Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | NYScholar

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

1 Motions and requests by the parties
2 Proposed temporary injunctions
3 Questions to the parties
4 Proposed final decision

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Proposal for Fred Bauder to be recused from arbitration of this case

1) Fred Bauder has made an unfounded personal attack against Notmyrealname, one of the parties to this case. See [1]. Notmyrealname 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

No one who grapple seriously with the questions involved in this case is going to avoid offense to the participants in the dispute. The Workshop is a search for answers, not a final judgment. Fred Bauder 14:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

When something goes to arbitration, all editors involved in disputes have their edits scrutinised. The problem here is that Notmyrealname is not a neutral participant, so is unable to proceed in a neutral way. Fred is simply finding evidence in the case, and if someone doesn't like it - well that's tough. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally, recusal is not warranted for comments made by an arbitrator during a case itself—every arbitrator expresses a view on one or more participants in the case at some point, whether on the workshop or in voting, and if that were disqualifying, we would soon be fresh out of arbitrators. Compare the mainspace article on recusal. There is often significant change made to the proposals and the phrasing before the workshop and the final decision. Newyorkbrad 19:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see that the bar is rather high in these cases. I'm fine with removing this proposal (is the proper procedure to delete or strike though?). I would ask Fred to be a little more thoughtful with his labels and links. The comments from all other editors seem to show that I was not alone in perceiving his characterization (and his supposed evidence) to be out of line. Notmyrealname 19:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the matter can just be dropped now, and I expect that the arbitrators will consider the feedback on this page, including yours and mine, in writing the final decision (that's what the page is here for). Newyorkbrad 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Unblock NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for duration of ArbCom hearing to participate in proceeding.

1) He was blocked for Legal Threats. It was a legitimate block and it appears to have arisen out of frustration with this proceeding. He does not appear to be disruptive and his participation here doesn't inhibit participation by other editors in the same way it stifles work on articles. In fact, being blocked under the cloud of threat is probably more inhibitive than hearing his concerns in his own voice. --Tbeatty 05:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Endorsed - He apparently wasn't aware of WP:LEGAL, he should retract and be unblocked so that he can participate. - Crockspot 05:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed - Legal threats have now been rescinded on his talk page and he has requested unblock. I've brought his unblock request to WP:ANI so someone can review - Alison ☺ 06:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

NYScholar has now modified his comments and been unblocked, so hopefully this is moot. Newyorkbrad 06:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse Unblock of NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) above

2) Reverse Unblock of NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) above. He was unblocked so that he could participate in this proceeding, yet he refuses to participate, and uses the extended duration of this proceeding (extended by his refusal to participate) as an excuse to continue with his troublesome editing pattern. - Crockspot 17:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Identification of religion and sexual orientation

1) The special criteria set forth in WP:BLP regarding the use of categories extends, in principle, to the use of Wikipedia's editorial voice in article content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

All you need for article content is a reliable source, categories have an attribute of labeling which requires additional care. Fred Bauder 19:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is my proposal. Obviously endorsed, unless a better alternative is posed. - Crockspot 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Strongly support. I would suggest the following modifications, however. Remove "in principle." I would also add that "as well as to all other areas of the page, including references, citations, bibliography, etc." One of the troublesome actions here is the user's repeated inclusions of relatively obscure references and citations that appear to serve no other purpose than to include information that would be otherwise prohibited per Wikipedia rules. Notmyrealname 20:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I support this modification to my proposal. I have noticed sources added that seem to only be there because of the flashy title mentioning "Jewish". - Crockspot 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strongly support. This is exactly what I stated when responding to the RfC[2]. Hornplease 16:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
While a true statement, this broad principle will not address any relevant point in a precise enough way as to yield a usable answer. There are too many nuances. I understand that this is intended as a proposed principle, but this principle needs to be narrowed down. Quatloo 17:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Approve Notmyrealname 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The request for comment process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes, and is wasteful of resources and destructive to morale.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Approve Notmyrealname 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership of articles

4) Wikipedia editors are expected to work collaboratively to improve the encyclopedia. Working on an article does not entitle an editor to own the article, it is important to respect the work of fellow contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Approve Notmyrealname 03:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed but may need refactoring. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mileage may vary

5) As noted in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well_known_public_figures the applicability of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons varies with the situation. What is appropriate in a particular instance is determined by sound editorial judgment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Disagree as written There is no such exception made in the restrictions placed on categorization regarding religion or sexual orientation. I would change to "agree" if it were amended to reflect this.Notmyrealname 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Can the proposer quote the relevant text he is referring to? Quatloo 08:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Yellow badging

6) Excessive identification of people as "Jews" is inappropriate. Generally, some nexus of the individual with Jewish ethnicity or religion of significance or interest must exist for identification to be appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Brad -- it's a practice that long preceded the Nazis. Yellow badging is a good term for it; in other times, it was funny hats and special clothes imposed upon the Jewish populace. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Remove section, I agree with the principle, though this section does not apply to this arbitration case as simple identification in Libby's article is relevant and hardly "excessive." Quatloo 08:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I endorse the principle, but the section title is unnecessary and inflammatory. Newyorkbrad 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of this on Wikipedia is carried on by anti-Semitic activists. Fred Bauder 18:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to be referring to Nazi practices in the context of a Wikipedia arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 20:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To jpgordon: thanks, I learned something new today (after reading your comment, I took a look at yellow badge). But I still think I will not be the only editor to react in this way. Newyorkbrad 20:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's avoid debating anti-Semitism specifically, and at the same time, make this more generally useful, by broadening. I am sure you are aware of people who right now are edit warring over categorizing people as Serbs or Scientologists or... There's an entire section devoted to this here: Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Ethnic feuds. May I steal most, but not quite all, of Fred's words here? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We have here and have seen recently, in the case of User:Rbj, situations where missteps of one sort or another have been characterized as anti-Semitism. We deal regularly here with actual anti-Semitism. It is important to be able to discuss this and to appropriately differentiate between differing situations. It does not do to wildly strike out at people editing in good faith. Fred Bauder 16:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with JPG. Someone's interests/contributions is one thing, but identification is another. Unless a person self-identifies as XYZ, it is wrong for someone else to assume his race, ethnicity, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive identification

6.1) Excessive identification of people by religion or ethnicity is inappropriate. Generally, some nexus of the individual with the ethnicity or religion of significance or interest must exist for identification to be appropriate. In other words, such identification represents undue weight unless either the person themselves, or reliable sources, discuss the identification.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Problem is, "excessive" in this and many cases is just a single word. The Jewish arbitrator jpgordon wonders how one can quantify "excessive" there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Blatantly plagiarized, with minor reformulation. I assume that was under GFDL, Fred? :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Smartass... Fred Bauder 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The muscine editor isn't sure how "the information that Lewis Libby and his family are members of a Reform Jewish congregation" could have been squeezed into a single word. Maybe-it-was-a-really-long-word-with-hyphens? :-) As for adding the category, the muscine editor respectfully refers the Jewish arbitrator to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Use of categories, and its requirement for either public self-identification or relevance according to reliable sources. A good rule of thumb for most instances is, if someone objects, cite it or strike it. For BLPs, the same applies only more so, we need better citations. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a strong improvement over 6. (Minor copyedit per clarity, with proposer's permission.) Newyorkbrad 20:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Excessive" sounds awfully vague. Does the principle apply only to living persons? An interesting sidelight is the archive of Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality. After five years of revert warring, people finally classified him as a "European astronomer" (rather than Polish/German). --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Close questions

7) When what the appropriate policy is regarding a matter is unclear, the solution is not edit warring but continued discussion and submission of the question to appropriate dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Approve Notmyrealname 03:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Good faith disputes

8) Actions taken by users in the course of a good faith dispute are generally not subject to sanction unless they violate the boundaries of reasonable behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] The end does not justify the means

9) There is no goal so noble that it justifies the inappropriate or insensitive treatment of religion or sexual orientation regarding a living person. Editors are cautioned not to allow passion about a subject to cloud their common sense and good judgment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - Crockspot 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree Notmyrealname 02:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove section As inclusion of the fact in question is neither inappropriate nor insensitive, it is a mere statement of fact, this section is unnecessary. Quatloo 08:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] You have to do more than show up

10) Membership in a house of worship does not satisfy the requirement of "public self-identification" described in BLP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Notmyrealname 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For clearer examples of what public self-identification reasonably means, see [3] Notmyrealname 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree - Crockspot 16:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. Participation in public services is public self-identification, by definition. Quatloo 08:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Connection between policy and religion

11) Having a connection to Israeli policy, by itself, does not satisfy the requirement in BLP that in order to identify a person's religion, a person's beliefs must be relevant to their notable activities or public life.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Notmyrealname 02:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. One's religion is relevant if dealing with policy towards a religious state founded on the same religion. Quatloo 08:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Wikipedia's unattributed editorial voice

12) Although not transparently understandable, the notion of Wikipedia's unattributed editorial voice, introduced by Crockspot, deserves attention. It is the the optional choices made by editors regarding article content, the discretionary choices available. Differing choices, strongly supported, offer the possibility of disputes regarding content which lie outside that part of content resolved by reference to established policy and guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is far too vague for me to understand what you're trying to say here. Notmyrealname 02:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse This is almost a truism. While the stated objective is a neutral voice, neutral is relative to the editor (and even more concerning is groups of likeminded editors). Especially where such distinctly polarizing subjects such as politics are concerned. I personally prefer a sympathetic voice in biographies as I think it is easier to achieve a more consistent editorial voice but that only addresses biographies. It would be interesting to try and separate articles into a sympathetic and critically voiced sections but that is a hard concept to implement fairly. --Tbeatty 04:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overwhelming talk pages is not discussion

13) The most effective and persuasive arguments on talk pages are usually brief and to the point. Filling up talk pages and their archives, and then demanding that new editors read all previous postings before making new edits, does not promote consensus, and is a form of edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Notmyrealname 02:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] NYScholar's history

1) NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been blocked three times for edit warring [4] [5] [6]. He has also previously been blocked twice for disruption and incivility [7] [8]. During this arbitration case, NYScholar was blocked indefinately due to making a legal threat [9], but this was later overturned after he rescinded the threat and to take part in the case [10].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

AgreeNotmyrealname 02:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility by NYScholar

2) NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been incivil towards other editors [11].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree Notmyrealname 02:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership by NYScholar

3) NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has tried to enforce ownership of articles [12] [13].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree Notmyrealname 02:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editing by NYScholar

4) NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has edited disruptively on the Lewis Libby article[14].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree Notmyrealname 02:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nexus of dispute

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Strongly disagree. This arbitration matter regards the inappropriate conduct of NYScholar. This user made it impossible to reach consensus on the Libby page as well as on other articles as shown in the evidence section. He edits have violated WP:CIV and WP:OWN, among other policies. Notmyrealname 18:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem a little misguided here, the scope of the arbitration case is decided by the arbitration committee based on the evidence that is provided, and the evidence that is freely available to them by looking at article histories, users contribs and discussions elsewhere, if they decide that this is the locus of the dispute, then that's what this case is going to look into. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. My first sentence seems out of place then. The rest of my comments still stand. Notmyrealname 19:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The behavior of NYScholar will be considered as well as the behavior of his opponents. Fred Bauder 03:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure who you are referring to here, but personally I consider myself a "frustrated interlocutor" rather than an "enemy." Notmyrealname 02:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Lewis Libby

6) Lewis Libby is a prominent American political operative who was convicted in 2007 of perjury related to his testimony regarding events related to his employment at the White House.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is irrelevant to the proceedings here. Arbitration is not a forum to discuss content of articles. Notmyrealname 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is applied to a subject can vary depending on the status of a person as a prominent person or felon. See "Mileage may vary" above. Fred Bauder 03:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Notmyrealname, the proposal isn't a judgment on the content. I presume it's intended to provide basic background information on what the dispute is, particularly for readers outside the United States. Newyorkbrad 02:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the finding ties in with the principle above, "Mileage may vary". Biographies of living persons applies differently to persons rendered infamous by felony conviction as compared to innocents inadvertently caught up in a glare of publicity. Fred Bauder 03:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, good point, thanks. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-cons

7) Due to the notoriety and prominence of the neo-cons and their strong support of the state of Israel, the ethnicity and religious orientation of prominent neo-cons is of interest, if not always of significance. See, for example, Murray Friedman. The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. Cambridge University Press, 2006. ISBN 0521545013

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 17:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Strongly oppose First, there are people from many ethnicities and faiths that are identified as "neo-cons" (e.g. Dick Cheney). Second, support for Israeli policy is not limited to Jews, nor do Jews monolithically support Israeli policy. Third, "of interest" does not override the requirements in WP:BLP regarding religion and sexual orientation. Notmyrealname 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If Cambridge University finds it of interest enough to print a book about it, we can mention it. Fred Bauder 18:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You kind of miss the point. Of course, Dick Chaney and William Buckley are not Jewish. They may not even be properly termed neo-cons. What they are are is conservatives who are not anti-Semitic. The finding of fact does not address the question of general Jewish support for Israel nor lack support of Israel by others. What it does is point out is that passing mention that a prominent neo-con is Jewish is of at least passing interest. The Jewish neo-cons generally have secular backgrounds, similar to Libby's lukewarm and nominal Temple membership. Fred Bauder 18:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the book or are you just going by the title? Libby, to my knowledge, has never been accused of being an intellectual. Further, and more disturbingly, the implication is that anyone identified as a "neo-con" (by whom?), or anyone involved in US/Israeli policy should, if Jewish, have their religion or ethnicity listed. I strongly object. Notmyrealname 02:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your logic Fred. Libby's religion may or may not be relevant but it is independant of his political position. It would be like identifying the Germannic roots of politicians that oppose Israel policy. It may be relevant but not necessarily. --Tbeatty 05:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, the scope of this case stops at Libby, and is not about neocons in general. Quatloo 08:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strong Oppose There is no correlation between neo-con and ethnicity or religion. Ethnicity and religion are of interest to the individual biography, not a particular political affiliation. Jewish people support democrats and republicans. The religion and ethinicity is relevant to their own backgrounds. For example, Joe Lieberman is a prominent Jewish lawmaker. He is also a Democrat. His faith is significant because of the role it plays in his life, not because he is an elected official and not because he is a Democrat and not because he supports Israel. Tying the relevance of his religion to political beliefs is offensive. --Tbeatty 05:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Jewish lobby

8) There is a "Jewish lobby" on Wikipedia consisting of editors who closely monitor questions concerning Israel, Zionism and related matters. From time to time these editors take exaggerated nationalist positions or display exaggerated ethnic sensitivity [15].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty vile naming there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Not only do I strongly oppose but I think this post crosses the line into a personal attack (note that link refers to my previous comment which displays none of the characteristics of the accusation. I move that this editor be prohibited from further posting on this case. Notmyrealname 18:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your particular posting is not nationalist in nature, that is probably not the appropriate term. Perhaps "ethnic sensitivity" might serve. Fred Bauder 18:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And, by the way, saying you are an advocate for your own people or national homeland is not a personal attack. Fred Bauder 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First, you do not know whether or not I am Jewish. Second, you claim I am part of a "lobby." Third, you say I take "exaggerated positions" or "display exaggerated ethnic sensitivity." I do take offense, and quite reasonably so. I think it is time for this administrator to recuse himself from this case. Notmyrealname 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. No evidence is presented to demonstrate the organization necessary to call these behaviors a "lobby." Quatloo 00:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The section heading and wording are ill-chosen and have very unfortunate overtones. (Notmyrealname, note that Fred Bauder is one of the arbitrators.) Newyorkbrad 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, looking at this more closely, I find that the link provided in no way supports the proposal. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Aieee... my ears and whiskers... what Newyorkbrad wrote. There is a Jewish lobby, a Serbian lobby, a Scientologist lobby, an Armenian lobby, an Azeri lobby, a Moldovan lobby, an Indian lobby (both American and South Asian), a Muslim lobby (Shiite and Sunni and ...) ... not to mention the PETA lobby, the US Democrat, US Republican, US Libertarian, UK Conservative, UK Labor, Taiwanese, mainland Chinese... and these are just those that have made an appearance at the Arbcom in the last few months! Let's not single out any one group, shall we -- or the others will feel we don't love them as much! :-) May I make a counter-proposal, again? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Brad. Not only that, there are groups that form to oppose the other groups. To single one group out that is especially sensitive to the term "nationalist" and not recognize that there are groups that oppose it is too narrow. For example, I doubt there would be a proposed finding of fact that there are anti-semite groups on Wikipedia that oppose Israel. --Tbeatty 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factions

8.1) There is an unfortunate tendency to form cliques, factions, or lobbies based on religious, ethnic, or nationalist grounds, consisting of editors who closely monitor questions on chosen topics, and react as advocates rather than engage in reasoned and constructive debate in an effort to make the encyclopedia better.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Add to that ideological, social, geographical, political, moral, etc. Factions happen; "unfortunate" perhaps, but "inevitable". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The formulation is definitely better than 8, although I haven't studied this case closely enough to know whether it applies to the editors under scrutiny here. Newyorkbrad 20:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factions

(8.2) There is a natural tendency for editors with similar interests to monitor and edit articles on chosen topics. Although many editors voluntarily chose to participate in WikiProjects this is not required. To attribute or insinuate nefarious motives to such editors is a form of conspiracy theorizing and is not a helpful contribution in editing disputes. Notmyrealname 02:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The fact that Wikipedia articles are closely monitored by Jewish advocates ties in with the unique history of oppression Jews have faced. A vanilla finding like this does not adequately express the situation. Fred Bauder 17:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You are making broad generalizations without offering evidence. How can you know the motivations of editors? What is a "Jewish advocate" anway? Notmyrealname 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I need to cite specific evidence for the long history of oppression of the Jews or that modern Jews are concerned about how Israels and Jews in general are portrayed in the media. Motivation can often be reliably inferred from behavior. "Jewish advocate" is an unfortunate formulation. What do you suggest? Fred Bauder 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, Jews have had a hard time of it. No evidence needed. The second part about "modern Jews" is a generalization. There are some advocacy groups concerned with media representation, although not specifically about the history of oppression, but this is true for many, many other religious and ethnic groups, and not relevant to this editing dispute regarding Wikipedia editors. In any case, I was referring to your statement about the close monitoring by Jewish advocates, and the earlier proposal about a "Jewish Lobby." From my experience, clusters of editors focus on certain topics that interest them for a variety of reasons. You would have to provide some evidence that editors who primarily edit on Jewish topics and people are in some way acting differently than other groups of editors on other topics. Notmyrealname 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Notmyrealname 02:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Jayjg

9) It is maintained that Jayjg played a prominent role in these incidents, engaging in biased editing and making accusations of yellow badging, see the statements by Fermat1999 and Hornplease.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Tentative, pending evidence Fred Bauder 13:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Add me too, then, since I also remove yellow badging when I see it, though admittedly I do it quietly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is poorly worded. There is no singular "incident," but rather many incidents over several articles, as laid out by many editors on the evidence page. Notmyrealname 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I find it Orwellian to single out someone who criticized this incivility, instead of reprimanding those who engage in yellow badging. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suppose the concern is that the accusations were (per evidence) false in this case. We all remove unnecessary religious affiliations when we see them. A glance at my contributions should demonstrate that. Hornplease

[edit] Exaggerated response

10) Two editors have commented on the exaggerated response to addition of the information that Lewis Libby was Jewish to his article, see comments by Quatloo and Hornplease

Comment by Arbitrators:

Tentative pending evidence Fred Bauder 13:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Editing by NYScholar

11) On March 1, 2007 NYScholar adds a section about the controversy regarding Libby's ethnicity [16]

On March 16 NYScholar added a section to Lewis Libby concerning "Libby's Jewish affiliations" [17], adding more references [18] December, 2005 Tulsa Jewish Review, now removed.

These edits occurred in the context of an ongoing dispute regarding the appropriateness of identifying Libby's religious affiliation, see this comment by Crockspot from March 11 [19]. Going back earlier, a post from February 19, regarding the appropriateness of the category "Jewish American lawyer" [20].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Editing by Jayjg

12) The section NYScholar had added was removed, together with all references by Jayjg, with the comment "remove disputed yellow badge trivia, per WP:BLP" [21]. His first posting to the talk page regarding this matter was 4 days later alleging an unreliable source and a a violation of WP:BLP [22].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 16:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Identification as a Jew

13) Libby was first identified in the article Lewis Libby as a Jew in an unsourced edit October 30, 2005 by Vulturell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) adding the category Jewish Americans [23]. That he was a member of a reform congregation was added in an unsourced edit by an anonymous editor October 31, 2005 [24]. A link to the Temples website was added, but there is no transparent way to access a list of members on that site. This information was removed immediately by Peruvianllama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) with the comment "rvv to last by Moncrief - rm non-notable inf" [25]. Second insertion by anonymous editor. This information, together with other family information was expanded and elaborated on by Moncrief (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) in an unsourced series of edits and permitted to remain [26].

On January 13, 2006 an anonymous editor added "Libby was born into a Jewish family" as well was the category Jewish Americans in an unsourced edit [27]. This was removed by an anonymous editor August 20, 2006 [28]. On February 8 Vulturell changed category Jewish Americans to Jewish-American businesspeople [29]. On February 14 JJstroker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) added category "Jewish liberals" This was contested by Will Beback. It was reinserted with the comment that a neo-con was a liberal [30], but removed a few days latter by JJstroker [31]. On March 14 an anonymous editor added the categories Jewish American history and Jewish American writers [32].

On March 29, 2006 (after being in the article, unsourced for 5 months) Sholom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) removed temple affiliation information with the comment "synagogue affiliation irrelevant" [33].

On October 1, 2006 the category Jewish-American businesspeople was removed by Adam Holland as "a miscategorization" [34]. On October 11, 2006 an anonymous editor added the unsourced sentence "Libby is Jewish" [35]. TransUtopian found a source and moved it to the personal section [36].

The category Jewish American lawyers was added by an anonymous editor December 20, 2006 [37]. On December 25 the information that Libby was from a Jewish family was re-added by an anonymous editor, citing the Kampeas article as printed in the Jerusalem Post [38].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Early edits by NYScholar

14) On September 24, 2006 NYScholar made his first edit to the article [39]. At that point two categories identifying Libby as Jewish remained but all references to Jewishness had been removed from the article.

February 10, 2007 an anonymous editor adds "Jewish-" to "American lawyer" in the introduction of the article [40]. A few edits later NYScholar adopts this edit citing the category already present [41]. 5 days later an anonymous editor removed this formulation [42]. A few edits later LittleOldMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) reverts using popups [43].

A few days later an anonymous editor in a series of edits changed "Jewish-American lawyer" to "American lawyer" with the comment "Religion not verified by citation. Nor is it relevant."; remove a link to an article on Libby at NNDB with the comment "This is a joke site."; and removed the categories Jewish American lawyers and Jewish American writers with the comment "removing extraneous categories" [44] [45] [46]. NYScholar reverted to "Jewish American lawyer", adding references, but readded only the category Jewish American lawyer [47]. Adding Kampeas article [48].

February 18, 2007 "Jewish American lawyer" again removed from the introduction by an anonymous editor [49] and immediately reverted by NYScholar [50].

Comment by Arbitrators:

[51] Proposed Fred Bauder 19:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Isarig

15) This edit marks the entry of Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who changes "Jewish American lawyer" to "American lawyer" in the introduction with the comment "His jewishness is not relevant, and does not belong in intro". NYScholar immediately reverted with the comment "do not delete pertinent content supplied by other editors when it is sourced, notable, and verifiable: see note 3; it is notable, given that article; see categories; other eds. added this info. orig." [52]. Isarig immediately reverted with the comment "rm irrelevant info" [53]. NYScholar reverts [54]. February 20 Isarig reverts with the comment "rm irrelevant info, see Talk" [55].

Isarig made this comment on the talk page:

"You should actually read what those sources say. The Information Clearing house note says "Across the blogosphere, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel conspiracy theorists were quick to tie Libby’s Jewishness to his role in selling the Iraq war, imagining once again a neo-con cabal that has a singular agenda: promoting Israel at all costs.". WP is not the place to give credence to these anti-Semitic conspiracies which originate in blogs. Isarig 02:44, 19 February 2007" [56]

Initial discussion at Talk:Lewis_Libby/Archive_2#Citations_supporting_notability_and_pertinence_of_Libby.27s_being_a_.22Jewish_American_lawyer.22.

NYScholar again reverts with the comment "yes, see talk page; consensus is against removal; see the sources; it is notable, sourced, pertinent fact; stop removing it and censoring information in W articles" [57]. Isarig again reverts with the comment "your personal opinion is not a "consensus". This is not relevant and does not belong in the intor" [58]. A revert by an anonymous editor follows with the comment "rv see talk - to consensus version" [59]. Isarig again reverts with the comment "No such consensus exists, and you haven't participated in the discussion, anon wikistalker." [60]. Another revert by an anonymous editor with the comment "please Assume Good Faith." [61]. Isarig again reverts with the comment "irrelevant POV pushing. See talk" [62]. NYScholar again reverts with the comment "see nn. 3 and 4 for notability and relevance; q. in full on talk page of article; prev. editing history; other eds' agreement (consensus)" [63].

After a revert by Threeafterthree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) with the comment "please stop with insersion of ethnicity into header of article per WP:MOSBIO. I really don't care what the agenda is, this is not appropriate. Thanks" [64], NYScholar gives in and removes the supporting references with the comment "format: with "Jewish" deleted, I've deleted the citations to it; I had already included them in the family background section, where they still seem relevant" [65].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Change of focus to family

16) With the question of whether Jewish American lawyer belongs in the introduction resolved, NYScholar then placed the references to Libby's ethnicity and religious affiliations in the section "Early life and family" with the comment "fixed notes (typo corrs, format)--populated empty notes lost due to earlier changes" [66]. At this point the only language in the text was "Libby was born in New Haven, Connecticut, to a Jewish family and raised in Florida."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Notmyrealname

17) On February 25, 2007 Notmyrealname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) removed the category Jewish American lawyers with the comment "Not mentioned in article. Is there a Catholic American Lawyers section?" [67]. NYScholar reverted with the comment "see personal history early family life etc.; restored category originally added by another earlier editor" [68]. Notmyrealname responded by removing the information that Libby was raised in a Jewish family and all references to him being Jewish with the comment "Born to a Jewish family reads akwardly and is not relevant." [69]. Notmyrealname then removed category Jewish American lawyer with the comment "This is a dubious category, and his inclusion in it is even more dubious. See my note on talk page." [70], Notmyrealname's note. Threeafterthree added back raised in a Jewish family [71]. Notmyrealname immediately reverted with the comment "This is both not relevant and akwardly written. His parents religion is not relevant to his accomplishments and noteriety." [72]. Threeafterthree again reverted with the comment "you are pretching to the choir. I agree, but this material has been added to 99% of the bios. Unless you want to remove it from the other 99%." [73]. NYScholar again adds the Kampeas article as a reference [74] and another, rather poor one, [75]. Shortly thereafter Notmyrealname deleted the poor source as unreliable [76] and removes a duplicate of the Kampeas article [77].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agree but would like to state for the record that I know that "awkwardly" has two w's and "notoriety" has two o's. Notmyrealname 15:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Ongoing controversy

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] External anti-Semitic postings

19) Libby's felony conviction and involvement with the neoconservative movement have been fodder for anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. According to one source this has even spilled into the mainstream media "The Protocols of the Elders of Zinni. Wikipedia editors have commented on this phenomenon as part of their argument that Libby's ethnicity and religious affiliation is irrelevant or "gives credence" to such theories Isarig Humus sapiens.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agree with modification. It should be added that those editors who have advocated for inclusion of identifying Libby's religion and his temple membership have never included this context in their edits to the article pages. Notmyrealname 16:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been opponents which have made this point. The stuff is out there (googling for "Lewis Libby" and "Jew" or "Jewish" returns 62,000 hits, some anti-Semitic), but I'm not sure how that should affect the Wikipedia article. If he were someone Jews were generally proud of, it probably would not be an issue. Fred Bauder 17:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Jimbo Wales states that Notable Names Database is never a WP:RS

20) According to a statement by Jimbo Wales, the NNDB should never be considered a WP:Reliable Source. This was one of the entries repeatedly inserted by NYScholar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

True enough, but there is no reasonable doubt Libby is Jewish. Fred Bauder 18:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Notmyrealname 17:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is a red herring, as the NNDB merely cites the Tulsa Jewish Review. It is that publication, not NNDB, that should be under consideration.

Comment by others:

[edit] The Tulsa Jewish Review is a WP:RS

20a) Libby's religious orientation stipulated 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 it is very revealing that an individual here has enumerated those only, and omitted this source).

Anyone may see for themselves dozens of issues they have made available of their publication in PDF format, at [78]. Upon examination any impartial observer would be quite satisfied at their pragmatism and lack of controversiality. They cannot be accused of "yellow badging" because they are intended to serve their local Jewish community. The American Jewish Periodical Center at Klau Library of Hebrew Union College would surely be happy to vouch that they are in fact a real publication: (513) 221-7444 ext. 3396 [79]. They have a run of the publication in their physical collections.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Quatloo 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what it reveals of me. As I have noted several times now, my point in discussing the unreliablility of the other sources was to prove an entirely different point: that a large number of NYScholar's edits, generally accompanied by rather arrogant or offensive comments, involved repeatedly inserting bad sources.Notmyrealname 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] The Jerusalem Post is a WP:RS

20b) The Jerusalem Post [80][81] is a reliable source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Quatloo 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] The entry on Lewis Libby in the Jewish Virtual Library is not a WP:Reliable Source

21) The entry lists its source as "Wikipedia." This entry was one of the references repeatedly inserted by NYScholar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, the site cites Wikipedia so means nothing. Fred Bauder 18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Notmyrealname 17:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree with all that, neither the NNDB nor the JVL are reliable sources. That said, the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source, and this is a non-trivial article about the issue. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Righty-o. Included these two items in relation to NYScholar's obsessive Jewish edits (he inserted these rather unscholarly links many, many times). The JP and all the community newspapers appear to have as their source this article [82]. Some of the dispute centers around whether this article (which goes to great lengths to say that his religion is not relevant to the leak scandal or Libby's involvement in policymaking) satisfies the relevancy part requirement of WP:BLP. I find it instructive that, other than reprints, no further reporting on his being Jewish or not has taken place. If it had, this would have been an argument in favor of relevancy. Further, there is still the matter of self-identification. Notmyrealname 18:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Dufour

22) On February 27, 2007 Steve Dufour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) deleted the bulk of the personal information together with all references regarding Libby including the information that was "raised in a Jewish family" with the comment "removing uncited and trivial material on living person + we can not say something happening now will be historical" [83]. Threeafterthree re-adds deleted material about Libby's ethnicity [84]. Notmyrealname reverts with the comment "There is no evidence that his family is Jewish. See larger discussion on talk page" [85]. NYScholar restores the material earlier deleted by Steve Dufour [86]. ElKevbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) reverts, complaining about the loss of intermediate edits [87].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Category:Jewish American lawyers

23) On March 1, 2007 NYScholar again adds the previously deleted Category Jewish American lawyers [88].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Temple Rodef Shalom

24) Also on March 1, 2007 NYScholar added information about Libby's temple membership [89]. This information had previously been in the article but had been deleted 11 months earlier by Sholom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) with the comment "synagogue affiliation irrelevant" [90].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] prosperous family

25) On March 1, 2007 NYScholar changes the language "Jewish family" to 'Libby was born to a "prosperous family" in New Haven, Connecticut––his father was an "investment banker"––and "raised in Florida."' [91].

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have seen no source to the "Jewish family" information. The U.S. News & World Report contains the quoted language. Proposed Fred Bauder 19:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] BLP Noticeboard

26) Later on March 1, 2007 Armon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) reverted to the earlier revert by ElKevbo with the comment "rv to ElKevbo this has been listed at the BLP noticebord" [92]. This discussion, the first of at least two is at this url under Lewis Libby. The complaint, by Notmyrealname, relies heavily on interpretation of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories as requiring "self-identification" The result of the discussion was inconclusive. But see the style guideline Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. Another extended discussion from later in March is at [93].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] The existing sources relating to Libby's religion do not satisfy WP:BLP#Categories

27) According to WP:BLP#Categories, several requirements need to be met before category tags for religion (and sexual orientation) can be placed. The information must be discussed in the text. The person must publicly self-identify with the belief, and "the subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." The sources presented to date have not satisfied these criteria.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Complete excision from an article of all information of a public figure's ethnic background and religious affiliations, despite being reasonably sourced, is what is involved here. Fred Bauder 20:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is about taking this issue one step at a time. Notmyrealname 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Notmyrealname 17:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. The data is highly relevant, and we have a reliable source demonstrating Libby's public attendance at services. Quatloo 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My point of including this and the source below, is to show that these unreliable sources were inserted dozens of times by NYScholar. The Tulsa Jewish Review item was a shortened reprint of the Kampeas piece (as were all the other Jewish community newspapers). It should be obvious that they did not send reporters to Virginia and Washington, DC to conduct investigations. There is language in the item that is a direct reprint of the Kampeas piece.

Still a moot point, as the Tulsa Jewish Review, a reliable source, was confident enough of the information to print it. I should point out that if the Kampeas article in the Jerusalem Post is indeed the ultimate source for the information, that too is a reliable souce, if even more so. My point was that a contention on this page was made that there exist no reliable sources, and only unreliable sources were listed. That is wrong, and misleading at best. We have two reliable sources. Quatloo 23:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had intended to place this comment in response to your edits on the Tulsa Jewish Review item, not here. As even NYScholar finally pointed out, the Kampeas item for the JTS is only real piece of reporting. All the other items, including the Jerusalem Post article, are reprints of this original item. The relevant point here is that there is one, and only one wire story discussing Libby's religion, and it discusses at length how he was not public about it. There has been no further reporting on the issue. This does not demonstrate relevance, as stipulated in WP:BLP. Notmyrealname 14:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] At least one existing source relating to Libby's religion satisfies WP:BLP#Categories

28) The Tulsa Jewish Review, a reliable source, unambiguously stipulates Libby's religious affiliation. The fact that Libby's membership and participation at temple is well-established enough for it to be published as far away as Tulsa is testimony to the public nature of his attendance. As he has taken no efforts to keep his identification private, his public participation is tantamount to self-identification. A further requirement is that "the subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life." This is true by nature of Libby's public office, as a policy-maker towards issues related to Israel, the Jewish state. Whether or not there is proven a conflict of interest in a Jewish individual making policy towards the Jewish state, it is a potential conflict of interest of the highest order and highly relevant. All conditions are thus satisfied. Quatloo 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post, also a reliable source, unambiguously stipulate's Libby's religious affiliation. [94]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Quatloo 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. First, WP:BLP#Categories says that an individual has to publicly self-identify with the belief. I think a reasonable understanding of this must mean more than attending religious services, otherwise this would be a meaningless rule for the vast majority of people of faith (any faith). Second, there is no demonstration in the published sources that his being Jewish or not had any impact whatsoever on his role in policymaking. Third, the logic in the proposal is a great example of what has led other editors to use the term yellow badging. The supposition that there might be a "conflict of interest" for a Jewish person who works on Israeli policy is very telling and troubling (to use the most diplomatic words that come to me right now). Notmyrealname 15:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it would only apply to people who 1) have gained enough notoriety such that their attendance at public services is remarked upon by the public at large, and not just by attendance records -- that is, their religious affiliation has entered the public discourse, and 2) those whose religious affiliation has some bearing on their other activities, particularly if they are in the public employ and the affiliation is relevant to their service to the government. This is a very narrow set of individuals and hardly the "vast majority of people" as Notmyrealname is incorrectly trying to paint. Quatloo 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1)This seems like a twisted reading of the "publicly self-identify" clause that is part of this category. You might not agree with this rule, but it is the rule nonetheless until it is changed. 2)The rule is "are relevant," not might be relevant due to someones speculation. Should all policymakers involved with Israel be identified as either "Jewish" or "not Jewish?" Notmyrealname 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential conflicts of interest are relevant and germane to the subject. There is no need to mention if there no such conflict. Requiring that such conflicts not be mentioned is utter absurdity. I agree with the rule. But you are misreading the rule and this is why you are arguing this absurdity. Quatloo 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, should all policymakers involved with Israel be identified as either "Jewish" or "not Jewish?" Notmyrealname 21:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No. It is never necessary to identify someone as "not Jewish." Policymakers involved with Israel ought to be identified as Jewish due to a potential conflict of interest only if that information is part of the public discourse, if there are reliable sources for the information, and if the individual self-identifies by either his public behavior or explicit admission. All are true in this case, and such is not inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. This is not "yellow badging" as you are trying to paint it, it is simply reasonable common sense. It is natural that a public should know if there are potential conflicts of interest in their high officials. Quatloo 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the idea that just because a policymaker is Jewish and deals with Israel means there is a priori a potential conflict of interest is a perfect example of yellow badging. By this logic, any Jewish person involved with international banking and finance should be suspected of having a conflict of interest. Notmyrealname 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

False. International banking and finance has little to do with religion. But Israel is the Jewish State [95], and it has everything to do with religion. Your argument is that someone's Jewishness is not a potential conflict of interest with respect to policymaking towards the Jewish State. I can't believe you make that argument with a straight face. Quatloo 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If the arbitrators can't see the bias in this line of thinking (which, not incidentally, is the same--and only one--that has been offered by NYScholar and comrades), then there's really nothing more I can add. Notmyrealname 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Third party identification does not equal "public self-identification". - Crockspot 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am arguing that it does in limited, reasonable cases. Also this is beyond mere third party identification, there is an aspect of public participation as well that is being neglected here. Quatloo 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In the case of a politician who is regularly greeted by the press every week as he leaves the door of the church, I would agree, and have stated that view in the past. But that is not what I have seen in Libby's case. If he just shows up every week and participates as any member of a religion would, that is not public self-identification. If he holds press conferences in the temple parking lot, them maybe you have a decent argument. - Crockspot 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Attendence at a public event (services) is certainly public self-identification. It is absurd to argue otherwise. Quatloo 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] NYScholar's editing regarding Libby's Jewishness

29) On April 29, 2007, NYScholar inserted Libby's name as the sole member listed in the Temple Rodef Shalom article 7 times, ultimately leading to a block for violating the WP:3RR. The block was extended twice for incivility. Between February 18, 2007 and June 8, 2007, NYScholar inserted links into the Lewis Libby article whose sole or primary purpose and effect were to identify Libby as Jewish 49 times.[96]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Notmyrealname 16:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others: