Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:43, 5 January 2010

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Shortcuts

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(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:

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.

User:Yehoishophot Oliver

Unresolved

Contents transcluded from subpage, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver, as this lengthy discussion is disabling the noticeboard. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening section

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

assisted at the present time primarily by

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

and

Zsero (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 spread 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"; calling this COI discussion "ranting" & "fanatically obsessed". 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))[reply]

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)[reply]

Please give examples of your allegations with diff's. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]

Regarding User:Yehoishophot Oliver's comments

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]

Regarding User:IZAK's comments

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.
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?
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.
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.
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)[reply]

Response to Yehoishophot Oliver

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.
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]

Response to Izak:

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.
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.
Yes, there are some articles whose independent merit is being debated. So what? Keep the discussion on the relevant talk/afd pages.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

By working in co-ordinated "relay fashion" not to attract too much attention, but in synchronized near identical edits with the others cited and by reviewing his edit history User Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) is the most fervid and ideologically committed to the "messianist" message he wishes to insert into as many pro-Chabad articles as he can, and to remove as much critical information of it as possible without arousing too much suspicion:
Attacking persons that are not officially favored by the movement, including Alan Dershowitz, Matisyahu (the singer, who when he came on the scene, the pro-Chabad editors requisitioned this name which should have remained as a redirect to the historial figure Mattathias. But now that the singer has fallen out of favor with Chabad, he is being ostracized even on Wikipedia), Shmuel Schneurson, and off course against the ultimate target, the last Rebbe's nephew Barry Gurary who fell out of favor and was blacklisted for life, and unto death even on Wikipedia.
Devaluing the place and importance of historical offshoots, such as the Malachim (Hasidic group) whom he renamed a "group" rather than a "dynasty": "m (moved Malachim (Hasidic dynasty) to Malachim (Hasidic group): there is no dynasty! as he contemptuously lists that as a "m" (minor) move without more discussion, while on Wikipedia the word "dynasty" being accepted as the standard respectable and least offensive label for any known Hasidic "sect" -- sect not being a polite word in English, see the comprehensive Category:Hasidic dynasties.
Slandering and casting asperions on rival groups and organizations, such as Vaad Hatzalah and Zionism (Chabad as a Haredi movement is against any modern notions of Zionism of any kind -- that's not a judgmental statement it's just a known fact.)
Removing compromising and unflatteering information about favoured leaders and insiders, such as Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Moshe Rubashkin,
Attempts at monopolizing ALL concepts and notions important to Chabad and even minor ones such as Mashpia while pushing Chabad.org.
Defending to the hilt Chabad messianism, diplomatically promoting the Rebbe is the Jewish messiah ("Moshiach") and removing or neutralaizing as much criticsim of it as possible.
Working to transform and undercut articles devoted to "controversy" such as Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies and Chabad messianism.
Working to keep out criticism and keep along approved pro-Chabad party lines key articles about Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Chabad and any articles the movement would deem important.
The are many diffs that prove this subtle, ongoing and determined focus of this pro-Chabad POV editor and warrior who ensures that the official policies of the Chabad movement are enforced, somehow or other, by the usually well-written and trickily crafted responses and edits of this editor and his pro-Chabad POV editors allies cited in this complaint, in clear violation of WP:COI that undermines the modus operandi, especially of WP:CONSENSUS EVEN AMONG the non-Chabad Judaic editors, and independence of Wikipedia. When challnged, as one can see in this complaint, they will all revert to all-out WP:WAR mode, violate WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA and not let go until they EITHER INTIMIDATE OR WEAR DOWN THEIR OPPONENTS AND GET THEIR WAY, but it is high time to put a stop to this misuse of Wikipedia's open door and welcoming policies. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC):[reply]

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.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Below is a selection of important diffs that reveal the pattern of the pro-Chabad POV editing by this user over three years. In the last couple of months Shlomke (talk · contribs)'s edits have not been focused on Chabad-related topics entirely, but over the last three years he has edited lots of Chabad articles and displayed a consistent pattern that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is editing for the Chabad movement, as near to an official editor for it on Wikipedia as one can get, and in clear violation of WP:COI. His tactics are clear but subtle. He deploys all the rules of Wikipedia and defends it with WP:LAWYER to do as follows:

Officially designated enemies of Chabad like Rabbi Elazar Shach, Barry Gurary, David Berger (professor), Gil Student and Shaul Shimon Deutsch will have the contents of their articles removed and tagged with harassing {{fact}} and {{not verified}} templates, while all biographies of Chabad heroes will read and be protected as hagiography.
Controversial topics like Chabad messianism , Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies, Jewish schisms are constantly watched and neutralized to negate criticism, turn them on their head, and make them launching pads for praising Chabad when it’s meant for criticism and critiques.
Controversial topics within Chabad itself will be modified and edited to protect them and spread their message, such as Chabad, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Yechi (now moved) not to mention many more ordinary pro-Chabad topics that are set up almost as advertising and preened in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING with as many as possible redundant pro-Chabad and pro-messianist links inserted.
Movements and rabbis who Chabad and its messianists wishes to downplay and move away from succession, like Kapust, Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty), Shemaryahu Gurary, Yehuda Krinsky will get their wings clipped with edits that cut them down to size and sanitize them, but those who are OFFICIALLY favored by the movement get puffed up and widened.
Like Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) this is a DIRECT thrust to interfere with Wikipedia's independence by two blatantly pro-Chabad POV editors warriors. They are subtle but very focused and determined all the time. This is a clear pattern by User Shlomke (talk · contribs) to use his ever-growing Wikipedia skills to further his pro-Chabad messianist POV agenda in violation of WP:COI. User Shlomke (talk · contribs) and his allies have placed a stranglehold on the ALL the Chabad-related topics they favor and they make it impossible for other editors to enter into their self-delineated “Chabad terrain” on Wikipedia, in violation of WP:OWN and have turned every single one of the articles relating to Chabad on Wikipedia, no matter what the topics, into reverse WP:MIRROR sites of not just Chabad.org but of Chabad messianist links and sites.
The diffs below, there are MANY more like these, from User Shlomke (talk · contribs) own history of editing clearly illustrate and prove all of the above regarding. Please go through them carefully to see the pattern. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC) :[reply]

adds redundant link; build up links to “yechi” messianist motto and another; polishes Chabad.org; help Ask Moses, another Chabad website; sanitize controversy over Rebbe; cuts out what Chabad does not like and backs it up with Chabad sources only, reverts it again; fights the Chabad “bogey man” adds redundant Yiddish link; inserts nonsense info about messianist “yechi” slogan questions dissent to “yechi” spreads “yechi” around confirms it, again; works to distance Chabad form an offshoot; tries to “normalize” believing in a dead Rebbe; drift to open messianism; fix support for messianism; cites controversial proof for messianism; the Rebbe “is the messiah”; cutting down a favorite Chabad enemy reverses himself, it’s tricky can’t let go of it, they just hate this guy ; inserts redundant messianist link and again; messianist link as a “source” ; defends the messianist POV; always pushing rival Rebbes away and this rival for sure; fighting David Berger with messianist links plays word games in defense; cuts out good info about Shlomo Carlebach, why?; keeps the old canards alive, as if this was the voice of Chabad while he defends his own “good guys” and just loves this fight, can’t let go; messianism again; adds chabad.info, yet another Chabad site; defends view that Rebbe is here physically; Rebbe did not die and fights for it, again; adds another pointless link to Rebbe and here; burnishes the “yechi” slogan, again; builds up the messianic argument, again; defends the messiah, again; removes negative associations; adds another redundant Chabad site; claims the illogical, that even those opposed to “yechi” slogan accept it; back to shredding Rabbi Shach ; slaps “fact” templates on this obvious bugaboo; keeps messianism on track; removes true but weird verified stuff; removes major controversy he does not like; another official Chabad enemy gets the shaft and again; removes criticism of sixth Rebbe; defends Rebbe against Barry “the enemy”; sanitizes Rabbi Shach’s criticism; cuts out documented problems; takes out another documented story he does not like; removes relevant link; takes out verified report and again; always worried about Barry as he cuts out informative section; uses Berger to support his own POV, clever reverse psychology; removes decent quotes from Gil Student, another critic of Chabad

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To admins looking over my diff's. I haven't bothered responding as I dont think there is any vio of policy here and mainly, because IZAK's presentation of Yehoishophot Oliver's diff's has already been dismissed by admin Atama below. If any admin has any questions regarding my diff's please bring it to my attention and I'll try to respond as best I can. Note that over the past two years, I've barely edited any Chabad related topics at all up until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public menorah and the ensuing argument with IZAK came along. Thank you, Shlomke (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Downsizing those whom Chabad does not like, such as Rabbi Elazar Shach and Rabbis Shmuley Boteach, David Berger (professor) and Chaim Dov Keller -- all critics of Chabad messianism and always praising the official rabbis of Chabad as in a hagiography in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE.
He will push off and try to create distance from Chabad by claiming that certain Chabad-connected jailed personalites have "no connection" to the movement, such as Moshe Rubashkin and Sholom Rubashkin of Agriprocessors.
Find ways to steer around controversy in articles about controversy such as Chabad messianism, Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies and of course the core topics of Chabad and of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson.
While he is somewhat not as blatantly "messianist" in his edit history as Users Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) and Shlomke (talk · contribs) obviously are, he is nevertheless, based on his edit history, a strict adherent of the pro-Chabad POV party line and edits and acts accordingly violating WP:COI, to the extent of WP:NPA and violating WP:WAR (see his blocks) and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, as he single-mindedly pushes one approach and deprecates and negates all others.
This user makes skilled use of WP:LAWYERing and he does tend to get impatient with other editors who don't see it his way. Six admins [1] have blocked him at various times for his violations [2].
His diffs relating to Chabad topics show his strict adherence to the pro-Chabad POV party line, almost in line with Chabad.org and his absolute determination to enforce that outlook on Wikipedia at all costs in violation of WP:COI, as his edit history of Chabad-related topics reveals.
Please read the diffs cited below carefully for the over-all pro-Chabad POV editing it proves beyond a doubt. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC):[reply]

fighting to prove Rabbi Shach’s ignorance and cutting him down to size and wouldn’t want Shach’s magnum opus to get started as article either, always worried about Shach , not about Chabad, but why take out this and violate WP:BYTE, removes criticism about Rebbe he does not like, on “talk” page and again, angrily, what about WP:BYTE?, says Rebbe was pro-Israel when he was as anti-Zionist as any Charedi and plugs messianism, anything to fight David Berger, cuts out true info about the Rebbe’s movements, what’s the big deal?, keeps the riot boiling, sharpens pro-messianist message, mocks other so-called experts, only he is the expert, insists on ideological purity, keeps on fighting, removes non-Chabad rabbis he doesn’t like, edits out a well-known rabbinic term he does not like, adds Chabad.org links, avoiding a true scandal, fighting to keep Chabad links and again, only one “Rebbe” and goes to bat for it and again, no need for the “fact” template here, removes cited info about incident after death of Rebbe, covers up the messianists, creates a good face for the bad problems, tries to finesse hot potato, so far he looks like he works for Rabbi Krinsky, the new boss and again and again, and again, and covers for everything that moves in Chabad keeps in link to Chabad.org, admits that the Rebbe ordered the public menoras, and he gives the marching orders, spends lots more time explaining how Chabad is “the same” when it’s not, finessing controversy, again, removes a valid Rubashkin connection, he doesn’t like it, removes well sourced scandal, justifies quashing another feud, cuts out huge Rubashkin controversy, he doesn’t like it and this too, removes sourced discussion about messianism, cuts out Shmuly Boteach, another “bogey” and again and again and again and again, cuts out cited info about end of Rebbe’s life, and fights over this and fights and fights. keeps on fighting against Rabbi Shach that the Rebbe could be the incarnation of God and fighting over one word and fight, if you disagree with him you are "paranoid", can't answer the complaint/s and diffs, resorts to slanders against "mental health", repeats ad hominem "mental health" & "paranoid" attacks, denies he edits pro-Chabad.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regarding Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

This user has a broad ranging edit history, but whenever he focusues on topics relating to Chabad, User Debresser (talk · contribs) follows the same patterns as the other pro-Chabad POV editors, and he openly admits "I definitely have a POV towards Chabad, since I am a Chabad rabbi" and "I have been an adherent of Chabad only for the last 19 years, and a rabbi for only 9 of them":

He edits out criticisms of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson; Chabad messianism; and Chabad.
He will subtly deprecate the traditional Chabad "enemies" like the Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Elazar Shach's newspaper and supposed rivals like Rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv.
He will find time to praise and defend controversial Chabad rabbis like Yitzchak Ginsburgh and Berel Lazar and inserts pro-Chabad website links.
He will try to wear down with WP:LAWYERing editors who oppose his pro-Chabad POV edits.
When confronted by this citation of violating WP:COI he resorted to violations of WP:NPA by repeatedly calling into question the "sanity" of the nominator.
The below diffs are examples of all the above. He is in clear violation of WP:COI, WP:NPA, WP:NOTADVERTISING as his aim is to build the Chabad-related articles within Wikipedia along the guidelines of promoting positive public relations for the Chabad movement and removing as much criticism from Wikipedia pages as he comes across. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC):[reply]

works to add more redundant Chabad links, makes petty insertion of what Lubavitchers think, polishes link to click to Chabad news, insists on redundant links, with focus on Chabad “news” fights for it again, calls it “censorship” when his link is removed, and complains that Chabad deserves 9 links no less from its own sites, he wanst “official” and “unofficial” sites, an internal spat for more not less links, “welcomes” an anonymous user only for the reason to attack him/her for “censoring Chabad makes sure than common Hebrew term for Lubavitchers is redirected and thereby deprecated ; advertises his services for “Chabadniks” even as he redirected the term and here for building up the in-group, bringing everything into line with “various small changes, either factual, stylistic or [Chabad POLICY related”], talks like he’s in an “in-discussion” about the fate of content, justifies redundancy, says that FOUR Chabad news sites are needed because “each lightening its own corner of Chabad and with its own points of view”, he and User:Shlomke come to an agreement over links, after Shlomke gives lengthy explanations. They sure WP:OWN this article, creates article about obscure Chabad rabbi, saves speedy delete of obscure Chabad rabbi, works to improve pic of Chabad rabbi uploaded by the rabbi’s 12 year old son and sees the problem, helps the kid instead of calling up his father to protect him since Wikipedia is not a game, and more help for the 12 year old, is this sane? and more help for a 12 year old and here, always ready to help with Chabad links, inserts divisive Chabad-preferred terminology into article about paper not in Chabad camp –it was founded by the perennial Chabad bugaboo Rabbi Elazar Shach and plays games by pawing at the articles name (must be a Chabad “in-joke”, he’s ignored, rubs in the shame, edits controversial topic, cuts the Vilna Gaon down to size, Chabad hates the Vilna Gaon because he excommunicated them and cuts out TODAY’S leading non-Chabad rabbi as if he were a nobody , minor, but inserts his own POV since this is done in many non-Chabad synagogues, worries when a Chabad image is axed and worries here as well and here, keeps hammering away Belarus, he should read the White Russia=Bela-Rus article, maybe it’s because Chabad is strong in present Russia and not in Belarus while he admits that it can be in Belarus as well as here, he doesn’t like the Krinsky’s? Is he in the faction that opposes Krinsky’s leadership? while here he has no problem with messianist leader Butman’s kids and family in the article, crowns Chabad rabbis as chief rabbi over a rival, axes and sanitizes well known negative scholarly view of Chasidism’s rise, burnishes rabbi who justified the Goldstein killings, supports axing negative analysis of Rebbe , burnishes the messianists and sounds like an apologist, removes key outside link to Rebbe’s grave, may be because he thinks he’s still “alive”, fighting to fudge messianism and fudge and fudge, axes cited origins of messianism, quietly, under cover, cuts out cited quote from Rabbi Elazar Shach, the bugaboo man of Chabad, he doesn’t like the NON-messianist label, cuts out cited quote for rise of messianism, feels he OWNS the subject of messianism, tries to finesse messianists, insists that there is only ONE Rebbe in blatant act of WP:OWN, standing David Berger on his head to announce why the Rebbe is the messiah, the hint/wink to fellow pro-Chabad editor is “cool head” and again, they love that Berger says there is no text to refute messianism, friendly spat, soon resolved, wink-wink, “keep it cool” and teaches survival skills on Wikipedia and kiss and make up sometimes your friends don’t think as deep as you do, fights for quote that actually says there is “no text” against messianism, admits to the trick of using Berger’s quote, defends the views of a highly controversial Chabad rabbi and fights for it while criticism of a Chabad rabbi is “racist” and calls it “defamation” to criticize a controversial Chabad rabbi, claims that an editor is suffering from COI if he questions the use of blog as source and doesn’t like being challenged about sources and demands that he knows best and fights and still thinks he can quote himself as a source and more arguments over one thing, now we know why he’s fighting so hard here, because there WAS a second will! and yet questions the “behavior” of opposing editor for disagreeing with him, au contraire, “falsification” of the will is what he has been fighting about to SUPRESS. THEN to add insult to injury lacking any defense of his position he first tried this: here, and he was rejected, without informing the party he wished to address, which he already attacked, and continues calls nominator "mentally ill" sees his error (no apology, though), returns to "mentally instable" (sic), introduces lies about the "FBI", is warned, but again cites "mental problems", adds need for "psychiatrists" to insults,imagines he's against "crusaders and fanatics", calls this post "insane ranting"; calling this COI discussion "ranting" & "fanatically obsessed", calls those who disagree with him as having a "distorted perception of reality", denies that Chabad has interests in cyberspace.

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]

Please note that Zsero is attempting to hide whatis going on by using ad homenim attacks against Izak. Poor form. RK (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Atama: To address your points:

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.
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].
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Atama:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To Atama:

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.
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.
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); Nsaum75 (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.
I have repeatedly quoted your own criteria to you and they match the problem at hand.
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.
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)[reply]

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 sidebar 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Strong examples of diffs protecting Chabad POV

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To Yehoishophot Oliver: Just some reactions:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]

Response to Izak:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Would you please provide diffs in which I "equate myself with Chabad"? You seem to have a problem with Wikipedia:Competence is required. As to my "personal attacks", please read my previous post. Debresser (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, your role in these discussions has been to defend Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) by insulting the nominator of the discussion (me), and by unapologetically and calculatedly deploying constant verbal abuse violating WP:NPA each time. And therefore, based on your violent insults, I also state above that your attacks upon me are meant to help him by personally attacking the nominator in the fashion of a proverbial hitman (not literal) to do character assassination using crude defamation and ruthless ad hominem attacks to avoid serious discussion, for these fundamental violations you should be reprimanded and blocked. It may also be a good example of the strategies of how the pro-Chabad POV editors will attack and tarnish any editor that dares to question them. It is you that protesteth too much, rather than argue rationally and logically. IZAK (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no diffs to show, please strike your previous comment (about me "equating myself with Chabad"). Anything else you have said just now is superfluous. Debresser (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that I have only addressed two questions: my role in this, and that there is no conspiracy. I have not been defending anybody. In fact, I have made a point of that. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Please, you are too kind. Debresser (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously the four of you are not feeling comfortable because I have called into question your over-all team-like violation of WP:COI in this complaint, and so far you have not gained any real support outside of your circle because thus far 7 non-Chabad editors, some even admins, including me is 8, assert that there is a huge problem with you guys on Wikipedia and they talk from experience: Users RK (talk · contribs); Joe407 (talk · contribs); Yoninah (talk · contribs); Jmabel (talk · contribs); Redaktor (talk · contribs); Yossiea (talk · contribs); Shuki (talk · contribs) and 3 others acknowledge the serious isssues and give "diplomatic" instructions to the pro-Chabad editors: DGG (talk · contribs); Avraham (talk · contribs) and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs). That speaks for itself. IZAK (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary: all say that you are overdoing. At the same time they stress the importance of good sourcing. And I am feeling very comfortable, thank you. Debresser (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't know the difference between tendentious "sourcing" and violating WP:LAWYERing which you have been trying to do by calling me all sorts of "crazy" names literally in violation of WP:NPA multiple times. IZAK (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I don't want to sound like I am evading anything, but this discussion has come to clear conclusions. It remains for User:IZAK to accept them. Otherwise this is a WP:DEADHORSE. Debresser (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "deadhorse" and you are not "the Godfather" sending dead horse's heads as threats either. IZAK (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the humor, but if other editors stop participatng, then this will be proven to be a dead horse. And please do not change my posts: you have no right to do that. I am talking about the warning on top of this discussion. I posted it there. If you disagree with it, write so, but do not touch my posts. Debresser (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree that there seems to be some kind of problem here. The first article I clicked on, Yehoshua Shneur Zalman Serebryanski an inadequately sourced bio, had the stunning unsourced claim: "He won the admiration and love of the entire Melbourne community for his humble, pleasant, soft-spoken demeanour, and kind and caring attitude." Looking at the article's history, it's been there since the article was created by User:Yehoishophot Oliver in 2007. I've got no dog in this race and I don't think I've ever edited a Jewish-related article, but I think there needs to be an examination of this topic area because there does seem to be problems with following policy. The shouting above with personal attacks from both sides is just clouding the issue, so if you lot are here to build Wikipedia and wish to write articles that comply with policy, you might drop all the accusations and start talking to each other like you're talking to another human being and not some blip on a computer screen. Sarah 12:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so remove it. That is just a peacock term, used by an inexperienced author over two years ago. Is that justification for all that has been going on over here? Debresser (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed a couple of hours before your comment. And it's not "just a peacock term"; it's unsourced, POV, OR, unverified and unverifiable unencyclopedic content in a biography. I can certainly understand making mistakes as a new and inexperienced editor (though Yehoishophot had been here for 6 months when he wrote that, which isn't exactly new in Wikipedia-terms), but that doesn't explain why it remained in there for two-and-a-half years while your colleagues making edits to either side of the sentence. Regardless of the merits of concerns regarding content, I am very concerned with the unnecessarily aggressive attitudes I'm seeing displayed. It looks very much like you are viewing this as a battleground, not a collaboration. Sarah 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know how many unsourced or poorly sourced bio's and other articles we have? Not hundreds, not thosands, but hundreds of thousands! So now what? Post all of those authors here? Debresser (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses on this page reflect very poorly on you. I'm an uninvolved admin looking over this page who had to step through an incredible number of attacks and hysterical posts to try to work out what's actually going on beneath all the posturing. I have looked over some of the articles and discussion pages in this subject area and I have reached the opinion that complaints about what's going on in this subject area don't seem to be without merit. Sarcastic commentary from you is not going to change that opinion or incline other admins who happen to peruse this page to believe that you're actually in the right. If there are any further comments or references to other editor's mental health, I intend to pursue sanctions. You have been here more than long enough to know that those sorts of personal comments about other editors are unacceptable. IZAK could certainly be more diplomatic in his communication but your own leaves little to be desired and if this sarcastic and snarky response is the way you respond to a neutral outside admin expressing concerns, it doesn't fill me with much hope or confidence for the way you are dealing with other editors who disagree with you on content matters. You seem to have adopted a very blatant battleground mentality, "if you're not for us, you're against us", and you - all of you - need to stop that and accept that Wikipedia is a NPOV collaborative project and if you're unable or unwilling to work collaboratively with other editors, not just those who agree with you, to sometimes compromise and give and take in order to write a NPOV resource, then you shouldn't be editing here at all. AGF, CON, NPOV, V, RS, CIVIL, NOT, are cornerstone principles of this project and they aren't negotiable. As far as the existence of other problematic content, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Sarah 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "sarcasm" or "snark"; references to Izak's mental health are genuine and completely warranted by his own words, which can only be described as paranoid rants. -- Zsero (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sarah and thank her for stepping up to the plate against what's beginning to look like a team of bullies, not ballplayers. While Yehoishopot Oliver has at least tried to respond to IZAK's allegations in tones of civility, Debresser and especially you, Zsero, are coming across as quite hysterical. You are not answering the allegations point-by-point, but jumping on any excuse to sling back mud so that no one remembers what IZAK is contending anymore. Enough is enough. Yoninah (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one hysterical person here, and that is Izak. The only mud in sight is that slung by Izak; comments about his mental health continue to be confirmed by his own words, which keep getting worse. There are no allegations to answer; only a tendentious complaint about a supposed COI that wouldn't exist even if all his claims were true. There's no point in going through his litany of selected links to my edits; every single one of them is valid and only a paranoid could see in them evidence of anything malign. Let's remember exactly what Izak is contending: that the editors he accuses are united, not just by having similar opinions on one subject, and not even by a vast conspiracy, but by a personal interest that conflicts with WP's interest in building an encyclopaedia. A similar case could be made on almost any article; all editors who remove slander and/or insults against Rush Limbaugh or Barack Obama must be on the payroll and have a COI! -- Zsero (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing slander and insults is fine, but when you and the other pro-Chabad editors POV edit in a way that removes what the official Chabad organizations considers to be "slander" such as real historical events and statements by Rabbi Elazar Shach a famous and responsible Jewish sage, or by Rabbi David Berger (professor) or statements that the Chabad movement does not like emanating from the Vilna Gaon, not to mention sanitizing and neutralizing key articles like Chabad messianism and statements you don't like in the other Chabad-related articles, and you then defend that with adroit use of WP:LAWYER and if that's not enough go to WP:WAR as you are now doing, that has nothing to do with you personally either, it's just a movement's ideology that you are enforcing then you have clearly crossed the line of WP:COI on Wikipedia. May I remind you that we have been requested by admins here to step back from long speeches and give them an opportunity to assess what's going on and to make their conclusions and take whatever actions will be forthcoming. I have already agreed to do so and it would be appreciated if you would too, especially since the "best" you can do is to keep violating WP:NPA and not answering the real issues. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah: Thanks for your input. The issue is not that some articles are too puffy or that they should and could be improved, we are all for that and will for that. The complaint that is being raised here is that there are a core band of pro-Chabad POV editors that when it comes to ANY article related to the Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism they edit along the obvious party lines of the Chabad movement and ideology which is the core of the WP:COI complaint against them. If any other editors not from their group, even Judaic editors, try to insert material they disapprove of, they will band together and harrass and fight to get their way ensuring only the pro-Chabad POV prevails as much as possible, in violation of WP:WAR, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and deploying all the subtleties of WP:LAWYERing. So it's about how they act with impunity in violation of WP:OWN of what they regard as "their" territory, and this cannot be allowed as it threatens the independence of other editors working along strictly WP:NPOV lines. Thanks for your interest. IZAK (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I was just pointing to that article as an example of using article content in a way that doesn't comply with policy and appears to push a POV; it certainly was not neutral or encyclopedic and read more like a sentimental obituary. I'm prepared to help as an uninvolved admin but I don't know a lot about this subject area so unfortunately probably wont be able to be of much practical help. I can see just from the discussion above, the various talk pages and randomly looking through articles in the Chabad cat that there are obviously real problems here. This probably needs a central sub-page though to try to sort out because this kind of extensive discussion isn't really suitable for COIN. It also might end up needing to go to arbitration because the battleground mentality, ownership, co-ordination, pov, etc is obviously unacceptable (aspects of this reminds me a bit of the Eastern European case minus the mailing list). Sarah 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already asked for input about the issue of an editor who seems to have crossed the line between concern and obsession, and the response I received at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive588#Question:_concern_vs_obsession was that "we act according to, and only to, the policies being violated. WP:TEND is a start - WP:DISRUPT if it gets to warnings of potential sanctions". I definitely think User:IZAK has shown in this thread that he is seeing things that do not exist. As long as that doesn't cause him to engage in tendentious editing or personal attacks that would not have been a problem. However, his accusations here have clearly evolved into personal attacks. I do not deny that it is possible and likely that I and other editors have a POV. It is even possible that somebody has engaged in POV editing. That still doesn't justify his accusations of conspiracies in "higher echelons of Chabad" or between the editors listed at the top of this section. These accusations are just personal attacks, and should be dealt with as such. As far as accusations of POV editing rely to my person, I have replied to them in my first post (timewise) to this thread, which you can read above. In addition I would like to remind you that you do not have to appreciate my sarcasm. If you were being attacked by User:IZAK the way I have been here (like you certainly would have been, had you dared to disagree with him), based only on the fact that I see no merit to his accusations and his ranting style of his personal attacks, you might have been more perceptive to my sarcasm. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to Izak's challenges against me not because I think they have any validity, or because I think his tone and language is acceptable, but so that others will not think that "silence is consent". I maintain my vigorous protest against Izak's use of the COI noticeboard and afd/talk pages as a soapbox for promoting (with hate-filled provocative language to which the admins have yet to respond as appropriate, including language that, as mentioned above concerning his use of the pejorative "diktat" he himself condemns as inherently inappropriate when not related to Chabad) his personal anti-Chabad POV and violating NPA, AGF, OUTING, and promulgating absurd conspiracy claims. And whenever someone tries to object to his onslaught of abuse, he pounces on their objections and accuses them of ... trying to intimidate him by violating NPA! I have not violated any of these rules as far as I can see.

Izak's claim against me (and others) seems to be that that he thinks I have a particular religious affiliation, which, he argues, makes me unfit to edit. He has no basis for this claim from any statement I have made on wikipedia anywhere (unlike in his case, in which scores of totally gratuitous anti-Chabad attacks have made in his presentation of his views on talk pages), because I never made such statements (at least, I have no such recollection); all he has is his deductions and assumptions based on his selective quoting of my edits. But (aside from what his own edits may reveal) his aggressively worded, completely unsubstantiated soapbox-style posts here and on talk pages elsewhere reveal that he has a very strong POV on this matter, one that leads him to make wildly exaggerated accusations and projections. So if that's his claim, then he is just as disqualified from posting here. But his claim is more so--that not only do certain other editors have a point of view (while only he and those whom he names as his allies are impeccably objective and independent), but that these editors he names must be consciously using wikipedia to promote their POV (something he claims never to do himself, though oddly I haven't seen him championing any view other than that of Orthodox Judaism when editing articles in which other theological views are discussed, and this leads me to regard him as an Orthodox Judaism POVwarrior, as I mentioned earlier, to which he did not respond). Here is where he totally violates AGF, and where it is clear that his COI challenge is untenable. For, not knowing us and not even having one statement of Wikipedia of ours to back up his claim (other than de bresser's admission to being a Chabad rabbi), his personal conclusions about our opinions based on his selective quoting of our edits are nothing but pure speculation on his part. And even debresser, who admitted to having an affiliation, deserves to be treated according to AGF just like anyone else. Or, as an admin. said, wikipedia does not allow discrimination on the basis of religion. This is essentially what Izak is advocating, and it is totally uncivil, unfair and unacceptable, and I join the demand of others that due to all the above infractions, appropriate disciplinary action be taken against him. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about limiting religion on Wikipedia, this is about stopping WP:OWN and the WP:COI and the type of WP:LAWYER and WP:WAR you display here about Chabad-related articles by pro-Chabad POV editors like yourself. We have been requested by a number of admins to stand back and allow them to come to digest all the evidence presented here and let them arrive at their own conclusions and consider what further actions and measures need to be taken. Everyone has already stated their views comprehensively. Kindly limit long responses from now on, as I have agreed to do. You had more than enough time to explain yourself and you are now repeating yourself. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the guidelines for using this board

I am thinking particularly of: Please limit statements to 200 words or less. Long, drawn-out speeches may be ignored.
If you are discussing the actions of another editor here, please notify them Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dougweller: There are no "speeches" here. This is a very serious complaint of a comprehensive WP:COI violation by the four users cited. It's supported by many other users who have gone to the trouble of leaving their remarks for the record here. All editors cited for the COI have been duly informed from the outset, and they have been responding as the discussion unfolds, they too should not feel hamstrung by warnings about "speeches" -- let's see here what they say, fully and comprehensively, about the cited COI violations over the years that are placed before everyone here (so far the best they can do is attack the nominator and his state of mind, a rather poor defense). The issues here deal with a subject that has been developing for at least three years, with many active edits and editors spread out over lengthy edit histories. There is no short and simple way to lance this boil, and just as it's taken very hard work to unravel the complexities of this situation, it will take hard work on the part decision making admins to arrive at solid conclusions. If you feel that this is just "speechmaking" not worthy of your time and needs to be ignored, kindly recuse yourself from this very serious matter and allow other admins who do not share your concerns and are willing to undertake the tough task at hand. Thanks for your understanding. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dougweller. The sheer length of posts, on both sides, looks more like some kind of obfuscatory tactic to win the argument by WP:SOUP than attempts to resolve the problem, and should be treated as disruptive editing. ::I apologise for raising my own essay, but I think this is a classic case of WP:MARTIANS: the best thing for the topic area would be if everyone with an iron in the fire would recuse themselves, and see what outside editors with no previous connection with the subject make of the articles. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have made my final posts and await the decisions of the admins in this case. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at splitting this discussion

Unfortunately, User Debresser (talk · contribs) has seen fit to create a side show and unseemly distraction, obviously in the hope of taking the focus off him and the 3 other pro-Chabad POV editors by creating a frivolous complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Tendentious editing by User:IZAK.

I have responded there at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Response from IZAK. I give reasons why it's a mistake to split the discussions at this time and I conclude: Debresser's points are just frivolous minor distractions and a delaying action that he is trying to create from the focus remaining on him and his three allies. He is not doing anyone here a favor by trying to split up the discussions between two points and making admins jump back and forth. This new thread should be combined with the main discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wikipedia should NOT become just another Chabad website

In light of the fact that the four pro-Chabad POV editors have promoted quite a few of the Chabad movement's official websites, and in particular to that of chabad.org that is linked to many articles, that in turn reflects the party line of that religious group;

and in view of the fact that the Chabad movement has invested heavily into communicating its message on the Internet, in the spirit of a digital cyber-space Chabad mitzvah campaign to spread their teachings particularly as espoused by their 7th and last Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson;

and in light of the fact that there is therefore a cross-over and an inevitable conflict of interest for an editor, WHEN EDITING CHABAD-RELATED ARTICLES, to be both a devout Chabad disciple and remain true to the full ethos of Wikipedia, and therefore a clash results as documented with the diffs for the 4 editors above between the way Wikipedia operates, describes, explains and reports things that will not be in accordance with any particular party line, the issue of WP:COI must therefore arise because based on the edit history, discussions and what can be deduced about the present most active pro-Chabad editors, it is imporatnt to be aware of Chabad's power and presense online through websites linked to Wikipedia at thousands of Judaic articles as well as to the vast array of Chabad websites and resources on the Internet that reach far and wide.

Chabad websites linked to Wikipedia's Chabad-related articles

Note, that Chabad's official websites are available in all the world's major languages.

Wikipedia has two articles about two Chabad websites already Chabad.org and AskMoses.com, and the outside links to websites are:

Other Chabad websites as background resources

Note, this is just a sampling, there are many more.

Many of these are fervently messianist and are carefully kept off Wikipedia www dot kingmessiah dot com site cannot even be diffed on Wikipedia, because it is blocked per Wikipedia:Spam blacklist from being on Wikipedia’s servers, but they cast a long shadow on the messianist party line adhered to when the pro-Chabad POV editors deal with anything related to Chabad and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson and Chabad-related controversies:

These are among the top thirty Chabad websites from a Google search. There are hundreds, if not thousands more like this:

Therefore, in light of the above, Wikipedia, all its editors, admins and officials, and all its branches in all languages and in all countries under the Wikimedia Foundation must be made aware of this comprehensive global Chabad website network that in combined size may rival Wikipedia's and in particular all articles relating to Chabad, its rabbis, its designated "enemies", articles relating to Judaism and Israel, as well as any of the topics that the skilled and determined pro-Chabad POV editors both now and in the future turn their attention to, Wikipedia must safeguard its independence and neutrality and ensure that pro-Chabad POV editors are not allowed to infiltrate and influence and control articles important to them, be they critical or or supportive on pain of Wikipedia losing control by default to the pro-Chabad POV activist website savvy editors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK's Warning

As an active and experienced Wikipedian, I call upon admins and concerned decision makers to ensure that the four pro-Chabad POV editors, User Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) and User Shlomke (talk · contribs) and User Zsero (talk · contribs) and Debresser (talk · contribs) NEVER be allowed to attain admin status, if they ever survive other sanctions against them.

If they were to attain sysop powers they would undoubtedly wield them to enforce from a higher status what they have been trying to do by dint of editing away over the last few years to move articles in their favor.

Having spent a few days looking over in-depth at the diffs of all four editors in question, and posting the ones that relate to this COI complaint, one needs to ask what are serious Chabad rabbis and scholars doing editing over such a wide range of subjects when they are not editing, monitering or controlling the articles important to Chabad?

They spend relatively almost NO time on other important Judaic topics, but they do spend lots of time on all sorts of relative trivia, and the only rational conclusion one can come to is that they are each in their own way preparing the road for their own hoped-for nomination and coronation to admin status.

The only way to do that was/is getting their name/s known as active in other areas and gain name recognition, in political campaigning style, without saying as much, so that when the time comes, and they are now at the cusp of it, to be nominated as admins, they will get the support of other users who do not realize that these four have a "higher agenda" to fight for their cause of Chabad on Wikipedia as a literal fifth column, there is no clearer way to say it, in full knowledge that they are going to violate WP:COI as they enforce and ensure the type of editing on Chabad-related topics as evidenced from the diffs at each one above. NOTHING WILL CHANGE, IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE IF THEY ARE LET OFF THE HOOK. Thank you.

This shall be my final comment unless I have to answer to something very urgent or to specific questions. Thank you for your patience and understanding. IZAK (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. I had wondered how my edit history could be spun as that of some sort of agent of a Chabad cabal secretly plotting to ~~rule the sevagram~~ take over the ~~world~~ Wiki; now I know. Concentrating on a few articles is evidence of a secret agenda, and interest in a wide range of articles is also evidence of exactly the same thing. No doubt the "top echelons" instructed me in this strategy, which they developed with their "enormous powers and resources". I'm impressed. And I think the concerns raised about Izak's mental health should now be considered beyond question. -- Zsero (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I am positive that it's a product of your education you don't need "instructions" it is just what any good Lubavitcher would do any place any time. Perhaps one or two of you are doing it on instructions, but it's immaterial because with or without instructions the result is still that the 4 of you edit alike in an aggressive pro-Chabad-POV fashion. I mean this objectively. I have looked over all of your collective edit histories, it's basically one pattern with very minor variations and it can't be allowed to go on like this forever. I have said that I will limit my comments and I suggest you do the same and let the closing admins read all the facts and arguments over without having to put up with bickering from the peanut gallery. Have a good day and a good week. IZAK (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When will Wikipedia admins ban Zsero for his constant ad homenim personal attacks on Wikipedia editors who follow Wikipedia policies? Unfortunately, Zsero and many other messianic Chabad Hasidim here attack all Jewish editors here as "mentally ill" whenever we note their lack of adherence to Wikipedia policy. This pattern alone should disqualify all of these Chabad editors from ever gaining Admin status; but more to the point, should earn them a long term ban on editing articles.

A Chabad cabal, so to speak, is not secret - I have personally been to Chabad meetings where they openly talk about fund raising to create websites for this very purpose. It is only here on Wikipedia that a handful of zealous Chabad editors are dishonest about their agenda. Outside of Wikipedia they are very open about it: They have a new messianic mission from God, who they believe to speak through their recently deceased Rebbe. (Others, of course, believe that said deceased Rebbe literally is God. They fight amongst themselves on this point.)

Outside of Wikipedia, they openly state that they wish to portray their Chabad Hasidic Orthodox view as the only legitimate Hasidic view, then as the only legitimate Orthodox Jewish view, and finally as the only legitimate Jewish view. This is no secret; they are not ashamed to have these views. Zsero is setting up a strawman argument and using ad homenim tactics to mislead Wikipedia editors.

This is no different than a small, fundamentalist, schismatic sect of the Catholic Church sending a group of editors to re-edit and re-write dozens of articles critical to our coverage of the Christian faith. A group that does not follow NPOV policy, that does not work well with others, a group that disparages all other views of their faith, and that attacks anyone who differs from them as mentally ill. We must not allow this sort of behavior to become acceptable by precedent. RK (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now I'm a "messianic Chabad Hasid"? RK's powers of divination amaze me. As far as I know there is nothing in my edit history to show that I am any sort of "Chabad Hasid", let alone a "messianic" one, or am a member of any Chabad-related organisation. RK's theological opinions do not interest me in the least, and have no place on WP; but from the above it appears that his or her real agenda here is some sort of ideological animus against Chabad, which by his/her own standards ought to mean that s/he has a COI! At any rate, they're irrelevant here and don't merit an answer. -- Zsero (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please explain what User:IZAK's point was with those lists of websites? Debresser (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Anybody know what "digital cyber-space Chabad mitzvah campaign" User:IZAK is referring to? Sorry, I have been an adherent of Chabad only for the last 19 years, and a rabbi for only 9 of them, and am not yet aware of such a campaign. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links

I'm not even Jewish. Just to get that out of the way.

I have thought for a very long time that the number of links to chabad.org is out of all proportion to the significance of the organisation. The only reaons it's not ended up at a spam management page is that there are several editors adding them and the links are at least nominally on topic, but in most cases where we link to what might be termed neutral content we should not link to presentations of it on sites promoting minor sects - this is the same argument as we had with a traditionalist Catholic site which was linked to hundreds of articles often not connected with traditionalist Catholicism. I don't thinik we should link to chabad.org unless there is a prominent, notable and distinct Chabad view on a given subject. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the link explains the topic, exactly what is the problem? That it's Chabad.org and not Aish.com? So add a link to Aish.com (or any other accepted site! But deliberately deleting links to legitimate relevant articles simply because they are Chabad is just as POV. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop twisting his words and it's not what he said. Stop dragging a red herring about Aish into this. His complaint is about spamming the chabad.org links for no other reason than to promote those links and not as a requirement for the articles. He made a perfectly objective statement and you fool no one by accusing him falsely of a "POV" when it is you with the record of the real activist pro-Chabad POV as cited in the diffs above. IZAK (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many links to chabad.org for one reason only: it is a tremendously useful resource. There is no policy, guideline, or even mild suggestion that the number of links to a domain should be limited according to some estimation of the relative importance of the owners' religious affiliations! For the record Chabad is not a "minor sect", and I don't know where you got such an idea; but even if it were, that would make no difference, and your proposal that the site should only be used to give Chabad views on things is downright bizarre. Christian Science is a minor sect, and yet nobody complains about the number of links to the Christian Science Monitor, or suggests that it only be linked when there is a "prominent, notable and distinct" CS view on a subject! -- Zsero (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the Christian Science Monitor has become a respected publication in its own right, regardless of its origins. Can the same be said of Chabad.org? I'm not saying it can't, just that I don't know. Can you show us examples of non-Chabad-related organizations linking to it, using it as a source, praising its content, and so on? Is it a source that we should use because others do? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Without question, chabad.org is one of the most important resources on the web for Jewish topics. It is a repository of much valuable content, the overwhelming majority of which has nothing to do with any specific Chabad POV. It's a resource we should use because it's there, and because its content is valuable. Any challenge to a link must be based on the content, not the domain name. -- Zsero (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree on this point that there seems to be way too many links to Chabad.org on WP. I noticed this more like two years ago when I've seen them constantly being added. If as SlimVirgin notes other organizations link to them, or they are covered by the press, that would probably make them more notable. Shlomke (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Shlomke, that makes no sense. There is no quota on links to a site. Each external link must be evaluated on its own merits, without regard to how many other links exist to the same domain. Even if WP were already to contain a million links to various pages at chabad.org, and someone were considering adding a million-and-first, or someone added it and someone else were considering deleting it, the only factor that may legitimately be considered are whether the page linked to adds to the value of the WP article. It is illegitimate, and fundamentally against everything WP stands for, to take into consideration how many other links exist in other articles to other pages in the same domain. Deleting a link on such a basis (or adding a link because there are too few links to a site) would be a gross violation of NPOV. So if anyone has a problem with specific links, they must challenge them one by one, giving specific reasons each time why that link should be deleted. And of course the same is true for the many many links WP has to aish.com, jewishvirtuallibrary.org, hebrewbooks.org, or any other wide-ranging resource. -- Zsero (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then how about showing that this link is notable by bringing sources that quote them, showing other websites linking to them. I'm not saying that isn't the case, but please demonstrate that it is. Shlomke (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the appropriate standard. A properly constructed web search would probably find many such links, but I haven't done one because I don't think it has any bearing. I think you're mixing the standards for sources with those for external links. That standard is entirely about how valuable the resource linked to is, not about how many other people link to it. Notability has nothing to do with it. A resource that languishes at some obscure web site that an editor just discovered five minutes ago is just as valid as one that's hosted on a popular site. The only question to ask when making an external link is whether the content on the other end 1) enhances the reader's knowledge of the subject, and 2) doesn't itself belong in the article. -- Zsero (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(in repsonse to the first post in this subsection) Chabad.org is a large online resource, which is specifically geared towards those unfamiliar with the subject matter. As such, it is likely to be relevant to many Judaism-related articles. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser's point is well-taken. Whenever I do research for any Judaism article, chabad.org is right up there on Google search with the necessary information. No other Judaism website is as comprehensive. Yoninah (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:IZAK's POV editing, violations of WP policy and diffs

Regarding IZAK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Although IZAK (talk · contribs) claims he has nothing against Chabad, taking a close look at his edits will reveal that he has an anti-Hassidic, pro Misnagdic and anti-Chabad POV in particular, with some particularly troubling editing patterns in violation of WP:NOR, NPOV, WP:Avoid, WP:EL and WP:Canvassing. IZAK has gotten into trouble in the past with canvassing and has been banned for 10 days by the arbitration committee See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IZAK. He has since found better tactics and upgraded to Stealth_canvassing, and still violates this important WP rule. In this case Izak violated canvasing by posting a notice about an Afd with the heading "Chabad-Lubavitch POV pushing"at the Wikiproject Judaism page. IZAK fought very hard to delete that article, which was closed as keep. He posted another Afd with the heading "How far Chabad-POV pushing?". Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning states:

“

Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.

”

Izak was called on it, but responded with Shame on you. When I explain myself, he gets on the defensive and questions my objectivity and decides he's going to make sure that Wikipedia does not just become another undercover "branch of Chabad" as thought there is some effort to make that happen. That is his overall concern here: That there is a conspiracy be Chabad to take over Wikipedia and in a few years it will not be possible for any Judaic editor to edit Chabad related articles or any other article the "Chabad POV warriors" have taken control of.

Izak also displays a certain aggressive tone in his posts which reflect badly on him. While I've worked successfully with Izak on a number of Judaic issues (not Chabad), I've always been disappointed with his tone. Others [3] [4] have expressed this as well. He will use words like "How dare you" to intimidate other editors when he does not get his way. He shouts down admins that do not agree with him as can be seen on this page, here, here and here. I've gotten the feeling that editors and even admins are afraid to argue with with him, though that's just my feeling See this for example.

Adds a bunch of POV OR about Hasidim actually being Misnagdim, add his highly POV OR: “Ironically, it was the Hasidim who appplied to themselves the name "Hasidim" ("righteous ones") and to those who opposed them as "Mitnagdim"” and in violation of WP:Avoid. then reverts to his POV OR again, he’s concerned the Mitnagdim means “the bad guys”, Calls reliable citations of Hassidic thought, and Encyclopedia Judaica POV quotes from and by Hasidim that “only reveal that they are good at quoting themselves and not much else”. Claims that "most Hasidic groups have a disdain for Lubavitch" and "ONLY Lubavitch still keeps up the old propagandistic and long-discarded labels of "mitnaged" or "mitnagdim"" (oh, what's this from The Forward??), with a bunch of glorification for Rabbi Shach at Talk:Elazar Shach.. Again claims that the followers of the Baal Shem Tov (1698-1760) chose to self-righteously call themselves "Hasidim" (which means "righteous ones" in Hebrew) -- an act of great chutzpah. He's really preoccupied with this POV stuff... Calls Hassidic belief "propaganda", inserts private anonymous blatant POV website into Chabad messianism in violation of WP:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #11 and NPOV. Inserts it again into Barry Gurary. Removes two links to two different Chabad Baal Teshuva Yeshiva's from a list of all BT Yeshiva's in existence. Removes {{not verified}} template from Barry Gurary - whom he calls the "Chabad bogey man" - when the only source to the article is a link to a POV blog in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Inserts more links to Blogs and private websites again in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Inserts unsourced info using POV language into Barry Gurary and in violation of WP:NOR and WP:Avoid. Uses blogs as references yet again as though he is not aware of this most basic violation, These are just examples of IZAK's POV editing on Barry Gurary (his favorite "Chabad bogey man"). Anyone looking over the history of Barry Gurary will see how IZAK edits in total disregard for WP policy. And there is still unsourced info in the article as of today. Calls Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson's efforts for Orthodox Judaism outreach essentially PR and recruitment drives of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Shneerson to enlarge the Chabad movement's power and influence.

Sorry if I made this too long, but since Izak writes drawn out speeches, I feel the need to fully explain myself. Shlomke (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to go into detail, I just wanted to say that the same suspicions had entered my mind on a few occasions. His unreasonable and no-consensus editing of Jewish seminary may be a clear indication that these accsations are true. His viscious attacks here and in the above mentioned Afd notification are likewise reminiscent of typical attacks from religious organisations opposed to the Chabad movement. Debresser (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't speak about your "suspicions" and for a person who accuses others of "mental problems" it speaks poorly about you. You should go into details, because nothing has happened at Jewish seminary beyond your determination to make it into a Charedi-only topic (yet you even thanked me for my help with this topic making it into a true and fair disambiguation page, do you remember that?) and you have reverted my edits that inserted a small variety of other institutions, some defunct (am I "working" for those too) including non-Orthodox ones. It is you who fights along pro-Chabad POV lines and then when you don't like it being pointed out, you literally imagine that someone is working for an organization which must be something you do. Besides you must really be desperate now to even mention such a non-subject in the context of this serious COI complaint against you and your 3 friends.IZAK (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply shouldn't include what I want. How can you know? And your claim is also factually incorrect, because the link to the category includes all seminaries. Another example of how you distort facts with personal comments and misleading information. Now that shows what you are really doing in this thread. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK's response to Shlomke's allegations

To allege that I am "anti-Hasidic" is ludicrous and laughable. I have done more to edit and enhance articles about ALL Chasidus than most editors, and I can prove. I have worked hard over the years to save stubs and poorly written articles about Chasidic history and various Rebbes. When I started the articles about most of the 7 Chabad Rebbes I was accused of being too pro-Chasidic, now you say the opposite. You are confusing OBJECTIVITY and WP:NPOV with something else in your mind.
You are throwing in the kitchen sink and unrelated matters while I am focusing on one issue, that you and your frinds must stop your WP:OWN attitude relating to all articles in Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism and stop going to WP:WAR when confronted about it. You are in violation of WP:COI and WP:NOTADVERTISING on behalf of Chabad.
Shlomke is feeling hurt and he both starts a discussion and then posts the way we communicated.
The events in the old ArbCom case go back to experiences during 2003, my first year on Wikipedia which came to a head in 2004 when a nasty and antisemitic editor, now retired, was running for admin status.
To post a message about a subject of interest on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism is not "canvassing" -- editors are free to bring important subjects to the attention of relevant Wikiproject discussion pages.
I have minimized my contact with and editing of Chabad-related articles for avery long time:
I have restricted myself to ONE article of interest, the Barry Gurary one, and I have not interfered with all the many other articles.
I last edited the controversial Barry Gurary article on 13 February 2008 title=Barry_Gurary&diff=191084819&oldid=191083588, nearly two years ago, and that edit was soon reversed, I did not contest it. It was not a spam link, it's an important counter-argument to the Chabad line, and that's why you don't like it.
Prior to that I had last edited the Barry Gurary article in 17 September 2007 well over two years ago.
I do not add POV edits. I base everything on sources. I may not have them at my fingertips but I do not suck things out of the air. Hardly any editor has faulted me on my Jewish scholarship and knowlwdwge of facts until now when Shlomke needs to defend his pro-Chabad POV editing.
Most Hasidic groups do have a disdain for Lubavitch and it's mutaual, Lubavitch is known to be at war with many other groups. This is not fantasy, it is fact, even though Shlomke may not like it.
He brings up the topic of Rabbi Elazar Shach (page is currently locked, surprise, surprise), a great sage the Lubavitchers hate. In any case, the last time I edited that was almost THREE years ago on 29 April 2007 to avoid being in such a hopeless battleground with pro-Chabad POV warriors.
It's always about Barry Gurary. The issue of blogs as sources was not clear, especially to old-timers like myself who were able to insert much of anything in 2002-3 when Wikipedia was hungry for content. At any rate, the blog in question was disputed in 12 May 2006 almost FOUR years ago and quickly edited out by the Chabaniks. But what Shlomke misses is the broader picture, that with the arrival of the pro-Chabad POV editors determined to present articles from one perspective, theirs, in the heat of discussions various facts were introduced as a test of whether they were disputing the facts or disputing the sources and as it turns out one of the best tactics Shlomke and his three friends deploy is when they don't like the facts or wish to dispute them they look for ways to negate the sources and not look for finding better ones, preferring to cut down articles to the shape and size that it will not threaten them. This is no way to write an objective encyclopedia.
Almost everything Shlomke says here is just a frivolous waste of time and trying to find fault with me when I have not been that active on Wikipedia for approximately the last two to three years years. I have checked in from time to time. My main work prior to that had NOTHING to do with the topic of Chasidim or Chabad but I worked hard to Categorize subjects correctly and deal with other subjects relating to Jewish history and the Jewish people in general and avoiding edit wars anywhere at all costs. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK responds to Shlomke's latest claims

Rather than deal with the COI complaints against him, User:Shlomke is resorting to the same tactic as User Debresser (talk · contribs) has done by trying to now split the discussions three ways. Deploying the tactic that "the best defense is offense" the complaint of COI is not answered but rather frivolous red herring side shows are now being deployed as delaying and distraction tactics. I will briefly respond to what User:Shlomke is now feebly dredging up:
The very language of Shlomke's words here shows how he thinks in terms of "us versus them" and if I am not for every last official policy line of that movement I am somehow "against" it, which is false because long before Shlomke came along I had worked hard to create the first articles about Chabad and its Rebbes as I stated at the outset: 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.
The case when I was blocked for tens days was in my first months on Wikipedia six years ago, I was still a novice then, and it was because I had complained too strongly against the antisemitic POV editing and comments of a particular editor who was subsequesntly blocked. I doubt that Shlomke wishes to be in the company of the type of antisemites I took on six years ago.
It is not "stealth canvassing" to post a note at the WP:TALKJUDAISM page where editors concerned about Judaism topics gather. Many such notices are placed about all sorts of discussions and AfD's there.
Recently there have been a few AfD's relating to relatively very minor Chabad topics, and, I would like to state here for the first time, that it was in fact that because I was contacted by one the pro-Chabad POV editors to partake in that vote, that I realized that we had a problem here. I did not initiate the first of the six recent AfDs Shlomke is still mourning for, and while the first one was a keep, four AfDs were initiated by two other users, and I initiated two more which ended as "deletes" so Shlomke is just a sore loser. He got one "keep" versus 2 "merges" and 3 "deletes" -- and of course editors fight hard for their positions in AfDs especially if they nominate them, and I only nominated 2 out the 6. The results of the AfD's dealing with the multiple needless Chabad POV forks speak for themselves: (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.)
As for raising the red flags of pro-Chabad POV pushing on Wikipedia, which obviously Shlomke finds embarrassing, and it's understandable, like people operated on while still conscious, as he now tries to create distractions to that (they are like "screams" of pain really, nothing more) with this frivolous complaint because so far the majority of editors who have edited in Jewish and Israel topics have all raised concerns about the alarm that I have raised about the tightening grip of the pro-Chabad POV editors on Wikipedia. As I have stated, so far, besides the to-be-expected self-righteous non-objective non-"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, 11 so far, namely Users RK (talk · contribs); Joe407 (talk · contribs); Yoninah (talk · contribs); Jmabel (talk · contribs); Redaktor (talk · contribs); Yossiea (talk · contribs); Shuki (talk · contribs); Nsaum75 (talk · contribs) and diplomatic instructions to the pro-Chabad editors from DGG (talk · contribs); Avraham (talk · contribs) and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), 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.
It's not "defensive" to object to monolithic responses to AfD nominations, which Shlomke is taking personally that he lost 5 out of 6 fair and square, so he now creates more noise and distraction because he is evidently a sore loser, to cover-up the real truth that a group of confirmed pro-Chabad POV editors kick in together to cover for the Chabad subject of the hour and anyone who questions them is deemed to be "anti-Chabad" and summarily attacked as I have been since I started this COI complaint against them. I shall not be deterred by their crass and brutish insults and constant frivolous distractions. Let the closing admins decide what needs to be done. It's not just a shame it's also unbecoming Wikipedia as an institution in its own right and it's why there is this complaint of WP:COI violations against the 4 pro-Chabad POV editors/warriors.
The concerns I had at other points, and based on all the diffs cited, only proves my case of why there is now a serious complaint of violating WP:COI by the 4 pov pro-Chabd editors themselves, just see how they conduct themselves and the aggressive counter-tactics they deploy, they only see things one way in Chabad-related topics -- their way, and if not, its the highway for anyone who opposes their doctrinaire one-dimensional views. A WP:NPOV encyclopedia cannot be built or edited their point blank hagiography way.
He's still harping away at the AfD he lost about minor subjects. But one thing is certain, and I have spent the past week carefully going over in great detail the edit histories of all 4 editors cited in this COI complaint, that they are very aggressive and even obnoxious and have the conscious strategy of wearing down opponents as can be seen by the way they are fighting back here with wasting time, rather then trying to clean up their acts, which they know they can't do, so they just wage war and violate WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND in the hope that their "enemies" will withdraw or lose. So no surprse that other editors are afraid of tangling with them, and who then lose interest in editing with them, and that's how they take over articles by default, like "victors claiming the spoils". I am really sorry for Shlomke and his 3 friends that they are getting a taste of their own medicine here but his "broken wing defense" with fake violin music in the background for this "poor sensitive soul" does not wash here at all because the 4 characters cited here are hard core pro-Chabad-POV pushers, relentless violaters of WP:LAWYERing, WP:WAR and WP:NPA when they don't get their way even with a tiny edit they deem crucial to their often messianist ideology. Flinging the most vile and disgusting personal insults violating WP:NPA multiple times, spending their time sneaking-in all the attacks and edits to have their way and swing articles to the pro-Chabad party line, and now to claim that I have issues is ridiculous when the evidence against them as cited in all the diffs I have provided is black and white. These four individual, when it comes to Chabad-related articles, edit only ONE way, the Chabad way, and it is directly in conflict with the way editing is done on Wikipedia that respects and needs all reliable views. They are the ones that need to answer to the WP:COI violation, and it is highly hypocritical and the height of audacity, what is called chutzpah, for any one of them to wage this WP:WAR and allege the very things that they themselves exhibit beyond the shadow of any doubt.
The rest of the claims and diffs and citations that Shlomke rather sloppily mentions prove nothing. They only reveal me as a hard-working editor, that I care about the topics and engage in discussions, like in all article-creation there is give and take, points are added and rejected, words are used to attain goals, but yes certainly I have long tried to counter the monolithic group-think of the pro-Chabad POV editors, and even tweak them at times, but all to no avail, as they go about relentlessly and tirelessly adding only one line of argumentation and sources, their's, meaning the official party-line pro-Chabad sources preaching the Chabad.org doctrines and even beyond to the outright messianic ones and hiding them behind masses of verbiage, tactics of obstruction, other edits.
They don't much care about other significant Jewish topics, just the fate of Chabad-related topics, and they act in violation of WP:OWN as can be seen from the things Shlomke now says that he takes it personally that he is challenged and that he does not have automatic rights to do as he wishes. There are consequences for everything.
Thank you for your attention, but these new frivolous red herring distracting charges needed to be answered. I still fully agree to keep discussions to a minimum at this stage to allow the admins to arrive at their conclusions, which is also something that must make Shlomke nervous which is why he now throws in everything including the kitchen sink. Feel free to ask any more questions, if need be. Thank you again, IZAK (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reply's for observing admins

The reason for my posting this is because 1) There have been serious violations on IZAK's part and 2) that IZAK is not impartial here and has an ax to grind. This should be obvious.
I have no "us versus them" policy. I disagree that creating short brief articles on Chabad Rebbe's shows IZAK's objectivity here. It is his editing patterns that count, and as shown in the diffs above above IZAK has his own POV issues with Chabad and is not at all objective, to say the least.
The case when IZAK was blocked for 10 days occurred when he was on WP for two years, not six months, hardly a novice. Fighting antisemitism is a good thing, It's IZAK's tactics I disagree with. If his justifications were not good enough for the ArbCom who banned him, they certainly are not good enough for me.
When I refer to "stealth canvassing", I refer to IZAK's email ring in which he notifies particular editors about Afd's and other topics on WP.
I'm not a sore loser and have not lost any of the Afd's IZAK refers to. I never voted on any of them.
While a number of editors that IZAK keeps mentioning have voiced their worry about pro Chabad POV in WP articles which may very well be true, no one has agreed with IZAK's wild claims that there is a conspiracy by Chabad to "take over" WP, that in a few years it will be impossible for any Judaic editor to edit Chabad and other Judaic and Israeli articles.
As stated above I have not voted on the five Afd Izak refers to never "lost" them. I have never attacked IZAK here or anywhere else on WP for that matter. I actually protested the verbal attacks on IZAK. Though I hope the closing admins take the subject at hand when making a decision and not the NPA.
Again, I never attacked IZAK. He has attacked me by calling me a "pro-Chabd POV warrior", which reflects poorly on him.
Again, no Afd's "lost". I'm not "aggressive and even obnoxious". There are no diff's for this because I have never done so. The one that seems to be waging a WP:Battle is IZAK himself (see here for outside opinion about his behavior).
Should very well reveal IZAK's POV to other editors.
IZAK claims "They don't much care about other significant Jewish topics". What a blatant lie. I've worked who knows how many hours on countless projects on WP. Take a look at my edits. Take a look at the articles I created. Where has Shlomke said "that he takes it personally that he is challenged and that he does not have automatic rights to do as he wishes"? another blatant lie. Is all IZAK can resort to is lies? Admins, please make note of the misinformation being spread by IZAK.
I'm perfectly comfortable with admins looking over my edits. The only thing that makes my uncomfortable is IZAK's mud slinging. But I can deal with that. All the best, Shlomke (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK's counter-response to Shlomke

Shlomke insists on escalating this debate when all the main issues have been laid out and there have been repeated requests to let the admins review the case. He is trying to take the focus off himself by making this a discussion about me, but I am not trying to control any articles, on the contrary I am trying to open and free them up for greater balance. I have had no "violations" with anything to do with any subject relating to Chabad. No admin has ever complained to me or to anyone about that. I have no axe to grind beyond wanting Wikipedia to remain an indepndent encyclopdia as it should be.
Well, at least he admits that I am objective here, that udermines his other so-called complaints. The only "pattern" that Shlomke and his friends don't like right now is that I have pointed the searchlight on their obvious WP:COI violations.
In the my anti-antisemitism case, the problems began early on when I realized early on that there was a problem of antisemitic edits coming from a certain editor. The case came to a head a year later. Everything has a history and does not happen overnight. Likewise now, there has been the problem with the pro-Chabad POV editors for about 2 to 3 years but the case has come to a head now.
I have received Emails from the pro-Chabad editors too, like all editors with common interests who remain in touch by Email from time to time. Editors are free to Email each other because Wikipedia itself provides that service for them on users tool boxes and from that editors stay in touch voluntarily.
But as a pro-Chabad POV editor he is not happy about the outcomes, otherwise why mention AfDs you didn't vote on.
And again he admits to a problem of "proChabad POV in WP articles which may very well be true" but he has to do so as part of an attack on me and not respond to the COI complaint. Poor form. Anyhow, I am not saying, and I never said, that Chabad wants to "take over Wikipedia" that is utter nonsense. I am saying there is now a strong pattern that's provably based on the stranglehold and the single-minded attitude of WP:OWN that the pro-Chabad POV editors keep on ALL Chabad-realted topics, quite often intimidating other less aggressive editors, they have already taken over that area and from there they are extending their reach to other areas, but obviously we are not talking about taking over "all" of Wikipedia.
He mentions an AfD but doesn't like that I mentioned 5 other AfDs related to it in context. He wants to have it both ways, that he cares about the AfDs but he also doesn't care about them , so which is it?
Not "worrior" but "warrior" derived from WP:WARRING that he does indeed violate. I know you are a "worrier" about Chabad I am trying to point out that you are a "warrior" for it too.
He quotes from an editor who is obviously in favor of doing nothing and favors silence and collusion with the pro-Chabad POV editors rather than the harder course of action as per this COI complaint by speaking out against their by now obvious violations and doing something about it.
Everyone is free to see whatever diffs are cited, they reveal nothing more than a commitment to work things through and not to submit to the pro-Chabad POV editors' stranglhold on the subjects of their choice. It is not "POV" to disagree with someone. Obviously Shlomke sees no problems with his own very real POV violations because he imagines that only others suffer from this problem but no, not he.
I will repeat again, that I have spent a week reviewing the edit histories of all 4 of the pro-Chabad POV editors editing history and it is plainly obvious that outside of Chabad-related topics they are not that involved with the vast bulk of the topics in Category:Jews and Judaism. That is an objective report, not a mere "accusation".
To Shlomke asking for the loosening of the pro-Chabad editors tight grip on all Chabad-related topics is "mud slinging" while he conveniently overlooks and does not even condemn or apologize for the worst ever violations of WP:NPA and character assassination that the pro-Chabad POV editors have resorted to right here in this very COI complaint and he has the audacity and chutzpah to ignore that and blame me of things that, while stated vigorously, are fair, accurate and truthful. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A query

There are two separable issues here: (1) creating articles about Chabad and its issues, and (2) inserting Chabad POV into other articles. IZAK, it's not clear to me which one is your main concern.

Regarding (1), I see nothing wrong with editors creating as many articles as they want about Chabad, so long as the articles are based on reliable secondary sources, and not primary sources—primary sources may be used, but secondary sources must exist on that topic too to show notability, and to provide a direction, per WP:NOR.

Regarding (2), the Chabad perspective should not be added to non-Chabad-related articles unless a reliable secondary source has clearly connected the Chabad perspective to that topic. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlimVirgin: Thanks for your questions. (A) I have no problem with creating any number of valid articles about Chabad or any other topic but they must conform to Wikipedia's guidelines in all its senses and not be violations of WP:FORK and other policies of editing. So that is not the main issue. But the pro-Chabad POV editors take it very personally when some minor Chabad-related articles are nominated for deletion or merging (I usually favor merging of redundant Chabad-related articles that are not strong enough to stand on their own because some of the information has some minimal benefit.) (B) But the real problem is how the pro-Chabad POV editors hover over both regular and controversial articles relating to Chabad topics and enforce their view of the Chabad doctrinal orthodoxy (orthodoxy not is a religious sense as such but meant as imposing the "accepted politically correct" doctrines for any group at any given time.) What has been going on is a few things:

General Chabad topics: When critical material is inserted into general articles like Chabad itself, or about any one of its 7 Rebbes in its dynasty, and an editor wishes to insert points that are not hagiography or worshipful of the movement, even if they are sourced, the pro-Chabad POV editors kick in and remove and fight to have that content slashed and removed and it often takes edit wars to edit.
Articles devoted to internal Chabad controversy: Articles that have been specifically named and designated to controversial topics about Chabad, such as Chabad messianism and Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies, Rabbi Barry Gurary (the disowned king-in-exile), the pro-Chabad POV editors are always on guard to ensure that the way the controversies are presented will be neutered and neutralized and they will work to stand the topics on their heads and try turn them around into "praise" for the movement and cut down to size any edits or editors who try to insert critical comments that they think are harmful and not approved by the official doctrines of Chabad as espoused by its teachers and leaders through its own literature.
Articles about external controversies/personalities connected to Chabad such as about Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh (who wrote a controversial defense of Baruch Goldstein), Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and the singer Matisyahu (both of whom broke with them and were disowned by the movement), or defending the actions of Moshe Rubashkin and Sholom Rubashkin (who faced legal problems and jail time for their actions), or just cutting out cited references to other controversies all over the world involving Chabad rabbis and leaders, the pro-Chabad POV editors will all act the same by working overtime strong-arm any editors and hassle them to no end with all sorts of tactics to remove and limit as much material harmful to the movement. They don't care, in fact they don't want, that Wikipedia should post such things, they are here as defenders of Chabad and not as defenders of Wikipedia.
Seek out to attack leaders and topics not part of Chabad: They will go all out to insert harmful and even libelous information, or cut down to size articles about outside opponents of the movement such as Rabbi Elazar Shach, the Vilna Gaon, (both deceased), and Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller, Rabbi Dr. David Berger (professor) (both alive).
Revisionisism of Chabad history: Fighting their hardest to make sure that old-time historical rivals connected with the movement are shrunk, minimized, trivialized and kept as far away from the main Chabad movement and topic as much as possible, such as Strashelye (Hasidic dynasty), Malachim (Hasidic group), Shaul Shimon Deutsch (Liozna Rebbe) (a published author). They will become livid if anyone questions this, and because they have greater inside knowledge and commitment to their one and only "correct" view, other editors give up and are afraid to have a say, even when there are good reliable sources.
Infiltrate Israeli and Judaism topics with Chabad hard-line views: I am basing this on my week-long serious review of the editing history of all 4 pro-Chabad POV editors, that when they enter into topics relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (and they do so gingerely knowing it's a tough danger zone) they will also espouse the official Chabad party-line of their movement which is almost always hard-line.
Messianism: Belief in the Rebbe as the messiah This is a general feature of their their edits that they will defend Chabad messianism and either hide it when it causes harm or promote it by stealth by cutting cited criticism to it (they will call it "lies" and "slander" and "libel") and at the same time try to insert links and comments ever-so-slowly to this belief that they are so attached to and hold so dear to their hearts. IZAK (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved editor Nsaum75

(edit conflict)I think I have finally managed to read this entire thread and review some of the articles in question. Although encompassing a number of important issues, some of which have been previously raised, I have to agree that there appears to be an overall attempt to push a pro-Chabad POV into certain articles at the expense of maintaining balance or neutrality. That said, it doesn't help that related issues involving several of the editors here is also playing out at ANI and elsewhere. I would hope that the closing Admin(s) here and at ANI take into account the personal nature that religion plays as well as the past positive contributions made by the editors involved. I also think it would be a good idea if everyone stepped back for a while from this debate and let things cool off, as further escalation here (and elsewhere) does not help the situation; it only creates ill feelings between otherwise good editors and distracts us from our mission of improving Wikipedia. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 10:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment I would like to stress that the accusations from User:IZAK, laid out in a ranting and belligerent way, were conspiracy and conflict of interest. These have not been validated by anybody yet, as far as I have been able to discern. That a few unrelated editors show a POV, that is the most normal thing on the world, since we all have POV's and trying to make neutral edits is always like balancing the rope. I think that if this discussion were closed with a general reminder to all editors involved, including User:IZAK who has his own POV as shown above and in other places, that would be enough. I personally will repeat my first statement in the thread, that I am willing to have my edits scrutined by any uninvolved editor, and am sure that I wil be able to explain any suspicions of POV pushing in ways that do not deviate from the average editor-in-good-standing (without claiming to be flawless). Debresser (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz

At WP:ANI, User:Sarah recommended that the involved parties bring this matter to arbitration.[5] In light of the innumerable accusations and counter-accusations, I agree that arbitration probably is the best way to resolve this situation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. IZAK (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Shlomke (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official request for arbitration has begun

Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Chabad movement editors. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration has begun

See: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

User:Adamore

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

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)[reply]

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: [6], A.montenegro's additions: [7] (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: [8]. We've now gone back and forth from his/her version to mine (as seen on [9]).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've blocked this user on a username violation. I've watchlisted the article and will try to help keep an eye on it for new accounts and any problematic editing. Sarah 09:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

User:Wifione and The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) advertising controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
wifione (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management has been mired in content disputes for years now, primarily because of editors ostensibly sympathetic to the institute looking to remove any negative information, and embellish positive information. Wifione's editing of The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management is tendentious and aimed at whitewashing negative information about the institute, in a manner that strongly suggests some sort of affiliation and therefore COI. The user's editing also goes against Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE#ADVOCATE. The user is not an SPA at first glance of his/her edit logs, but a careful perusal indicates that most of the edits have to do with IIPM or related entities, and are aimed at putting a positive spin on the article, and removing any negative information, by twisting wikipolicy, take this as an example or this or this or this edit which does not do what the editsummary says. The edits always seem like a PR exercise, to minimize the institute's criticism and to add questionable positive info.

Whenever the user has been asked about any affiliation with IIPM, he/she has evaded the question. To be fair, user is not being a vandal or revert-warring. But given the obvious pro-IIPM bias, and in tune with COI guidelines, it would be nice if the user clarifies any COI situation, either confirming or denying it. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makrandjoshi, sorry for replying late. Let me assure you, there is no CoI. There is surely a content dispute on the pages in question - a look at the talk pages of the articles in question would be beneficial. When an article (like you have mentioned) contains too many negative issues, then attempting to reach an NPOV state by adding a balancing positive pov appears to be CoI. Just for information, when you were warned with a future block by an administrator for harassing me last month, the same point was told to you by the administrator here [10]. You were also warned by administrator here [11] how I am not a CoI case. The administrator also informed you how he is ready to give you more evidence of the same --- you did not take the same up.

However, given this new CoI template, I'll respond to the exact diffs you have given.

1. Your first diff [12] shows the talk page discussions.

I would wish to understand what part of the discussions did you find CoI? (You were absent from the discussions here, till two days back) I do believe discussions are the basis for making NPOV changes. Don't you?

2. Your second diff [13] leaves out four intermediate edits. I'll focus on the biggest change on that for benefit, which is, reducing a major part of the controversy section.

It'll be good if you look at discussions here [14] which occurred from 22nd Dec 2009 till 25th Dec 2009 (you were absent throughout the discussions) where, before undertaking the change, I even placed the paragraphs for other editors' comment.

3. Your third diff [15] shows me removing M.Peri's statement from the article as I have claimed it is a self published source. Your request at the Reliability noticeboard here [16] is clear evidence of the fact the source was not an open shut case.

4. Your fourth diff [17] shows how I removed information about IMI. Please see discussions here [18] to understand how that was done after discussions (you were absent again).

I'll request you in the future to treat content disputes the way they should be treated - like content disputes. Please don't harass a fellow editor continuously and so flagrantly. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wifione, how does asking someone to clarify their COI harrassment? You have evaded the question in the past. Now that you have answered it, I'll take your word for it in good faith. And we can move on. Now about the links I provided and your responses to them. My first link was an example of your misinterpreting wiki policy. The discussions there show that apart from you, no one else thinks that using the word controversy is against policy. The second diff, all the intermediate edits were by you too, FYI. The difference speaks for itself in terms of how validly cited information critical of the institute has been removed in the course of "summarizing". About my third diff, if you read the RSN request, each and every person responding agreed that the article is WP:RS. And yet, you were removing it repeatedly despite other editors on the IIPM page asking you not to. The fourth diff, your edit summary said "moving to footnotes" or something, whereas you did no such thing. All these edits and numerous other edits by you at the IIPM page have been towards removing any information that is critical of the institute. You mention NPOV. Remember that when there is an NPOV dispute, the suggested path is adding VALIDLY CITED information about both points of view. Removing information under the name of NPOV is not right. I hope you will learn from your mistakes in the past and not remove validly cited information on questionable grounds. And finally, a very happy new year to you. :) Makrandjoshi (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING is the harassment policy. Asking someone if they are affiliated with an article subject shouldn't constitute outing, per se; it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask and doesn't necessarily reveal undue personal information (a person can be affiliated with a company without being an employee, for example). Nobody is compelled to answer such a question, though, and repeatedly insisting on it could be considered harassment. Since Wifione denies having a conflict of interest it can be reasonable to assume that they are unaffiliated with IIPM. -- Atama頭 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, not Makrandjoshi, am the person who has asked Wifione more than once about possible association with IIPM. Wifione evaded the question, on three different talk pages, saying essentially "don't ask me that question" in each instance.

Such evasion strongly suggested a conflict of interest, especially after Wifione spent weeks of relentless and disruptive wikilawyering to remove each and every source containing negative information from the article, as well as inserting positive spin. Evasion, campaigning to remove negative information, and adding promotional information, paint a fairly clear profile of a person with a conflict of interest.

I will accept Wifione's denial of COI, but I also want to see a cessation of Wikilawyering on Wifione's part. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serin13 and FTP related articles

Serin13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Serin13 is the creator and substantial contributor of Cerberus FTP Server. His contributions all revolve only around this product [19]. Material redacted per WP:OUTING. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promethean: sorry, but part of the above was well into attempted WP:OUTING. Do you want to rephrase? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serin13 outed himself by choosing a username identical to the one used at the Cerberus FTP support forums. Digging deeper for personal info would certainly constitute outing, but the direct connection to the product was already made clear. Regardless, the article for the product has been deleted so this is something of a moot point now. -- Atama頭 00:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Klar sagen

This user seems to be unusually keen on inserting references to the textbook

Herman, Gabor T. (2009), Fundamentals of Computerized Tomography: Image Reconstruction from Projections (2nd ed.), Springer, ISBN 978-1-85233-617-2

and other books by Gabor Herman into a variety of articles, without making any other substantive changes (aside from correcting the odd typo). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leca67 and Leca

Leca67 (talk · contribs) was blocked last month on the 19th for having a promotional username. They requested an unblock in order to change their username, this was granted and the change made [20]. However, no edits have been made under the new username and the editor continues to edit Leca where he/she seems to have a clear COI. There are also some copyright issues reported to this editor's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California Southern Baptist Convention

Eugeneacurry created this page. As his user page makes clear he is a pastor in the California Southern Baptist Convention. I have alerted him to WP:COI but he maintains that it applies only to editing pages concerning his family, friends etc rather than the religious organisation that employs him, despite the policy clearly covering this. He also reverted an advertising tag I placed on the page as it contained the organisation's mailing address and phone number.Haldraper (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an employee of the California Southern Baptist Convention. Haldraper is mistaken and is engaging in a bit of tit-for-tat here since I was instrumental in getting him blocked for three-revert violations on another article. Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stick to the facts here rather than engage in mindreading as to my motivation which is irrelevant as to whether WP:COI has been breached?

Eugeneacurry created California Southern Baptist Convention and has edited it to remove contentious material, for e.g. an advertising tag.

Eugeneacurry's user page states: "Eugene A. Curry is currently the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Granada Hills in Los Angeles, CA." I suspect he is engaging in semantics here when he says "I am not an employee of the California Southern Baptist Convention". It may be they do not directly pay his wages, however he is a pastor of one of its churches and therefore has a close connection to the subject of the page he created and is editing.Haldraper (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a Baptist church in Southern California, is your church not a member of the CSBC? If so, there is a potential COI. -- Atama頭 00:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My legally independent church voluntarily associates with the California Southern Baptist Convention. We contribute money to it, not vice versa. To say the CSBC "employs" me is akin to saying the US government "employs" all American taxpayers, which is of course nonsense. I created the CSBC page 2.5 years ago when I was just beginning to work with Wikipedia (other SBC state conventions already had articles) and I was unaware that including a physical address was considered inappropriate. The address has since been removed and I have not tried to restore it. If the solons of Wikipedia really think that the content of the article is inappropriate or that the CSBC doesn't meet notability standards (I consider both options unlikely) I'll not protest it's rewriting/deletion. Though I do find it interesting that apparently no one had a problem with the page in its 2.5 year history until Haldraper was blocked after I reported his 3RR violation.Eugeneacurry (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's the kind of clarification that helps a lot on this board. You might have a bit of a COI but it's not a strong one. The article clearly has no POV issues so I've removed the COI tag (the tag isn't a black mark to stain the article forever, it only exists if there's something in the article that needs to be cleaned up). I do think that listing the physical address and telephone number of the organization is a bit much, you don't see that in articles because Wikipedia isn't a directory (phone numbers in particular are never listed). Such mistakes are pretty minor though, you haven't done anything wrong that I've seen. The removal of the advertising tag was completely appropriate, nothing at that article even approached what I'd consider promotional at the time, and I'm really confused as to why Haldraper would have added it. -- Atama頭 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed at Talk:Springer (orca)

Hi everyone,

We could really use some community input on the Springer (orca) article. This article was stable until about three weeks ago when a large amount of content that I consider problematic was added to it, by a contributor with a conflict of interest. That contributor has apparently stopped editing, however at present the COI content is mostly still there and we need to deal with it somehow. At question are: processes for dealing with content added with COI, whether to revert to a version of the article that existed before the COI content was added, reliability of sources, due weight, and style issues. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ogo

I apologize that no one has gotten back to you here. I see User:Thrill Girl hasn't attempted to put the information back in since you posted this so I hope this might be over. Under no circumstances would that be considered appropriate especially given we have an article on a somewhat similar topic already. If it does happen again, could refer them to Sphereing though I'm weary of that since it'd be seemingly just advert info additions anyway. You've been in the right to revert her attempts to have it included, and your warnings to their talk page seem 100% justified to me, including the patience to use Uw-advert1 through 3. Checking your edit history quickly it seems we have very similar habits so I'm not at all surprised we're in agreement :) Thanks for the post, and again sorry on the timing. On a level 4 it's made pretty clear reporting to an incident board is next, so for all intents and purposes they're on an accidental but indefinite 1RR for any article their promo cruft is added to. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Wheat

Natasha Wheat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SandyPortland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This BLP of a US-based fine artist was created 13 October 2009, likely by a close associate of the artist. The creator has no user history prior to creating the BLP̦ and all subsequent contributions were either to edit and unflag the article, or to defend it on talk pages 1 2.

This webpage, linked to by the article's creator, shows that as the creator, SandyPortland, shares names with a coworker and workplace location of the subject. If the subject of the article and the article creator are in fact coworkers and artistic collaborators, this would seem to be a clear conflict of interest.

Additionally, there is an apparent lack of good faith editing on this article. The creator has suggested an absence of personal association with the artist; removed an A7 Template—in spite of being the article's creator; and may have used puppetry to remove subsequent flags. The user JASON6752 has only one edit: the removal of the WP:!, WP:NN, and WP:SOURCES flags, which was immediately reverted. The opening of JASON6752's edit comment: WIKIPEDIA EDITING ABUSE. (caps not mine) looks like wikilawyer practice number 4 to me. Likewise, in defending the article, SandyPortland stated, 'I like this, Wiki rules: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia ignore it".'

The artist Natasha Wheat may meet WP:NOTE, but the circumstances of this biography's introduction into Wikipedia represent a likely controversion of WP:CONFLICT and a potential threat to WP:NPOV. —Infoporfin (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't establish notability but the notability tag keeps getting removed. This is being discussed on the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snowded and Spiral Dynamics

Spiral Dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Snowded has been insisting at great length, and against talk page consensus, that Category:New Age be placed on the Spiral Dynamics article. Spiral Dynamics is a business management book and course series.[22] User:Snowded has cited no sources for the addition.

User:Snowded's user page links to his website. At his website,[25] he sells a series of courses on business management techniques.[26] He appears to be a potential competitor with Spiral Dynamics. It is possible that User:Snowded wants to paint his competitors in a certain light, and that s/he is using Wikipedia to do so. — goethean ॐ 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note without much surprise that user Goethean did not see fit to notify me of this posting.

The Spiral Dynamics article has been characterised as "New Age" for over a year and I was not involved in that original decision
On two occasions in six months Goethean has managed to get one other editor (in each case) to agree with his position that the category is inappropriate and on this basis he claims consensus and has edited warned in defiance of WP:BRD
I have said on both occasions that I do not think that the original Spiral Dynamics book and course series are new age, but that the assimilation by the Integral Movement is. More recently I have proposed changes to the article to reflect this which would allow the category to be removed and Goethean has refused to engage with any attempt at a compromise here
The only thing I have been doing at great length is to get Goethean to abide by WP:BRD and WP:AGF
My company is involved in the application of natural science to social systems and does not compete as far as I know in any way with Spiral Dynamics. Or if it does then any academic in Management Sciences (about 50% of my time) or any Management Consultant should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia.
I have always believed in transparency on WIkipedia so my page indicates my political and other beliefs along with a link to my company's web page, if I was playing the game suggested by Goethean then I would not have done this.
There appears to be a movement among supporters of the Integral Movement to remove any reference to New Age across a series of articles. This matches the doctrine of Ken WIlber that Integral has transcended New Age (a mean green meme to quote). This is a matter I am starting to look into, especially as pages on Integral tend to have a small number of editors who are part of that movement.

Goethean remains (I think) upset that I reversed his move of Integral Movement to Integral (philosophy). We had a similar position there, three editors heavily involved in the Integral Movement (some of them who publish books) making a decision that has NPOV aspects. I am pleased to say that the other editors on that page have taken a more open attitude and an a discussion is proceeding which will improve the article overall.

I think this is pre-emptive strike as I told him yesterday (the transparency principle again) that I was considering raising an ANI report about his refusal to engage in discussion. He would be better engaged in finding ways to resolve problems rather than insisting that 2 or 3 editors taking a position against 1 constitutes "consensus" without the need for discussion --Snowded ^TALK 05:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnBrocks and EKR

User:John Brocks created article EKR, the articles was clearly promotional with no refs, so I added G11 Speedy template. I check back later and the whole tag has been deleted no explanation by User:JohnBrocks. I reread the article found this phrase "Peter Leutner teamed up with John Brocks from RadioWorks and EKR re-launched at Easter, 2009 after several months of test transmissions." Coincidences are interesting, are they not? Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Nigelharris2001 created the article, not John Brocks. NG2K also removed the speedy deletion tag, which they aren't allowed to do (you can't remove the speedy deletion tag on an article if you are the article's creator, but just about anyone else can). Nigel Harris, by the way, is listed as one of the "presenters" of the radio station (either past or present).

I've gone ahead and deleted it. The article does seem overly promotional, and would require a substantial rewrite to fix it. -- Atama頭 01:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a Sock puppet? Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry. Assuming that these editors are the actual John Brocks and Nigel Harris mentioned in the article, since they are different people there's no sockpuppetry involved. -- Atama頭 02:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

ekr.net: 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.ekr.net

Articles

EKR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
European Klassik Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Accounts

Nigelharris2001 (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)
John Brocks (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)
Ianmartin558 (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)
86.171.40.189 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

--Hu12 (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 203: / Line 203: @@
 {{user|Thrill Girl}}: edits to {{article|Ogo}} and {{article|Zorbing}} suggest a connection to this company [http://www.theogo.com/]. Has been adding information to [[Ogo]], which is a disambiguation page. [[User:Cassandra 73|Cassandra 73]] ([[User talk:Cassandra 73|talk]]) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
+:I apologize that no one has gotten back to you here. I see [[User:Thrill Girl]] hasn't attempted to put the information back in since you posted this so I hope this might be over. Under no circumstances would that be considered appropriate especially given we have an article on a somewhat similar topic already. If it does happen again, could refer them to [[Sphereing]] though I'm weary of that since it'd be seemingly just advert info additions anyway. You've been in the right to revert her attempts to have it included, and your warnings to their talk page seem 100% justified to me, including the patience to use Uw-advert1 through 3. Checking your edit history quickly it seems we have very similar habits so I'm not at all surprised we're in agreement :)    Thanks for the post, and again sorry on the timing. On a level 4 it's made pretty clear reporting to an incident board is next, so for all intents and purposes they're on an accidental but indefinite 1RR for any article their promo cruft is added to.  <b>♪</b> <span style="font-family:Verdana;font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Datheisen|daTheisen]][[User talk:Datheisen|(talk)]]</span> 10:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 == Natasha Wheat ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards