Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

ChrisGriswold

Initiated by John254 at 03:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• ChrisGriswold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • Superburgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Truth in Comedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This matter has been discussed extensively on WP:ANI and on Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChrisGriswold. Two administrators have suggested that this matter be submitted directly to the Arbitration Committee [2] [3].

Statement by John254

As found on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChrisGriswold, ChrisGriswold has used the accounts Superburgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Truth in Comedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the purpose of abusive sockpuppetry. ChrisGriswold used Superburgh to disrupt Taylor Allderdice High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as described in the statement by 0-0-0-Destruct-0 accompanying the initial checkuser request, and used Truth in Comedy for disruption in a dispute with SpyMagician as described on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ChrisGriswold#Very_wrong. Additionally, ChrisGriswold deleted User:Superburgh and repeatedly deleted User:Truth in Comedy [4] [5] in an apparent effort to conceal the sockpuppet notices which provided evidence of his misconduct. This is not appropriate behavior for a user entrusted with administrative privileges on Wikipedia. John254 03:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

Also note there was an earlier incident in January in which Chris was adding a newly created template Template:Db-comedy to multiple articles while logged out. Special:Contributions/24.3.194.217. He then, while logged in, used admin rollback to restore the tags after another admin had removed them and denied the speedy deletion request [6] [7]. This was the subject of a discussion on his user talk page initiated by Dmcdevit. The discussion has been erased from the talk page which Chris subsequently deleted and then restored; it may be seen under the section heading {{db-comedy}} in [8] this deleted revision. Thatcher131 07:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by (un)involved Neigel von Teighen

My story is this: I'm advocating User:0-0-0-Destruct-0 (who requested the Checkuser) in a mediation case, regarding a page that ChrisGriswold edited using his primary and his sockpuppet accounts, leading into controversial edits. Somehow, I'm indirectly involved on this because I was who adviced Destruct to make the Checkuser... And we wanted Chris into the mediation.

My impression, with the evidence known at the moment I write, is that ChrisGriswold has been enough "punished" by this sudden Checkuser and the community's reaction. In my honest opinion, ArbCom should limit itself to place a reasonable preventive rule to avoid a similar behaivor in the future.

Of course, it's just my personal opinion and I won't participate on this arbitration and won't mix this case with the other mediation process 0-0-0-Destruct-0 and I are taking. --Neigel von Teighen 17:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ChrisGriswold

With an odd sense of relief, I would like to offer to step down as an administrator. I would like to explain in detail my feelings on the matter, and I have written down some of it, but it is late here now, and I expect I will post here about this tomorrow instead. None of you need be troubled anymore by this situation. I hope this will be penance enough for my missteps because I would prefer to have the opportunity, after some time away, to redeem myself in the future. I apologize to anyone this has inconvenienced. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/0/0)

• Accept. And, as far as the request for minimizing publicity: reject, personally. ChrisGriswold should have thought of this before beginning abusive sockpuppetry, which he I am sure knew was very disapproved of. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Change to reject since ChrisGriswold has done the right thing and asked to remove his adminship; note that given the circumstances he must re-pass RFA to regain adminship. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill Lokshin 08:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Accept, in light of evidence of prior warnings about sock puppetry. (I will see the case as unnecessary if ChrisGriswold agrees to voluntarily give up his admin with the understanding that he must have permission from ArbCom or go through a RFA to regain it.) FloNight 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Change to oppose since he is voluntarily giving up admin position. FloNight 11:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Accept, but would rather see it mooted by ChrisGriswold's voluntary action, should that occur. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 19:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict

Initiated by PeeJay at 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daddy Kindsoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User talk:PeeJay2K3
• User talk:Daddy Kindsoul

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict
• User talk:PeeJay2K3
• User talk:Daddy Kindsoul

Statement by PeeJay2K3

This is about the neutrality of the edits made by Daddy Kindsoul to the article 2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict. It is my belief that his edits are biased and do not accurately reflect the incidents in question, as referenced to in sources in the article itself. The edits he has made give off a definite anti-Manchester United sentiment, and are inappropriate to Wikipedia.

Daddy Kindsoul has repeatedly ignored the attempts of both myself and Darkson to resolve this matter, despite providing incontrovertible evidence supporting our accounts of the incident. Therefore, I put this article up for arbitration as it seems that we will not be able to put an end to this disagreement through diplomacy.

Comment (not statement) by DaddyKindsoul

I'd like to say that PeeJay2K3 had never made me aware that he had opened a Request for Comment on the talkpage previously.[9] He couldn't be bothered to leave a message on my talkpage making me aware of the RfC (which initiatiors are supposed to do). As the article isn't on my watch list I didnt see it before, though I am willing to participate in the RfC resolution attempt, so this arbitration can be discarded as per the policy which states other means must be tried first in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

I have replied as part of the Request for Comment; on Talk:2007_AS_Roma-Manchester_United_conflict#Comment instead. - Daddy Kindsoul 20:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline, premature; please try other forms of dispute resolution first. Kirill Lokshin 01:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Decline as premature. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. - SimonP 13:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Reject per Kirill Lokshin. FloNight 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Accept content must reflect the references cited Fred Bauder 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Decline as premature. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Soviet occupation of Romania

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

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

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

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

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

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

[14]

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

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

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[18]

[19]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [20] (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)

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)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/0/1)

• 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)
• Reject. Seems mostly to be a content dispute. - SimonP 13:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to consider edit warring over tags and provide guidance on content issues. Fred Bauder 17:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Paul August ☎ 20:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

NYScholar

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

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)
• Fermat1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --NYScholar 09:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Hornplease (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --NYScholar 08:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Wassermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --NYScholar 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Quatloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --NYScholar 09:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[21]

[22]

[23]

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

[25]: 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)

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

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

[28]

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[30]

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)

[31]

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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: [32] 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.] --NYScholar 11:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC) [updated further w/ a link; see last of my updates below as well. --NYScholar 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)]

[See my objections to this (misleading and inaccurate) presentation of what is a long-standing editing content dispute. See my comments in Talk:Lewis Libby. I strenuously object to this so-called "arbitration request" focusing on me; I objected to the same attempt to focus on me rather than on the content in dispute in the articles by this user in her/his so-called "mediation request": see its history. Please see my own talk page archive 4 for my clear statements and links disputing the chronology and the facts as set forth by Notmyrealname. Many other parties object to Notmyrealname's et al.'s deletions from Lewis Libby, which also pertain to their deletions from Temple Rodef Shalom [and other articles, which continue; see comment posted on 30 April 2007 by another concerned user, User talk: Nbauman in my own talk page, in User talk:NYScholar#What's with these Jewish links?. --NYScholar 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)] I saw this change of the heading after spending a lot of time working on additional sources in the talk page for further improvement of the article. This user has apparently no interest in the subject of the articles themselves, and is intent only on persisting in this personal attack on another contributor, in this case me. I find this further attempt to do so outrageous. The user is unable to abide by the previous lack of support in the BLP noticeboard, and is now trying this method. --NYScholar 13:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[Edited; Rest of my statement is archived in my talk page archive 4. --NYScholar 00:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC); [updated in brackets. --NYScholar 13:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)]

[See also the equally-false and misleading and self-serving account filed by Notmyrealname in another request (Association of Members' Advocates) in March 2007 here: [33]. This so-called "arbitration request" is clearly premature, since this other request is still open and unresolved. This user has not disclosed (in the section on "other steps" above) that this Members' Advocates request exists and is still open and unresolved prior to the filing of this (I think premature and highly inaccurate, misleading, and self-serving) so-called "arbitration request" focusing on another contributor (me). As the other "interested parties" whom I have added (not added by Notmyrealname) comment in their statements and 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)]

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)

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)

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)
• 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)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/1/0/0)

• 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)
• Accept, as the previous steps have apparently been pursued, and are merely not properly linked here. Kirill Lokshin 22:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. FloNight 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. I don't see useful results coming from this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 02:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Accept Paul August ☎ 03:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

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)

• 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)

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

• 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).

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

• 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)
• I have to second what Tony says...enough is enough.--MONGO 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

Motions in prior cases

(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)

Support:

1. So moved. See above for discussion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
3. Paul August ☎ 03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose:

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

Abstain:

Archives

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