As noted, I plead guilty to certain things (like cutting & pasting a section
from the Chip Berlet talk page onto my user page). I don't see the point in
revisiting everybody's sins in the whole affair, Chip Berlet and ArbCom
included. Please note I refer to ArbCom "errors", not "unfairness."
I
believe very much in Wikipedia's stated goals, and have a fundemental moral
problem with circumventing the rules with sockpuppets, despite the fact that
those who do so are rewarded. I will clear my name within the given
processes, even if there really are no policies, rules, or processes to
follow. And given the struggle for Wikipedia to become a valid source,
let's hope censorship and intollerance are not added to the concerns.
nobs
On 1/11/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
If it were a one time error in judgement we would have made a very
different ruling. You converted the talk page of [[Chip Berlet]] into
a sustained personal attack based on guilt by association. You then,
during the arbitration converted your user page into the same sort of
sustained personal attack based on guilt by association. Then, and
now, you continue to maintain you did absolutely nothing wrong. Which
means, to me, that we can expect to see more of the same thing the
first chance you get.
Fred
On Jan 11, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Rob Smith wrote:
Responding to the bait: My contributions are 99%+
of historic
nature. Any
Arbitrator (or anyone) who has read Discussion pages I've
participated can
see for themselves there is an intense focus on the substance of the
article, and distinct lack of response to persistent personal
attacks. I am
a firm believer in civility particularly in controversial
discussions. Am I
guilty of a breaching experiment, and a one time error in judgement
during my first visit to Arbitration? Yes.
nobs
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l