiss I understand the frustration of editors, but there just isn't a case here that I can see that is within ArbCom's limited remit.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So - what can be done - this has been going on for seven years unabated. What is wikipedia going to do to protect its content from being routinely denuded of valid information and being spammed with theological ranting. This is turning wikipeida into a joke - look at what was added by one of the editors to the lede of one of the main artilces just yesterday -. That is a rambling esoteric theological arguement sourced to a fringe blog site, that these editors have no trouble spamming around wikipedia. This happens because they are allowed to do this and stamp on dissent by teamwork and grounpthink. Edit summaries like this one "Remove incorrect. Even though sourced, this is not true." are typical, and are enforced by tag team editing.
 * This is a pattern of tag-team abuse and manipulation that has continued for years. All that is required to solve this problem is rigorous insistance on sourcing in Chabad related articles. Why isn't this being done? Lobojo (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Similarly they don't even balk at removing large chunks of sourced information that for whatevver reason they don't approve of - this mild and scholarly summary that I prepared was simply deleted wholesale a few hours after it was inserted - . If I put it back, he or his buddies will just delete it again, all that is needed are a few uninvolved admins to watch these pages and prevent the insertion of unsourced unencylopedic material and prevent the removal of sourced encyclopedic material. This is not a content dispute.Lobojo (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right at the top of the page on the right below the picture he is declared to be both deadand "incumbant" - it has been this way as long as I can remember - how is this allowed to continue?Lobojo (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Linkspam - Here, in one edit Yehoishophot Oliver adds five links in a row to his favored site . Lobojo (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have not been involved in this discussion, but I find the above comment particularly disturbing. When I looked at the diff in question, I found that the article is discussing a will and the added links (6 actually) were in a reference to a copy of the will in question that is stored as six separate page-image files. Perhaps there is a more compact way to add such a reference (though I can't think of one), but adding a reference to an on-line copy of a document discussed in an article is helpful, noncontroversial behavior. Mischaracterizing such action as "linkspam" is troublesome to me and suggests the heat of the argument has clouded the judgment of at least one individual bringing this complaint. Perhaps some cooling off mechanism followed by mediation is called for here. --agr (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comment. If Lobojo has an issue with any of my rather modest edits to his major (and undiscussed) overhaul of two large and important articles, he can raise them with me on my talk page, or on the talk pages of the articles involved. I am known to reply to such. :) At any rate, these are content issues. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a fair point I didn't notice, however it does not detract from the issue that the site in question is a blog and wikipedia is now chock full of such links which have added over years by a team of editors. Ultimately these editors think nothing of deleting valid sources and replacing them with blogs. This is indisputable, so forgive me if I am not jumping up to jedge them favorably when I see another 5 blog links added by one of these users.Lobojo (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your use of the term "these users" is an a priori condemnation... Rarely a constructive approach. I'd appreciate it if you would be willing to take up any issues you have with my edits with me, instead of jumping to ArbCom with them.
 * I simply added the links to the referenced will so people can read it for themselves. How anyone can object to this is beyond me. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Debresser (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep open. I don't think that the volume of evidence which IZAK has presented should be discounted as "content" not "conduct". The huge volume of diffs show a definite trend in Chabad POV editing, and now it's up to Arbcom to read between the lines to prove deliberate intent. This issue is critically important for Judaism-related articles, as there are so many religious streams and points of view that must work in harmony in order to satisfy WP:NPOV. I am specifically thinking of the Jewish holiday pages which I have worked on, such as Pesach and Sukkot, where the customs of all religious streams (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and yes, Chabad) must be given equal weight and included in each article. Instead, from the diffs which have been presented, it seems like the Chabad editors are co-opting their own pages and then forking off more and more pages without proving notability (see my evidence in point #2 here). It's too bad that all those other editors whom IZAK claims have been badgered for years by Chabad editors haven't weighed in. And the complete silence of Zsero in these discussions is astonishing. He even zinged me with a few sharp retorts when I commented for the first time on a Chabad-related subject. I definitely think Arbcom should follow through on all the evidence in order to help WP:Judaism develop clear guidelines for dealing with editors who are real-life proponents of the ideology they expound. Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps we'll leave it to the admins to decide among themselves whether to dismiss, instead of the involved parties repeating their arguments all over again. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, Yehoishophot Oliver not dealing with the issues as usual, just trying to rely on technicalities and condescension to get over this ordeal. No doubt if the ArbCom had a few users with years of bitter experience trying to co-edit Chabad-related articles in good faith with Chabd editors, they would be rushing to enforce rules and not show signs of sheer exhaustion of making heads or tales of what I have repeatedly stressed is a very tricky case that requires the ability to rip away facades and see the negative behavioral attitudes at the core of Chabad's "shlichus" on/to Wikipedia that has one goal: Undermine articles about Chabad's "enemies" and enhance Chabad's content along Chabad party lines forgetting that Wikipedia is not Chabad.org. No neutral encyclopedia can be written relying on either hagiography or an "enemies list" -- that is why it is critical that the ArbCom hear directly and bluntly from those users most effected by this huge problem. IZAK (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have dealt with the issues, in my opinion anyhow, in the appropriate place--the evidence page. This is not it. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Past case as prologue to this case
How did we miss this? Digging a little deeper, the following case seems to presage the same critical problems and issues of this case. Here are some highlights from that case that have direct bearing on this case:

"Request details

I think there is a problem at the Chabad and Chabad Messianism pages. An admin user has taken ownership of these two pages, refusing compromise with other editors in over a dozen disputes, not just this matter. This admin has been caught misusing sources on both pages. The admin claims the opposite of what his own sources contain. When the sources are summarized to accurately reflect their content, he reverts the changes on sight, ostensibly because he feels the articles should only reflect the positions of "official chabad spokesmen". Since this particular matter has gone on for two weeks, and this admin finds himself in chronic dispute on both articles, I request an admin review the discussions on Chabad and Chabad Messianism and weigh in. Abe Froman 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are the involved parties?
 * PinchasC
 * Abe.Froman

What's going on?
 * WP:OWN violations.
 * WP:CENSOR of any opinion not from "official chabad spokesmen."
 * WP:RS problems. Distortion, mis-summarization, and reporting false consensus of original sources.
 * WP:UNDUE weight given to "chabad spokesmen." PinchasC quotes sources to support chabad spokesmen, but the very same sources are reverted when their quotes contradict chabad spokesmen.

What would you like to change about that?


 * PinchasC should refrain from assuming ownership of the Chabad and Chabad Messianism pages, and allow summarization of his sources that may differ from what "official chabad spokesmen" support..."

See my comments there in 2007 at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-09 Chabad. This is what I stated then and things have only gotten worse:

"Without going into all the details here, I can safely say that it is true and verifiable that and the two of the supports he cites:  and  (and a couple of others) (see their ongoing edits and comments from the time they joined Wikipedia) are pure and strong pro-Chabad editors who will do anything in their power to promote a pro-Chabad POV, and, based on my own interactions with them over time, they edit and act in a manner that violates WP:OWN whenever anything relating to Chabad comes up. IZAK 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 10:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is implied from the above comment by IZAK that being Pro a Jewish organization, is bad. I wonder how he would feel about himself being part of a group of Pro-Jewish editors... IZAK also made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. If he is willing to be civil and avoid personal attacks, I would be more than happy to discuss any diffs that he has that support his claims. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  13:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with being "pro" or "anti" any Jewish organization in the normal course of writing articles and being an editor. This is also not a personal attack on anyone. What I am stating is what has become quite clear and obvious, and represents a threat to Wikipedia and to the editorial integrity and freedom for all Jewishly-orientated editors, that the above editors have taken it upon themselves to defend the Chabad movement on Wikipedia by limiting and strangling information that does not fit in with their pro-Chabad POV. PinchasC, now a "seasoned admin" has learned the ropes, asks for "diffs" and uses WikiLawyering such as "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit; Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions" and thus he has become a specialist at using Wikipedia's rules to stifle any opposition to his edits. Whenever it suits him he will descend upon an article that touches on Chabad issues and will flog it to death with all the rules he can muster to the point of absurdity. One small example of this is the path he chose and the determination with which he edited out text in the Rabbi Barry Gurary article. And the others are learning from him! No doubt a detailed examination of his editing history would reveal a long-standing pattern of over-all obstruction of anything and everything that would harm the Chabad movement according to his POV. I have said a few times already that Chabad has many of its own websites such as Chabad.org and many others, but Lubavitchers and the Chabad movement have no right to turn Wikipedia into just another "fish-pond" of Chabad hegemony on the Internet. Wikipedia cannot and will not allow that and in this Cabal case we see a desire to overthrow the looming Chabad usurpation of Wikipedia's articles about them which will spread to other areas if the pro-Chabad brigade goes on unchecked. IZAK 14:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)"

Etc, etc...

Sound familiar? The problem has only gotten worse with more Chabad editors plying the skills of their mentor PinchasC. Shall Wikipedia allow this to go on? IZAK (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You have mentioned the illustrous PichasC over and over again, but you can hardly prove your point by bringing examples of behavior from a non-active user. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem, obviously, is not any particular Chabad editor, but a pattern of control of content. For instance, the present main article on Chabad, does not read like an encyclopedia article, but like a Chabad promotional brochure. This is the result of the prevalence of Chabad editors who have an unstated goal of making Chabad hasidism look as good to everyone as it does to them. Since administrators, including arbcom, work on the assumption that the majority of editors for any given article is in the right, I see no solution to this chink in WP's defensive armor. Based in what I see of arbcom discussion of this case, it seems that arbcom is disposed to do nothing to solve the problem, even though the problem is obvious. Abe Froman's accusation of WP:OWN is certainly correct, but because the violation is the work of so many truly sincere Chabad editors, it seems that arbcom is helpless in the face of this problem. That is unfortunate because many other articles have the same defect of a bias imposed by a majority of editors who mean well, and who (by their own understanding) are editing within WP rules. 173.52.134.191 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)