Asking that people look into and comment on the arbitration is appropriate. Bringing the arbitration issues here, and expanding them to content disputes, is not. I have already agreed to stop all edits on Wikipedia until the arbitration is over--relying solely on a few discussion page comments when I feel it is important. Obviously I disagree with the way Sam Spade presents the matter, but this is simply not the place to have the conversation. I note only that Fred Bauder and I MAY have had a brief conversation many years ago. Maybe not. That we both once belonged to the same national organization with thousands of members, is hardly significant.
For details, by all means visit the arbitration and make comments.
Cberlet
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org on behalf of Sam Spade Sent: Mon 12/5/2005 10:59 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV trainwreck
I'm sorry to say, you appear to be making my case "you can't legitimately argue about something you can't or won't look at."
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Cberlets_POV_forks_.2F_incivility
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARight-wing_politics&dif...
When asked for cites, I provided them. They were of course ignored. I didn't ignore Cberlets cites, I explained to him that by his own words, they failed to justify his claims. Even if I lived in NYC and had access to every book he mentions, I only have so much time in the day. I assume good faith regarding his excerpts and such, but he never claimed evidence that [[Extreme right]] is different enough a term, w a specific enough a meaning to justify a fork from far-right.
As far as Nobs, I have gotten to know him by email due to this case. He is a man w a legitimate vendetta against Cberlet. He feels Cberlet is guilty of treason and complicit in murder, based on his work with the Covert Action Information Bulletin outing of CIA agents (some of whom were killed shortly thereafter). I think Nobs could have been made less angry, and less a threat to Chip Berlet by a fair hearing on the wikipedia. I get the impression he will be spending the time he used to spend editing exposing Chip's objectionable past, attempting to have him audited and etc... A different sort of trial might have had a more calming effect. Nobs is not concerned about wiki-verdicts against him, but would likely have responded better to a different approach.
I, for my part, made an error on Political correctness. I didn't understand that this error had occurred until just recently, because it had never been properly explained to me. Apparently after having read and cited William Lind, I inadvertently quoted him without clear attribution in the 1st sentence of [[Political correctness]]. That was unfortunate, but not in my opinion ''as'' unfortunate as the incoherent and unhelpful way it was responded to. The matter is a complex one, w many easily misunderstood subtleties.
I am also willing to admit that at least one of my statements to Cberlet was incivil. I insist however that these minor infractions (out of some 30,000 edits on my part) are not notable enough for a RfC, much less ArbCom censure. Additionally, they wither before the scale of Cberlets POV pushing, ignoral of consensus, and incivility (he has personal attacks less than a week old). I am not saying he should be "more" NPOV than me (lol!), I am saying he should obey the NPOV policy! Please, ArbCom, review the evidence and rethink your results. This purging of the "right wingers" is not what the ArbCom is for. I understand Cberlet is your friend and colleague, but for the sake of integrity, please hold us to the same standard.
Sam Spade
On 12/5/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
You need to look no further then Talk;Chip Berlet and User:Nobs01 to see that Nobs01 is not being railroaded but being sanctioned for personal attacks. Talk:Chip Berlet has been spammed with a large volume of material regarding other people and other activities based on Chip's membership in the National Lawyer's Guild. It is like blaming any one who is a member of the Democratic Party for Clinton's sex adventures. User:Nobs01 starts off: "The Extremist Personality" then proceeds to link the "twenty-two common traits of extremists" to edits of Cerlet. The policy of the arbitration committee is not to carefully investigate the truth of personal attacks but to sanction the attacker. The reason a lengthy ban is proposed in the case of Nobs01 is that when it seemed he would be sanctioned with a one month ban for one attack he responded with another lengthy attack.
No one is giving authority to Cberlet to make thing ups and then cite them. He would probably be wise not to cite himself extensively, but anyone else is free to, as in a limited area, right wing and totalitarian movements in the United States, he is a generally recognized expert.
As to the article, Chip Berlet: he has been criticized, for example by David Horowitz, and under our NPOV policy, reports of those criticism may be legitimately included in the article on him. Deciding what criticisms and how extensive they ought to be is up to the normal editing process.
Chip Berlet is no more neutral than Sam Spade and he need not be. As a Wikipedia editor the requirement is that he respect our policies and abide by them which he more or less does.
He did initiate the arbitration case, but that is trouble which we welcome as opposed to endless edit warring and personal attacks. When his claims were investigated, we found no conspiracy but a lot of piling on by various POV editors with a right wing perspective. Looked at individually, they were engaged in a number of combative activities which are mentioned in the proposed decision. Sam Spade, for example, seems to not have access to adequate sources but is inclined to argue about the sufficiency of sources put forward by others. This is a dead end because you can't legitimately argue about something you can't or won't look at.
Fred
On Dec 4, 2005, at 8:46 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
The results are one sided. There is a mountain of evidence. Nobs is being railroaded, and Cberlet appears about to be given authority to cite himself whenever and wherever he might find an opinion, based on his "expert" status. I don't contest that he merits an article (altho it is a bit of a resume), but I do contest his neutrality and range of expertise. That, combined w the mountains of evidence against him and the conflict he has fostered (5 people he rounded up and shoved together just in this one case!) should provide all the proof you need of the difficulty he presents.
Sam Spade
On 12/4/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
From what I can see, the arbitrators are doing quite well with a difficult case.
-Matt _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l