Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar

Case Opened on 00:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration.

Requests for comment

 * Requests_for_comment/Biographies, 2 requests filed by two different users regarding Lewis Libby; one user filed shortly after the other (April 18, 2007)
 * Requests_for_comment/Politics, 1 request filed regarding Lewis Libby; moved without authorization by 2 other users without original filer's permission (April 18 and 19, 2007--editing history) ;

Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive12
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive10, 2 filed; both "inactive" & "resolved" according to administrators (March 23 & April 1, 2007)

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. Biographies of living persons 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)
 * I will be posting to the evidence page momentarily. I see my role in this proceeding as more of an expert witness, rather than an involved participant in the dispute, but I do have some relevant opinions to contribute.Crockspot 05:23, 6 May 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 [see sec. after heading 3RR]: --beginning at Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 2 (and scroll both up and down)--way back on 25 Feb. 2007] [--following which I posted a polite "request" re: what I perceived as her/his violations of WP:NPA: : User talk:Notmyrealname on March 3, 2007 (added link). --NYScholar 07:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)]; [See also my subsequent request re: the editing content dispute: Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 2, which clearly indicates the problem that I perceived at that time. Updated. --NYScholar 21:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)]; I provided a full citation and link for verification after locating and verifying the source referred to--Tulsa Jewish Review--in now-archived Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 3 and Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 3. (In my own view, it appears that that secondary editing-content disagreement further motivated this RFA-filer's animus against me.) Updated. --NYScholar 22:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)]: See my archived talk page 4 (linked below)--User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4--for the history. Link to it from May 6:. Updated--NYScholar 18:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC); updated w/ more direct links--NYScholar 07:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)] 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 applies to the article about him, which goes beyond biography; both tests in WP:BLP 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 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; it provides links to various relevant talk page discussions. updated and shortened.].... As the other "interested parties" whom I have added (not added by Notmyrealname) comment in their statements and on talk pages, the matter concerns a long-standing editing content dispute, not me.  Notmyrealname seems unable to acknowledge this fact, as her/his own emendation of the request indicates.  --NYScholar 17:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC) [Further updated: shortened further by moving most recent passages to [[User talk:NYScholar/Archive 4.--NYScholar 02:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)]


 * Sorry, I have to return to object strenuously to what is clearly turning into a "witch hunt" in Wikipedia. I suggest that administrators consult the entire record and stop being enlisted by Notmyrealname in continuing her/his personal vendetta.  The editing histories of all the articles and talk pages clearly do not support what is going on here.  I will return to post the latest offensive link. --NYScholar 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here it is: User talk:Alison [Has since been moved to Alison's May 2007 archive User talk:Alison/Archive 10 --NYScholar 02:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)]: The request referred to was instigated by Notmyrealname, jayjg, and humus sapiens in relation to an editing content dispute that they orchestrated into charges of violating 3RR in response to my warning of the same problem of violating 3RR to them first. As I said, this is truly disgraceful.  I suggest that this user Notmyrealname cease and desist. before Wikipedia really has some legal problems on its hands.  This is not an idle threat.  I am truly upset by what she/he is attempting to orchestrate here as a result of others not agreeing with his/her deletions of reliable sources from Wikipedia articles. --NYScholar 04:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "I suggest that this user Notmyrealname cease and desist before Wikipedia really has some legal problems on its hands. This is not an idle threat." - this sounds like a legal threat. Have you read WP:LEGAL? -  A l is o n  ☺ 04:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read it now; Wikipedia exists in the real world of laws. You (Notmyrealname and those she/he is enlisting in this "witch hunt") are causing me immense personal distress, and I am serious about taking legal action if it continues to persist .  [It needs to end.] --NYScholar 04:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [updated.  --NYScholar 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)]
 * So, as I said, I suggest that those involved end this vendetta now and for all. It is embarrassing even to see this "Wikipedia nightmare" progressing due to Notmyrealname's inability to let it go. --NYScholar 04:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[Quoted after consulting the Wikipedia legal policy: --NYScholar 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)] If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly. If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact Wikipedia's parent organisation, the Wikimedia Foundation. If you make legal threats, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other than legal channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding.
 * Clearly my contributions to Wikipedia are not appreciated by Notmyrealname; however, they have been appreciated by others in Wikipedia (some long before she/he arrived here), and they are still appreciated. There is no point in blocking me from making these contributions.  I have no interest in doing so further due to this unfair instigation and enlistment of personal attacks on me and no protection being given me against them.  You are in the process of (purposefully, on the part of NMRN it seems) trying to drive me away. --NYScholar 04:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can be sure that given this kind of treatment in Wikipedia, [if it persists], I will not be recommending it as a resource at any time in the future, and I will be very vocal about what is clearly amounting to censorship throughout it. Please see the statements posted by others whom Notmyrealname did not name as "interested parties".  They clearly support the perception of censorship and a witch hunt going on here.  --NYScholar 04:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [updated.  --NYScholar 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)]
 * Unless this dispute is settled in a fair manner to my satisfaction, there would be no incentive for me to contribute any more of my time to editing this project. It simply would not deserve my time. --NYScholar 04:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I have read Alison's statement posted after the above comment. In it she writes, "I also posted the exact same warning on the other editors' talk pages that they were perilously close to violating 3RR."  I have found no such warnings posted by her or anyone else re: that matter on those others' talk pages, or in her "contributions" log for the date in question, April 19, 2007.  Could she please provide the same kind of links to those warnings as she has provided to my talk page.  (For further context re: the enlistment of other users in an editing war on April 18-19 (and earlier) re: articles on Lewis Libby and Temple Rodef Shalom, please see .  Thank you.  --NYScholar 19:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that Alison has since corrected her statement to indicate that she did not actually post any such warning on the other editors' talk pages but rather "noted" that I had warned them. [See my explanation of why I added the "Neutrality tag"  (Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom) and my warnings in both  (Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom) and in my own editing history summaries (in that article), i.e.: examples: problem beginning on April 18  and extending into April 19 to (for example) ..., , , , , and ...to  and .] --NYScholar 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC) [Updated: --NYScholar 20:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)]

Statement by Fermat1999
While I have not always agreed with NYScholar (in terms of including Libby's temple membership for example), I think some of his hyperediting and frustration has been caused by undue harrassment and even trolling by [jayjg], [notmyrealname] and [humus sapiens]. In particular, not so subtle suggestions of anti-semitism with no proof, and at times remarkable rude comments and personal attacks. A simple review of the history will show that.

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

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

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

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

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.

Statement by Alison
I'm only tangentially involved in this case but as I've been requested to comment, here I am. I have no knowledge nor interest in the articles being discussed here, nor have I, to my knowledge, had any dealings with the subject, User:NYScholar, before.

WP:RPP request / edit warring on Temple Rodef Shalom
As an admin, I spend a lot of my time answering page protection requests on WP:RPP. At 16:40 on April 19, User:NYScholar requested full protection on the Temple Rodef Shalom article, citing three POV-pushing editors as a rationale. 15 minutes later, I declined page protection with the following message; "note that you are involved in edit warring there & another editor has raised WP:BLP concerns. You are also in danger of being warned/blocked for WP:3RR". I noticed that NYScholar was involved in a full-on edit war and was way over the 3RR limit. Not only that, but he reverted and immediately went to WP:RPP in the obvious hope that the "right version" would stick.

Talk page discussion / 3RR block
When I investigated the article regarding the prot request, I noticed the revert-war going on. I posted a boilerplate 3rr1 message on NYScholar's talk page. I also posted the exact same warning on the other editors' talk pages that they were perilously close to violating 3RR and noted that NYScholar had "also warned other editors". Admittedly, NYScholar was the worst offender but he'd not been 'formally' warned by an outsider until now. User:Jayjg replied saying that he'd reverted six times already, which he had. I'd hoped to discuss the matter with NYScholar and get him to the table but he didn't seem to want to listen. I then posted a final warning re. his edit warring, though he was already way over. Then, about 4 minutes later, he blanked the entire discussion, warnings - everything! . I was a little shocked and disappointed as it was obvious (I felt) that the guy had paid absolutely no heed to my warnings. I reverted, replied to his comment and expressed my disappointment in his rude dismissal. 5 minutes later, he was blocked for the original 3RR violation by User:Kafziel. NYScholar then argued with Kafziel about his block, then explained to me that he thought we were done so he archived. Apparently, that's how he does things, so fair enough. AGF here. I think he thought I'd blocked him, though. Later, he complained that he was blocked before he was able to respond to my 'blanking' question though Kafziel was certainly within their rights to do so, given the amount of reverts. He then went on to argue with Kafziel and post multiple unblock requests, which got turned down. Kafziel then reset his block time and fully protected his talk page.

At this point, I forgot about all this and moved on to the next admin firefight. Then the arbcom case was filed.

On May 6, User:Notmyrealname asked me to comment on this RfAr. I agreed to though I was only tangentially involved. NYScholar took great offence at this and I had to actively close the discussion.

Legal threats on RfAr
Later on, NYScholar would post legal threats on this RfAr page, which I questioned. He re-iterated his threat whereupon I reported it to WP:ANI as I was astounded. User:John Reaves subsequently blocked him under the WP:NLT policy. NYScholar would later rescind this threat and was then unblocked after I brought the unblock request to ANI. After this, I tried to work with the guy, to advise him to keep calm and to try to help him with the block and to try to get him through the process.

Note that at no time throughout this incident did I ever block this user from editing. I believe he was acting in good faith but got into an intense edit war on a number of articles in his zeal to get his POV across.

A l is o n ☺ 07:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

 * Decline as premature. Postings on the BLP noticeboard are not part of the dispute resolution process; please pursue one of the preliminary steps before bringing this to arbitration. Kirill Lokshin 15:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 02:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept Paul August &#9742; 03:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Neutral point of view
1) Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view.

Passed 6-0 at 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability
2) Significant verifiable information from a reliable source can generally be included in an article, per Verifiability and Reliable sources.

Passed 6-0 at 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Applicability of BLP
3) Biographies of living persons does not bar inclusion of information regarding the ethnicity or religious affiliation of prominent public figures.

Passed 6-0 at 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith
4) Assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.

Passed 6-0 at 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Locus of dispute
1) The locus of dispute is, specifically whether Biographies of living persons applies with respect to disclosure of Lewis Libby's ethnicity and religious affiliation.

Passed 6-0 at 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar
2) has repeatedly inserted information regarding Lewis Libby's ethnicity and religious affiliation into Lewis Libby, providing reliable sources supporting that information.

Passed 6-0 at 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information
3) A number of other editors, including, have repeatedly removed information and supporting references from Lewis Libby. Numerous justifications for the removal of this information have been given including the privacy provisions of Biographies of living persons, allegations of yellow badging and providing support for conspiracy theorists. Passed 6-0 at 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Libby
4) Lewis Libby is a prominent public figure.

Passed 6-0 at 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Amnesty
1.1) In light of the ambiguity in the BLP policy, as well understandable concern regarding the effects of including such information, those editors who have edit-warred over it it are granted an amnesty.

Passed 6-0 at 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Further infractions
2) Editors who continue to edit war over this matter in contradiction to our ruling may be appropriately sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator.

Passed 6-0 at 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)