This is an old revision of this page, as edited by M0RD00R (talk | contribs) at 19:14, 10 January 2010 (→Proposed findings of fact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:14, 10 January 2010 by M0RD00R (talk | contribs) (→Proposed findings of fact)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Dougweller (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Hersfold (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk) |
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Motions and requests by the parties
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Proposed final decision
Proposals by User:JzG
Proposed principles
Undue weight
1) Misplaced Pages aims to cover subjects without giving undue weight to minority views. This is part of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a non-negotiable foundational policy.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
External links
2) External links fall within the scope of the policy on neutral point of view. Links to websites advancing a minority position should not normally be used except in relation to documenting that minority position.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- If, let's say, the Vatican published a really well-written and neutral description of contraception down the ages, we should not link to that in the article on contraception because the Catholic church has a strong minority view on contraception, so its internal links around the article will promote that agenda rather than the mainstream view. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I hope Guy's example is intended to be ironic. It's been the majority view in previous periods of history, and remains a substantial minority now. It would be an excellent EL to document the opinions of the Catholic church, past and present. There is a difference between minority, and splinter. The proposed rule might apply to a very small splinter group, not to one of the major sects within a religion. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood. I mean, if the RC Church had a webpage which was a peerlessly neutral description of the technical and medical advances in contraception, this would not be an appropriate source because their POV on the underlying subject is not neutral. This would not apply to, say, the WHO or one of the national medical institutions. There's no problem with using the Vatican website as a source for what Catholics think about contraception, it's when we use a site tied to a group with certain minority views outside the context of those minority views that we run into problems. I hoped this was clear by reading the example in the context of the proposal. If you want a more unambiguous example you could consider a timeline of the WTC collapse on a Truther website, but that is a caricature whereas I was rather intending that my example was not - the RC church, unlike Truthers, are not barking mad. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I understand, but disagree. I consider that POV sources known for editorial responsibility can be used for uncontested areas of a topic, especially if the page can be shown to be referred to by other RSs as an accurate presentation. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I hope Guy's example is intended to be ironic. It's been the majority view in previous periods of history, and remains a substantial minority now. It would be an excellent EL to document the opinions of the Catholic church, past and present. There is a difference between minority, and splinter. The proposed rule might apply to a very small splinter group, not to one of the major sects within a religion. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
1) The Chabad Lubavitch movement is a minority group within Hasidic Judaism, a minority sect within Judaism, itself a minority religion.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Only true in a very narrow sense. Using the data in the Misplaced Pages articles, there are 500,000 Hasidic Jews, or whom 200,000 are Lubavitch. 40% is close to half. Additionally, and perhaps more important, it is certainly the best known of the Hasidic sects to people outside Judaism--and perhaps even to many people within it. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are not "200,000" Lubavitchers! It's closer to about a tenth of that size. They may have many admirers but those admirers are not Lubavitch followers. Chabad-Lubavitch can be counted by those Lubavitchers who live in Crown Heights, Brooklyn (9% of residents=14,000 Lubavitchers), Kfar Chabad (pop: 5,100), some very much smaller satelite communities around the world with numbers unknown, and the official Shluchim/emmisaries about 3,000 couples worldwide. That makes for about 25,000 confirmed Lubavitchers, make it 25-45,000 to be very liberal. What Chabad does have is a huge presence on the Internet and use of PR campaigns beyond any other Orthodox or even religious Jewish group which creates the impression that they are larger. IZAK (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- You support my point. It is a minority (within a minority within a minority). That does not make it any less valid but it informs the weight we should give. I'm sure there are many more people who support Biblical creationism than support Chabad Lubavitch, that does not undermine the status of Biblical creationism as a minority POV. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Only true in a very narrow sense. Using the data in the Misplaced Pages articles, there are 500,000 Hasidic Jews, or whom 200,000 are Lubavitch. 40% is close to half. Additionally, and perhaps more important, it is certainly the best known of the Hasidic sects to people outside Judaism--and perhaps even to many people within it. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I think this statement is outside of the Arbcom's scope of interest/jurisdiction. I don't think, that Arbcom would make a comment about any outside organization that is not directly Misplaced Pages related. Arbcom usually does not comment on content, and this statement is even beyond that. Findings such as "This is a minority religion", "this is a minority sect" etc would be unprecedented. M0RD00R (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's relevant. WP:NPOV says:
Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.
— WP:NPOV as of 10 Jan 2010 - It is important to qualify, when handling an issue such as this, whether the viewpoint in question is a minority one. This is more often an issue in relation to fringe and pseudoscience topics but applies just as much to minority religious groups. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in this case "minority"≠"not notable" because of the "significant coverage" factor. Chabad's significant presence on the Internet is already mentioned in the Evidence section or as IZAK put it just below "other Judaic editors simply cannot match their resources nor are they able to come up with links or the amount of sites or links the way proponents of a Chabad POV can". I'm afraid FoF "Chabad is the best known Hasidic movement" would be equally true as FoF proposed above, and equally inappropriate. Besides what this FoF is actually saying that all involved parties (Chabad POV vs. other Hasidic POV vs. non-Hasidic Judaic POV) are minorities. And what conclusions are supposed to be drawn out of that?M0RD00R (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's relevant. WP:NPOV says:
- I think this statement is outside of the Arbcom's scope of interest/jurisdiction. I don't think, that Arbcom would make a comment about any outside organization that is not directly Misplaced Pages related. Arbcom usually does not comment on content, and this statement is even beyond that. Findings such as "This is a minority religion", "this is a minority sect" etc would be unprecedented. M0RD00R (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Links to chabad.org
2) As of 9 Jan 2010 there are over 1,000 links to chabad.org on Misplaced Pages. This is out of proportion to the significance of the group.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- possibly true, but we need to know how many there are to other Hasisidic sects, and how many to the entire Hasidic movement. A raw number like this can be deceptive. And insisting on adding inappropriate links can be a conduct dispute, and the proof of this is that it is one of the standard reasons for blocking. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Without such evidence, this is pure speculation. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Only the Chabad movement is so heavily invested, as a movement, in promoting itself in any shape size or form on the Internet. Other Haredi and Hasidic movements not only do not do this but many of them outright ban access to the Internet and forbid its members from being online except when the needs of a livelihood demand it. There are many websites run by Orthodox organizations but "Hasidic sects" neither have nor approve of promoting themselves on the Internet. Thus this has indeed created a huge imbalance in the Chabad movement's favor as editors favoring that movement have promoted abundant links, especially to the vast Chabad.org , using the plentiful resources available to them, while editors wishing to convey information about other Hasidic or Haredi groups are often at a loss. This has often resulted in WP:UNDUE in favor of Chabad and for its proponents on Misplaced Pages, as teh at least 1000 links prove, and there are more to other Chabd sites on Misplaced Pages because other Judaic editors simply cannot match their resources nor are they able to come up with links or the amount of sites or links the way proponents of a Chabad POV can and do on Misplaced Pages. IZAK (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- possibly true, but we need to know how many there are to other Hasisidic sects, and how many to the entire Hasidic movement. A raw number like this can be deceptive. And insisting on adding inappropriate links can be a conduct dispute, and the proof of this is that it is one of the standard reasons for blocking. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Without such evidence, this is pure speculation. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
WP:COATRACK articles and sections
3) 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.
3.01) 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.
Yes, these examples need moving to Evidence. I will do that in a bit.
3a) 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- COATRACK, though an essay, is a good statement of a generally accepted principle, one on which article are consistently deleted. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Very sound argument for an AfD, but Arbcom probably is not a right venue for this.M0RD00R (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reworded slightly; these are examples to support the general point. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Very sound argument for an AfD, but Arbcom probably is not a right venue for this.M0RD00R (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
3b) 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.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- ARBCOM does not comment on content but rather on user conduct so wording of this finding should be modified accordingly. M0RD00R (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposals by User:IZAK
Proposed principles
Editorial balance in Chabad-related articles
1)
- All articles in Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism, like all articles in its parent Category:Hasidic Judaism and Category:Haredi Judaism, must avoid a tendency to pro-Chabad hagiography and editors must avoid any appearance or actual violation of WP:COI in favor of the Chabad movement.
- Critical thinking and opposing views, often derived from and stated by well-known historical and academic figures, not found on pro-Chabad websites in formulating, editing and writing articles is not automatically a "violation" of WP:NOR or of WP:NPOV, when presented by established editors, based on WP:N and WP:RS. Such well-established important information, without which articles lack true balance, must be respected and incorporated into all articles.
- Usage and abuse of WP:LAWYER and WP:WAR must be avoided.
- Contentious and controversial information should not be deleted because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but placed on article talk pages or at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism for further discussion by more Judaic and other editors.
- WP:CONSENSUS with Judaic and other editors not sharing a pro-Chabad POV should be attained and maintained. IZAK (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Guidance for pro-Chabad-editors when editing Chabad-related articles
2)
- In 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, particularly if they are sourced, the pro-Chabad POV editors must avoid edit wars to remove and fight to have that content cut and removed. Move all disputed sections to talk pages of articles. Avoid running to WP:ANI, take disputes to WP:TALKJUDAISM first.
- In articles devoted to internal Chabad controversies: 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 only grandson of the 6th Rebbe and the disowned nephew of the 7th Rebbe), the pro-Chabad POV editors must ensure that the way the controversies are presented will not be neutered and neutralized and not stand the topics on their heads to 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. All edits removing content must be moved to talk pages for discussion and review.
- In 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 must not act individually or in unison by working to strong-arm any opposing editors who have other reliable information and not harrass them with all sorts of tactics to remove and limit as much material harmful to the movement.
- Stop attacking leaders and topics not part of Chabad: Not to 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).
- Stop revisionisism of Chabad history: Stop the fighting 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), Rabbi Shaul Shimon Deutsch (the Liozna Rebbe, a living published author), Rabbi Barry Gurary (deceased). Not to become livid if anyone questions this, and not use presumed inside knowledge and commitment to a one and only "correct" view ("I know more than you" or "I am a Chabad rabbi -- who are you to question?" type of argumentation), forcing other editors to give up even when there are other reasonable reliable sources. And not to delete valuable sources and edits after editors have left editing contested articles.
- Stop infiltrating Israeli and Judaism topics with Chabad hard-line views: When entering into topics relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict to avoid espousing the official Chabad party-line of their movement which is almost always hard-line.
- Stop soft-selling messianism and belief in their Rebbe as the ONLY true messiah that is a general feature of many edits that defend Chabad messianism and not to deny it from one side but promote it by stealth by cutting cited criticism to it (and not to call criticism "lies" and "slander" and "libel"), at the same time to avoid inserting links and comments that soft-pedal this controversial belief that Chabad holds dear. IZAK (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Not to nominate nor promote pro-Chabad editors to admin/sysop status
3)
- Existing admins and all concerned responsible decision makers are requested 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) and others with similar pro-Chabd editing histories NEVER be allowed to attain admin status, if they ever survive other sanctions against them.
- If pro- Chabad POV editors 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.
- In-depth reviews of the diffs of all four pro-Chabad editors in question, 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 way to become an admin was/is by getting their name/s known as active editors 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 Misplaced Pages 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. If they are let off the hook, nothing will change, and things will get worse. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- I agree this is problematic; I don't think that saying "yes, editors of a particular religious persuasion are not eligible to become administrators" is a viable course of action. Thankfully. Lankiveil 08:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC).
- No, that is NOT the point at all, but based on the concrete evidence that editors based on their long-standing editorial history of editing in a one-way direction, in this case promoting and editing in a pro-Chabad POV manner, inherently failing the golden rule of WP:NPOV when it comes to their favorite hobby horse, should not be given any levers of power to lord it over others they may oppose. This is precisely what happened when pro-Chabad POV editor PinchasC (talk · contribs) (now retired) was granted admin powers, he enforced what was good for Chabad and cut down what he saw was any threat to it. That type of person does not belong being an admin. IZAK (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not going to happen. We judge an editor by their edits, not by their affiliations. Admins who take administrative actions in support of conflicts of interest are not admins for long anyway. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not even necessary. Individual editors known for non-neutral work would presumably not get consensus for selection as admins. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Y
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Z
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: