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)

Can't disagree - there just doesn't seem to be enough of a conduct dispute for us to do anything with. The rest, as Luke says, is content and we can't adjudicate on that Fritzpoll (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments below all seem to indicate that this is a dispute over content; I agree that the evidence doesn't bear out any serious conduct issues. Shell ^babelfish 04:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Objection

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

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

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

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

Absolutely. And that _is_ misconduct. -Galassi (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Since this subject has now been declared to be a discussion [3], I'd like to say that the simple fact that so few editors from WP:JUDAISM have come over and added their opinions, despite the notification a month ago [4], clearly shows that the editors at WikiProject Judaism do not agree there is a problem here. Rather to the contrary, I have had many pleasant interactions with them on Judaism-related articles and talk pages in the time leading up to this ArbCom case and during it. Debresser (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

• Keep open. This is CONTENT issue, as all assues really are. And Chabad content shouldn't have more weight than any other.-Galassi (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  Exactly - Arbcom does not adjudicate on content disputes, only issues of conduct Fritzpoll (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And that is the main problem of Wikipedia in general. All conduct problems are based in the content. IMO the content must be policed at least as much as conduct, as more and more interest groups realize the power of Wiki.-Galassi (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep open. While an Arbcon case is not usually the place to settle what might be called content disputes, other venues have failed. We're not talking about a dispute that can usually be rectified with findings of fact, but here we are dealing with people trying to push their ideology into the articles they edit. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No other venues have been tried, apart from one discussion with a wild conspiracy theory and proportionally high running emotions. This was noted by a few members of ArbCom when they decided to accept this case, see here. Debresser (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• (Disclosure: IZAK emailed me asking me to weigh in.) I'm inclined to Keep open. Yes, on some level this is a content dispute, but so are the issues with the followers of Lyndon Larouche (not to say that Chabad is at all equivalent to Larouche and his followers, just that the process issues for Wikipedia are similar). I can't imagine being able to resolve this in any manner other than by arbitration. - Jmabel | Talk 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  This is not a vote. I know IZAK has framed it that way, but Roger is quite clear - the evidence presented is not convincing us that there is anything of value here. Your time would be better spent trying to generate evidence to respond to Roger's comment, rather than holding a poll that is not going to have any direct impact Fritzpoll (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I too was asked to weigh in here, and I respond hesitantly. I presented my evidence hesitantly as well and probably should have stayed back, but I thought it more prudent to present my previous interactive evidence. At issue here seems a long term trend of POV editing. Everyone has a POV. I haven't done any studies but I assume that editors tend to gravitate to articles in which they have an interest. Whether "interest" means "fascination" or "vested" is at issue. I would consider myself an expert on Judaism and mainly edit articles about Jewish topics in which I am interested. However I never let my POV interfere with the neutrality that should be inherent in articles. But in matters of faith it is almost impossible to not have a point of view! I'm not particularly set on any outcome; I only presented my evidence so it would be on the table as further information for ArbCom to make their decision. Though it may be beneficial that the case remain open so we can determine a precedent on how to respond to matters of faith and ideology on Wikipedia (especially those in which there are multiple POVs), this is something that also may better be determined through a community decision of policy. I might compare this to the conflicting views of the First Council of Nicaea (I hope I don't offend with this comparison) where people with vastly diverging views had to sit down together and hammer out the details on what they would believe. I honestly don't think anything punitive should come of this but rather that perhaps this sow the seeds for some sort of guideline on how to deal with diverging views when writing on matters of faith. Perhaps we should shortly create a centralized RfC, perhaps through WP:Judaism or even some sort of ecumenical discussion among many faith traditions (the term we use at my interseminary discussions) on how to deal with such matters in which different denominations will resort to denominationalism. Sorry for the longwindedness. I think being informative is especially important here. Anyway, I appreciate everyone's hard work here and ArbCom's arduous task. Valley2city^‽ 18:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Open - This issue is an ongoing issue which will probably not go away without a definitive response from ArbCOM. Other venues have failed and given the nature of the dispute, failing to adequately address it will only cause further disruption to Wikipedia. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 22:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No other venues have been tried, apart from one discussion with a wild conspiracy theory and proportionally high running emotions. This was noted by a few members of ArbCom when they decided to accept this case, see here. I have said this above, but since you repeat the same untrue statement, I though it necessary to repeat my answer. Debresser (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Dismiss I understand the frustration of editors, but there just isn't a case here that I can see that is within ArbCom's limited remit.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So - what can be done - this has been going on for seven years unabated. What is wikipedia going to do to protect its content from being routinely denuded of valid information and being spammed with theological ranting. This is turning wikipeida into a joke - look at what was added by one of the editors to the lede of one of the main artilces just yesterday -[5]. That is a rambling esoteric theological arguement sourced to a fringe blog site, that these editors have no trouble spamming around wikipedia. This happens because they are allowed to do this and stamp on dissent by teamwork and grounpthink. Edit summaries like this one [6] "Remove incorrect. Even though sourced, this is not true." are typical, and are enforced by tag team editing.

This is a pattern of tag-team abuse and manipulation that has continued for years. All that is required to solve this problem is rigorous insistance on sourcing in Chabad related articles. Why isn't this being done? Lobojo (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Similarly they don't even balk at removing large chunks of sourced information that for whatevver reason they don't approve of - this mild and scholarly summary that I prepared was simply deleted wholesale a few hours after it was inserted - [7]. If I put it back, he or his buddies will just delete it again, all that is needed are a few uninvolved admins to watch these pages and prevent the insertion of unsourced unencylopedic material and prevent the removal of sourced encyclopedic material. This is not a content dispute.Lobojo (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Right at the top of the page on the right below the picture he is declared to be both deadand "incumbant" - it has been this way as long as I can remember - how is this allowed to continue?Lobojo (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Linkspam - Here, in one edit Yehoishophot Oliver adds five links in a row to his favored site [8]. Lobojo (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)