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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Dougweller (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Hersfold (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk)

Advice needed

Since I have no experience with arbitration, I'm not sure how and when to proceed. Since the case was opened against me, am I supposed to respond to the complaints now, or wait for the arbitrators to ask questions. If I can or am supposed to respond now, where do I post my responses? If I have complaints regarding other editors, where and when do I post them? Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I responded to you on your talk page 10 minutes after this edit, sorry about the delay in responding to your question on my talk page. Basically, for others, the arbitrators will not ask questions, and the evidence page is the place to put your complaints. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration is the official guide and there's a draft guide by someone with a lot of experience as a clerk and who is a new Arb at User:Hersfold/ArbGuide. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests and questions from Fritzpoll

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

Request 1: Allegations being made

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

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

Request 2: Evidence

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

NPOV

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

Behaviour

• Diffs showing evidence of inappropriate conduct during discussions. Categorise these by the type of inappropriate behaviour to keep the format succinct. For example, if an editor makes repeated personal attacks, list all the diffs, with a single description of what they all show.
• This request is to both sides of this dispute, but again, rebuttals are not necessary unless there are diffs showing that, for instance, a diff was taken out of context.

Editors are requested to reformat their evidence where necessary to make the answers to these requests obvious. Uninvolved commentators are asked to provide analysis on this talk page, and highlight diffs where necessary that support that analysis - parties are always welcome to comment. I may add to this request at any time as the evidence unfolds, but in my opinion, the evidence is presently very difficult to understand. I note that I am making this request as an individual arbitrator, not on behalf of the entire Committee. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hello Fritzpoll: Following your suggestion I have "reformatted" by way of a Summary [1] that then deals with six categories. However because this case requires a deeper context and background and the fact that it involves four Chabad editors who vary in some very small ways in their views based on their editing history, but each is part of a greater whole, it would be appreciated that the more in-depth segmnts still be retained. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Fritzpoll: I'm not sure what you mean by "reformat". Above it was written that a rebuttal to the diffs is not necessary. So I won't make one. I have already spent many hours painstakingly responding to the diffs Izak cited against me--first on the COI page that he opened up against me, and all over again on the arbitration page against me and others. I believe I have responded more than adequately (nor has Izak responded at all on either occasion to my responses to his diffs). Anyone interested in seeing my responses can look at my above responses. I continue to maintain that most of his diffs against me are ridiculous and spurious on the face of it, or simply explained, as I have done. Conversely, he is guilty of soapboxing and violating agf and npa on many, many occasions. That is the summary of my response. Sorry, I am not willing to repeat myself responses to the diffs all over again. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree with Yehoishophot Oliver who seems to be underestimating and insulting the intelligence of the large number of ArbCom members who have agreed to take this case on. I have taken the time and the advice of Fritzpoll and spent many hours setting up the new Summary introduction in my evidence [2] that presents the whole case to make it easier to get into. I have repeatedly stated that there are many subtleties in this case. The Chabad editors are very sophisticated and well-honed in their Wikipedia skills as they go about attaining their objectives of controlling Chabad-related content on Wikipedia by building up pro-Chabad articles in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING as if Wikipedia were hosting Chabad.org; acting to "protect" and defend or undercut articles they deem important to the Chabad movement in violation of WP:OWN; when questioned or confronted about their uniform front against those they deem to be "outsiders," they will resort to an array of obstructionist and delaying tactics in violation of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND that makes it unpleasant for non-Chabad editors to deal with them and to then withdraw which suits the Chabad editors just fine; and then as we see now here, when pressed against the wall they will resort to no end of WP:LAWYERing in order to fudge and escape from any real consequences and project guilt onto any party that questions them for having the problem when it is they who have set the whole situation up to be one of edit-conflict between pro-Chabad editors and any other editors who wish to insert or even discuss topics and material that is not sanctioned or approved by the Chabad movement. This situation has been brewing for years and can no longer be avoided or ignored. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not "withdrawing" at all. I spent many hours responding to your claims, and I'm not interested in writing it up all over again, nor do I have the time. And we all heard your challenges against certain editors; it's not necessary to repeat them at length in your every comment. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Question by Debresser

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

Contemplated motion to dismiss

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

 Roger Davies ^talk 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. I couldn't really find any substantial conduct disputes here, and I'll probably start up some discussions about the spammed chabad dot org links at a noticeboard somewhere to clean that issue up. ThemFromSpace 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we took this case myself. Looks like content. Cool Hand Luke 15:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Objection

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

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

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