Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Proposed decision
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Arbitrators active on this case
- Charles Matthews
- Fred Bauder
- Jdforrester
- Jpgordon
- Kirill Lokshin
- Mackensen
- Matthew Brown (Morven)
- Paul August
- SimonP
- UninvitedCompany
Inactive/away:
- Blnguyen
- Flcelloguy
- FloNight
- Neutrality
- Raul654
[edit] Amnesty
Regarding the Amnesty for all parties proposal by Fred: I stand by my edits and do not seek amnesty. If my edits are shown to have violated wikipedia rules I will accept any appropriate penalty. Notmyrealname 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit warring
Regarding proposal 2, what exactly constitutes "edit warring" in this case? Is it raising the question of whether something meets wp guidelines? Is it challenging the reliability of a source? Asking for an rfc? Saying "don't make any edits here unless you have read all zillion pages of the talk page archives"? Even if most of the arguments for the other side are taken into consideration, there are still legitimate points that could be fairly discussed (e.g. has self-identification and relevancy been demonstrated to satisfy inclusion in categories). In practice the ruling leaves a lot of ambiguity. You might be better off just banning everyone involved here from further editing the Libby and Temple pages. Notmyrealname 21:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sourcing
For findings of fact #s 2 and 3, you might want to amend #2 to read "and unreliable sources," and for #3 to read "unreliablity of certain sources, and lack of relevancy to Libby's public notability." Notmyrealname 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
It would also be helpful if you all would make some kind of statement regarding the categories issue. This is actually what half of the battle was about. I think WP:BLP#Categories is very clear. Please see my comments on the workshop page. Notmyrealname 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it is problematic, but some problem users might need to have it clarified. I'd like the arbitrators to please look at the ongoing discussion at Talk:Reena Combo with such a user as to why a specific ruling might be useful. Hornplease 23:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, for instance there has been an ongoing disagreement about what constitutes "public self-acknowledgment" regarding religion (e.g. is membership in a house of worship sufficient, or does it have to be something more along the lines of Alan Dershowitz or Jack Abramoff?). Does relevance to their notoriety mean that some editors think it is relevant, or does it need to be demonstrated (e.g. Libby dealt with US/Israel policy, although there is no evidence that it influenced his actions in any way). The arguments are in the Libby talk pages and pretty well represented on the workshop page. Notmyrealname 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- And if membership in a congregation is 'ambiguous' as far as self-identification goes, does presence /participation at a religious ceremony similarly ambiguous? (Clearly not, it isnt sufficient.) Again, I refer the ArbCom to the above linked talkpage for an example of why further elucidation might be necessary for the tenacious -er- badgers among us.Hornplease 23:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, for instance there has been an ongoing disagreement about what constitutes "public self-acknowledgment" regarding religion (e.g. is membership in a house of worship sufficient, or does it have to be something more along the lines of Alan Dershowitz or Jack Abramoff?). Does relevance to their notoriety mean that some editors think it is relevant, or does it need to be demonstrated (e.g. Libby dealt with US/Israel policy, although there is no evidence that it influenced his actions in any way). The arguments are in the Libby talk pages and pretty well represented on the workshop page. Notmyrealname 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
