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@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@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l