Arbitration​Committee

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Request for policy change certification authorizing use of the ISA

Initiated by —Remember the dot ^(talk) at 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

All those who have participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol

• Remember the dot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ned Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheDJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1] notice at VP discussion
• [2] notice to Ned
• User:TheDJ is aware --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

We have had a broad community discussion and a straw poll at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol.

Statement by Remember the dot

In over 100 KB of discussion, we have heard many opinions. The general opinion is that we should be able to use the internationally recognized wheelchair symbol, the International Symbol of Access, to designate handicapped accessibility in articles and templates. This means that an exception to the non-free content policy would have to be made. However, a small number of very vocal users have continued to oppose this change.

I am asking the Arbitration Committee to place their stamp of approval on the change. Jimbo has suggested this as a possible way of certifying changes in policy, since Wikipedia has now grown so large that it is difficult for everyone to agree on changes. I hope that having the ArbCom's approval will avert an edit war on Wikipedia:Non-free content. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheDJ

I fully support Remember the dot. A very vocal group is stating that changing the policy to allow this use (most likely Fair Use under USA law) of the image to convey this piece of information in Wikipedia, is a can of worms we should not open. Actually, to discuss the merits of such a change is already beyond their willingness, concluding with the argument of "text can convey the same information". I and remember the dot challange this position. NEVER should we allow fear of changing a policy because it's usage is so widespread and important to take precedence over the actual potential merits of a certain piece of information. He and I have strong feelings that this image can convey the information better then anything else, and we stand by that. I personally feel very strong about always seeking the boundaries of the guidelines and policies. The banning of this image through our EDP and most importantly the actual formulation of that EDP at the moment is a case where I feel that we are overstepping the boundaries of a good Encyclopedia by not stepping over the boundaries of our wiki-bureaucratic rules. I understand the need for rules, and I sometimes won't agree and sometimes I will seek the boundaries of any rule to make sure they are clear and useful to people, but mostly i will live by them for the sake of Wikipedia.

However this has touched me stronger then anything before: Basically the EDP resolution has left an entire set of Free-use material under a set of very strict wikipedia-fair-use rules. Not that it wasn't before, it's just more clearly defined right now. This undoubtedly includes much copyrighted material in the world, and some of these are international standards such as the ISA logo. In my eyes this shows a problem with the current rules, more then with the intent of the encyclopedia to be free-content. Fact is that much of the information in the world is simply not free-content. Including some material such as the ISA logo which could almost be called a glyph like image. We have a strict Fair-use policy, but this usage of this image would surely pass any court in the world, based on it's free use/no-edit license. The only issue wikipedia has, is that for downstream users of the encyclopedia, this is not GFDL compatible image. But why not mark it as such, instead of insisting the image must be GFDL compliant. It will and can never be. any derivative of it is illegal, and anything that's not a derivative is not as useful as the orginal image. I care about this Free-use/no-edit image a whole lot more than about fair-use images in general (though i'm a supporter of fair-use images in wikipedia as well, i will not deny that). Basically i want answers to the following:

1. Is the ISA logo less important and useful then any of the Fair use logos in an encyclopedia, and therefore a rightful victim of the policies ?
2. Is the ISA logo the best way to communicate the information, or is text just as good ?
3. Is this how far we will go to defend "good as it gets content" as opposed to "GFDL compatible content" ?
4. Is the community being lazy in not accepting that a policy is not set in stone ?
5. Are Remember the dot and I within our rights to defend our position on this point ?
6. Are we sacrificing one image for the common good of free content, even if (by poll) most people seem to think it's the best image to use in wikipedia for this information ?
7. Does the current policy actually take into account images to communicate information, or only images to illustrate subjects of information?
8. If it does not, should such policies be set up?
9. Should the policy change to allow for the ISA wheelchair logo or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

I should note that the use of the ISA in Wikipedia would not be a 'fair use' claim—we would in fact be using it exactly as its license specifies: to indicate facilities and services which make provisions to improve accessibility for the mobility challenged.

Also worth noting is that – despite being copyrighted – our use of the image in this manner is unlikely to interfere with the use of Wikipedia articles and materials that are incorporated into derived free (gratis or libre) or commercial works. I further foresee no circumstance where the ISA's terms of use would interfere with our creation of a free encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ned Scott

While those who wish to use the image don't see any "harm" in using the image, and have their hearts in the right place, the change it would require is needless. The absurd claim has been brought forth that only the ISA can do "the job" because it is internationally recognized, regardless of the fact that we don't require something internationally recognized, we only require text. Icons are nice, but are not even close to being required. There is no need for using only the ISA image, and those supporting its use (in things like infoboxes for Disneyland rides) have failed to show a real need and have only come up with blind speculation. A large change is being asked for a very minor convenience factor.

Wikipedia doesn't even allow Wikipedia-only licenses, why would we allow something like this? This isn't about what is legally open to us, or what the copyright holder allows, the simple matter is the image is under a non-free license.

I've lived with a disabled person my entire life, and I find the attitude and logic behind the pro-ISA image to be well intended, but ignorant. Originally some of them even suggested that not using the ISA image would even be offensive. Just because people think it's for a good cause should not make this situation any different from others we face. This is a misguided effort based on speculation and nothing more.

I'd like to ask the arbitration comity to reject this case, or in the very least make it clear that such a change is inappropriate for this situation. -- Ned Scott 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note there is even a unicode character for the ISA image, "♿" (normally requires an additional font, such as the free DejaVu fonts). Yet another alternative that makes a policy change needless. -- Ned Scott 01:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE2

I figure I'm probably involved, since I made the free replacement: . I believe that it makes sense to allow use of the international standard through an amendment to our fair use policy, since, well, it is an international standard, and it's pretty much pure stubbornness avoid it for "freedom" reasons. The ICTA probably has a good reason for keeping it copyrighted and unfree and is unlikely to change. I doubt they care if we use it or not; it is our policies that are preventing us from using it, and they have nothing to gain by freely licensing it for our use. However, I also think Wikimedia's lawyer should offer an opinion on whether using it would place us at risk, if someone labels something that's not accessible with it. --NE2 01:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/1/0)

• Recuse. I believe rather firmly that the problem is the ICTA, not Wikipedia. If they wish to encourage us to use the symbol, they have the choice of licensing it using one of the free licenses we accept. They retain copyright of the ISA to retain control, a strategy that is fundamentally at odds with the core values of our project. I don't believe that I could judge a poll fairly given my views. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet occupation of Romania

Initiated by Biruitorul at 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Biruitorul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daizus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dpotop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Turgidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[3]Anonimu 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[4] - I am aware. Biruitorul 16:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[5] - I am aware. Daizus 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[6] - I am aware. Dpotop 18:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[7]

[8] - I am aware. Petri Krohn 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[9] - I am aware. Turgidson 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[10] - I am aware. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[11]

[12]

Statement by Biruitorul

Since March 26, a dispute has been ongoing at this article. The main issue revolves around the title and whether the presence of Soviet troops on Romanian soil from 1944 to 1958 should be labelled an "occupation". A subsidiary matter is whether the article should be split and a new article called "Liberation of Romania" be created, although meanwhile a new article called King Michael Coup has appeared. Still, in an edit war just today, User:Anonimu kept replacing the split proposal tag as well, so it seems there is still a desire to split. I believe this case needs arbitrators' involvement because a third opinion was solicited, given and ignored by the other side; mediation was not accepted by two users. Biruitorul 16:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

On Irpen's statement regarding "the falsehood that I rejected the mediation": let's not split hairs here. Mediation requires "yes" votes from all parties involved. Not voting is thus equivalent to voting "no"; had Irpen and Anonimu voted "yes", mediation would have happened, so in effect they did in fact reject mediation.
I reject Anonimu's assertion that the third opinion was invalid: the opinion provider was perfectly capable of providing an opinion contrary to the one I may have intimated he should provide. While I was not aware of that clause in the WP:NPA policy, so I apologise if it was construed as a personal attack, I thought it was important to point out that Anonimu is indeed "an avowed communist", because that fact is intimately bound up with his disruptive, baseless tagging of this article (and others). -- Biruitorul 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment

I don't want this to turn into an endless back-and-forth between me and Anonimu, so I'll likely stop here. First, I note your reservation. Second, third opinions are an established part of the process, so of course they're relevant. Third: you'll find people who dispute that man landed on the moon, that Elvis is dead, etc. - it's not our job to accomodate every single viewpoint; once one side has demonstrably proved its case, to me that signals the end of the reasonable part of the dispute, and any further disputation, while I don't deny it exists, I reserve the right to deem it disruptive and baseless. Fourth, to reciprocate, I want the fact that Anonimu is an avowed communist to be noted, considering the subject of the disputed article. -- Biruitorul 00:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary statement by Irpen

For a start, and most importantly, I take a liberty to respectfully concur with the statement of the just voted Arbitrator. I urge everyone to review that ill-fated Latvia arbcom and, sorry for being blunt, that ArbCom was a massive waste of time that did not produce any solution. Nor was it able to from what I understand what the functions of the ArbCom are and how similar is this case to a previous one. I would also like to refer everyone to the original statement I made at that arbcom. Substitute few words by few others, for what sorts of accusations were brought up here in comparison with there, and you get the exact same thing.

ArbCom is welcome to study users' behavior of course, like it did in the Latvia case. I've seen a good amount of abusive statements at that article's and several related talk pages which IMO still does not reach the level of the ArbCom's concern, but I don't mind if ArbCom examines that if it has time and interest and I am known to be rather thick skinned towards users splashing incivilities. Granted some of the talk page participants in case of Romania were more abusive than the participants in the Latvia page. However, the most important thing, I don't see much difference between the disputes and the previous dispute is not anywhere closer to the solution after the Arbcom than it was before it.

IMO, the solution in seemingly "reconcileable" content disputes, is in continuing the discussions, widening the participants' circle and treating curtly the users that disrupt such discussions. The quick-fix solution would be to appoint a talk-page guardian who would quickly step in and crack down on the disruptive users. So, should the ArbCom issue such injunction and mothball the case? I don't know but arbitrators tried creative measures in the past.

Finally, I would like to dismiss the falsehood that I rejected the mediation. I did not. My entry on this matter was made at the mediation's page talk. I outlined my concerns about the prospects of the success of the mediation and requested some feedback to address them. Unfortunately, the feedback to my entry only emphasized the validity of my concerns despite I repeated afterwards that in no way I reject the mediation effort.

Comment

A quick comment to the statement below by Piotrus. There are no examples of incivility brought by anyone (yet) to this page, including Piotrus himself who claims the degree of incivility warrants the ArbCom intervention. It is difficult to tell what exactly Piotrus means here but since no examples are assume he means that the ArbCom members should set aside a little time and read this and related talk pages to decide whether there was a arbcomable amount of incivility and whose incivility that was. I know ArbCom is a busy committee but if this is indeed doable, I would only welcome their attention. --Irpen 05:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Piotrus

The content part of this dispute certainly is not the issue for the ArbCom. However if incivility and other disruptive behaviour took place, it should be analyzed; particulary as with fall of PAIN and RFI it is much more hard to control such behaviour. And if some parties who are guilty of it here are the same who come up in other cases (like mentioned Latvia case), I think ArbCom should consider doing something about such repeated offenders: looking over Romania case, I certainly see disruption by some people whose behaviour has been condemned by both past ArbCom cases, and in other DR proceedings.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Anonimu

I'm still trying to understand how arbitration works, so for now, I'll just comment on the statement by User:Biruitorul. I dispute the neutrality of the "3rd opinion". The main reason is that the request for a 3rd option included a personal attack against me [13] (i.e. "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." See WP:NPA). Second it surely wasn't a "a short, neutral description of the disagreement", since the comment tried to impose a certain POV. Anyway, I consider the 3rd opinion given irrelevant to the discussion. As for the mediation, the uncalled-for personal attacks from one of the parts involved (on an unrelated subject) made me refuse it.Anonimu 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

First, even if I assume good faith, I reserve the right to doubt the sincerity of Biruitorul's second statement. Second, I consider the 3rd opinion given (which I still deem non-neutral) not relevant to the dispute. Third, I fail to understand why Biruitorul considers the tag "disruptive, baseless", especially since, in his first comment, he acknowledges the existence of an ongoing dispute. Fourth, I want the anti-communist bias present in Birutiorul's statement to be noted, considering the subject of the disputed article.Anonimu 20:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/1)

• Would it be possible for you guys to just read through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia and then settle this like kind and thoughtful Wikipedians? Kirill Lokshin 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. Seems mostly to be a content dispute. - SimonP 13:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to consider edit warring over tags and provide guidance on content issues. Fred Bauder 17:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Paul August ☎ 20:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. I am dismayed by the recent string of cases that center on a particular article or a group of related articles and which cite a long list of disputants. I do not believe that it is possible for us to settle such cases satisfactorily, primarily because a preoccupation with parity and fairness among all the disputants often takes precedence over the appropriateness of individual remedies. If this is a content matter, it is outside our remit, and if it is a behavior problem, I would like to see a case brought which focuses on a particular user whose behavior is most egregious. If the example subsequently set is not sufficient to encourage others to observe our way of doing things, additional cases can then be brought citing any evidence previously reviewed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYScholar

Initiated by Notmyrealname at 22:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Notmyrealname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Humus sapiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crockspot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --NYScholar 09:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fermat1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --NYScholar 09:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hornplease (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --NYScholar 08:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wassermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --NYScholar 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Quatloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --NYScholar 09:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17] - I am aware. Crockspot 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[18]: See User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4#ArbCom/Lewis Libby; Temple Rodef Shalom. where I have posted my response and updated and archived the notification; my shorter statement posted below. --NYScholar 08:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[19] - I am aware now Fermat1999 15:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[20] - I am aware, and have commented briefly below. Hornplease 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[21]

[22] -- Aware, responded. Quatloo 13:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[23]

Scroll down to "Lewis Libby" and click on "show" to see the content of this notice: it was declared "inactive" by administrator in both incarnations. --NYScholar 15:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[24]

Scroll down to "Lewis Libby" and click on "show" to see the content of this notice: it was declared "inactive" by administrator in both incarnations. --NYScholar 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[reversed the order as archive 10 precedes archive 13. --NYScholar 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)]

Requests for comment/Biographies: Scroll down to "Lewis Libby"; two filed within 10 mins. of each other; a prev. RFC filed even earlier resulted in no comments at all (see editing histories and talk page archives in Talk:Lewis Libby --NYScholar 13:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Notmyrealname

NYScholar has made it impossible to have a civil discussion regarding identifying Lewis Libby as Jewish, whether to include various Jewish category labels to Libby, and whether to include Libby as the sole identified member of the Temple Rodef Shalom. Fermat1999 also made inappropriate entries on the Temple page, but NYScholar has repeatedly engaged in behavior that violates WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, among others. He has rejected my previous attempt of mediation, rejected the result of an rfa on the Libby talk page, and made personal attacks against myself and others on NYScholar's talk page, on my talk page, and on the Libby talk page. I have made several efforts to involve other editors into the original dispute by posting twice on the WP:BLPN page, and by encouraging other neutral editors to weigh in. An administrator that blocked NYScholar for a 3RR violation (and extended the block due to continued abusive edits by NYScholar) suggested that I bring this to arbitration.Notmyrealname 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am not seeking arbitration regarding the labeling of Libby as Jewish or not, but rather about NYScholar's conduct that has prevented everyone from being able to reach consensus on this issue. These actions include hundreds of edits per week (often per day), name calling and personal attacks against me and others (his recently archived talk page contains excellent examples), conspiracy theorizing, edit warring (including actions that led to a recent block), a rejection of the outcome of an rfc, and a refusal to engage in peaceful debate either on the relevant talk pages or through mediation. Additionally, I and several other editors are concerned that one of his main arguments in the content debate has been that the issue of Libby's Jewishness is relevant due to the fact that he was involved with US policy towards Israel, and his insistence in including Libby as the sole entry in a list of members of his Temple. Notmyrealname 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crockspot

I'm really only peripherally involved with this dispute. I am sure that I have removed Jewish categories from the article, citing WP:BLP, but I couldn't tell you when the last time was. I have made comments on the talk page regarding the use of religious categories as well. I haven't been paying much attention there lately, I'm working on other wiki stuff right now. But I am surprised that this dispute is still going on. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Use of categories is unambiguous. To continually violate it should result in a block for the user. It's a pretty cut and dried case. Not much else I can say. - Crockspot 00:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Addition to statement - For me, the only question here is this: Has the subject ever publicly self-identified as Jewish? I don't believe he ever has. If not, then we can't call him a Jew on Wikipedia. That's the current policy. It's really as simple as that. - Crockspot 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NYScholar

I have just seen this heading; the user is engaged in a personal vendetta that she/he seems unable to let go of. I have pointed out these problems before [beginning with my warning about her/his verging on 3RR: [25] way back on 25 Feb. 2007]: see my archived talk page 4 (linked below) for the history.] I [had] changed the heading of this arbitration request to focus on the content of articles rather than on contributors. [Re: references to WP:BLP; clearly, the subject (Lewis Libby) is a public figure and WP:BLP#Public figures applies to the article about him, which goes beyond biography; both tests in WP:BLP#Use of categories have been met, moreover; but see my talk page update (archive 4), where I question whether even "lawyer" as a category applies to Libby currently, due to the suspension of his law license by the D.C. Bar.] Having reviewed the block history of some of the administrators involved in disputes concerning subjects relating to Jewish topics and particularly to Israel, I have noticed that they remove one another's blocks and engage in trying to block users who disagree with them. I strongly suggest that any administrators involved in this arbitration request not also be involved in editing articles on those subjects so as to preserve neutrality and impartiality, so as not to violate WP:Neutral point of view and WP:POV in these articles. So far it appears that truly "neutral" editors and/or truly "neutral" administrators have not been "weighing in" on this content dispute. By repeatedly appealing in talk pages to clearly non-neutral administrators and clearly non-neutral users, Notmyrealname has not been seeking out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; instead, the user has been seeking out users who already agree with her/his POV and repeatedly rejecting the arguments of those disagreeing with him/her (See linked archive 10 of the BLP Noticeboard on Lewis Libby). I moved my full statement to my archived talk page 4: User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4#Archived fuller statement of response to the ArbCom; it provides links to various relevant talk page discussions. [[updated and shortened.].... As the other "interested parties" whom I have added (not added by Notmyrealname) comment in their statements and on talk pages, the matter concerns a long-standing editing content dispute, not me. Notmyrealname seems unable to acknowledge this fact, as her/his own emendation of the request indicates. --NYScholar 17:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC) [Further updated: shortened further by moving most recent passages to User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4#Your arbitration request.--NYScholar 02:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)]

Statement by Fermat1999

While I have not always agreed with NYScholar (in terms of including Libby's temple membership for example), I think some of his hyperediting and frustration has been caused by undue harrassment and even trolling by [jayjg], [notmyrealname] and [humus sapiens]. In particular, not so subtle suggestions of anti-semitism with no proof, and at times remarkable rude comments and personal attacks. A simple review of the history will show that.

Much like Tony Judt, I almost feel like I should disclose my background before I type further, even though I had no desire to originally. I don't consider myself jewish at all, but ethnically from my father's side I am, and I did do both church stuff and reform temple stuff as a kid. I also went to camp as a kid, and birthright as a teen. I of course support Israel's existence, but my politics have strong sympathies for palestinian rights, and I am strongly anti-war. Full disclosure. I try to be very non-biased in my editing, and previous to registering recently, primarily edited medical articles or pop culture on a semi-occasional basis.

What I thought was a harmless honest biographical comment on Libby being jewish has turned into a wiki nightmare. I remember being in early undergrad and having to verbally spar with friends who jokingly talked about a jewish conspiracy. While I knew they were joking, it still pissed me off deep down. But the relentless censoring in this case, is the type of behaviour that probably fuels such idiotic conspiracies. Here we have a politician that is powerful, involved in policymaking in Israel, and indicted for the crime of perjury, and somehow the fact that he is jewish is deemed 'not notable'? Virtually EVERY major politician has their religion and ethnicity noted. Gonzalez, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, ad nauseum for example. But in this case, with reliable documentation of Libby's ethnicity/religion, it is continiously being removed. And not only that, but those that support the inclusion of such information are being tagged as anti-semitic, initially indirectly and more recently directly. That is simply intolerable, and unfortunately such slander can lead to people to respond back with strong emotions. That is what I think has occured to nyscholar, and to some degree myself.

Lastly, I think some sort of audit needs to be done on jayjg in particular. His behaviour has crossed the line on what I think is reasonable administrator behaviour. I feel a bit guilty critisizing a longstanding member, being relatively new myself (at least in registered form), but I think to many NON RACIST and REASONABLE members of wikipedia, he has been amazingly hostile and rude. This is not to say that I myself can't improve. We all can strive to be better people I suppose.

To finish off, I never commented on the TEMPLE PAGE EVER. Not one edit. Anywhere. I never agreed with the inclusion of the Temple comment, and have stated that previously in the Libby article. Not sure where Notmyrealname came up with that total untruth, but I hope it helps explain some of the frustration some of us editors have had with Notmyrealname, jayjg and humus sapiens. Fermat1999 16:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Quatloo

I became aware of this issue only after reading about it on the BLP noticeboard, and I do not have involvement in editing articles on Jewish or political topics, with the exception that I once voted for keeping a category on Jewish Fencers because of the special relationship between those two groups (though I think I would vote against other Jewish sports categories unless such a situation existed also for that sport). I do have a general interest in BLP policy and in copyright. Some observations:

The fact that Libby is Jewish is supported by a reliable source, namely the Tulsa Jewish Review. That publication has been published continuously for over 70 years. In the point of Libby's case it is very specific to identify his temple. There are additional online sources for Libby's Jewishness which are not reliable, and I have noticed that editors will indicate those, and attempt to argue that the sources do not meet WP:RS. But the Tulsa Jewish Review meets WP:RS (it gives no requirement that the source not be regional or provincial, and indeed such a requirement would be absurd), and the question is moot. One cannot argue for exclusion of the fact based on its source.

We are thus reduced to the question, under BLP: Is this information germane to the article? The religion of all high government officials (elected or not, it makes no difference) ought to be included in the article. Religious issues often impact on questions of policy, and this is one of the most important pieces of background information on an individual. If reliably known it should be included. But even if one were to disagree with that postulation, the question boils down to: For a person involved in policymaking regarding Israel (as Libby definitely is), how can we possibly omit the fact that he is Jewish?

Any analysis beyond mere statement of religious affiliation would require citation of highly reliable sources. But statement alone does not require additional proof of relevance -- involvement in policymaking makes it relevant.

For this specific dispute, I am not familiar with the parties involved (I do not monitor the article in question), but if someone is forcing the deliberate omission or removal of this information from Libby's article, it is likely agenda-driven and that person should probably be stopped. As for the article on Temple Rodef Shalom itself, I express no opinion other than it is possible/likely the article lacks sufficient notability to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. Quatloo 13:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hornplease

I frequently review the BLP noticeboard, but was moved to intervene in this article following the posting of an RFC. My involvement in this is as best minimal, however, for reasons I discuss below.

My first statement was to point out that self-identification was central. In the absence of self-identification, a living individual cannot be categorised as belonging to a particular religion, or, indeed, identified as such in WP's voice. I feel very strongly about this; I have spent a lot of valuable time in the past keeping dubious religious identification out of political articles. (After one tiresome exchange with the now blocked Bakasuprman over Jyotiraditya Scindia, I had to go on extended wikibreak to recover my peace of mind.) I further stated that the linked article from the Israeli press clearly stated that prominent academics - Joshua Muravchik, whom I know and respect - thought that Libby's Jewishness was irrelevant to his status as a neocon. Given that, I was doubtful about the addition.

NYScholar's response to this was perfectly courteous, and indicated that he thought that membership in a temple, if a matter of public record, was tantamount to self-identification; and if reliable sources discuss a connection between notability and background, even if to dismiss it, it is encyclopaedic to note that. (I presume that the dismissal would be similarly noted).

The conversation moved on, to my surprise, to whether NYScholar was yellow-badging. This isnt a pleasant accusation. I tried to steer the conversation back to the point that was raised - is public membership of a religious organisation tantamount to self-identification? - as that is a question of profound importance to other articles. I asked Jay, who had brought up the yellow-badging, to comment on this issue, as I value his opinion on this precedent, but asked him to keep it civil.

This didnt go down well. "A rather odd thing to request; perhaps you can lead by demonstrating it in the first place". Err. That got rid of me pretty quickly.

Overall, I'd like to say that this looks less like ownership and more like a user that is convinced of the applicability of a particular fact on this page; and that he should be encouraged to discuss policy more carefully. He doesnt seem to have a problem with incivility as an automatic reflex.

I would like to add my voice to that of others on the page indicating that shutting down discussion by readily flinging around accusations isnt helpful; and I, personally, decided not to edit the page further as I didnt want to be accused even tangentially by Jay of being anti-Semitic. As a distinctly philo-Semitic person, that kind of thing hurts.

If the problem was NYScholar's excessive energy in thousands of edits to the talkpage before anyone has a chance to reply, I would like to point out that there are many other people who do that kind of thing, and some of them are represented on this page.

I urge ArbCom to take this up.

Clerk notes

• Per advice of an arbitrator, this request is still being reviewed. Clerks please do not remove until requested, even if 10 days since filing have elapsed. Newyorkbrad 03:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Four net votes to open the case, noted. Will be opened absent a change in the near future. Newyorkbrad 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/1/0/0)

• Decline as premature. Postings on the BLP noticeboard are not part of the dispute resolution process; please pursue one of the preliminary steps before bringing this to arbitration. Kirill Lokshin 15:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, as the previous steps have apparently been pursued, and are merely not properly linked here. Kirill Lokshin 22:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. FloNight 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. I don't see useful results coming from this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Fred Bauder 02:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Paul August ☎ 03:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Request for modification of remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

In this arbitration case, I was placed on general probation. Initially highly upset at the remedy, I left Wikipedia for several months. I have since returned, and for the most part, the probation was not a serious problem. Today, however, it happened to come up in a discussion on a completely unrelated issue. I feel that the subsequent results were unproductive. I don't want to have a general probation hanging over my head forever to be brought up by someone any and every time I am involved in a discussion over Wikipedia policy or user conduct. I would like to learn what I need to do for the ArbCom to lift the probation. Obviously, if the arbitrators are willing to do so at this time, it would be most appreciated; but, if they feel that such a modification would not currently be appropriate for whatever reason, I would like some advice as to what specific action(s) I need to take in order to regain community trust and have this punishment removed. --Crotalus horridus 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What was the context in which the probation was brought up? You've been on probation for a year now; that seems a long time to me, and the whole "userbox" fuss seems quite over. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this ANI thread. Newyorkbrad 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Crotalus horridus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As a side note, Newyorkbrad was very helpful as an ad hoc mediator during the AN/I incident, and he deserves commendation for keeping a cool head, assuming good faith on all sides, and helping to defuse a volatile situation. User:Crotalus horridus 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the arbitration committee will take this seriously. Notwithstanding my reaction to a recent edit by Crotalus on an admin page, I've no idea whether his formerly problematic behavior continues to be a serious risk. Crotalus horridus has apologised gracefully and I consider the matter closed.

I've not interacted with Crotalus, to my recollection, in over a year, but looking at his talk page I notice this warning from RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), just over a month ago, about Crotalus' creation of an article (now deleted) apparently called Brian Peppers in popular culture. After a year of almost complete inactivity on Wikipedia, Crotalus had resumed regular editing one week before. One of his first edits was this Brian Peppers-related edit. It's entirely possible that he didn't fully recollect the Brian Peppers situation. He doesn't seem to have pursued the matter after receiving RHaworth's warning. The block log also indicates a single recent block, under the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, apparently for edit warring on Racism. --Tony Sidaway 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your statement, Tony. Your summary of my recent activity is accurate, although I would also appreciate if the ArbCom would take note of the work I have done on articles such as Silver center cent (a current GA nominee), and 1913 Liberty Head Nickel, as well as on various other articles (most of them uncontroversial). As for the 3RR block, I allowed myself to get sucked into a nasty edit war, and that was clearly a mistake. I've decided to keep a distance from such controversial articles for a while, to avoid a recurrance. User:Crotalus horridus 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we assume good faith here? The editor has been on probation for a year, but in his own words he has been away for much of it. In the time he's been here, he's been mucking about with Brian Peppers - a subject that has been a magnet for much disruption and trolling. Maybe he knew nothing of the debate and contention there and spontaneously, innocently and coincidentally decided to add stuff about Peppers, or maybe he was engaging the the same deliberately provocative behaviour that got him put on probation in the first place. Fortunately, arbcom and not I get to make that call.--Doc^g 15:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, the primary reason I created the article is that I wanted to examine current community consensus and to determine whether it was possible to mention the subject in any encyclopedic context in a way that would be acceptable to the community. It was deleted, I posted to DRV, and the motion was rejected; the community has made its wishes clear that Peppers not be mentioned, and I have no intention of revisiting the issue in the future. I do not believe my behavior in this matter was disruptive; it was not intended to be so and no disruption took place, just a normal discussion on DRV. User:Crotalus horridus 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is more normal to discern community consensus by discussion, not by conducting two breeching experiments.--Doc^g 18:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Crotalus has taken almost a year off (very few edits between April 2006 and March 2007). I suggest a similar motion to the one recently approved for SPUI in the Highways case, allowing the probation to expire 6 months from Crotalus' return to active editing (i.e. now) or 6 months from the last enforcement action under the probation, whichever is later. Thatcher131 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I have no intention of starting any trouble. User:Crotalus horridus 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Having Crotalus contributing properly can only be a win. Redemption should always be on offer.--Doc^g 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one of you (Thatcher131?) would draft such a motion, I'll put it in the "motions" section below. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's this: Since Crotalus horridus has indicated a desire to return to productive editing, as an encouragement, his probation shall terminate six months from now, or from the last enforcement action, whichever is the later. --Doc^g 20:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That could be read to inadvertently imply a finding that his recent editing has not been productive. I suggest simply "Crotalus horridus' probation shall terminate six months from the date of this motion or the date of the last enforcement action, if any, under his probation, whichever is later." Newyorkbrad 20:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying that - I'm stating it. But since the effect of your wording is the same, i've no objections.--Doc^g 20:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think the arbitrators will need or want to get into the middle of whether characterizing the quality of Crotalus's editing over the past month as disruptive or not. Suffice it to say to Crotalus that, as he seems now to realize, it would be best for him to steer clear of edits that could raise such an issue. Newyorkbrad 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for additional remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

• Davenbelle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Moby Dick (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Diyarbakir (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cool Cat (talk • contribs) 02:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick
• Commons block rationale of Pfctdayelise ^{(Moby Dick block log at commmons)}
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir

In its decision of August 13, 2006 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick, the Arbitration Committee found that Moby Dick had harassed Cool Cat. The remedies included a prohibition of further harassment as well as topic-ban of Moby Dick from editing articles concerning Turkey or Kurdish issues. Reference was made to a prior case finding that Davenbelle also harassed Cool Cat, and the decision implies a finding that Davenbelle and Moby Dick were the same user.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir finds that Diyarbakir is a sockpuppet of Moby Dick. WP:AE#User:MobyDick finds that Diyarbakir (i.e., Moby Dick) has harassed Cool Cat by repeatedly stalking and reverting his edits and has edited Kurdish-related articles in violation of the topic ban. As a result, Thatcher131 blocked Moby Dick for two weeks.

To prevent further attempts at evading the remedies against Moby Dick, I request that ArbCom enact an additional remedy requiring Moby Dick to edit from only one account. This type of remedy has been used several times in the past and I believe it is appropriate here. Newyorkbrad 16:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that editor doing something useful that outweighs his evident inability to keep from harassing Cool Cat? This has been going on for over two years now. --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to second what Tony says...enough is enough.--MONGO 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If it has to be spelled out that sockpuppetry isn't allowed to break rules (much less harassing others), then so be it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• To summarise the cases, Davenbelle made a nuisance of himself on the political articles and got banned from those, then he harassed Cool Cat and was told that "If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed." So he turns up a while later as Moby Dick, harasses Cool Cat again, as well as Megaman Zero, then gets identified as Davenbelle and is banned from Turkey and Kurdish issues and banned from harassing Cool Cat, Megaman Zero, and other users in general. Now he's back and socking again, breaking his topic ban and harassing Cool Cat. At this stage it's obvious that he's determined to circumvent any sanction, so the ultimate, an arbitration committee one year ban followed permanent general probation, would be merited in my opinion. The arbitration committee's promise of "substantial penalties", made nearly two years ago now, must be made good. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added links to the individual debates over Davenbelle's behavior. Davenbelle/Moby Dick was also "active" on commons which he was blocked for. While commons is beyond the scope of arbcom, Commons:User:Moby Dick's contribution there should be seen as a mirror of Davenbelle's continuing behavior. I also feel User:Moby Dick should be treated as a sockpuppet of Davenbelle unless Davenbelle declares it as his primary username. -- Cat ^chi? 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the most recent block indefinite. Moby Dick really has no useful contributions outside of an impressive amount of stalking, and there is no reason not to consider him banned. Dmcdevit·t 03:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Modification of remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

Crotalus horridus' probation shall terminate six months from the date of the acceptance this motion or the date of the last enforcement action, if any, under his probation, whichever is later.

Clerk note: There are presently 11 active arbitrators, so a majority is 6. Newyorkbrad 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. So moved. See above for discussion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support after reading the above discussion. Good luck, Crotalus horridus. Hope the next six months are uneventful and you are off probation then. FloNight 20:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 01:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)