Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A&P Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Bibby Line Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Capital One Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Comcast Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Foundation for a Smoke-Free World Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Liberty Towers Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Marbella Apartments Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Monero Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Obama Foundation Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership User talk:Rob 0017/Wurdian Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rainer K. Sachs Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Alice Zorn

Possible autobiographies found by bot

• User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Requested edits

• Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

WHDT and WHDT

WHDT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:WHDT, who claims to be WHDT's "Chief Engineer", keeps reverting to a highly dubious version of the article that claims, for example, that WHDT is broadcasting a signal (FCC reports as well as OR show it isn't), and that it is carried by (or recently that it has been ordered to be carried by, implying it is, with nothing showing it isn't) Dish Network. I'm not the only user who is seeing these claims as problematic, and User:WHDT has been told the COI nature of the edits are problematic. There has been one, short, exchange on the Talk: page but User:WHDT's responses both avoided the central specific issue (evidence that WHDT is actually on the air) and were, as with his reverts, "somewhat discourteous".

I'm sure User:WHDT has useful information he or she could add to the article, but at this point it appears, to me at any rate, that commercially WHDT has a fairly large interest in disguising the fact the channel doesn't broadcast an ATSC channel at this time in at least one of the areas it has a license, and is abusing Wikipedia to maintain this fiction.

At this point I'm giving up, I'm walking away from the article as I find monitoring and reverting extremely tedious and a waste of my time, but I'd appreciate someone who actually has the power to force WHDT to read the guidelines and stick to them could actually do so. 66.149.58.8 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the username to WP:UAA as it looks like it is either a role account or someone claiming to be linked to WHDT. I agree that their edits are definitely of concern, thanks for posting. Smartse (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They're been blocked because of their username, so the problem is slightly fixed but I guess that they will probably return with a different username. I'm not sure what else there is to do now as the article has already been fixed up by 66.149.58.8. I guess we wait and see, hoping that they will take note that their edits were inappropriate. Smartse (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. I do think the user could probably be a constructive participant (and has made some constructive edits in the past) so I'm not overly happy with having to bring this up. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately while I said I'd walk away I made the mistake of checking the page again this evening, and he's back under a new nick doing the same stuff. Like I said, I'm going to try to walk away from this (I'm not going to sit here reverting his claims over and over again), but if someone could explain the WP:COI policy to him in a way he'll understand then I think it would be a good idea. I'm not sure what to do to fix the page, beyond possibly argue for its deletion. WHDT has one noteable aspect, it was supposedly the US's first commercial digital station, but otherwise it really hasn't done much of note and would normally be a footnote in, say, an article about the history of digital television in the US. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The new name is "Marksteiner", and the owner of the station is "Günter Marksteiner". The aggressive behavior of the editor as well as aggressive language on the talk page of the article are both very troubling. The article itself probably merits inclusion per WP:BCAST whether or not it was the first commercial digital station in the US. -- Atama頭 23:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Marksteiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also been blocked, I've asked the admin to check whether this was right as WHDT was told they could edit using a different username when they were blocked. Having done a bit of searching it does seem possible that the information in the article at present is incorrect. There is a NYT article and another article that have both been published this year that mention the channel. This would contradict the current version which states that they have been off air for two years. If this is correct then it makes it more reasonable as to why Marksteiner and WHDT made the edits that they did. I'm not entirely certain what action to take now though! Smartse (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed the NYT article is actually from 2001 despite gnews saying it is published today! Smartse (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Rick206/Dynamic Language

Rick206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - While seeking feedback for his work in progress, it was brought to Rick's attention that he had the same name as the Vice President of the company. This in turn sparked interest in a possible COI. Rick posted on my talk page and asked for help on the matter, and I came here to seek some more opinions in hopes that this matter is resolved peacefully and without bias. Airplaneman ^talk 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to assume good faith, and if they claim to not be the same Rick as the VP of the company, I suppose that he isn't. Although as a resident of the greater Seattle area myself, I know that 206 happens to be the area code for Seattle, so the chosen username still screams COI to me; also, the personal way in which the article is written suggests an employee of the company or a person otherwise affiliated. I'm glad that the editor is communicative and shows a willingness to comply with our policies and guidelines, but the company just doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion in the first place. My suggestion to Rick is that if he is interested in editing Wikipedia that he find some other way to contribute. Someone who is communicative, polite, and has decent writing skills is a very welcome addition to the project and there are millions of articles that can use his help. -- Atama頭 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember this. I was involved in trying to protect it when the last user came along, but we all just gave up in the end, nobody able to help out (I could have Wikified it, but I didn't see the point if the rest of it couldn't be fixed and would therefore be deleted anyway). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Kripalu Center

Kripalu Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article was originally an advertisement, IMO, and an interested editor fixed much of that. However, now it is slanted oddly: simple non-profit organization replaced with long negative-slant explanation... 2008 revenue being hammered into sentence 1, news that profits are off, news that staff are being cut, news that pay to executives is going up, news of scandals, award for "best spa" removed as minor and old. Editor appears intimately familiar with nicknames of staff, other detailed workings. I am withdrawing from the article, again, but I fear other eyes are needed on it as there have been fairly grave wp:BLP issues, and I don't feel I can contribute usefully at this time. One editor in a previous wp:NPOVN section I started disagreed with my interpretation of events, by the way, saying the article was reasonably neutral/balanced.- Sinneed 16:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this here, and I totally understand withdrawing from the article. Looking at the history of the article, and Calamitybrook's talk page, I see a long, drawn-out dispute between you two. The editor has had a turbulent past, judging from their talk page, and their continued involvement with the article should be questioned. Some of the arguments made by Calamitybrook on the article's talk page are troubling, such as the suggestion that notability should be based on how nice the center looks in the landscape(?!). -- Atama頭 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I regard conflicts of interest as unethical. Editor says it's because I "appear intimately familiar with staff nicknames;" what he means is the yogic titles of president and vice president, as listed prominently on company's Web page.

I have no personal or professional interest in the topic of article. To suggest otherwise, because I "know staff nicknames" and have done research, is simply inaccurate.

For so simple and brief an article, there are many citations concerning "detailed workings," most of which are available on line.

On talk page, plz note that a different ed. recently suggested that the article had too positive a slant, while a third ed found it neutral. What ever. Question here is Conflict of Interest.

A 160,0000 sq-ft building in the woods indeed affects a landscape enshrined in Amer Lit. by N. Hawthorne, E. Wharton et al. and now part of a federal forest reserve. This "troubling argument" however, is not part of article.

Award for "Best Spa" from "Self Magazine" is 10 years old and not the Nobel Prize. I replaced with note that center is subject of many travel articles in general interest newspapers, magazines. Not sure how best to cite this easily verified fact.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to address each of your points individually. What you regard a conflict of interest to be is irrelevant, when we talk about them we're talking specifically about the guideline at WP:COI. That may differ from some outside definition of what constitutes a conflict of interest, or yours, but you should familiarize yourself with that guideline if you haven't yet.

You're either grossly misinformed or being deliberately disingenuous in your statement about staff nicknames. John Carter previously mentioned that you referred to people as nicknames like "Gurudev", which is not even close to the "yogic titles of president or vice president". This misstatement of facts is troubling.

Whether or not the argument about notability is or is not part of the article isn't relevant. You offered it as evidence of notability, dismissing the usual argument that significant coverage in independent reliable sources should be used to determine notability. I can accept that people have different opinions of what should constitute notability, but is troubling when combined with other concerns about your editing behavior at the article.

You replaced a verified, sourced statement for an award with a vague, unsupported weasel word statement (if you don't know what weasel words are, don't be offended, just see the link). You use a Google search result as a reference for that, even though that is never acceptable as a reliable source.

Overall, I think you've been damaging this article a piece at a time, violating numerous policies and guidelines in the process, and in defiance of editors who have been trying to tell you what you're doing wrong. Really, I think it's best for you to avoid the article entirely. -- Atama頭 20:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

COI allegation not supported

But this is a discussion of conflict of interest allegation...

So-called evidence of conflict of interest is entirely limited to statement that I am "intimately familiar with staff nicknames" and other "inner workings."

There are about 400 staff. Nicknames could be "Jack" "Jill" etc. Don't know whether any have nicknames, nor is reason provided that I do.

Two executives (exclusively) have their yogic names posted on company Web site.

This yoga practice is apparently analogous to that of of Catholic monks and nuns, who take new names when they reach some stage in their religious careers. "Mother Teresa" for example, is not a "nickname" as should be reasonably obvious (though she was originally named Agnesë Bojaxhiu).

There is nothing "intimate" about my familiarity with topic. However, I didn't object when the names were removed.

All "inner workings" described in article are derived from verfiable online sources, through which I gained non-intimate familiarity, which of course, suggests non COI.

Since the COI tag is transparently unsupported, unsupportable and simply FALSE, I've properly removed it.

Quantified improvements

Here is article before I contributed [[1]] when there were six sources and ten footnotes -- (and text was mostly all just culled, wholesale, from "company" Web site).

Currently has about 20 sources, about 30 footnotes, and is of necessity therefore more balanced and somewhat more detailed. All of these additions, were added by myself. One or two are debatable, though not challenged as of now. Most of added sources are major newspapers, or government sources.

The easily verifiable fact that Kripalu over time, has been subject of sustained (though almost entirely superficial) coverage in national travel press, includes, supercedes and legitimately replaces a single reference to a decade-old magazine item, a so-called award, by Self Magazine editors, which in isolation, is obsolete and not a particularly significant bit of information.

Yes I removed a footnote regarding Self Magazine editors' award, and I accept that my general reference to much wider google news search results may be imperfect verification of coverage, but a complete bibliography of these many, various and mostly rather trivial "happy talk" articles would seem excessive for such an innocuous and simple observation.

Thanks for useful input about my various policy violations and my damage to article. Sinneed has repeatedly made constructive suggestions that I must be banned from Wikipedia, because I focus on his nearly endless accusations this regard, rather than content of article.

Yet he has comparatively little to say on content, focusing significantly on my "conflict of interest."

I've nearly tripled available reliable sourcing and vastly improved the thing -- while his posting seem quantitatively much more personally focused (without sourcing, evidence or shred of acceptable reasoning) on me.

As there is less and less I can do to improve article, so will probably in some degree, take your advise and make fewer edits and add few additional sources to what is simply, NOT a very complex topic.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

JeffSharlet and The Fellowship (Christian organization)

Could someone look into the edits of JeffSharlet (talk · contribs) at The Fellowship (Christian organization). If the account is accurately named, he's the author of the book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, which is used heavily as a source for that article. The issue here is the heavy reliance of that source on the article, often by him directly, in such a way that makes it look as though he is promoting his own book and his own viewpoint at that article, to the exclusion of all other sources. He removes references to any source which differs from his own conclusions, or is critical of them, see this edit for an example of removing references to works not his own. There are also several other SPA accounts that work on that article which rely heavily on Sharlet's book exclusively, often misrepresenting it in ways that overextend Sharlet's conclusions with regard to the association of political figures with the group. Something needs to be looked at here. --Jayron32 05:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This is quite a tricky case. It appears that the main issue with it is that JeffSharlet has been arguing about whether or not an article that comments about his book on this organisation should be included in the source. The edit that Jayron32 has linked to seems to be the only problematic edit however and he has edited the talk page more so than the main article. That said taking a quick look it does seem as though an article in Newsweek should be included in the article and if it comments on a major source used in the article then the views may be necessary to meet achieve a NPOV. I noticed that he has argued it is an opinion piece and should therefore not be included but this is not a valid argument as long as the article makes it clear that it is an opinion piece and not fact. I'm not willing to agree that he removes any sources which disagree with him though, considering only one such edit has been made.

On a side is there not a system through WP:OTRS by which people can prove that they are in fact the person that their username suggests they are? If this is the case then JeffSharlet really needs to demonstrate this is the case. Smartse (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It also appears user 24.61.42.123 is Jeff Sharlet not logged in, judging by his comment removing the Newsweek article again. He has made some additions to the Fellowship page and his own page on wikipedia. 74.248.102.8 (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth Expedition (COMEX)

Commonwealth Expedition (COMEX) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - New editor Cbrownsyed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding large amounts of unwikified text to Commonwealth Expedition (COMEX), which, when put into Google come out as being from here. I have reverted. When challenged, the editor replied The text entered is from the Proposal for the Green Pennant awards, of which I am the co-author with Kevin Lacy and Lionel Gregory. No images were included. I have warned about CoI issues, but this could use extra eyes as the unwikified text is not really suitable for Wikipedia. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 15:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Luke

• 76.166.239.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dr. Luke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a user has been reverting my expansion of this article, and then left me a message on my talk page about representing the subject of the article, having privacy concerns with my additions, and looking into legal options to keep info from being added to the article. My sources include a couple of bios published by music equipment manufacturers, and a magazine article. I'd appreciate broader input on any conflict of interest issues. dissolve^talk 04:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Yehoishophot Oliver

• Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

assisted at the present time primarily by

• Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and

• Shlomke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and

• Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (reviewing his diffs, this user has minor links to Chabad editing, even though he admits "I definitely have a POV towards Chabad, since I am a Chabad rabbi". His role in these discussions have been to defend Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) by insulting the nominator of the discussion and by doing so here, and he was rejected, without informing the party he wished to address, which he already attacked, and continues, on those grounds: 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". For these multiple violations of WP:NPA that have absolutely nothing to do with the content and purpose of the complaint against Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs), but meant to help him by personally attacking the nominator in the fashion of a proverbial hitman to do character assassination using crude defamation and ruthless ad hominem attacks to avoid serious discussion, for these fundamental violations Debresser (talk · contribs) should be reprimanded and blocked. It may also be a good example of how the pro-Chabad POV editors will attack and tarnish any editor that dares to question them. Be warned for now and the future IZAK (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

User Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs), proudly going by his real name spends his time flooding Wikipedia with any number of pro-Chabad POV articles, even creating obvious fluff pieces and POV forks, in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING a clear-cut violation of WP:COI because he can be found as a spokesman for Chabad online, such as here "Tamim Yehoshafat Oliver reminded everyone..." see his own prophile on Blogger and the FIVE pro-Chabad blogs he runs, and the over 5000 Google hits for "Yehoishophot Oliver" speaks for itself. His work is welcome, but judging by his many pro-Chabad contributions in light of his unquestioning open public adherence to the Chabad messianic movement and its ideology brings into play enormous questions of WP:COI that 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" -- and lately several knowledgeable editors in the Judaica section have nominated some of his pro-Chabad propaganda articles for deletion and questioning his neutrality in the subject of Chabad on Wikipedia. Some kind of oversight is needed with basic warnings and guidelines because he is also aided by some other pro-Chabad editors who violate WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:WAR when questioned or confonted for their pro-Chabad bias. IZAK (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please give examples of your allegations with diff's. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • At this time the AfD's dealing with the multiple needless Chabad POV forks will speak for themselves, with more information to follow as required: (1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tefillin campaign. (The result was merge to Mitzvah Campaigns.) ; (2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign. (The result was delete.); (3) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noahide Campaign. (The result was merge to Seven Laws of Noah.); (4) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House (2nd nomination)=2009 December 24. (The result was delete.); 5) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad of South London. (The result was delete, with no prejudice towards turning it into a redirect.) Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Shlomke, here are strong examples of diffs from edits by Yehoishophot Oliver protecting the Chabad POV on Wikipedia as if it were a pro-Chabad blog (we can present the similar pro-Chabad POV diffs for you, Debresser and Zsero, in due course): attacking Dershowitz; canard against other Jewish groups inserted; sanitizing criticism of Rebbe; removing criticism; taking control of a concept; defending Chabad messianism; added pro-Rebbe BLOG to take over this term; sanitizing anti-Messianist comments; promoting notion of Rebbe as moshiach; sanitized comments about 6th rebbe; cutting out connection of singer Matisyahu to Chabad; purifying Chabad by removing controversial connection; devalued an opposition rival group by renaming them; removes important info about messianists; and again fights content about Chabad messianism; covers up sourced messianist practices; removed sourced comments about infighting with messianists; removed fair and known criticism of Chabad; plays with words as if it changes anything; sanitizes messianic message; cuts out important history of other successor rebbe; sanitizes comments about messianism; insists on having Chabad.org as a key reference; sanitizes a bio; inserts lengthy quotes from own POV sources; removes valid section about Lurianic kabbalah and messianism; sanitizes messianist; removes well-known and sourced views opposing Chabad; turning Jewish law into part mysticism; removes well-known non-Chabad rabbis from list; cuts ties with Israeli holidays per Chabad outlook, as well as here and here; self-glorification of Chabad; downplays other leader's strengths; voices anti-Zionism, a true Chabad policy; fights for pro-Noahide Chabad view; expresses extreme anti-Zionist views as per Chabad party line; removed valid sourced information about messianist disputes over replicas of 770; makes Chabad into the center of Chasidism; greatness of Chabad over all other Chasidim; removes important info he doesn't like about Hasidim; claims title of "Rav" for Lubavicther Rebbe; reports about schisms of others (while he edited out info about Chabad schisms in other articles); fights against Barry Gurary, a favorite Chabad bogey man; sanitizes the Rebbe's seclusion after death of his wife. Thanks, IZAK (talk)

For the record: I am not anti-Chabad by any means. I began as a Wikipedia editor seven years ago, and devoted some time to beginning the most important articles concerning Chabad and its seven rebbes, here: I began the article on Chabad, 30 December 2002; on the 1st Rebbe in 20 January 2003; 3rd Rebbe, 20 January 2003; 4th Rebbe, 20 January 2003; 5th Rebbe, 22 March 2004; 6th Rebbe, 20 January 2003; and helped start 7th Rebbe, 30 December 2002. Therefore I greatly admire the Chabad movement, however that being said, Wikipedia should not be allowed to become a reverse WP:MIRROR site for Chabad.org and the hundreds of pro-Chabad websites and blogs in order to protect the WP:NPOV of Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yehoishophot Oliver has made many comments admitting that he is using Wikipedia to promote his religious viewpoints. He has made no effort to follow Wikipedia policies. He also tries to use guilt, to shame Jewish Wikipedia editors into following his lead, as he believes that his edits promote his Rebbe's religious worldview - which he believes to be the only right, Jewish worldview. He and many other pro-Chabad editors have clearly, publicly and repeatedly gone to war against all Wikipedia policies. They are trying to turn this Encyclopedia into a public relations tool for their faith. This is unacceptable. RK (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Pleasy give examples of your allegations with diff's. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also for the record, I have made financial donations to three different Chabad houses over the last twenty years. The sad thing is that they have become radicalized, created an us-versus-them worldview, and started trying to force their views on others. RK (talk)

• This is ridiculous, and has gone way too far. If someone is violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, and about half a dozen other WP rules it's Izak, who seems to be engaged in a campaign of harassment against Chabad-related editors. This tendentious COI complaint is typical. So are his claims of a "fifth column" of Chabad editors with "growing powers and influnce" trying to "take over Wikipedia" and "turn it into chabad.org". He also constantly calls articles he doesn't like WP:CFORKs, completely ignoring the actual definition of a fork; I don't know why he does that.

  Claiming that Yehoishophot Oliver has some sort of COI here is exactly the same as claiming that Izak has a COI on any Jewish article, and that he should quit WikiProject Judaism, as should all Jews. Obviously that is not a valid claim. -- Zsero (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Zsero, kindly stick to the issues. you are displaying the very problem I am addressing, that when anyone who is not a Chabad editor on Wikipedia either disagrees or lodges a complaint you then go into over-drive and violate WP:OWN as well as WP:NPA. I am not "making things up here" -- I have been a Wikipedia editor in the Judaic sections for seven years and I can honestly and objectively state that the way pro-Chabad articles and links are proliferating on Wikipedia, Wikipedia will soon look like a reverse WP:MIRROR site for Chabad.org. Instead of having a temper tantrum you need to devise a way that pro-Chabad editors can control their obvious ambitions to run anything to do with Chabad on Wikipedia as any edit history of a major Chabad topic will show that anyone trying to insert what runs counter to the pro-Chabad party line will be attacked by swarms of pr-Chabad editors, like you and User Debresser (talk · contribs) as current good examples of pro-Chabad POV warriors, who will ensure that articles Chabad articles reflect the official Chabad position. I now citing you and User Debresser (talk · contribs) as accessories to the problem at hand. IZAK (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the tone of your protests is the only thing that is going into overdrive here. I can't answer for others, but I don't see any Chabad psuhing here that violates Wikipedia rules. Nothing more than the usual POV disagreements. Were you perhaps on the losing side of a few of them? Debresser (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• You have got to be kidding. What conceivable COI do you think I have? This is a deliberately false and tendentious accusation, an abuse of WP, and I'm calling for some sort of action against Izak. At the very least, he needs A Cup Of Tea, A Bex and A Good Lie Down. -- Zsero (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Zsero, this is a serious matter, stop trying to trivialize it or to ridicule a situation simply because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. By the way, kindly do NOT assert falsehoods, take a good look at WP:CFORK and WP:POVFORK, they are on the same page and it states there : "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." So when the pro-Chabad editors create deliberate POV and CONTENT forks, like Noahide Campaign (now mercifully and logically voted to merge with Seven Laws of Noah); or Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign (now deleted but it was logically part of either Sefer Torah or Mitzvah Campaigns) or Tefillin campaign (which was now logically voted to merge with Mitzvah Campaigns and it could just as easily been part of the main Tefillin article) and there are lots more examples like this, these are clear-cut examples of both CONTENT and POV forking by the pro-Chabad editors to push their POV as they forget that here on Wikipedia there is a more comprehensive broader encyclopedic WP:NPOV outlook on Judaism that they must accept on Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to put aside the question of FORKS for a moment a agree with IZAK regarding COI. When I work for a company, I am asked to declare a COI on any relevant article. I am still allowed to edit said article but it means that my work will be scrutinized by others for POV. Having a strong affiliation with a group, especially one with a public agenda of sharing their point of view with others, in my opinion is no less COI that working for an organization.
  While we all know that there is a certain amount of OR that we all bring to bear when editing WP articles (esp. in on Jewish topics) I would recommend that Oliver voluntarily restrict himself to 3rd party , reliable sources regarding his edits on Chabad and outreach related topics. Joe407 (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  That is an outrageous demand. You may as well say that every Jew has a COI on Jewish topics, every Xian on Xian topics, every Buddhist on Buddhist topics, etc. Or that every US voter with political opinions has a COI on any US-politics related topic. -- Zsero (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Zsero, cut out the tones of hysteria PLEASE and be logical. I don't know about other religions, but Judaism and especially Orthodox Judaism is highly complex and multi-multi-faceted with thousands of nuances. Everything on Wikipedia is based on edit history and the style of an editor and that is how editors are judged. This is not about hypothetical arguments about what Christians do (you can use that word on Wikipedia and there is no need to use "Xian" which is offensive to other editors who may be Christians and not "Xians") or what Buddhists write, this is about the confirmed and obvious observations of the tactics and methods and aims of the pro-Chabad WP:POVWARRIORS, like you and the above-mentioned, who are gung ho to insert whatever they like about Chabad-related topics, no matter how trivial and repetative at times, as if Wikipedia was a branch or subsidiary of Chabad.org and if anyone seriously questions them in the larger Chabad articles they act in defiance of WP:OWN TO OTHER NON-CHABAD JUDAIC EDITORS (and not to "Xians" and Buddhists) and fight THEIR SUPPOSED FELLOW JUDAIC CO-EDITORS, albeit not being Chabadniks, harder than they would fight "Xians" and Buddhists to keep the pro-Chabad POV party line in articles often eliminating excellent points BY OTHER JUDAIC EDITORS, OFTEN AS OBVIOUSLY ORTHODOX AS THEY ARE, by resorting to defending their articles in packs, thus wearing down and tiring out the others resulting in the ongoing hegemony over the Chabad articles by the Chabad editors ONLY, again in violation of WP:OWN. IZAK (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

1. I do not hide my Chabad identity online, and I choose not to go by a pseudonym on wikipedia, and I don't see that this violates any rule. On wikipedia I strive to follow the rules, and that is what matters. I want to improve wikipedia through creating quality articles and editing existing ones, and that is what I have done, with Hashem's help. These articles are generally related to Judaism, because I have no knowledge or interest in writing articles about Islam or any other religion, being that I don't belong to them. I guess I have a COI because I'm Jewish, huh. Whatever.
2. Conversely, Izak has made it clear that he identifies as an Orthodox Jew (which of course I respect). Perhaps someone who doesn't identify himself as such may now come and accuse Izak of being unfit to edit any Judaism-related article, because he is coming with the POV of Orthodox Judaism (which is by the way a world-view that according to all halachic opinions require a Jew to convince other Jews to accept it--as per the mitzvah of hocheiach tochiach es amisecho)? Most world views have a certain degree of "we want others to believe as we do". Big deal. And many wikipedia editors are not ashamed about mentioning their world-views, Izak included. For example, there are very pro-Islam/arab and very pro-Israel editors on wikipedia. Does the fact that they clearly hold something personally, hence the nature of their edits, disqualify them from editing? I think not.
3. As for making lots of edits on one general topic (I'm not aware of a rule against this, but whatever), perhaps we will accuse Izak of that, since he clearly has a preference for editing Judaism related articles over Islam-related ones? I might also add that over the years I have edited many non-Chabad related Judaism articles.
4. In any case, if someone believes that a particular edit of mine is incorrect or one-sided, they are welcome to quote counter-sources to promote balance (may I point out that I even added a whole controversy section to the Public Menorah article in order to create balance there). If they believe I have erred in counting a subject as a separate article, they are welcome to argue for that position. But this has turned into not just harassment, but nothing short of a witch-hunt.
5. What is most outrageous is Izak claiming that he has no personal agenda against Chabad, when in the recent Public Menorah afd he repeatedly used the most derogatory POV, uncivil language against Chabad and against the Lubavitcher Rebbe, accusing him of a "drive for hegemony", calling his directives "diktats" (interestingly, he considers similar language inappropriate when referring to rabbis in general [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IZAK/archive_30#Why_is_the_Noahide_Campaign_less_part_of_outreach_than_Aliya.3F]: "By the way, real rabbis don't "dictate" -- a very bad word"), accusing his disciples of carrying out their Rebbe's directives "robotically and unthinkingly", dismissing the Lubavitcher Rebbe's call for Public menorahs as invalid and incorrect, and therefore not worthy of inclusion, because many rabbis disagreed with it, and declaring that Public menorahs "really have nothing to do with menorahs as such but are aimed at furthering the Chabad world view upon everyone", and more. All of this was completely irrelevant to the discussion there, which was about the notability of Public Menorahs, and the most blatant violations of WP:NPOV, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and especially WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. Above Izak also violates WP:OUTING by posting personal information about me from a search engine, info. which I did not post on wikipedia.
6. Oh, and RK also reveals his anti-Chabad POV agenda himself right here: "I have made financial donations to three different Chabad houses over the last twenty years. The sad thing is that they have become radicalized, created an us-versus-them worldview, and started trying to force their views on others." But please, let RK adduce proof for the outrageous claims he makes against me, which clearly violate WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:Yehoishophot Oliver's comments:

1. You contradict yourself by saying that on one hand "I do not hide my Chabad identity online, and I choose not to go by a pseudonym on wikipedia, and I don't see that this violates any rule" but on the other hand it's "outing" you to call you and KNOW you by your real online name which is also your Wikipedia name that you don't even attempt to hide, even when Emailing back and forth you use your name. Totally illogical. You are being facetious when you write "I guess I have a COI because I'm Jewish, huh" -- nope, because it's not the point, the point is that we are discussing your editorship and spread of a specific pro-Chabad ideology writing articles and defending pro-Chabad POV positions when other editors seek to insert or debate many of the issues that you and your allies stonewall.
2. I have NOT identified myself as an Orthodox Jew or as any kind of Jew on Wikipedia at any time, but I have pointed out that YOU and your allies do not co-operate EVEN with Orthodox editors, which is quite obvious from the way they have commented against your practices many times.
3. Sure, anyone can freely edit any articles, kindly stop fuzzing up the issues. The main point of this complaint is that when it comes to the topic of Chabad you create too many POV forks and within Chabad articles you and your allies will not allow any view that diverges from standard pro-Chabad propaganda (and it is outright UN-encyclopedic propaganda) to be found on Chabad.org but not befitting Wikipedia to be acting as a surrogate mouthpiece for Chabad care of your editorial stewardship.
4. This is not a "witch hunt" and you are neither a witch nor a wizard, but like everyone else, and as pointed out by a few editors here already, as a Wikipedia editor you need to be restrained from creating articles on Wikipedia in the image of Chabad.org or that befits web sites like Beis Moshiach.org or Moshiach.net or Lubavitch.com or Lubavitch Networks.org or any of the literal thousands of pro-Chabad sites that no doubt somehow or other you and other pro-Chabad editors would like to see as the face of not just Wikipedia's Chabad articles but with links in all Judaic articles, and it's very funny you talk of welcoming others to edit along with the pro-Chabad editors which is like a bird trying to fly with a swarm of hornets as they buzz in when anyone they don't like tries to insert edits not to their liking. It can be proven from almost any of the multiple pro-Chabad pages on Wikipedia.
5. To repeat I have no agenda against Chabad. God bless them. But they have no automatic right to invade Wikipedia and assume that they WP:OWN every last shred of information that relates to them, their highly controversial movement that faces serious questions from all sides of the Jewish spectrum. Kindly note that none of the terminology I used is in any way unsuitable when talking about an aggressive and unyielding leader because Wikipedia biographies are NOT hagiography, so nothing I have stated thus far exceeds terms suitable for discussing powerful, almost frightening, and controversial figures.
6. What is wrong with any User saying that he made financial contributions to Chabad? It's very kind in fact. Like the donations Wikipedia asks for now on top of every page. We can go by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and praise that person's generosity instead of assuming that having analytical thoughts and the ability to think and dicuss things in a critical manner somehow negates that person's sterling qualities. Wikipedia does not require a pledge of allegiance to the Lubavitcher Rebbe or to any rabbi because Wikipedia is not a shtetel, nor is it a Chasidus, nor is it a yeshiva but rather it's an encyclopedia that requires that articles follow its well-established guidelines. No amount of WP:LAWYERING by Users Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) and Zsero (talk · contribs) and other single minded pro-Chabad defenders can cover up or excuse the free ride they have enjoyed so far without anyone seriously challenging them and the other pro-Chabad WP:POVWARRIORs that they must fall in line with WP:CONSENSUS and not game the system to suit the aims of Chabad while undermining the over-all development of a more balanced and critical view of Chabad topics as well as other topics that they delve into. IZAK (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:IZAK's comments:

1. No, it’s outing to post personal information about me on Wikipedia, because aside from my name and location, I have not posted any personal information on Wikipedia. Nor did I reveal any personal information in any personal correspondence with you. Is there some reason I should attempt to hide my name? Others prefer to do so, I prefer not to. There is no rule against it.
2. I see. Well, on Wikipedia I have not identified myself as a Chabad chossid. And if you would identify yourself as an Orthodox Jew, would all your edits on Judaic articles then be automatically COI? I think not. Also, if you could quote some concrete examples about how I or others have not “cooperated” with other editors, or how other editors have “complained many times” against my edits (and I don’t mean ones I made when I first started on Wikipedia and didn’t yet know the ropes), instead of making unsupported claims, that would be helpful. It might just be that (gasp!) there was a legitimate difference of opinion. Oh, and as for cooperating, you might recall that until you started this witch-hunt, we WERE cooperating quite amicably together on non-Chabad Judaic articles. I recall no disagreements there at all, never mind total non-cooperation. Or is your memory so short?
3. As for starting articles that you consider inappropriate, some have been found unnecessary by other editors, and others haven’t. Each one may be discussed on its own merits. If there is a difference of opinion on the matter, the correct way to resolve it is through respectful discussion, not your current modus operandi. As for removing critical statements, please quote to me even one place that I or any of the other editors you point the finger at have deleted properly-sourced statements critical of Chabad.
4. Your language was and continues to involve personal attacks, incivility, and unashamed promotion of your personal hostile views. Note that on the Public Menorah afd page several other editors, including those who believed that the article deserved to be deleted, objected to your nasty tone. Please stick to discussion directly related to editing Wikipedia, and kindly refrain from using it as a forum to release your vitriol and promote your personal agenda. Thank you.
5. Obviously I wasn’t referring to RK’s donations, but to his POV statement after that expressing hostility to Chabad in general. But I am waiting for him (or you) to back up these absurd claims against me with extensive reference to the appropriate diffs. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Yehoishophot Oliver:

1. Again, you admit that you do not hide your name anywhere and it's somehow "outing" you to know and address you for who and what you admit you are all the time. There is no "outing" someone who has already outed themselves by providng their true ID on Wikipedia and forgoing anonymity thereby, unless you claim that you are not "Yehoishophot Oliver" but an imposter impersonating you in violation of WP:HOAX. Like saying anyone and everyone can and does know who I am, just don't mention it in this COI discussion.
2. The issue is NOT if you are a Chabad chosid or what my beliefs are. God bless you in your personal life and personal beliefs, and long live Chabad! That being said, like a lechaim, the central problem at hand in this COI complaint is that you, assisted by and with other pro-Chabad POV editors, obvious from their edit history and comments, the pro-Chabad POV editors violate WP:OWN and act as if you have the sole "power" and "authority" to shape and control the contents and edits of articles relating to Chabad topics in a WP:POV fashion as if the articles emanate from Chabad.org and act in violation of WP:OWN; WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING for the Chabad movement in a dispassionate and unemotional manner. Your reactions right now are proof of the emotionalism and personalising of responses rather than discuss the real issue of your near-absolute control of the Chabad topics on Wikipedia.
3. You well know that Chabad fights hard to control any voices against it and that so-called "properly-sourced statements critical of Chabad" are hard to come by, but they do exist. Nevertheless I invite you to look at the edit histories of just three serious topics most hateful to the pro-Chabd POV editors: Rabbi Elazar Shach and Chabad messianism and Barry Gurary and you will see how they function to undercut even known and sourced valid criticisms.
4. Indeed, I feel as strongly about my views as you do about yours, but I do not violate WP:NOTADVOCATE. I also feel a strong responsiblity towards the direction and fate of ALL the Judaic articles on Wikipedia proven by my pretty good record of good faith editing over seven years. I have never been questioned about my fairness as an editor, the compalainst against me is that I am too vocal in fighting antisemitism as I tend to be frank and not hide my agendas.
5. At this time the AfD's dealing with the multiple needless Chabad POV forks will speak for themselves, with more information to follow as required: (1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tefillin campaign; (2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign; (3) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noahide Campaign; (4) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House (2nd nomination)=2009 December 24; (5) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad of South London. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Izak:

1. Yes, I don't hide my name, but as I understood it, the outing rule prohibits drawing attention to a person's personal life if it is not promoted on wikipedia.
2. You need to point to specific diffs to prove your claim; I'm not about to read through an entire history of an article. Note also that I've barely edited those articles, so perhaps address your challenges against those whom you feel have violated the rules you mention, not me.
3. Yes, there are some articles whose independent merit is being debated. So what? Keep the discussion on the relevant talk/afd pages.
4. I can't comment on your work on other articles in general and the fairness or lack thereof; however, much of the work that I've encountered I greatly respect, as I've mentioned. But you have clearly violated numerous rules when it comes to commenting on Chabad-related articles. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To Yehoishophot Oliver: I do not wish to repeat myself and run around in circles. I will respond to new comments but not to self-repetition. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, those are exactly my sentiments. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Response by Debresser

I definitely have a POV towards Chabad, since I am a Chabad rabbi. Likewise I have a POV towards Jewish points of view in general. And a whole lot of other POV's. I guess just like anybody. Nevertheless I try, and I think with success, to remain more or less objective. I can show edits that clearly prove I am doing a very good job at that. Including in the cases mentioned/alluded to above. Obviously, as any Wikipedian editor in good standing, I would have no problem with a third-party assessment of my behavior in this issue (or any other issue connected with my behavior on Wikipedia). Debresser (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• User Debresser's comments are to be welcomed, but it's too little too late, and the reasons are to be found in his words. Does it mean because Chabad has thousands of rabbis who have their own Chabad websites and blogs and who are streaming to Wikipedia in greater numbers as the days, weeks, and months fly by, that Wikipedia will have to bow in submission to the "greater wisdom" and resounding presence of thousands of Chabad rabbis who will think in unison and will in effect by SHEER NUMBERS unite to crush Wikipedia's independence, control every letter that's written about Chabad on it, and wage into areas about Judaic and Israeli-related topics that no one will be able to withstand as they declare "I am a Chabad rabbi"? This will be a sad and sorry state of affairs and the END of Wikipedia as it has been known until now. That is why it is important for other Wikipedians to be made aware of this very real threat to Wikipedia's independnce unless guidelines and restraints are set up to enforce total neutrality and ensure that not even Chabad topics can be WP:OWNED by Chabad rabbis, no matter how many show up and declare their authority as such. IZAK (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • You list 3 editors whom you consider pro-chabad, and then start raving in the most derogatory terms about how thousands of Chabad editors are taking over wikipedia. This is wild hysteria. Please stop using wikipedia as a forum to promote your personal agenda; thank you. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It's more than a mere three pro-Chabad POV editors, and you know it, such as Users Shlomke (talk · contribs); PinchasC (talk · contribs); Chocolatepizza (talk · contribs), and many who pop in and out, and they work hard together over time to ensure that a cordon sanitaire to their liking is placed around ANY Chabad-related topics. It's not "raving" to point out this growing pattern and projection of things to come if left unregulated. No one is saying that "thousands of Chabad editors are taking over wikipedia" but what I am saying is that if the presnet TREND contnues it will becom impossible for a non-Chabad editor to make meanigful contributions to Chabad and non-Chabad topics due to the constant unified stonealling by the pro-Chabad POV editors. IZAK (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
      • PinchasC (talk · contribs) and Chocolatepizza (talk · contribs) haven't been around for years. Until fairly recently, I've also been quite inactive. Sholomk is active, true. So you have a grand total of four. Hardly the mass conspiracy campaign that you paint. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
        • PinchasC has been around during 2009 and Chocolatepizza was an important pro-Chabad editor as part of a strong ongoing pattern that has continued as one editor retires another takes up the baton, which is part of the problem here as they all do the same thing. IZAK (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Once again Izak is alleging some sort of vast conspiracy. He really needs to be sanctioned for this. -- Zsero (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
            • No "vast conspiracy" -- then again, your best "defense" is offense -- just noting the obvious on the record editorial patterns. We can go through each and every Chabad article and see what comes of it if you like. There are also many pro-Chabad editors who make plenty of edits anonymously from just IP addresses hoping not to get noticed or cited for pushing the party line. That too is part of this problem. IZAK (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
              • I haven't seen any edits from PinchasC. So you disagreed with CP--so what? Again, your claims are wildly exaggerated. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Outside editor's comment

I'm not affiliated in any way with Judaism in real life, or with Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. I have no "side" in this dispute. I do frequent the COI noticeboard, though, and I've seen many complaints and resolutions come and go.

IZAK, it is very rare that Wikipedia considers it a COI for an editor to edit articles related to that editor's religion. Doing so comes close to discrimination and would be pretty much impossible to police. Similar broad connections, such as a person's gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, political beliefs, or nationality are also not considered proper bases for COI complaints.

You've said that Yehoishophot Oliver is a spokesman for "Chabad online", and runs five blogs. Does he attempt to promote any of those blogs or any web sites or organizations he is directly tied to? Doing so would certainly be a COI because he is directly connected to them.

It's very possible that he has violated our neutral point of view policy in his edits and in articles he has created. That is separate from a COI, however, and there is a different noticeboard for lodging such complaints.

So to wrap up, unless there are clear conflicts of interest such as I'd asked about, I'd say that this particular complaint about a COI is baseless. We don't discriminate based on religion, or as has been pointed out to you already, you'd be in violation yourself. -- Atama頭 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Atama: To address your points:

1. This is NOT a complaint "related to that editor's religion" because obviously he and everyone is free to have their religion. It's more subtle and complex than that, and easy for an outsider to miss the nuances and reality at work. This is a COI complaint about an editor and his allies admission to editing and controlling articles about Chabad-related topics on Wikipedia that reveals a pattern of promoting and defending a party line LIKE they were spokesman for Chabad, which they are in real life, on Wikipedia to make it adhere to the Chabad view and not to many Wikipedia policies, NPOV being one of them, but others being violated are WP:OWN; WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:POVFORK to promote a flow of pro-Chabad articles as if Wikipedia were a reverse WP:MIRROR of other online Chabad web sites and blogs. This is a clear conflict of interest between their own admitted roles in real life as Chabad propagandists (in the positive sense) and their work as Wikipedia editors of Chabad articles on Wikipedia.
2. Indeed, as you assert, "Yehoishophot Oliver is a spokesman" for the Chabad movement on the Internet (to be specific), and as proof, as you recognize, "runs five blogs" at least that promote Chabad full force. While he does not "attempt to promote any of those blogs" of his own, he does promote the MESSAGE of those blogs and that of "web sites or organizations he is directly tied to" by his strong connections to Chabad, and therefore: I agree with you that "Doing so would certainly be a COI because he is directly connected to them" [Chabad being a vast online effort as well].
3. The issue of violating WP:NPOV is not the bone of contention at all. It is more subtle than that because the main problem is he and his pro-Chabad POV editors create a stranglehold, utilizing refined editorial skills and the rules of Wikipedia as tools and shields to wage their Mitzvah Campaign to push Chabad and pro-Chabad links in articles and edits AS IF attempting to turn Wikipedia's articles and Chabad-related articles and links into the same thing they do online at Chabad blogs, websites and social networking online. Feel free to request further clarification. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You've said that Yehoishophot Oliver is a spokesman for "Chabad online"

You misparsed that; Izak's claim was not that Yehoishophot is a spokesman for an entity called "Chabad online", but that he has been cited online as a spokesman for the Chabad movement. That claim is false, and the "evidence" he cites for it is absurd, but it doesn't go as far as you thought it did. -- Zsero (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but perhaps this is too subtle and complex for any action to be taken. You've pretty much confirmed here that Yehoishophot Oliver has been doing a good job avoiding conflicts of interest by avoiding promotion of anything that he is directly connected with (those 5 blogs would be a clear COI). You haven't given any other specific complaints, only a general idea that he's trying to promote a pro-Chamal POV alongside numerous other editors.

It seems to me that you're not really making a COI complaint here. You're trying to raise the alarm that a concerted effort by a religious movement is trying to change Wikipedia. That's not without precedent, see this arbitration case regarding something similar that occurred with Scientology. However, notice that the Scientology problem lasted for years, involved people who edited directly on behalf of an organization (rather than people editing on behalf of their own beliefs) and the case took 6 months to close (and was the 4th arbitration case on Scientology, and probably won't be the last!). If your allegations are true (and again, you don't have any diffs to back them up) it will take a lot more than a COI noticeboard complaint before anything is done about them. -- Atama頭 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Atama:

1. If this is too subtle for you then you should perhaps recuse yourself from this discussion because this is a long-brewing issue that cannot be short-ended with simplistic solutions, and it requires utmost attention to details and a requirement to be WP:BOLD in confronting this huge COI problem.
2. If, as you state, a "religious movement is trying to change Wikipedia" then if that movement's representatives (one has admitted to being an official rabbi of it, and the other is also a rabbi that runs blogs to promote it) then it is a clear-cut issue of COI when they set about to promote their cause in POV fashion when Wikipedia requires absolute allegiance to WP:NPOV, even when POV-foisting is done by subterfuge it must be exposed and fought. Making matters worse, when a "religious movement is trying to change Wikipedia" and then fights to protect its articles in violation of WP:OWN EVEN TO OTHER JUDAIC EDITORS WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, and flaunt themselves openly in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING for Chabad, then the problem of COI is multiplied and not "reduced" in any way.
3. The example you cite of the Scientologists' attempts to undermine and control Wikipedia's articles about them is the PERFECT analogy to what has also been going on for years with the pro-Chabad POV editors, and citing them for COI violations is as good a place as any to start because they are guilty of that and a lot more if you go through each one's edit history you will find manipulation, intimidation, editing, censoring, propagandizing and basically functioning as a law unto themsleves and if you call them on it they will resort to all manner of WP:NPA certainly no WP:AGF and all the silliness of utilizing WP:LAWYERing as much as they can as you see them doing it now.
4. The pro-Chabad POV editors, like the Scientologists, are, to use your exact words "involved people who edited directly on behalf of an organization" and they are NOT "people editing on behalf of their own beliefs" alone, because one is a self-admitted Chabad rabbi (Debresser) and the other is also another rabbi (Yehoishophot Oliver) who spends his time online doing what he does on Wikipedia, push the pro-Chabad POV. This is as clear as daylight.
5. I have now provided you with the diffs (below and above) and even though, as you state: "it will take a lot more than a COI noticeboard complaint before anything is done about them" it is no reason to back off, but on the contrary this is an excellent point to start what will be a longer process of not allowing pro-Chabad POV editors from hijacking not just the ever-growing Chabad-related topics but many of the Judaic and Israeli-related topics. IZAK (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel any need to recuse myself, but I think it's pretty clear to all involved that there is no COI here. I've gone through a number of diffs you cited, and while many of your descriptions of those diffs misleadingly suggest a problem, I don't see anything alarming. Frankly, as this continues the only concerns I have are regarding your motives. It would probably be in your best interest to drop this. As DGG said below, there's nothing here that the usual Wikipedia processes involving an adherence to a neutral POV can't handle. -- Atama頭 01:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To Atama:

1. Evidently what is "obvious" to you is NOT "obvious" to every other non-Chabad editor who has commented on this COI situation so far, and this discussion is only TWO days old.
2. This is a very serious matter. Please do it all due justice by reading every single one of the diffs, not just a few, since it was you who requested them and I went to the trouble of researching and posting them. Please be specific and point out how you arrive at your conclusions about them if as you have already admited at the outset you do not understand the nuances of the subject that's being discussed.
3. Obviously what we have so far is four pro-Chabad POV warriors (Users Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs): Zsero (talk · contribs); Debresser (talk · contribs); Shlomke (talk · contribs)) who are the core group at the heart of this now unmasked COI issue (it's not a "conspiracy" by them, it's their direct policy) at the present time, and they are calling anyone who does not agree with them all sorts of crazy names (in the negative spirit of shooting the messenger), and pushing to have the discussion cut off even though it's about a mere 48 hours old only, and on the other hand a growing group of non-Chabad editors, many very familiar with Judaic issues who are voicing their own independent opinions (not guided by any groupthink of any sort) in agreement with my very real concerns noting the huge COI and other related problems with the pro-Chabad POV editors who have stated their views thus far with NONE agreeing with your and the pro-Chabad POV editors assessments in any way, namely Users RK (talk · contribs); Joe407 (talk · contribs); Yoninah (talk · contribs); Jmabel (talk · contribs); Redaktor (talk · contribs); Yossiea (talk · contribs); Shuki (talk · contribs) and diplomatic instructions to the pro-Chabad editors from DGG (talk · contribs); Avraham (talk · contribs) and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) and there will no doubt be more who join in. And this after only two days of discussion, so your rush to judgment is entirely unwarranted.
4. I have repeatedly quoted your own criteria to you and they match the problem at hand.
5. The sum is greater than the parts, and it is from the totality of the mostly censorial pro-Chabad POV edits by Yehoishophot Oliver and the three others, all of which are meant to undercut accepted critical thinking about Chabad or any aspect of Judaism and related topics, much of it sourced from the standard views not based on Chabad ideology, as revealed by the diffs cited that prove beyond a doubt the pro-Chabad POV direction and intent of Yehoishophot Oliver. If it were one or two edits like that then sure, no problem maybe, but if it's a huge trend with no exceptions, and judged so by many other editors who know these subjects to be so too, then it's a huge problem, and it will only get worse and not better with unfortunate results for Wikipedia that will come to look like a "reverse WP:MIRROR site" for Chabad.org and the hundreds of online pro-Chabad websites and blogs.
6. It is only the pro-Chabad POV editors who question my motives, while none of the non-Chabad editors have any questions about my motives as such. Perhaps they may find that I am being somewhat alarmist (in my view it's important as a "pro- Wikipedia whistleblower), and you DO overlook the views of the non-Chabad editors and even the important core of DGG's message directed at his concerns about the pro-Chabad editing, they agree that unless corrected, the way the pro-Chabad editors are going about their business on Wikipedia it's in a COI with their specific allegiance to the Chabad movement ONLY, not just to Judaism in general, and has nothing to do with their own personal religious beliefs as such to which I or anyone else have no objections whatsoever. As I said, and I say it again, God bless them ande God bless Chabad, but that being said, it does not give them "automatic rights" to swing and push the pro-Chabad POV in all articles they touch in violation of WP:COI and more. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Response by Shlomke

I find User:Yehoishophot Oliver to be a very good and dedicated editor who spends much time on general Judaic articles improving them, assuring that they hold a NPOV. He also has collaborated successfully with other editor's including User:IZAK and others on general Judaic topics. I find him to generally be a an editor who follows WP rules. At issue is whether he has a conflict of interest on Chabad topics, which is what Izak accuses him of. I have asked Izak to provide examples with diffs. Izak violates WP:OUTING by attempting to reveal personal information about Yehoishophot Oliver, which may or may not be true. It is very funny how Izak arrived at the conclusion the Yehoishophot Oliver is a "spokesman" for Chabad-Lubavitch. This is patent nonsense. I think it is absolutely important, and very valuable to Wikipedia to have editors knowledgeable in Chabad Hasidism which is a movement that some put their numbers at 200,000. To have a rabbi like User:Debresser says he is is an advantage to Wikipedia. There are currently very few editors with good knowledge of Chabad, and it would not hurt to have a few more. Izak seems to think there is some conspiracy to make Wikipedia look like Chabad.org. There is no such conspiracy. In fact there are two huge articles critical of Chabad on WP, Chabad messianism and Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies which is posted on the Template:Chabad that goes on every Chabad related article. There is no need for additional action outside of the proactive WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It is indeed interesting how as soon as I asked Izak for diffs he added me to the "assisted by" section above which he did to User:Zsero as well. I personally don't take offense to it, but it seems it might be an effort to disqualify our responses. Shlomke (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not had any experience with the Chabad editors' edit warring of which IZAK speaks, and I would like to see some examples (diffs) in order to comment on it. But I am aware of the pro-Chabad, PR-style (rather than encyclopedia-style) articles that Yehoishophot Oliver has posted. Like many articles, the fact that they have no references other than the Rebbe's sichot earns them an "unreferenced" tag, no more and no less. The fact that no one has bothered to add references to them since they were posted two years ago is also not surprising, considering the volume of pages on the English Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia encourages people who know something about the subject to write articles, I don't think it's fair to censor Yehoishophot Oliver, but I do think he should be reminded to reread Wikipedia:Reliable sources and be held to the standard of all "unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Since when are the Rebbe's sichos not a reference? An article with only such references may be tagged as Singlesource, but certainly not as Unreferenced. Such material may not be removed. -- Zsero (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, Zsero. Maybe I was misreading WP:Reliable sources:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

The articles which IZAK cited above as having been written by Yehoishophot Oliver are all based on the primary source. For that matter, Oliver could go ahead and parlay all the Rebbe's sichot into Wikipedia articles. I was just saying that he should also try to find third-party sources (e.g. internet and newspaper articles) to make it look less like PR and more like an encyclopedia.

I, too, have started articles. But I do not put them up with one, primary source. I try to back up the page with many sources from the start so that readers will see the whole picture up-front. Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable, provided that they are used for no more than what they actually say, not for analysis. Secondary sources are needed for analysis of what the primary sources mean. If someone claims the LR took a particular position, then he can only cite a sicha if it explicitly makes that point, not if it only implies it.

2. However, that is only for claims that the LR said something or held something. For topics beyond that, the LR's sichos are a valid secondary source, and his analysis of the primary sources he quotes is 100% citable on WP. For instance, on the shape of the temple menorah, the LR's sicha is the most important secondary source on what the rishonim had to say about it. -- Zsero (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about the specific issues, but just a point about primary sources: they may be used as sources, with caution, but articles should not be based on them, because primary sources do not show notability. Secondary sources are needed to show that the article should exist in the first place. Secondary sources are also usually needed to show that the specific points made in the article are worth making, and that the article's thrust isn't simply a Wikipedian's opinion. Articles about religious figures or religious issues that are based largely or entirely on primary sources would almost certainly be a violation of our content policies, specifically WP:NOR, WP:V, and probably WP:NPOV. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, SlimVirgin, that's what I was trying to say. A year ago, I expanded the article on Ohel, wondering why there was another article entitled Ohel (Chabad). I have now flagged the latter article with a merge suggestion template, as its one paragraph can easily be incorporated into the Ohel article. Yoninah (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yoninah, no so called "Chabad editor" created that article. In fact it was Izak that found it necessary to create. Perhaps he can explain what compelled him to create it, and without any primary or secondary sources. Shlomke (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Shlomke (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Shlomke, I have already stated above at the outset that I am not anti-Chabad by any means. Both Wikipidia's and Chabad's online credibility are at stake here. Wikipedia must continue to be independent and Chabad on the Internet must not be seen as conducting a creeping annexation of Wikipedia. So now, I can't recall the reasons I created Ohel (Chabad) (I created quite a few articles about Chabad), but it is obvious that the burial site of the 6th and 7th Lubavitcher Rebbes, with their wives and many other family members, that has become a holy place and place of pilgrimage for Jews from all walks of life from all over the world, is very important in the pantheon of not just Chabad but of all Jewry. It was a good stub and I leave it up to editors like yourself to find more information about it. Go ahead stop it from being merged to Ohel, I will support you on that. It's sort of surprising that Yoninah has issues with this, because she is an expert on Breslov and the Rosh Hashana kibbutz#Pilgrimage established by Reb Noson to the grave of Rebbe Nachman at Uman. I would oppose a merge of that article with Ohel. So much for your delusions that I "oppose" Chabad. IZAK (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yoninah: Thanks for your observations. You ask about the "Chabad editors' edit warring of which IZAK speaks, and I would like to see some examples (diffs) in order to comment on it." So in answer to your questions take a look at the edit warring at these articles: Rabbi Elazar Shach and Chabad messianism and Barry Gurary. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

1) That's a grand total of 3 articles; hardly the mass conspiracy that you point; 2) you have yet to cite diffs to prove my role in these articles (not that I would have a problem editing them, and if I would I would strive to be fair and follow the rules, but I don't recall extensively editing them, so that makes your allegations against me all the more unsubstantiated. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll address the edit war topic, although it's not relevant to any COI complaints.

• Elazar Shach - This seems to mostly be a slow-burning conflict between a single IP editor in New York City and a couple of registered editors (209.155.49.X, 129.98.211.X, 98.116.27.151 all geolocate to NYC). Nothing alarming and there hasn't really been much discussion for the article for years.
• Chabad messianism - The biggest editing conflict I see is between Zsero and Debresser back in September, and these are people you allege to have ganged together as part of some religious movement, so this actually works against your claims.
• Barry Gurary - The only alarming thing I see in the edit history here was this blatant POV violation which was rightfully reverted. Aside from that, this article which you allege to be defended by a pro-Chabad group has had a total of 5 edits in the past year.

Again, I see nothing that supports a major conspiracy at work here. When asked to provide diffs, you point to article histories and expect people to dig through them. That's not going to sway anyone. -- Atama頭 22:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Atama: Here are strong examples of diffs from edits by Yehoishophot Oliver protecting the Chabad POV on Wikipedia as if it were a pro-Chabad blog: attacking Dershowitz; canard against other Jewish groups inserted; sanitizing criticism of Rebbe; removing criticism; taking control of a concept; defending Chabad messianism; added pro-Rebbe BLOG to take over this term; sanitizing anti-Messianist comments; promoting notion of Rebbe as moshiach; sanitized comments about 6th rebbe; cutting out connection of singer Matisyahu to Chabad; purifying Chabad by removing controversial connection; devalued an opposition rival group by renaming them; removes important info about messianists; and again fights content about Chabad messianism; covers up sourced messianist practices; removed sourced comments about infighting with messianists; removed fair and known criticism of Chabad; plays with words as if it changes anything; sanitizes messianic message; cuts out important history of other successor rebbe; sanitizes comments about messianism; insists on having Chabad.org as a key reference; sanitizes a bio; inserts lengthy quotes from own POV sources; removes valid section about Lurianic kabbalah and messianism; sanitizes messianist; removes well-known and sourced views opposing Chabad; turning Jewish law into part mysticism; removes well-known non-Chabad rabbis from list; cuts ties with Israeli holidays per Chabad outlook, as well as here and here; self-glorification of Chabad; downplays other leader's strengths; voices anti-Zionism, a true Chabad policy; fights for pro-Noahide Chabad view; expresses extreme anti-Zionist views as per Chabad party line; removed valid sourced information about messianist disputes over replicas of 770; makes Chabad into the center of Chasidism; greatness of Chabad over all other Chasidim; removes important info he doesn't like about Hasidim; claims title of "Rav" for Lubavicther Rebbe; reports about schisms of others (while he edited out info about Chabad schisms in other articles); fights against Barry Gurary, a favorite Chabad bogey man; sanitizes the Rebbe's seclusion after death of his wife. There are many more examples of COI pro-Chabad POV editing in many directions by Yehoishophot Oliver, but this should be more than enough proof of this user's inability to see anything except through the rosy lenses of the official Chabad party line. IZAK (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Izak (I tried to address them all; please tell me if I missed one):

• I stand by that edit; Dershowitz is no expert on religion, as is clear from the article about him.
• Izak is right that I failed to source that; I thank him for pointing that out; I’ll add a source shortly.
• I corrected POV language; no apologies for that.
• I reverted an unsupported, OR claim.
• Again, I reverted an unsupported claim.
• Yet again, I reverted an unsupported OR claim.
• I added a blog link that cites relevant sources not generally available.
• Indeed, the source cited did not mention the messianist claim, so I removed those words.
• So by removing the blatant OR that says that the Rebbe’s actions must not be interpreted, and by stating the simple fact that he physically encouraged the singing, I’m promoting messianism. Got it.
• I removed unsourced OR.
• Huh? Matisyahu himself declared that he no longer identifies himself as a follower of Chabad, as it says in the article, so why should he be in the cat of Chabad chassidim?!
• I censored?? The article continues to describe him as a descendant of the Shneurson dynasty. All I did was remove him from the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidim cat, when no proof was given that he identified himself so. Lineage does not make a Hasidic identity.
• It’s not a dynasty, doesn’t claim to be, and thus shouldn’t be listed as one!
• Removed unsourced slander.
• Ditto.
• Removed outrageous, totally unsourced allegation of practice.
• I consider that site unreliable, and at least a “this may be POV warning” is in order; if he has reason to think otherwise, let him say so.
• Removed blatant POV and OR.
• Remove blatant distortion; there is a clear diff between incitement to murder, as the article implies, and a call for state execution.
• A simple copyedit.
• Removed quote about brief incident totally not notable.
• Removed OR.
• Fixed existing link (not inserted by me!) to legit relevant site.
• Removed detail unnecessary in intro.; removed OR.
• Replaced (not inserted!) direct quote from relevant source after reversion.
• Huh? Can Izak read? I didn’t remove it; I moved it to a more logical place in the article! This was a simple copyedit.
• A simple copyedit, removing POV. Whether “messianism” is “fringe” or not is a matter of POV.
• Removed blatant OR starting with “It is interesting to note”.
• What?! Does Izak have any knowledge of this subject matter? Has he ever studied halachic works?? They cite kabbalistic works regularly, at least as secondary sources. There is nothing controversial about this edit.
• I removed them from the list because they didn’t qualify for it, and no one disagreed with me. The fact that they are not Chabad has nothing to do with it.
• Israeli government public holidays legislated by secular politicians being separate from traditional Orthodox Jewish holidays ordained by rabbis of old has nothing at all to do with Chabad. It’s a POV misrepresentation of Judaism.
• This is not “glorification”, it is documented fact, though i admit that the word “self-sacrifice” would have been replaced with 8 something like “personal risk to life”.
• I just made the article sound less hagiographic, but I guess only Chabad articles can’t be hagiographic-sounding in Izak’s book.
• I removed a POV image that promotes Zionism. Lack of subscription to Zionism and belief that it has somehow replaced Torah is not specific to Chabad by any means; it is held by the entire Chareidi world, many of whom are far more anti-Zionist than Chabad—as Izak well knows.
• In no way was it proven that the Noahidism article was controversial, so I removed the controversy cat.
• Removed blatant OR about hatikvah, and falsehood about Jewish history.
• The information was sourced but not relevant, as discussed on talk page there.
• I explained the approach of Chabad as relevant in context. If Izak thinks the explanation wasn’t factually correct, could he please say why.
• Ditto.
• Removed?! Did Izak even read that edit?? I RESTORED the anti-zionism information about chassidism! But let’s say he had seen that I had restored it, Izak would have said: "You’re promoting anti-Zionism!" In Izak’s book I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
• Again, Izak didn’t even read the edit!! In my edit I don’t claim any title for anyone; I simply refer to a notable campaign relevant to the article.
• Added sourced, relevant information.
• I should have sourced that, but in my defence, I had only recently started editing and was not yet au fait with the rule about sourcing. Don’t bite the newcomers!
• Removed false, unsourced OR.

In almost all these edits I have clearly explained my reasoning, and the reasoning behind them as per the WP rules should be apparent to Izak himself. What they show is one thing: I am actually reasonably familiar with the subject I am writing/editing about. I know what’s sourced fact and what’s spin and OR. I have removed lots of OR, and I intend to continue to do so. In the vast majority of the examples above, Izak has blatantly promoted his POV. In many he has blatantly, clearly intentionally, distorted the meaning of my edit and ignored the reasoning behind it. In others he has misunderstood it. In still others he has clearly not even bothered to read it properly in context. In all of them he has violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If Izak takes issue with any of these edits, he should mention it on the appropriate talk page politely.

Finally, I notice that Izak has a distinct preference for the Jewish POV over, let’s say, the Chrisitan or Muslim one. I also note that he has a distinct preference for the Othodox Jewish POV over the Reform or Conservative one. I haven’t seen him posting lots of references to Chrisitan or Muslim sources on pages that discuss all those religions in order to create balance. Likewise, I haven’t seen him refer to Reform or Conservative sources on pages in which it might be more encyclopaedic to do so in order to create balance. Likewise, he has argued for positions that conform with Orhodox Judaism, such as most notably in recent months, his lengthy debate here with Newman Luke. Does this make him an Orthodox Jewish POVWarrior who deserves to be censured and blacklisted? I think not. I deserve the same respect when it comes to my Chabad-related edits. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To Yehoishophot Oliver: Just some reactions:

1. If you, as is now clear, have a single-minded goal to edit at will and remove what YOU regard as "OR" or whatnot across the board as if you were the final authority on Judaic subjects, you need to work and include other Judaic editors by taking your proposed taking out or rewording of masses of material to one or all of the talk pages of those articles, talk pages of editors who have worked on those pages and to WP:TALKJUDAISM.
2. You have conducted such a thorough job of editing those articles ONLY in a pro-Chabad POV manner that you have inflicted great harm on the diversity of views in those articles in a way that ONLY helps the official Chabad party line, and that is precisely the violation of WP:COI I am addressing here.
3. What are you saying, that I or anyone should post Christian and Muslim references in Judaic topics, how absurd is that! Should Jewish views be posted in secular or Buddhist etc articles? Stop this WP:NONSENSE please.
4. This is not just a "competition" of how many sources and sites one can add, that displays your modus operandi, but there is the important aspect of NOT REMOVING material that you disagree with, and that is central to the problem I am raising, because whenever you find material that does not agree with the pro-Chabad POV you right away remove it on tendentious grounds (citing your "credential" as an "athority") and one can always find all sorts of reasons to take out material, especially that with which you disagree, rather than go search for sources to back it up what you find against your views. So you play the game both ways, you don't bother researching for sources for the material you don't like, while you insert all the handy pro-Chabad links and material that you have at your fingertips that you do like. Now that is not fair scholarship or editing, it is promoting a certain specfic point of view while chopping out in any way possible views that you are opposed to because it does not adhere to the official pro-Chabad party line.
5. The old discussion with Newman Luke had NOTHING to do with Orthodox Judaism, simply because Newman Luke was inserting Christian and secular POV's that had nothing to do with Judaism, period.
6. No one wants to "blacklist" you or your admitted pro-Chabad editors in any way here, but what is being requested is that you NOT function as official subsidiaries of the official Chabad movement on Wikipedia and stop treating any other editors, especially all the non-Chabad editors who disagree with you, as "enemies of the state" and question their motives, as if Wikipedia has now "officially" merged with Chabad.org (WHICH IT HAS NOT AND NEVER WILL) based on your ability to cleverly cite WP policies simply because they request fairness in articles, and pray for the time when the pro-Chabad editors work towards WP:CONSENSUS.
7. Your Chabad related edits are not sacrosanct and you cannot expect anyone to be worshipful of them and of you, as you call other obviously knowledgeable non-Chabad Judaic editors "ignorant" or "uneducated" enough of the subject, while you violate WP:OWN in that regard.
8. Your late in the day comments in response to the many aggressive pro-Chabad edits in the diffs that I have pointed out here disprove your claim that you are only "innocently" enforcing WP policies, while it's obvious when you ADD THEM ALL UP, that you are waging a campaign to bring as many articles as you humanly can into line with just one ideology, the official pro-Chabad one, which is what this WP:COI is all about in the first place. IZAK (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Izak:

1. It’s not clear at all. Actually, it is YOU have the single-minded goal to delegitimize me and those whose POV you disagree with. As for your diffs, almost all of them are blatantly intentionally distorted, as an admin has pointed out. Which is aside from the fact that I’ve been editing for some four years, during which I’ve made many, many more edits on Judaism-related topics that try as you might, you couldn’t find any problem with. As for working with other editors, when conflict has arisen, I’ve discussed the issues on the relevant talk pages (please point out cases in which you feel I haven’t). There’s no rule that one must make a comment on a talk page every time one makes an edit, as far as I know. Do you do that? And the vast majority of the time, no one has found any of my edits controversial and worthy of comment! And that’s for a very simple reason, which is that I was, in fact, following the rules. But if you disagree with any particular edit of mine, please feel free to say so on the relevant talk pages.
2. Exactly my sentiments concerning your edits of pages related to Orthodox Judaism, which you seem to have a single-minded goal to edit. Like I said, if you don’t like my edits, then argue each one on its merit. A clear reason was given each time.
3. There are many articles that contain the viewpoints of multiple religions on the topic of the article. You only seem interested in promoting the viewpoint of Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism. So that seems to make you an Orthodox Judaism POVwarrior. The same goes for your neglect to post sources from reform and the like in articles that discuss the viewpoint of Orthodox Judaism.
4. You can repeat yourself from today until tomorrow about what you deduce my personal views must be, or draw conclusions from other sources by violating WP:OUTING, but if I removed material that was clearly OR, POV, or whatever rule it violated (which is the case in almost all the edits you point out), I was clearly working to further the aims of Wikipedia. Your ad hominem accusations that I have some sort of sinister hidden agenda based on what you assume to be my personal affiliation are a clear violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. As for not researching material one doesn’t like, see 3) above.
5. But it’s mighty odd that your impassioned, unrelenting argument there just happened to conform exactly with Orthodox Judaism, the personal POV for which you’ve advocated throughout Wikipedia, no?
6. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I don't recall questioning other editors’ motives unless they unashamedly displayed their motives through unacceptably hostile language or using talk and afd pages as a soapbox, as you have done. I don't recall doing either of these things, so I ask you to please stop questioning my motives.
7. On the specific topic of Chabad, or on any other topic, other editors may well be uneducated compared to me (just as in various other areas in which they may be familiar, I am less knowledgeable). If I have reason to say that others clearly know less and should not edit on topics with which they are not sufficiently familiar that require a certain amount of more specialized knowledge, I see no problem in saying so. This is done all the time all over Wikipedia, and I'm sure you've pointed this out to others on many occasions yourself.
8. Speaking of adding up, when we ADD UP all your diffs, we have 0+0+0+0=0. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Although it may not be a popular thing to say, but I feel it is by now justified to say that IZAK has embarkened on a crusade. I have no doubt about his good intentions, but I don't think this is good for Wikipedia. If he has a few isolated instances of POV edits, that is no reason to speak about a conspiracy, let alone embark on crusades. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, Debresser, the only "crusade" under review here is the COI one by the pro-Chabad editors who are on a free-wheeling Wikipedia Mitzvah Campaign, no two ways about it. There are probably even discussions and guidlelines 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. IZAK (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Man, you are obsessed with this conspiracy theory of yours. Take a break! As far as I am concerned, this post shows you are having some mental problem here, and I consider you now a disruptive editor. No offense intended, just a psychological assessment. You will undoubtebly see in this a further step in the complot, but that will not sway me from saying what I think is true. Debresser (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are outright violating WP:NPA with such disgusting comments. IZAK (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I appologise if you are offended (you must be). But I could not think of a nicer way to raise my sincere concern. When editors start talking about the FBI or other plots in "high echelons", while excessively accusing other editors of all kinds of things, and ignoring that objective other editors disagree with them, that means they are way out of line. I combined this with another viscious attack of yours on another page, and came to the conclusion that you are being irrational about this. Either you are blinded by some anti-Chabad sentiments, or you have a mental problem that keeps you from seeing things in perspective. Sorry, but that is my assessment. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Izak's wildly exaggerated and paranoid choice of language (speculation about coordingating with "upper echelons" to "take over the internet"; "stranglehold"; "groupthink", etc., etc.) is reminiscent of anti-semitic tracts. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is going off the rails somewhat. Referring to IZAK as having a mental problem, or as writing in language reminiscent of antisemitism, isn't appropriate. I'm not in a position to judge whether his report is justified, but perhaps in response to it, the editors who work in this area could exercise more caution in future to reassure him. Two things would help: (1) all the articles you create, and any arguably contentious points you make within articles, should be based largely on reliable, published secondary sources, per WP:NOR and WP:V, and (2) you could be extra careful not to overemphasize your own perspective or to remove other perspectives, per WP:NPOV. Those two steps might put IZAK's concerns to rest. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate to say, but it is for him to be/do?? Did you actually read his words? This guys is seeing a conspiracy in "top echelons of Chabad" "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". And he is ranting on about it like who knows who! Food for the psychiatrists, if you ask me. It may not be nice, but we have to deal with editors who are only human after all, and things like this happen. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To address your valid point about "putting User:IZAK's concerns to rest": his concerns don't carry any message for me, because they are already part and parcel of my own standards of editing. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin: It's obvious that these people are incapable of mature and responsible discussions. Is it any wonder that many editors prefer hiding and slinking away under the proverbial mats and fear to confront them and their pro-Chabad POV campaign when these kind of futile tantrums and pointless rants will be the result. It just proves they do not have the werewithall to think dispassionately, rationally and in a WP:NPOV manner because they are so determined to single-mindedly defend their pro-Chabad ideology by not just violating WP:OWN in what they assume are "their" Chabad articles on Wikipedia, but by questioning the mental stability and accuse of "antisemitism" those who object to their obvious POV WP:COI, and having run out of anything original, intelligent and mature or fresh to say they resort to pathetic childish slurs. So be it, but with that kind of immature language and babyish attitude they only prove all the points I have been making about them all along. They are not responsible, they adhere to Chabad-think only, and they must be stopped at Wikipedia's own peril. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin for your sensible response. First, I also agree that referring to Izak as having mental problems is uncivil and inappropriate. Second, I agree with your two points about exercising WP:NOR and WP:V and NPOV. (Not to say that I haven't been doing that until now, but) hopefully that will put Izak's concerns to rest. Shlomke (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's uncivil and inappropriate; I think it is entirely justified by Izak's very public behaviour. It is the only logical conclusion that one can draw from the paranoid rants to which we have been subjected here, on Project Judaism, and in the various AFDs that he has launched or instigated recently. AGF has clear limits, which have been blown past long ago. Izak is a problem and he must be dealt with. Filing a blatantly frivolous COI complaint against four editors is just the tip of the iceberg. -- Zsero (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To Zsero and Shlomke: So far, besides the to-be-expected self-righteous non-objective "defenses" (mainly now consisting of guttersnipe verbal abuse meant to intimidate me) of the four most active pro-Chabad POV editors (Users Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs); Zsero (talk · contribs); Debresser (talk · contribs); Shlomke (talk · contribs)), ALL other editors very familiar with Judaic issues on Wikipedia voicing their own independent opinions here so far, namely Users RK (talk · contribs); Joe407 (talk · contribs); Yoninah (talk · contribs); Jmabel (talk · contribs); Redaktor (talk · contribs); Yossiea (talk · contribs); Shuki (talk · contribs) and diplomatic instructions to the pro-Chabad editors from DGG (talk · contribs); Avraham (talk · contribs) and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), are essentially in agreement with my very real concerns noting the huge COI and other related problems stemming from the editing practices and attitudes of the pro-Chabad POV "four musketeers" presently VERY active pro-Chabad POV editors and the danger it poses to the independence of Wikipedia in relation to the enormous powers and resources of Chabad on the Internet. If Wikipedia cannot guard it's independence NOW as having a WP:NPOV mind of its own, it will be over-run and dominated by these and more-to-come pro-Chabad POV editors not just in all Chabad articles that they often introduce (and try to WP:FORK it up as much as they can to get maximum mileage and exposure for each topic in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE), edit and watch over their hot topics in violation of WP:OWN but every single article and topic and edit relating to Jews, Judaism, and Israel will fall under their control given their capabilities and determination to do so as evidenced so far and they have only started going. One or two, or thre years from now, with such aggressive pro-Chabad POV pushing, whatever Wikipedia has accomplished in the Judaic and Isreal related topics will be nearly entirely dominated by the pro-Chabad POV editors and there will be little difference between what Chabad.org preaches and what the pro-Chabad editors will alllow and leave on Wikipedia relating to Chabad topics and most serious Judaic and even isrtael related topics and articles. This is a serious warning. To Zsero and Shlomke then, you would be well-advised to sticking to the points of the COI complaint and avoid personal attacks. Not do so, just reveals your true one-dimensional Chabad colors and proves to outsiders just how irrational and dangerous your are when anyone questions and calls you on your real COIs when you do not get your way on Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. It just gets worse all the time. Now, according to Izak, Chabad has "enormous powers and resources", and WP is in danger of being "over-run and dominated". Meanwhile Izak continues to show that he has no idea what COI or FORK mean. Both claims are utterly frivolous and without merit, and if he were compos mentis it would amount to a deliberate lie. And don't even dare mention NPA; this entire exercise is nothing but a PA by Izak. I demand sanctions against him. -- Zsero (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think something needs to be done about IZAK (talk · contribs). Crusaders are fanatics, and Wikipedia doesn't need fanatics. Debresser (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen: Your refusal to deal with the issues and instead to sling mud reflects very poorly on you. There is no "crusade" and the only "fanatics" are you as you, as a group and individually, single-mindedly work for only one goal: to expand and defend the Chabad-related articles on Wikipedia and extend your reach and influence beyond that to other Jewish and Israel related articles, and if anyone questions you, you launch into distasteful diatribes and ad hominem attacks about sheer nonsense. Perhaps you are not used to being questioned. Perhaps this is a difficult process, I can well imagine how hard it is for any of you to defend your multiple violations of WP:OWN and WP:COI, not to mention your outright violations of WP:NPA as you question the sanity of an experienced editor like myself who has no axe to grind, I just merely wish to see Wikipedia retain and maintain its indepenedence and policies of WP:NPOV from the pro-Chabad POV editors. If the best you can do is hurl sickening insults, ask for silly "sanctions", deny the obvious and fake it as if Chabad is a "nothing entity" with harmless aspirations on Wikipedia -- that are disproven by your very own efforts on its behalf -- then it speaks to your inability to function as mature, independent, critical thinking true Wikipedian editors and not in violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE. The discussion and complaint against you will run it's course. It's only a couple of days old and has already attracted serious and far-reaching interest from other Judaic editors and others (count them, so far 7 including me is 8, assert that there is a huge problem with you guys on Wikipedia and they talk from experience, and 3 others acknowledge the serious isssues: Users RK (talk · contribs); Joe407 (talk · contribs); Yoninah (talk · contribs); Jmabel (talk · contribs); Redaktor (talk · contribs); Yossiea (talk · contribs); Shuki (talk · contribs) and diplomatic instructions to the pro-Chabad editors from DGG (talk · contribs); Avraham (talk · contribs) and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)) and it needs to be allowed to come to it's full conclusion and not shut off because you don't like the mirror being held to your face/s. IZAK (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making it look like we (or at least I) don't address the issues and only you are the white knight here. I addressed your issues in my first post to this thread, and you welcomed me doing so. Need the diffs? The problem is otherwise: you have been told by everybody that apart from some incidental (as in "unconcentrated effort") POV edits, there is no problem here. You keep on writing and ranting and SCREAMING and accusing. Thereby you have revealed a new problem: you. You are fanatically obsessed with this perceived conspiracy of yours. You have become a tendentious editor, your have embarked on a crusade against a few editors, and I think you had better be blocked if you won't see the error of your ways. Debresser (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment by DGG

It will be obvious from the time stamps on my edits that I am not an Orthodox jew of any sort, & I am not even sure of which of the two movements represented here I have greater personal sympathy with. . But I think there has clearly been an attempt to put many articles on Chabad rabbis and institutions into Wikipedia, just as editors many other groups have done likewise. As with other groups, some of these are possibly justified, but not on the evidence presented, and some of them are almost certainly unjustified altogether. Some of the articles on religious practices may be influenced by sectarian POV, some are even POV forks. But Wikipedia can deal with this without arousing resentments: the unsourced articles get sourced, the unjustified or unsourceable ones get deleted, the POV gets removed, the forks get merged back. All of this perfectly routine here. As has been said, there are enough Chabad supporters that there is no reason to think there will not be several editors working independently with the same viewpoint -- and the same goes for Modern Orthodox, I don't see it as a conspiracy. Everything above was perfectly open, and if there are more changes that need to be made or more articles deleted, we can do that. We will. Accusations such have been made here do not further this. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinion by Jmabel

Just some remarks: I have not followed many of the articles in question, nor have I even read every word of what is above. I do, however, feel comfortable saying, from my experience in the world, that many (not all) people associated with Chabad-Lubavitch consider their own group and its actions disproportionately important relative to Jewish topics in general, and are very sure that they have the true version of Judaism, with respect to which every difference in belief or practice - especially practice - is a deviation. Given the well-known phenomenon of "five Jews, six opinions," that can lead to a lot of conflict with other Jews.

Chabad-Lubavitch is not a "religion". The religion is Judaism. Chabad-Lubavitch is a combination of a rabbinic lineage and an organization. While I think all Jews would consider Chabad-Lubavitch a legitimate current within contemporary Judaism, few but themselves think of them as the main stream even within Orthodoxy, although arguably they are now the most important current within Haredi Judaism (Hasidism). That makes them important, but when we find Wikipedia with 10 or 50 times as many articles about them as about, say, the Satmars, it suggests that something other than evenhandedness is afoot.

I would take issue with some of that. Lubavitch are certainly a significant stream within Orthodox Judaism, but they are by no means the most important current within either Haredi Judaism or Hasidism. (To be honest, some chasidim do not consider Lubavitch to be within mainstream chasidim at all.) What I do agree with is that the number of articles about Lubavitch is quite out of proportion with the number of articles on other areas of Judaism. This does begin to look like WP:PROMOTION ("…projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, … the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, [which] is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you).--Redaktor (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I do think that everyone should be careful about starting too many articles related to groups to which they have a close connection, especially if there is a track record of the community deciding to delete these articles. People should get a message when the community repeatedly decides that they are starting articles on topics that to not reach the level of encyclopedic notability (or splitting out aspects of articles in ways that others see as a POV fork). Beyond a certain point, persisting in that is uncollegial. If they don't get that message, then at some point sanctions are in order. I am making no comment on whether this matter has reached that point.

I'd also suggest that everyone working in an area in which there is disagreement try to use only material cited from reliable sources. It's really not that useful to write something unsourced and controversial in an encyclopedia article. Quite the contrary. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there is nowhere near enough solid material related to Satmar and many other groups on Wikipedia. The solution to that is simple: those who are familiar with these groups should write about them, with appropriate sources cited. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Joe407

Regarding Chabad, there is an improtant point that some of the general WP population may or may not be aware of. Within the Chabad community, there is a focused effort to spread their gospel (excuse the borrowed term). This is in light of the request by the last Chabad [[rebbe] who told his followers to actively spread Judaism. This is the basis for the existence of Chabad emmisaries (shlichim) around the world, on college campuses, and connected with many public venues. This is also the attitude taken with the online world (see Chabad.org lead).

I have no problem with the above and both study chabad torah and have worked with chabad houses in different parts of the world. I would like to point out that the COI here is about maintaining NPOV while writing about a website or business. If I understand correctly, the potential COI is between the general edict that chabad hassidim follow of "actively spreading" their persepctive as requested by the last Rebbe and the NPOV of... well.. everything!

IMHO, this means that a person who sees themselves as bound to the Rebbe's statment of "u'faratzta" (you shall spread out), should do their best to leave that sentiment aside when editing on Wikipedia. Joe407 (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where I or anyone else expressed such a POV, and it's a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF of you and others to make this accusation of intent against other editors. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Yossiea

I'm not going to go so far as Izak, but I do definitely see a pro-Chabad POV attempt in certain articles. It is one thing for someone to write with their own bias, that is understandable and when others see it they can discuss via the talk page and input their own "bias" and work on a neutral article. With many of the Chabad pushers it's not possible. In many cases, they believe that the Chabad way is the only way. In addition, it is quite understandable when an employee of an organization is on Wikipedia then that person should not be editing articles associated with that organization. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What employee? What are you talking about? -- Zsero (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, your speculative opinion of anyone's personal affiliation is irrelevant, unless they so declare it. Secondly, please provide solid proof for your accusations (and I don't mean transparently spurious diffs like those cited by Izak earlier). Thirdly, please explain how you make the leap from speculating that people are members of a religious movement to speculating that they are on the payroll of organisations within that movement. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Avraham

I am not speaking to any particular editor. I would like to reiterate, however, that WP:NPOV requires that we portray "…all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Which means that in articles that relate specifically to Chabad topics, the Chabad viewpoint should be primary, and in articles that deal with other Judaism topics, the viewpoint should be listed in proportion with its prominence vis-a-vis the non-Chabdad points of view. Furthermore, with regard to WP:COI, there should be a difference between stam a chasid of Chabad and someone who is actively part of the system (shluchim, for example) the way we would want the Rosh Yeshiva or Treasurer of Lakewood Yeshiva abiding by COI on the article about BMG or a rebbi in the cheder in New Square writing about Skverrer Chasidus. There should be no difference in treatment between any editors, yichus of their chasidus (or lack thereof) notwithstanding, and everyone has to be bound by NPOV, UNDUE, and accept the warnings of COI which is to protect us from violating NPOV. -- Avi (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Avi for your response. You bring a point that is very interesting; Articles that relate specifically to Chabad, the Chabad viewpoint should be primary, and in other Judaic articles the viewpoint should be listed in proportion (and this would go for any article and subject). I'm also in agreement with you about someone who is actively part of an organization (which I don't think is the case here) editing articles on his own organization, and the other points you make. Shlomke (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Shuki

While IZAK may have over exaggerated about this COI and the deep investigation in order to prove the issue, it is quite legitimate and the overzealous editing of Yehoishophot worries me as well. I would expect that someone who is registered on WP for three years, would be able to get over the possessiveness and 'OWN', and accept other views. Sure all editors are not neutral on many issues, but I would expect that after a certain time, editors understand the need for NPOV in their watchlist articles and that other opinions exist. The bordering incivility above also worries me. There is an excess amount of articles created or heavily edited by Yehoishophot that are virtually based only on primary sources. --Shuki (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

1) Please provide diffs to support your accusations that I and/or others have not accepted other views, when sourced reliably, and acted "overzealously". 2) Thank you, the incivility above worries me as well. 3) As for some articles that were written or edited by me based primarily on primary sources, I honestly didn't know that there was any problem with it at the time. All someone needed to do was post a polite message on my talk page, not launch an all-out character assassination campaign. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes to first post

The first post of this section has now been changed considerably, in a way that makes understanding the way this discussion evolved impossible. Although this is not proper conduct on talk pages (noticeboards included), I prefer not to revert these edits, but posted a warning template instead, to warn the unaware reader.

In addition, IZAK (talk · contribs) has now added more of his insane ranting against Chabad and against me, and I would like to see administrative action to block this disruptive editor from editing. Debresser (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Your assertions about "sanity" have crossed the line of acceptable WP:NPA a long time ago. If you are having problems with issues in this debate then stick with the discussions but to attack the way you are going about it, would require you to be blocked for multiple violations of WP:NPA. It is a great pity that you choose to personalize this discussion and equate Chabad with yourself, but perhaps that is the fundamental issue here, that pro-Chabad POV editors cannot deal with rational objective criticism and analysis of their movement, they automtically personalize it, demonize the critic as you shamelessly do, and only prove that they are indeed working in violation of WP:COI because they can't help themselves when the topic of Chabad-related topics on Wikipedia is mentioned or debated. I call on you again to stop the hostile name calling, and it remains a blot on your record that you do so shamelessly without apology. IZAK (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• I endorse everything Debresser wrote. He has accurately described Izak's behaviour, and all one needs to do to verify that is to look at his contributions here, and in various AFDs over the past week or two, which appear as if they were written by a paranoid. Izak has a hide to talk about NPA, after what he has subjected Yehoishophot, Debresser, Shlomke, and me to. -- Zsero (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Myki

Resolved

 – User has been indef blocked

• Myki-insider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Myki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I (along with other editors, such as User:HiLo48) are concerned about User:Myki-insiders edits to myki. His username obviously links him to Myki and the user has never attempted to claim they are not afiliated with Myki, OneLink, Connex_Melbourne, Metro Trains Melbourne or the Victorian State Government. As another user pointed out here and here they're edits seem to be a little POV and they are quick to "reword" (read remove) any obvious criticism. Being such a controversial and 'angry public' kind of project, I think sporadic editing is best by someone who seemingly works for the subject of the article. — Deon^talk 13:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Particularly alarming diffs include this one. — Deon^talk 14:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Note: User has been indef blocked (per username) - hopefully they don't just start editing under another username. — Deon^talk 04:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Adamore

Seems to be using Wikipedia to promote an organization. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Action Against Hunger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Adamore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    
• actionagainsthunger.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.actionagainsthunger.org

WP:SPA account with no other edits than to promote Action Against Hunger (actionagainsthunger.org). Mass reference spamming, and promotional additions over multiple articles (including linkspaming) and on the the main article. I've reverted it to a non COI/spam revision, however long that lasts. Believed to be Amador Gomez, technical director of Action Against Hunger. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Action_Against_Hunger_Spamming --Hu12 (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Martins and user:A.montenegro

• Edgar Martins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A.montenegro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

user:A.montenegro has been appearing repeatedly over the past few weeks to do what appears to be a whitewash of the article Edgar Martins. Article before a.montenegro appeared: [2], A.montenegro's additions: [3] (trouble is mainly in section Digital Alteration Controversy"/The Ruins of the Second Gilded Age Portfolio Debate ). Because the user's additions were so non-neutral, I integrated the parts that could be kept and removed the rest: [4]. We've now gone back and forth from his/her version to mine (as seen on [5]).

Warnings have been left on his/her talk as well as the article talk, explaining what was wrong with the user's additions. Other users have expressed on the talk page their agreement with my perception of A.montenegro's version. Based on the user's talk page, which contains a bio of Edgar Martins, and the user's determination to add only favorable information to the article, it appears A.montenegro is someone strongly interested in the reputation of Edgar Martins. I'm not well-versed in what can be done here - can someone lend a hand? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lbuser

Fairly advanced publicity/ad campaign for one company and its various products.

• Lbuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LaserBand LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• OmniBand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• LaserBand Dura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• LaserBand Alert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• StatBand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• FusionBand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Original LaserBand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• LaserBand 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Triage tag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wristband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Medical error (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Patient safety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Barcode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lbuser/Emergency response tags (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lbuser/Integra Labels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• File:Fusion Color R185.jpg
• File:Fusion Color R185.jpg
• File:Integra Logo for LaserBand.jpg
• File:LaserBand Alert Logo.jpg
• File:LaserBand Alert Photo.jpg
• File:LaserBand Corporate Logo.jpg
• File:LaserBand Dura Logo.jpg
• File:LaserBand Dura.jpg
• File:LaserBand FusionBand Printing.jpg
• File:LaserBand Integra.jpg
• File:LaserBand OmniBand.jpg
• File:LaserBand2 Logo.jpg
• File:LB2-ADULT-L3 Assembled.jpg
• File:LB2-ADULT-L3 Printing.jpg
• File:LB2-Adult-L3.jpg
• File:Mom and baby with wristband.jpg
• File:OmniBand Logo.jpg
• File:Original LaserBand Logo.jpg
• File:PLS-102-Z Photo.jpg
• File:PLS-102-Z.jpg
• File:StatBand E-Vac.jpg
• File:StatBand Logo.jpg
• File:StatBand Rapid.jpg
• File:StatBand Triage Tag.jpg

--Calton | Talk 01:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Welcome to the future – why wouldn't people create twenty pages to promote their products? Would someone more experienced in these matters give an opinion on what should happen to the product pages? Redirect to main article or delete? Where is the guideline re stuff like MyProduct® (i.e. registered/trademark symbols)? If kept, should articles like OmniBand mention that a particular feature is patented? Should a reference to the patent be included (pretty obviously not, unless some feature of the patent is important)? Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The individual product articles are pretty clearly spam, and I've tagged them. The rest of it is still a mess. The "®" symbol should not be used; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Rees11 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Freshchoicedak

• Freshchoicedak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fresh Choice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Freshchoicedak (talk · contribs) appears to be working for the Fresh Choice restaurant chain, judging from his username and edits that turned that article into a "fact sheet" about the company. May want a few more eyes to keep an eye on this article and user. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 06:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim Bell

An editor claiming to be the subject of this article has posted allegations of judicial misconduct in his legal case and his own theory on climate change, none of which were sourced. I removed the content per WP:BLP violations regarding the judicial misconduct and WP:OR for the climate change item. Unfortunately, it appears that he feels that there is a conspiracy regarding the removal of such content and that I am a part of it. See his comments on the article talk page my my user talk page. I would like to request some assistance in educating this editor on Wikipedia's policies as I believe that he has not and will not pay attention to my notes to him. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have linked the relevant sections for his perusal. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)