Nobs01 wrote:
Take from a user victimized by the concerted efforts of sockpuppet trolls given licence to run rampant throughout Wikipedia: Reputation is everything.
You were banned for personal attacks and placed on probation after that for disruption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_o...
Oddly enough, cases like yours are not what I was talking about.
- d.
Enduring six months of personal attacks, responding to it once during an ArbCom Hearing, and being banned for a year, while those who trashed me and smeared me as being "banned for personal attacks" are given license to do it again. This why the image and reputation of Wikipedia, and the image and reputation of editors contributing in good faith is everything.
nobs
On 1/11/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Nobs01 wrote:
Take it from a user victimized by the concerted efforts of sockpuppet
trolls
given licence to run rampant throughout Wikipedia: Reputation is
everything.
You were banned for personal attacks and placed on probation after that for disruption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_o...
Oddly enough, cases like yours are not what I was talking about.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Splitting the subject off of the sensible discussion that's going on...
"responding to it once during an arbcom hearing" is an interesting way to describe using your entire user page as a sustained personal attack. And what narrow specialist subject do you consider yourself an expert on again? Political hatchet jobs?
-Snowspinner
On Jan 11, 2006, at 11:05 AM, Rob Smith wrote:
Enduring six months of personal attacks, responding to it once during an ArbCom Hearing, and being banned for a year, while those who trashed me and smeared me as being "banned for personal attacks" are given license to do it again. This why the image and reputation of Wikipedia, and the image and reputation of editors contributing in good faith is everything.
nobs
On 1/11/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Nobs01 wrote:
Take it from a user victimized by the concerted efforts of sockpuppet
trolls
given licence to run rampant throughout Wikipedia: Reputation is
everything.
You were banned for personal attacks and placed on probation after that for disruption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Nobs01_and_others#Nobs01_banned_for_personal_attacks
Oddly enough, cases like yours are not what I was talking about.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
On 1/11/06, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Splitting the subject off of the sensible discussion that's going on...
"responding to it once during an arbcom hearing" is an interesting way to describe using your entire user page as a sustained personal attack. And what narrow specialist subject do you consider yourself an expert on again? Political hatchet jobs?
-Snowspinner
On Jan 11, 2006, at 11:05 AM, Rob Smith wrote:
Enduring six months of personal attacks, responding to it once during an ArbCom Hearing, and being banned for a year, while those who trashed me and smeared me as being "banned for personal attacks" are given license to do it again. This why the image and reputation of Wikipedia, and the image and reputation of editors contributing in good faith is everything.
nobs
On 1/11/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Nobs01 wrote:
Take it from a user victimized by the concerted efforts of sockpuppet
trolls
given licence to run rampant throughout Wikipedia: Reputation is
everything.
You were banned for personal attacks and placed on probation after that for disruption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Nobs01_and_others#Nobs01_banned_for_personal_attacks
Oddly enough, cases like yours are not what I was talking about.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
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
Interesting that you're interested in revisiting this issue up until people start discussing your behavior in particular.
On 1/11/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Fine; I'll discuss my behavior if asked. It would therefore be only fair to discuss others behavior likewise. That would lead done the path of me trashing the ArbCom process which (a) would be out of character (b) self-defeating. Reexamining the whole case would discover numerous problems related to process, etc. And as I told Cberlet probably 50,000 times, I'm not gonna get into a game trashing & innuendo, despite being baited 50,000 times.
It is distinctly odd however, that I am probably the first user banned for personal attacks who provided footnotes & citations for his personal attacks.
nobs
On 1/11/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting that you're interested in revisiting this issue up until people start discussing your behavior in particular.
On 1/11/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You have a fundamental misunderstanding. We have in the past sanctioned a user who called an obviously stupid user a moron. Truth is no defense, footnotes don't help.
Fred
On Jan 11, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Rob Smith wrote:
Fine; I'll discuss my behavior if asked. It would therefore be only fair to discuss others behavior likewise. That would lead done the path of me trashing the ArbCom process which (a) would be out of character (b) self-defeating. Reexamining the whole case would discover numerous problems related to process, etc. And as I told Cberlet probably 50,000 times, I'm not gonna get into a game trashing & innuendo, despite being baited 50,000 times.
It is distinctly odd however, that I am probably the first user banned for personal attacks who provided footnotes & citations for his personal attacks.
nobs
"Rob Smith" wrote
It is distinctly odd however, that I am probably the first user banned for
personal attacks who provided footnotes & citations for his personal attacks.
Odd. Or not. I don't think a whole load of Maoist-style self-criticism should actually be required of those who fall foul of the ArbCom. But Clem Attlee to Harold Laski usually applies.
Charles
Good point. But I do hope that during his year off he thinks about why we banned him.
Fred
On Jan 11, 2006, at 2:06 PM, charles matthews wrote:
I don't think a whole load of Maoist-style self-criticism should actually be required of those who fall foul of the ArbCom.
My apologies Fred, for not joining any social clubs in Wikipedia.
nobs
On 1/11/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Good point. But I do hope that during his year off he thinks about why we banned him.
Fred
On Jan 11, 2006, at 2:06 PM, charles matthews wrote:
I don't think a whole load of Maoist-style self-criticism should actually be required of those who fall foul of the ArbCom.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith
Enduring six months of personal attacks, responding to it once during an ArbCom Hearing, and being banned for a year, while those who trashed me and smeared me as being "banned for personal attacks" are given license to do it again.
You get that sort of thing here. I think the thing to do is to not kick against the pricks, because eventually you just spend all your time trying to get officialdom to notice the outrages of which they are all too well aware. Just get your head down, avoid the hassle, and keep on making the good edits that bring you joy. As I do.
Pete, doping his best
Never was it more well spoken after my ArbCom ruling:
"Laws which prescribe what everyone must believe, and forbid men to say or write anything against this or that opinion, are often passed to gratify, or rather to appease the anger of those who cannot abide independent minds." Spinoza
Nobs01
On 1/11/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith
Enduring six months of personal attacks, responding to it once during an ArbCom Hearing, and being banned for a year, while those who trashed me and smeared me as being "banned for personal attacks" are given license to do it again.
You get that sort of thing here. I think the thing to do is to not kick against the pricks, because eventually you just spend all your time trying to get officialdom to notice the outrages of which they are all too well aware. Just get your head down, avoid the hassle, and keep on making the good edits that bring you joy. As I do.
Pete, doping his best
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l