Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Evidence

message: I strongly object to this user's call for my evidence to be "questioned", because I advised NYScholar to be concise, and not to make our eyes "glaze over" like he is wont to do normally. I am probably the only user involved in this arbcom that even attempts to be neutral, and NYScholar and I happen to disagree STRONGLY on interpretation of WP:BLP. Since when is being civil and trying to be neutral grounds for questioning a participant's opinions and evidence? I suspect that I was named in this dispute, because some expected me to come in with saber swinging, and to make their case for them, and now that it is apparent that I am not their trained monkey, it is I who is now under attack. I find this very insulting, and a completely unwarranted attack on my integrity. I urge this user to strike that statement immediately. - Crockspot 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought this statement into question because it is curious as to why anyone would wish an individual "good luck" unless they were not somehow sided with them.  Additionally, why would a neutral third party be offering advice on either side of the argument and condemning the other who questions their motivations?  It's unusual to become suddenly defensive at the mere raising of a point of someone's motivations.  It is the job of an an individual wishing to weigh in as an observer to be exactly that, and not a participant to support any particular cause.  By interacting with the user in question on a personal, perhaps somewhat positive level, you open yourself up to criticism. --RWilliamKing 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is called being civil, sir. He says that he strongly disagrees with my application of policy, and he also clams to have sources which meet the policy requirements, but I have not seen them, because he keeps directing me to his talk page archives. His archives are a nightmare, and I don't have the time to sift through it all. I was encouraging him to concisely present this evidence to the proceeding, so that I can judge whether or not his sources actually do meet the policy requirements. I suspect that they don't, but I am reserving judgement on it until the evidence is presented to us. I am a reluctant participant in this arbcom, because my direct involvement was limited. But I was named by the editor who requested this proceeding, so here I am. It isn't necessary for me to be an asshole to someone who has been perfectly civil to me. So yes, I wished him good luck. I wanted him to know that while we may disagree, I am not out to "get him", because I truly do not have enough direct knowledge yet of what has transpired to judge who actually is right and wrong. My aim is to be sure that the policies are followed in the future, and to encourage the committee to further clarify what I see as a lack of articulation in WP:BLP. I don't know what else to say, except that you've pissed me off good. - Crockspot 20:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: PS, I suspect that you have not even read my evidence, because I don't see how anyone could read it and think that I was "on his side". Please identify which evidence I presented that should be questioned. Was it the direct quotes from policy? Was it my interpretation of public self-identification that he strongly disagrees with? Was it the "logical extension" that I am pushing for that would make it more difficult for editors in the future to do what NYScholar is accused of on the request page? Was it my discussion of Yellow Badging? Please, enlighten us. - Crockspot 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to [[User:RWilliamKing]]'s evidence

message: In his statement, NYScholar claims that "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:  way back on 25 Feb. 2007]" A quick click on the link in question will show that this link was not directed towards me.Notmyrealname 01:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracy in NYS's opening statement

message: While I am not seeing behavior presented in your evidence that I would characterize as personal attacks or incivility by NYScholar, I am seeing a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of public self-identification and relevance to public life on the part of NYScholar. Some of the information posted by him here appears to contradict his stated understanding of Libby's self-identification, and even uses those words. The Kampeas piece also seems to contradict him, more or less stating that Libby's jewishness is irrelevant, except to racists. To me, NYScholar sounds like he believes what he is pushing for, but it could be a willful attempt on his part to ignore these contradictions. I am still undecided if there is malice involved, or if Hanlon's razor applies, or perhaps Clark's Law. - Crockspot 16:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NYScholar repeatedly cites Wikipedia policy and reposts the Kampeas piece multiple times. I don't think it's fair to him to assume "stupidity" or "incompetence" (words taken from the above links). I can appreciate that there could be differences of opinion, but the issue here is that NYScholar's edits and comments made civil discussion leading to consensus impossible. I'll try to make my citations more precise. Notmyrealname 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking more along the lines of "advanced cluelessness", which is indiscernable from malice. (Clark's Law). What I was observing is that he doesn't really become uncivil or personally attack other editors, he just hammers repeatedly with volumes of comments supporting the same stance, so your diffs could actually be evidence of a WP:POINT violation. The diffs also tell me that he does not, (or refuses to) understand or accept the core spirit of WP:BLP. - Crockspot 20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, being on the receiving end of "advanced cluelessness" is no joy. I've tried to illustrate with a few more specific examples that seem to pretty clearly cross the line. I think you're right about the WP:POINT thing. Also WP:UNDUE, especially in regard to the temple incidents and repeated listings of unreliable sources like the Jewish Virtual Library and the NNDB. Notmyrealname 20:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on evidence presented by [[User:Notmyrealname]]

message: I have really tried to be fair and open-minded with NYScholar, even to the point of being accused of being "on his side", but my patience with him is running thin. I have added a charge of contempt of this process to my evidence. If he has time to edit his talk page multiple times a day (as well as dozens of edits to Paul Wolfowitz in the past days), then he has time to rub elbows with us peasants, and make an attempt to defend himself here. His failure to do so will not preclude a judgement by the committee, and will only result in his side of the story not being fully heard. His overt refusal to participate, and the contempt he shows in his comments, would probably also prevent his ability to appeal any decision by this body. I gave him some sound advice, and he should follow it, or start packing up his pencils, because his current tactic is not going to turn out well for him. He may claim that it is the requestor that he has contempt for, but this request was accepted by the committee, so it is they, and the rest of us, that he is showing contempt for. - Crockspot 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all about neutrality, and working things out with individual editors(I've done so a handful of times, eventually reaching a consensus and improving the ability of an editor(I hope)), but really NYScholar shows no patience with the system, to his discredit.--RWilliamKing 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am beginning to realize that now. I just didn't have enough data to make that determiniation earlier. - Crockspot 20:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contempt

message: I think that the entire point of this ARB is missed if you still contend that Libby's Jewishness is relevant to his former job in the Bush administration because of exposure to middle east policy. Do you not see the inherent bigotry in such a stance? Was JC Watt's blackness a relevant issue in any dealings he may have had with African nations while in Congress? Do we question politicians of Italian ancestry over their motivations in dealing with Italy? Or with the Mob? God help us with the firestorm that would erupt if that recently elected Muslim congressman came under attack for being assigned to a Homeland Security, terrorism, or middle-east related committee. It appears that some people who would normally eschew any such bigotry have no such qualms when it involves Jews, especially if they are Republican. Frankly, it disgusts me, and shows hypocricy to the extreme. WP:BLP mandates that we not categorize people by religion or sexual orientation unless they publicly self-identify. Libby has not done so. So even if I did not reject your relevance argument wholesale, you still have not overcome the self-identification requirement. - Crockspot 16:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Fermat1999's statement was pretty reasonable even if some other editors including NYScholar are clearly axe-grinding.  I also agree with Fermat1999 that being Jewish refers to ethnicity as much as religion, and at least for politicians, ethnicity is generally relevant.  Tom Lantos describes himself as a secular Jew; compare that notion with, say, "secular Baptist".  Madeleine Albright's Jewish ancestry is of encyclopedic notability and is mentioned in our article about her, even though  Albright herself is Catholic (her parents converted in order to escape persecution).  Jean Kennedy Smith was very warmly received by the Irish when she was appointed Ambassador to Ireland, in part because she came from the most famous Irish-American family in US politics.  Then-Congressman Rod Blagojevich's ethnicity as a Serbian-American was instrumental in his helping get US prisoners released from Yugoslavia during the Kosovo (or was it Bosnia) conflict.   Keith Ellison (the Congressman you mention) has indeed been attacked in various ways for being Muslim.  I'm sure secondary sources exist for all of the above.  If JC Watts did deal with African nations, I'd absolutely expect his blackness to have had some effect on his relations with officials from the countries he dealt with.  And if the US Congress were to send (say) a trade mission to Italy, I'd certainly want Nancy Pelosi involved.  As for whether Libby's Jewishness is relevant to his dealings with Israel: that's a bit harder, and I'd say the applicable Wikipedia policy to decide it is WP:SYN.  If there's a reliable secondary source that makes that exact claim directly, then it can be cited in the article, but otherwise it should be treated as unverifiable.  (Added: Anyway this is a conduct case about NYScholar, not a content dispute about the Libby article.  And I'm sure Libby himself if he were following this, would be much more annoyed about being in :Category: American criminals than about being in any ethnic or religious category).  75.62.6.237 05:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to [[User:Fermat1999]]'s evidence