Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyUnknown
Mediator(s)User:Cerejota
CommentClosing case

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request details

I think there is a problem at the Chabad and Chabad Messianism pages. An admin user has taken ownership of these two pages, refusing compromise with other editors in over a dozen disputes, not just this matter. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] This admin has been caught misusing sources [13] on both pages. The admin claims the opposite of what his own sources contain. When the sources are summarized to accurately reflect their content, he reverts [14] the changes on sight [15], ostensibly because he feels the articles should only reflect the positions of "official chabad spokesmen". [16] Since this particular matter has gone on for two weeks [17], and this admin finds himself in chronic dispute on both articles, I request an admin review the discussions on Chabad and Chabad Messianism and weigh in. Abe Froman 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the involved parties?

What's going on?

What would you like to change about that?

Mediator notes

Administrative notes

Discussion

PleaseUser:PinchasC, respond to these statements as you see fit. I am in particular interested in hearing about your response to WP:OWN violations, before we move towards content. It will help me be more useful as a mediator...

Both of you (and anyone who might join), please remember this is an informal mediation, and that we all should assume good faith, remain cool and be WP:CIVIL. We are all here to make wikipedia better, so lets focus on how we can achieve that. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abe.Froman has made alot of wild accusations here and on the talk pages. A careful reading of it will show that he is involved in disruptive editing against consensus. I have yet to see any valid diffs of my supposed violations. I will explain any edits that I have made if needed. In regards to the WP:OWN violation which you have asked me to comment, my edits have not fit the criteria in WP:OWN, however Abe's edits against consensus clearly have. I will be busy over the weekend, however I will be glad to discuss any issues next week. However please don't ask me to defend myself from accusations that do not have the diffs to back them up. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. However, I do not consider anything here to be "accusations" as this is not a formal proceeding... For lack of a better terms lets call them "beefs".
So if I am to understand correctly, both of you think the other's edits are disruptive and that each is trying to WP:OWN the page? From what I can see, both of you are active editors and also discuss most of your edits in talk. What is the basis to WP:OWN? Thanks!--Cerejota 12:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have compiled a casual list of diffs that I believe show PinchasC has taken ownership of the Chabad messianism content on the Chabad page. Other sections are also diff'd to establish a pattern of ownership on other sections of the page. The same activity is going on at the Chabad Messianism page [18]. Briefly, if any content arrives in the messianism sections that PinchasC has not himself written or approves of, he reverts it on sight. I have left out PinchasC's reversion of my own material, and will let his disputes with other editors speak for themselves.
Abe Froman 16:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like Abe has a profound misunderstanding of what WP:OWN is.He also like giving diffs of multiple edits which skip the edit summaries of the edit in between. (For example he writes Revision as of 2005-12-18T13:45:11 which would seem to be out of order. However looking at one diff at a time will show [19] I removed a section about a controversy because an admin Jfdwolff (JFW), had been mediating between myself and User:RK and RK was unable to bring any source that this was a controversy, it was therefore removed from the controversy section, the admin at that time who was mediating posted on the talk page agreeing with my action [20]. The next diff in that series is an anon vandal that removed content which was negative of chabad [21] the next anon editor [22] removed a sentence and then I reverted the vandal and the editor that removed the sentence [23] which is what you are supposed to do when you see vandalism. Next Daykart added the last names of the leaders of chabad [24] and moved the title to be outside the link [25] then hyperlinked the words 770 eastern parkway [26]. An anon then inserted an image [27] and then changed the source of the image [28] and then an admin Nandesuka reverted the anon. The anon then added a paragraph [29], then corrected a word [30], then an admin Jfdwolf tightened the addition of the anon [31]. I then corrected the spelling of a name [32] and corrected a word [33]. Daykart then made some minor changes [34] and added an external link [35] I then removed a typo by Daykart and some red links [36]. I moved a link to a subsection of the external links as it was a historical link instead of a general chabad link [37] and removed a non notable link to a site which no longer exists. [38]. The final edit from the diff that Abe provided was me changing the name of an external link to its proper name [39]. Note, that in the next edit, RK added back in the paragraph which had no sources that it was a controversy (see above), and the admin that was mediating removed it for the same reason that I did [40]. During this time I ran for adminship and was nominated by Jdfwolff who had much experience with me on the chabad talk pages. My nomination was passed with 0 opposing votes and support of many Jewish editors that had been involved in that page[41]. This would not have happened if I was involved in all this disruptive editing during that time like Abe claims. This is one example. I will not take the time to go thru all of Abe's misquoted and twisted diffs unless the mediator asks me to, as it seems like Abe just likes wasting my time.) The diffs provided by Abe do not show that I was in violation of WP:OWN or what Abe has been claiming with his "beefs". If our mediator feels that any of them need further explanation, I can point out the relevant talk pages and the relevant background of those edits and show how they are not a violation of WP:OWN or any other policies. However Abe has clearly been in violation of WP:OWN as there are 3 editors that have stated clearly that my version is correct (myself, Yehoishophot Oliver, [42] Chocolatepizza [43] and a 4th editor that although disagreed with some of what I wrote, agreed with me in principle of what I was saying that the discussion should be on the chabad messianism page. [44]. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cumulatively, PinchasC's edits return the Chabad messianism section to either his version, or removes content he objects to entirely. That is the gist of the diffs you and I have posted above. Abe Froman 21:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate both of you taking time to participate in this process, and will study the relatively large amount of material presented. Please remember I am not here to rule for an against, but to informally mediate. I see that Abe.Froman has stated what he thinks is the gist of the matter.

I will ask PinchasC to do the same, in a sentence or two, as to what he thinks the gist of the matter. I understand the Sabbath is now, but there really isn't any hurry, this can last for as long as the two of you are willing to listen to each other. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gist of the matter here, is that Abe is trying to insert his version while multiple editors disagree. There are 3 editors that have stated clearly that my version is correct (myself, Yehoishophot Oliver, [45] Chocolatepizza [46] and a 4th editor that although disagreed with some of what I wrote, agreed with me in principle of what I was saying that the discussion should be on the chabad messianism page. [47]. He also has a severe problem demonstrated above [48] of making spurious accusations with misleading or missing diffs. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you providing me with your opinion, although I do suggest the both of you minimize the use of adjetives when describing each other's action, and to assume good faith. Specifically, if there is "missing" information, please provide us with it, instead of stating it is missing. Remember I am an uninvolved party both to the topic and to the controversy, and hence I might not be familiar with the cast of characters, and older fights. It is both of your responsibilitie sto rpovide me with the information you feel is relevant.

That said, I think I will offer my first tentative comments, to which I would like to hear your responses:

Please reply below here. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of notes. In this edit I gave exact diffs as to the missing diffs that Abe brought. I was not the only one doing the actual reverting of Abe. User:Chocolatepizza reverted him as well [49] [50]. I understand that you are not formally accusing us of violating 3rr, however I have just reviewed my edits, and I did not violate it.
Regarding your understanding of the gist of the matter. What I believe is that there needs to be a summary of the chabad messianism article, the content of the summary should not be a full debate as to the prevalence of chabad messianism, due to the complexity involved. Rather it should be a summary of what chabad messianism is. Chocolatepizza also pointed out in this diff many issues with Abes version as well. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for overlooking the "missing" diffs, I didn't take them as such first.
I appreciate your further clarification on the "gist". However you dind't address my other points. Do you feel uncomfortable talking about them here? Do oyu want to discuss by other means? Thanks!--Cerejota 16:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I have addressed all the other points. Please let me know which points, I have not addressed, so that I can address them. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly, and my apologies if I have overlooked any response:
  • However, PinchasC should consider allowing other editors who share his opinion perform actual edits, at least part of the time. Sometimes it is better to comment opposition to an action in talk, and let others act, than being bold. Such actions, since they are done in the open, are not meatpuppetry or attempts to overcome 3RR: they are simple expressions of consensus, and indicate to other editors that this opinion is shared by other editors. However, when only one person defends consensus, sometimes (not always) it might feel to editors in the receiving end of your opposition like you ar eWP:OWN I think that is the case here. So in the future you might want to take a second to understand the other side, and realize that while you are certainly not WP:OWNing, others might be correct in thinking so based on your actions. I hope you understand what I mean?
  • It seems to me that PinchasC has a "mainline" Chabad POV, and that Abe Froman has a messianist POV. Am I correct or incorrect?
Thanks!--Cerejota 04:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any control whether someone else reverts Abe as I do not base my edits on whether a user who has been around since February 2006[51] is going to misinterpret a policy. In any case, I was not the only one doing the actual reverting of Abe. User:Chocolatepizza reverted him as well [52] [53].
I do not know which POV Abe has, however my point of view is neither "mainline" or messianist, and doesn't matter when editing here. I just want to see an accurate article written according to the Policies and guidelines of wikipedia. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your answer. However, since we all have POVs I still wnat to know what both of you have (if you feel more comfortable, email me, no need to go public). And the reason I want to know this is because I have had a chance to review the edit disputes completely and I can see a lot of what going on is not disagreement on policy, but on editorial content as it is. In other word, there seems to be two different visions as to what both articles should be about; as to what narratives the sources give us. I might have jumped the gun there by suggesting alternatives: I should have asked what do you consider your actual POV to be, and let you both speak. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitrary break 1

(abe, please respond to oustanding questions above)

I do ask you both consider this: WP:IAR is a policy, and a very useful one, if misunderstood one. Sometimes agreeing to bend the rules a little is all that is needed to eliminate an edit war. Sometimes misuse of WP:IAR is what leads to edit wars. So you see, policy (such as WP:IAR) can be good, but it can also keep us from making progress. WP:NPOV is the only non-negotiable policy - we cannot reach a consensus that is not WP:NPOV - but everything else is always in tension. I know there are people who disagree with this view, and perhaps both of you are one of them. But in my view, policy is always second to making progress with my fellow editors.

Ultimately, I would like to move away from a policy-based discussion, to a more natural conversation (with the policies always humming in the background) based on discussing the general vision both of you have for these articles, in terms of scope, topics due-weight, etc. This way we can honestly approach the matter, and start moving forward.

BTW, Abe has request a few days as he is busy in real life, but I do await his response. Thanks! --Cerejota 10:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out the latest iteration of the compromise passage [54] as a start to resolving the dispute on the Chabad page. The current passage is unsourced, and is answering arguments that have been reverted. It doesn't make sense, as it is. As for the Chabad Messianism page, the wanton and unexplained removal of David Berger's work should be undone. [55] This is the minimum I find acceptable. Given the sources I use in both articles are the same as have been used in the same articles in the past, questioning their veracity will only strengthen my claim that POV is a concern in these articles. Abe Froman 00:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abe, please, answer the few questions I have asked. Again, if you feel more comfortable feel free to do so off-wiki. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any further information needed? I see other editors are also coming into conflict with PinchasC over Chabad-related topics. Given the dozen previous entanglements illustrated above, this should not come as a surprise to anyone. I would like the compromise messianism passage on the Chabad article discussion page given consideration, and the David Berger material in the Chabad Messianism page restored. PinchasC has not provided valid reasons on why he reports the opposite of what his own sources claim, or why David Berger quotes were removed. Abe Froman 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment: Growth of Chabad on Wikipedia[edit]

Without going into all the details here, I can safely say that it is true and verifiable that PinchasC (talk · contribs) and the two of the supports he cites: Chocolatepizza (talk · contribs) and Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) (and a couple of others) (see their ongoing edits and comments from the time they joined Wikipedia) are pure and strong pro-Chabad editors who will do anything in their power to promote a pro-Chabad POV, and, based on my own interactions with them over time, they edit and act in a manner that violates WP:OWN whenever anything relating to Chabad comes up. IZAK 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is implied from the above comment by IZAK that being Pro a Jewish organization, is bad. I wonder how he would feel about himself being part of a group of Pro-Jewish editors... IZAK also made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. If he is willing to be civil and avoid personal attacks, I would be more than happy to discuss any diffs that he has that support his claims. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with being "pro" or "anti" any Jewish organization in the normal course of writing articles and being an editor. This is also not a personal attack on anyone. What I am stating is what has become quite clear and obvious, and represents a threat to Wikipedia and to the editorial integrity and freedom for all Jewishly-orientated editors, that the above editors have taken it upon themselves to defend the Chabad movement on Wikipedia by limiting and strangling information that does not fit in with their pro-Chabad POV. PinchasC, now a "seasoned admin" has learned the ropes, asks for "diffs" and uses Wikipedia:WikiLawyering such as "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit; Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions" and thus he has become a specialist at using Wikipedia's rules to stifle any oppostion to his edits. Whenever it suits him he will descend upon an article that touches on Chabad issues and will flog it to death with all the rules he can muster to the point of absurdity. One small example of this is the path he chose and the determination with which he edited out text in the Rabbi Barry Gurary article. And the others are learning from him! No doubt a detailed examination of his editing history would reveal a long-standing pattern of over-all obstruction of anything and everything that would harm the Chabad movement according to his POV. I have said a few times already that Chabad has many of its own websites such as Chabad.org and many others, but Lubavitchers and the Chabad movement have no right to turn Wikipedia into just another "fish-pond" of Chabad hegemony on the Internet. Wikipedia cannot and will not allow that and in this Cabal case we see a desire to overthrow the looming Chabad usurpation of Wikipedia's articles about them which will spread to other areas if the pro-Chabad brigade goes on unchecked. IZAK 14:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More