Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Chabad movement Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:00, 13 January 2010 editGalassi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,902 editsm →Editors who have had to deal with pro-Chabad POV pushing← Previous edit Revision as of 12:12, 13 January 2010 edit undoGalassi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,902 edits →Evidence presented by {your user name}Next edit →
Line 188: Line 188:
#None of the sites I've linked to are ]s. #None of the sites I've linked to are ]s.
] (]) 04:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC) ] (]) 04:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by {Galassi}==
==={Write your assertion here}===
The same 3 editors (Shlomke, Debresser, Oliver) doggedly insist on inserting a self-glorifying chabad source that is considered historiographically unreliable on the academic level, while adding unreliability tags to the academic source that is the most authoritative in this particular field of study, but is very unfavorable to the Lubavich POV. The article in question is ].

==={Write your assertion here}===
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.


==Evidence presented by {your user name}== ==Evidence presented by {your user name}==

Revision as of 12:12, 13 January 2010

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Dougweller (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Hersfold (Talk)

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by IZAK

Note to ArbCom: Because this case, as it stands, involves 1 party bringing evidence against 4 other parties, all of whom have extensive edit histories, it is necessary for evidence to be stated here against each one individually, since to combine it all would create confusion. The evidence below, is the verbatim copy of the evidence cited in the original unresolved COI complaint, now at:

  1. User:Yehoishophot Oliver's pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs
  2. User:Shlomke’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs
  3. User:Zsero’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs
  4. User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: RE: identifyingchabad.org: The ArbCom may notice reference to a site callled Identifying Chabad. It is not a "spam site" at all. It is a serious counter-argument in depth and in detail citing sources from Judaism and from Chabad itself, why Chabad as a movement is not mainstream even in Hasidic Judaism and why it is so controversial. It is not an "anonymous" site, its ownership is listed , published by Center for Torah Demographics, it is listed and sold on Amazon. It cites: Rabbi Elazar Shach's views and links to HaRav Shach's Battle Against False Messianism; article by Rabbi Chaim Keller; and more hard sources in it with statements from Chabad personalities. There is good reason the pro-Chabad editors do not like this website, it is because it is the most comprehensive counterweight and counter-argument available online to the Chabad POV. There has to be at least two sides to every story, and this is the other side that Chabad and its POV editors obviously hate and fight with wild accusations. IZAK (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of pro-Chabad POV editing and COI by Users: Yehoishophot Oliver; Shlomke; Zsero; Debresser

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

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

  1. By working in co-ordinated "relay fashion" but in synchronized near identical edits with the others cited and by reviewing his edit history User Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) is commited to insert as much pro-Chabad information into Chabad-related articles, and to remove as much critical information of it as possible without arousing too much suspicion:
  2. Attacking persons that are not officially favored by the movement, including Alan Dershowitz , Matisyahu (singer) , Shmuel Schneurson , and against the last Rebbe's nephew Barry Gurary , and other non-Chabad rabbis , .
  3. Devaluing the place and importance of historical rivals and offshoots, such as the Malachim (Hasidic group) renamed to "group" , see Category:Hasidic dynasties.
  4. Casting aspersions on rival individuals and groups , and organizations, such as Vaad Hatzalah and Zionism and disconnects Jewish from Israeli holidays he does not like , ,
  5. Removing compromising and unflatteering information about favored leaders and insiders, such as Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson , , ; Moshe Rubashkin , Shalom Dov Wolpo .
  6. Attempts at monopolizing ALL concepts and notions important to Chabad , blog, and even minor ones such as Mashpia while pushing Chabad.org .
  7. Defending to the hilt Chabad messianism , , ; diplomatically promoting the Rebbe as the Jewish messiah ("Moshiach") and removing or neutralaizing as much criticsim of it as possible , .
  8. Working to transform, undercut, remove criticism in articles devoted to "controversy" such as Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies , , and Chabad messianism , , , , , , .
  9. Working to keep out criticism and keep along approved pro-Chabad party lines key articles about Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson , ; Chabad , , and control to the benefit of Chabad any articles the movement would deem important , , , , , , , , .
  10. The above diffs prove a subtle, ongoing and determined focus of this pro-Chabad POV editor to ensure that the official policies of the Chabad movement are enforced, and opposing views are edited out, by the usually well-written and 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 Misplaced Pages. When challenged, as one saw in the original COI complaint, they all reverted to all-out WP:WAR mode, violated WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA and as is their practice they do not let go until they EITHER INTIMIDATE OR WEAR DOWN THEIR OPPONENTS AND GET THEIR WAY. This misuse of Misplaced Pages's open door and welcoming policies must stop. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC):

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 User:Shlomke'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 overseeing Chabad articles as in WP:OWN, editing out what he does not like, that proves that he is editing as near as anyone could get for the Chabad movement, in particular defending its messianist wing, in clear violation of WP:COI. His tactics are careful and clear. He deploys all the rules of Misplaced Pages and defends it with WP:LAWYER. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC):

  1. Officially designated enemies of Chabad are harrassed like Rabbi Elazar Shach , , , ; Barry Gurary , , ; Vilna Gaon (all deceased); David Berger (professor) , used "against" himself; Gil Student , Shaul Shimon Deutsch , (all alive); Misnagdim , , , , , 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.
  2. Controversial topics like Chabad messianism , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ; Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies , Gutnick-Feldman feud, , , , Lew case, Sholom Ber Levitin case; Jewish schisms , , , are constantly watched and supported and criticism is neutralized.
  3. Controversial topics within Chabad itself will be modified and edited to protect them and spread their message, such as in Chabad , , , , ; Menachem Mendel Schneerson , , "is" messiah, , he is here "physically", a living messiah, ; Yechi ("long live the messiah") (now moved) , , , , , , , living with "moshiach", , , and 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.
  4. 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 , , Shlomo Carlebach , and Breslov (Hasidic dynasty) 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 .
  5. Like Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) this is a DIRECT thrust to interfere with Misplaced Pages's independence by two pro-Chabad POV editors. 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 Misplaced Pages skills to further his pro-Chabad messianist POV agenda in violation of WP:COI. User:Shlomke and his allies have placed a stranglehold on the ALL the Chabad-related topics they favor, and related topics important to them , , and in violation of WP:OWN they make it impossible for other editors to enter into their self-delineated “Chabad terrain” on Misplaced Pages. They have turned every single one of the articles relating to Chabad on Misplaced Pages into reverse WP:MIRROR sites of not just Chabad.org with links to many Chabad sites and other Chabad messianist sites, often concealed in quotes, , , , , , , and Chabad sites , , , , , , , , , , .

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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, but whenever User:Zsero's attention is drawn to any key Chabad-related article, he will edit according to pro-Chabad POV lines with 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:

  1. Downsizing those whom Chabad does not like , such as Rabbi Elazar Shach , , (deceased), and Rabbis Shmuley Boteach , , , ; David Berger (professor) , , (living), and praising the official rabbis of Chabad as in a hagiography in violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE.
  2. 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 , .
  3. Find ways to steer around controversy in articles about controversy such as Chabad messianism , , , , , , , ; Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies plaque controversy, , menorah disputes, , control of 770, , Gutnick-Feldman feud cut, and the core topics of Chabad , eviction case, and of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson , , , , , , , .
  4. He is a strict adherent of the pro-Chabad POV party line, defends Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky's position , , , but also support messianism 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.
  5. 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 have blocked him at various times for his violations .
  6. His diffs relating to Chabad topics show his strict adherence to the pro-Chabad POV party line, almost in line with Chabad.org , , , , and add links to Chabad sites includimg messianist ones and his absolute determination to enforce that outlook on Misplaced Pages at all costs in violation of WP:COI, as his edit history of Chabad-related topics reveals.
  7. Violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL , , .

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

  1. This user has a broad ranging edit history, but whenever he focusues on topics relating to Chabad, User:Debresser becomes a pro-Chabad POV editor. Note, 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":
  2. He edits out criticisms of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson , , cuts link to grave, , one and only "The Rebbe", , , , ; Chabad messianism , , , , , , , , , , and therefore of the entire Chabad movement.
  3. He will subtly deprecate the traditional Chabad "enemies" like the Vilna Gaon ; Rabbi Elazar Shach , Misnagdim , , , ; Yated Ne'eman (Israel) in joke, and supposed rivals like Rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv . Or from other scholars like Gershom Sholem .
  4. He will find time to praise and defend controversial Chabad rabbis like Rabbis Shmuel Butman , Yitzchak Ginsburgh , , , ; and Berel Lazar and inserts pro-Chabad website links , , , , Chabad needs 9 links, , , , ; while subtly putting down those less messianic like Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky , .
  5. He will try to wear down with WP:LAWYERing editors , , , , , who oppose his pro-Chabad POV edits. He will turn around the views of a known critic like David Berger (professor) , , , , , , . Conflicted editing over wether Chabad has a connection to Belarus ("White Russia") or not , ,
  6. When confronted by this citation of violating WP:AGF , ;
  7. He is in clear violation of WP:COI and WP:OWN , .
  8. He resorted to violations of WP:NPA by repeatedly calling into question the "sanity" of the nominator: "mentally ill", , , inserts "FBI", , "Food for psychiatrists", , "insane ranting", , ; and WP:NOTADVERTISING , , Chabad "policy" related, , , , , , , , , , .

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My proven verifiable positive attitude to Hasidic Judaism and to all Hasidic Rebbes and Jews

Editors who have had to deal with pro-Chabad POV pushing

  • Significant other editors have had the exact experiences as I have had when attempting to enter into the self-declared "no fly zone" for others outside of Chabad POV editors entering into any article within Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism.
  • The following are some major editors, presently inactive, whose attempted to edit Chabad-related articles onjectively and fairly, citing excellent and reliable sources, who faced constant harrassment and attacks of their edits simply because pro-Chabad editors did not like it. IZAK (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC):

(Diffs will be added soon.)

Inactive:

Active:

Evidence presented by Joe407

Chabad has a theological obligation to promote it's ideology

Part of the theology advanced by the late Rabbi Shneerson is that Jews have a positive obligation to spread their knowledge/perspective of God, Torah, and ritual observance. This applies to Jews assisting other Jews in becoming aware of Jewish knowledge and ritual obligations and this applies to Jews educating non-Jews about the Jewish perspective of God and the world and encouraging non-Jewish observance of the Noahide laws.

This is an openly stated tenet of modern Chabad theology.

Schneerson placed a tremendous emphasis on outreach. He made great efforts to intensify this program of the Chabad movement, bringing Jews from all walks of life to adopt Orthodox Judaism, and aggressively sought the expansion of the baal teshuva movement.
Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson#Jewish_outreach

An example of a 3rd party record of this:

... was relatively small and little known when Schneerson became rebbe in 1951. During his 43-year tenure he pioneered a system of shluchim, or emissaries, charged with going out into the world to open Chabad centers, spreading knowledge of the Torah and Judaism.
National Geographic feature 2006

This is not evidence against a specific editor. I cite the above as something for the committee to be aware of when questioning Chabad COI or POV-pushing. It is not a matter of a specific editor but rather: If an editor believes that he or she has a religious obligation to promote a particular POV, that is a conflict of interest with the tenet of NPOV. Joe407 (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Evidence presented by {Debresser}

As I have said in my opening statement, I definitely have a POV towards Chabad, since I have been an adherent of this respected world-wide religious movement in Hasidic Judaism for approximately 19 years. What User:IZAK has been trying to show in 86 diffs is that this POV has lead me to POV edits on Misplaced Pages. I will try to show this is untrue. In order to do so, I will have to answer to the accusations inherent in those diffs, and I will try to show a few other diffs that show clearly that I am not editing in accordance with my POV, but in accordance with the standards of NPOV editing.

In addition I shall try to explain a little about the Chabad movement and its goals in as far as this is relevant to refute the slanderous accusations made up by User:IZAK in this regard.

I shall also try to show that User:IZAK himself is editing in accordance with his POV, and shall pose that his POV is one of the driving motives behind his recent "protests" against Chabad adherents on Misplaced Pages.

Doing all of this will take me a few days, and the allotted 1000 words will hardly suffice. I apologise for this, and I welcome any suggestions how to shorten my reply without loosing essential information. Debresser (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by JzG

There are apparent WP:COATRACKs in support of the Lubavitcher mission

A "coatrack" article is an article which is ostensibly about one subject but in practice is about another. For example, a biography of someone who has converted to a given faith that exists mainly to extol the faith to which they converted. There are examples of articles and sections within articles that appear on the face of it to exist primarily to promote the Chabad Lubavitch group.

  • The current version of Tonica Marlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) () includes three links to editorials at chabad.org, this is a common scenario. The article is, apart from these links, woefully under-sourced and fails to establish the notability of the subject; it has been tagged as such since November 2008.
  • The current version of Noahidism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) () contains a section, B'nei Noah in popular media, whose contents is actually a description of the Lubavitcher position on noahidism. All the examples of "popular media" refer to the Chabad Lubavitch movement.

Excessive linking

The level of linking to chabad.org appears to be excessive for the size of the group. There are 1,022 links to chabad.org as of this time. Many of these are not directly relevant to a distinct and notable Lubavitcher view on a specific subject.

Guy (Help!) 17:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Yoninah

Unpleasant dealings with pro-Chabad editors

My first interaction with the 4 Chabad editors named above occurred during the initial AFD request on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Public menorah. To explain my vote for "merge or redirect," I mentioned my belief that public menorahs are more a public-relations tool than a fulfillment of the actual mitzvah of lighting the Chanukah menorah. I was immediately zinged by Yehoishophot Oliver with a statement accusing me of "POV pushing". In my five years on Misplaced Pages, I have never been attacked so rudely in my first and only interaction with another editor. I then decided to look up some other Chabad spinoff articles which Oliver had started and realized that they were all one-source forks of the main Chabad mitzvah campaigns article, but I was too intimidated to file AFDs for them. (Fortunately, Yossiea agreed to do the job for me.) As I've followed the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver discussion, I've noticed that Debresser and, especially, Zsero, can be even more vicious in their attacks on people questioning their motives, violating all rules of AGF and NPA. Just for the way they have responded with personal attacks rather than sane dialogue, I think these editors should be censored.

Questionable notability of many Chabad articles

I would also like to alert the arbcom board to the fact that many Chabad-related articles are really orphans in disguise, which may be contributing to the overrepresentation of Chabad articles versus articles about other Hasidic groups on Misplaced Pages. All the pages listed on Template:Chabad, from the History section on down, have as their first 50 "What links here" all the other links on the template; the next 50 or more links are all Chabad sites or sites which have the Chabad template on them. (One particularly telling example of the latter is Kapust, which includes on its "What links here" page an impressive list of other Hasidic dynasties — since all these dynasties have the Template:Hasidic Dynasties on them which includes the Chabad-based Kapust dynasty!). For more examples, see "What links here" on Agudas Chasidei Chabad, Chabad library, Chaim Mordechai Aizik Hodakov, Colel Chabad, Gan Israel Camping Network, Hadar Hatorah, Hillel Paritcher, Itche Der Masmid, Jewish Children's Museum, Jewish Learning Institute, Jewish Released Time, Jewish Relief Agency, Kehot Publication Society, Kol Menachem, Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, Nissan Neminov, Oholei Torah, Ohr Avner Foundation, Ohel (Chabad), Shneur Zalman Fradkin, Tzivos Hashem, Yehuda Krinsky, and 770 Eastern Parkway. Many of these pages have been sitting for years as is; I think it's time to ask the editors to provide more sources than the organizational website, and to add more links to other, non-Chabad pages to prove notability. Yoninah (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Kaisershatner

Lack of civility is a serious problem in this dispute

Civility is a pillar of Misplaced Pages. Accusations of Conspiracy on the one hand and mental illness on the other are not productive.

  • User:Yehoishophot Oliver
  • User:Debresser
  • User:IZAK

Kaisershatner (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Yehoishophot Oliver

Response to IZAK's diffs

  1. I am committed to editing articles on Misplaced Pages about which I have knowledge. It is technically true that I have removed critical information, but I did so because it was OR or the like, and IZAK's speculative opinion of my intentions is a gross violation of WP:AGF. In a similar vein, IZAK has consistently promoted the position of Orthodox Judaism in various arguments on talk pages; should he then be barred for apparently having a religious affiliation and POV?
  2. IZAK consistently distorts my edits to make them seem highly objectionable, but in fact he is picking at straws. In none of those edits did I "attack" anyone; I merely corrected incorrect information based on my knowledge. (If I missed an edit, please let me know.) a. Dershowitz is not an expert on religion, and never claimed to be one, so his religious theories are not of note; so I removed them from the relevant page (to which no one protested). No personal attack there. b. Matisyahu declared that he no longer identified as a Chabad Hasid, so I removed him from that cat. Again, it is absurd to paint this as an "attack". (The claim of lack of "official favour" concerning Dershowitz is odd, as he was a keynote speaker at a shluchim conference, which is "official" as you get; likewise, what is the basis for the claim that Matisyahu is not "officially favoured" by the movement? Does IZAK have an official site or other source to support that claim?) c. There was no proof that Shmuel Schneerson ever identified as a Chabad Hasid; in fact, the article implied that he clearly didn't, although he may have had Chabad ancestry, but lineage does not prove belonging to a group, so I simply removed him from that cat. How this qualifies as an "attack" is beyond me. d. Concerning Gurary I added relevant biographical information that was indeed not complimentary, but was completely relevant in terms of contrasting his mother's response to his father's. e. In the list of rabbis I merely removed names that didn't qualify, and I stated my reasons; seeing some sort of anti-Chabad bias in this is ridiculous. f. Concerning Rabbi Kook, I merely polished the article to make it sound less hagiographic (which is apparently only problematic in IZAK's book if it's in a Chabad article, but when someone attempts to correct such language in a non-Chabad article, he is "attacking"--and yet IZAK would have us believe that he has no anti-Chabad bias).
  3. a. I removed a brief, altogether minor episode that was clearly not notable in any way in terms of rivalry. If something more would have come of it, then it would have been notable, but nothing did. b. Likewise, the definition of a dynasty is a chain of leadership. If there is only one leader, then the term "dynasty" is incorrect. To call this "devaluing" is absurd.
  4. a. IZAK mentioned this link already. I don't see where I cast any "aspersions"; I simply pointed out reasons why some rabbis didn't qualify for the list. And in what way are these individuals "rivals"? b. As for listing other groups as antiZionist, in what way is this "casting aspersions", when these groups openly identify as such? Especially since I include Chabad in the list that I put back! If, as IZAK claims, I have some sort of hidden agenda to make other groups look bad compared to Chabad, why would I have done that? c. As for the Chardal article, I added a sourced relevant section, which no one disagreed with; how exactly is that "casting aspersions"? d. As for Vaad Hatzala, I indeed "cast aspersions", but it was necessary to provide balance in a lopsided controversy section. e. I removed POV (in 1st link) and OR (in 2nd link) about Zionism. This too qualifies as "casting aspersions"? f. How does IZAK know that I don't like these Israeli holidays? I simply believe that it is incorrect to lump secular holidays with religious ones; although many people refer to them as Jewish, in reality they are vastly different. But I guess IZAK has a different POV.
  5. a. Removed OR. b. Corrected POV wording. c. Removed unsourced, blatantly incorrect claim. d. Removed OR and parent category, copyedit. e. Removed detail unnecessary in intro.; removed OR. f. What info. did I remove about Wolpo? I simply copyedited the article.
  6. "Monopolising"? That's a very strong, emotionally charged word. I was just correcting information that I know to be incorrect, or putting in relevant information. And if there were many edits, so what? I edited on a subject that I knew. I have edited more than others, perhaps because they know less, or have less interest. No proof has been adduced of "monoplising". And how is simply correcting an existing reference to Chabad.org "defending" that site?
  7. a. Removed blatant OR. b. Ditto. c. Ditto. (Is there no end to the outrageous extent that IZAK seeks to maintain OR that appears to conform to his POV?) d. A simple copyedit; please explain why this is some sort of POV. e. Again, I removed blatant OR, and one that has nothing to do with messianism as such. In not one of these links did I "promote the Rebbe as the Jewish messiah".
  8. a. Removed quote from unreliable source. b. Removed unsourced, irrelevant issue. c. Removed blatant OR. d. removed unsupported, blatant, slanderous OR in general and of a living person e. Ditto, which lobojo accepted. f. removed outrageous, slanderous, unsourced OR g. Reverted outrageous, unsupported claim. h. Corrected blatant distortion in quote from a biography of living person. i. remove OR and parent category, copyedit. j. Removed irrelevant paragraph, as explained on talk page; corrected inappropriate POV expression "mantra".
  9. a. Explained role of Rabbi YY Schneersohn and his successor; does IZAK deny these facts? b. IZAK again repeats a diff--see my response in 8d above. Replaced relevant primary source. d. Removed blatant POV and OR. e. This again? As I said earlier, I removed OR. f. What this simple copyedit has to do with Chabad is beyond me. Where is it mentioned? IZAK's ability to see what he thinks is a POV agenda is astonishing. g. Ditto. h. Sigh. Again a diff IZAK already referred to--see a. above. i. Nothing to do with Chabad. j. Explained traditional emphasis of Chabad according to my knowledge--does IZAK disagree? k. Ditto. l. Another repeated link, to which I already responded in 4b above. m. Replaced sourced information. n. IZAK linked to this diff already, remember? Anyway, this has nothing to do with Chabad.
  10. On what basis does IZAK continue to claim that I have a COI? Based on IZAK’s personal interpretation of my religious affiliation? I have not made one statement of my personal affiliation on Misplaced Pages (as far as I can recall). And even if I had, Misplaced Pages does not discriminate on the basis of religion, as an admin has pointed out to IZAK on the COI page. IZAK seems to believe that I am editing based on my POV. But I am editing based on the rules of Misplaced Pages. Whether I have a POV or what it is, is irrelevant; I have been following the rules, as I have explained in my response above to the diffs that IZAK lists. When an issue has been discussed on the talk page, I have followed WP:CONSENSUS; let Izak point out a case in which I haven't, and I will be happy to apologise. Why does IZAK refer to "non-Chabad editors"? Other than Debresser, no one here has declared himself or herself of that religious view. IZAK , please cite proof from diffs that I have violated WP:WAR, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA and the like, as IZAK claims. IZAK neglected to mention those diffs. As for the COI, what I did was point out the ridiculous nature of IZAK's conspiracy accusations, and I also pointed out his constant violation of NPA and AGF. If anything, it is IZAK who has violated WP:WAR, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, and WP:NPA incessantly.
  • We see above that IZAK consistently defends POV, OR, and blatantly slanderous edits, and instead of thanking me for using my more specialized knowledge to correct them, he attacks me for doing so.
  • Note that as soon as I corrected a factually incorrect article name, IZAK, instead of stating some substantial reason why he disagreed (which he has not done here either), saw fit to add an anti-Chabad spam site to that page here.
  • Note also that on almost none of the links that IZAK refers to did he himself make any comment or express disagreement.
  • Even if IZAK maintains that some of my edits are still problematic, he chooses to reproduce almost every single one even after I specifically addressed them one by one on the COI page. He makes no reference whatsoever, either here or there, to my responses there to the diffs that he lists, which I have reproduced here, albeit with additional elaboration. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Shlomke

Response to UserShlomke’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs
Nearly all my edits concerning Chabad related articles were made over two years ago. I started editing in January 2006. For over two years between August 31, 2007 and September 30, 2009, I've barely edited at all. Since I came back, I've also barely edited anything Chabad related. It's possible I made some mistakes as I was learning WP policy, but I'm certainly not a Chabad POV pusher and certainly not editing on behalf of the Chabad movement. I think I've generally stuck to WP policy, and my goal here is to make the Misplaced Pages project better. That said, I'll respond to a few diffs IZAK posted which may need additional clarification. I think most are self explanatory though.
  1. Here I reverted back to another editors version since the previous edit was censoring out important sourced information. Here I deleted words specific to one criticism, because R. Shach criticized R. Schneerson on a multitude of topics, not this one exclusively. Here I removed total unsourced OR as discussed on talk. Removed a full description of his book that does not belong in the article. No one disagrees. Here I was quoting straight from the same source as the other info in article. Removed Blatant OR POV by IZAK. Removed unsourced blatant POV.
  2. This and this are actually sites critical of Chabad. It was later removed per WP:EL. This was a direct quote from a publication, which I was later made aware did not satisfy WP:V and WP:RS and was removed. Removed per talk. Removed , Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies should not be used as dumping ground for anything negative that somehow or another is connected to Chabad. Rather only for issues pertaining directly to the movement. Removed unsourced and patently false. Unlinked. Never classified as such by WP:RS.
  3. I admit these links would probably not qualify for WP:EL and should not have been there. Linking to a book that gives on overview on an under explained topic (at the time). Glitch that was self reverted.
  4. reverted WP:Soapboxing.
  5. None of the sites I've linked to are Misplaced Pages:MIRRORs.

Shlomke (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {Galassi}

{Write your assertion here}

The same 3 editors (Shlomke, Debresser, Oliver) doggedly insist on inserting a self-glorifying chabad source that is considered historiographically unreliable on the academic level, while adding unreliability tags to the academic source that is the most authoritative in this particular field of study, but is very unfavorable to the Lubavich POV. The article in question is Cantonist.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.