http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_o...
The appointed arbiters don't seem to be working out, place have a look at their handiwork. Note the lack of recusals, and near perpetual conflicts of interest. Note the political railroading of a handful of "rightwingers" on trumped up conspiracy charges. Look at the ability of an editor who barely warrants an article to cite himself, and enforce his blatantly biased POV w impunity, due to friends in the right places. It is a caricature of wikipedia at its worst.
Sam Spade
Yes, please look at this and give us some feedback. If we have not explained well enough why we are coming to the decisions we have in this case, dialogue here would help us explain it better. For a start, there is no finding that there was any conspiracy. A number of folks who could loosely be described as "right wing" have engaged in a number of activities which violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The most serious violations involve Nobs01 who basically acts like an attack dog. This has little or nothing to do with anyones political viewpoint, a great deal to do with the targeting of a valuable Wikipedia editor.
Fred
On Dec 2, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision
The appointed arbiters don't seem to be working out, place have a look at their handiwork. Note the lack of recusals, and near perpetual conflicts of interest. Note the political railroading of a handful of "rightwingers" on trumped up conspiracy charges. Look at the ability of an editor who barely warrants an article to cite himself, and enforce his blatantly biased POV w impunity, due to friends in the right places. It is a caricature of wikipedia at its worst.
Sam Spade _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
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
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
We briefly crossed paths, maybe, 30 years ago. Other than editing Wikipedia we have no current contact or connection. It is proposed that he use caution in editing the article on himself and to avoid personal attacks. When he asked to have you banned from the articles you are currently in dispute with him over he was told, "Negotiate politely".
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
I understand Cberlet is your friend and colleague, but for the sake of integrity, please hold us to the same standard.
I don't dispute any of that. My concern is that Chip is not being held to the same standard as others in this case. His NPOV violations and personal attacks are prolific. The evidence is overwhelming. I could spend a year investigating his edits, and write you a book on Cberlet and his intense POV. That said, I think the few scraps (During exams and a trip to france no less) I came up w are pretty clear. If not, please give us more time to gather more evidence, if you feel its needed...
Sam Spade
On 12/5/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We briefly crossed paths, maybe, 30 years ago. Other than editing Wikipedia we have no current contact or connection. It is proposed that he use caution in editing the article on himself and to avoid personal attacks. When he asked to have you banned from the articles you are currently in dispute with him over he was told, "Negotiate politely".
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
I understand Cberlet is your friend and colleague, but for the sake of integrity, please hold us to the same standard.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Please wait til the next round. Meanwhile do what you can to ensure that there is no next round. Negotiate politely with Cberlet regarding any disputes which arise.
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 9:26 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
I don't dispute any of that. My concern is that Chip is not being held to the same standard as others in this case. His NPOV violations and personal attacks are prolific. The evidence is overwhelming. I could spend a year investigating his edits, and write you a book on Cberlet and his intense POV. That said, I think the few scraps (During exams and a trip to france no less) I came up w are pretty clear. If not, please give us more time to gather more evidence, if you feel its needed...
Sam Spade
On 12/5/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
We briefly crossed paths, maybe, 30 years ago. Other than editing Wikipedia we have no current contact or connection. It is proposed that he use caution in editing the article on himself and to avoid personal attacks. When he asked to have you banned from the articles you are currently in dispute with him over he was told, "Negotiate politely".
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
I understand Cberlet is your friend and colleague, but for the sake of integrity, please hold us to the same standard.
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
Sam, I think a lot of the problem is that you think the ArbCom is handling the CONTENT DISPUTE between Cberlet and other editors.
The arbcom, as presently structured, does not handle content disputes. They only handle behavior and policy.
Thus your dissatisfaction with the way the arbcom is handling the content dispute.
-Matt
From: Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com
Please, ArbCom, review the evidence and rethink your results. This purging of the "right wingers" is not what the ArbCom is for.
Do you think that the Commitee is trying to "purge right wingers"? Do you imagine that there are no "right wingers" on the committee itself?
I understand Cberlet is your friend and colleague, but for the sake of integrity, please hold us to the same standard.
Yes, this is exactly the kind of innuendo which has tainted this (and related) cases - the implication being that the Committee is making decisions based on alleged friendships. Why would you insinuate that Cberlet is any more the "friend and colleague" of members of the Arbitration Committee than any of the other parties to the case?
Jay.
Are you saying your my friend or colleague? Are you a member of the USAF? Just what exactly do we have in common, outside of our long history of bitter conflict?
Sam Spade
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com
Please, ArbCom, review the evidence and rethink your results. This purging of the "right wingers" is not what the ArbCom is for.
Do you think that the Commitee is trying to "purge right wingers"? Do you imagine that there are no "right wingers" on the committee itself?
I understand Cberlet is your friend and colleague, but for the sake of integrity, please hold us to the same standard.
Yes, this is exactly the kind of innuendo which has tainted this (and related) cases - the implication being that the Committee is making decisions based on alleged friendships. Why would you insinuate that Cberlet is any more the "friend and colleague" of members of the Arbitration Committee than any of the other parties to the case?
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/5/05, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
Are you saying your my friend or colleague? Are you a member of the USAF? Just what exactly do we have in common, outside of our long history of bitter conflict?
At risk of sounding corny, I'd say that Sam and Jay have one very important thing in common - uncommon dedication to this project of ours to make a free encyclopaedia. So yeah, I'd say that makes you colleagues, if not friends.
Please don't try to re-direct the questions, Jack, and please don't try to make them about me. You made insinuations about the Arbitration Committee, please clarify. I'll repeat the questions:
1. Do you think that the Commitee is trying to "purge right wingers"? 2. Do you imagine that there are no "right wingers" on the committee itself? 3. Why would you insinuate that Cberlet is any more the "friend and colleague" of members of the Arbitration Committee than are any of the other parties to the case?
Jay.
From: Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com
Are you saying your my friend or colleague? Are you a member of the USAF? Just what exactly do we have in common, outside of our long history of bitter conflict?
Sam Spade
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com
Please, ArbCom, review the evidence and rethink your results. This purging of the "right wingers" is not what the ArbCom is for.
Do you think that the Commitee is trying to "purge right wingers"? Do
you
imagine that there are no "right wingers" on the committee itself?
I understand Cberlet is your friend and colleague, but for the sake of integrity, please hold us to the same standard.
Yes, this is exactly the kind of innuendo which has tainted this (and related) cases - the implication being that the Committee is making decisions based on alleged friendships. Why would you insinuate that Cberlet is any more the "friend and colleague" of members of the
Arbitration
Committee than any of the other parties to the case?
Jay.
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
I answered your question in good faith before, but now I will ignore it as poisonous. I appreciate Guettarda's good faith comment, btw.
Sam Spade
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Please don't try to re-direct the questions, Jack, and please don't try to make them about me. You made insinuations about the Arbitration Committee, please clarify. I'll repeat the questions:
- Do you think that the Commitee is trying to "purge right wingers"?
- Do you imagine that there are no "right wingers" on the committee itself?
- Why would you insinuate that Cberlet is any more the "friend and
colleague" of members of the Arbitration Committee than are any of the other parties to the case?
Jay.
From: Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com
Are you saying your my friend or colleague? Are you a member of the USAF? Just what exactly do we have in common, outside of our long history of bitter conflict?
Sam Spade
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com
Please, ArbCom, review the evidence and rethink your results. This purging of the "right wingers" is not what the ArbCom is for.
Do you think that the Commitee is trying to "purge right wingers"? Do
you
imagine that there are no "right wingers" on the committee itself?
I understand Cberlet is your friend and colleague, but for the sake of integrity, please hold us to the same standard.
Yes, this is exactly the kind of innuendo which has tainted this (and related) cases - the implication being that the Committee is making decisions based on alleged friendships. Why would you insinuate that Cberlet is any more the "friend and colleague" of members of the
Arbitration
Committee than any of the other parties to the case?
Jay.
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
Sam, I think a lot of the problem is that you think the ArbCom is handling the CONTENT DISPUTE between Cberlet and other editors.
The arbcom, as presently structured, does not handle content disputes. They only handle behavior and policy.
Thus your dissatisfaction with the way the arbcom is handling the content dispute.
-Matt
I see what your saying, but thats not what I'm about. I'm not expecting the ArbCom to decide on where [[far right]] should redirect to. I am requesting a balanced review of the evidence, early and often. I am demanding community outrage (which is growing, btw) at the biases, appointees, and lack of recusals. And I am speaking to the arbiters as people about the frank facts of the matter, and what I think needs to be done, for the sake of the encyclopedia.
Sam Spade
From: Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com
I am demanding community outrage (which is growing, btw) at the biases, appointees, and lack of recusals.
Where is your evidence that "community outrage" is "growing" over the "biases, appointess, and lack of recusals". I know the level of "outrage" is usually fairly high in every person sanctioned by the Committee, but that's pretty much par for the course, don't you think?
Jay.
From: Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com
I answered your question in good faith before, but now I will ignore it as poisonous. I appreciate Guettarda's good faith comment, btw.
Responding to questions with unrelated questions isn't really "answering" them, much less "in good faith". I think you know that.
Jay.
He is referring to my disclosure that I may have briefly encountered Chip Berlet when I was in the National Lawyers Guild. I did not recuse on that basis as there was very little if any actual connection between us. I don't think membership or even active participation in the National Lawyers Guild forms a basis for recusal as there are a number of reasons why people join the National Lawyers Guild and participate in it. Other than involvement in legal work there is absolutely no test for membership. Successful participation is another story. I soon found out that since I did not support the Gang of Four I was considered chopped liver.
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:57 AM, JAY JG wrote:
Please don't try to re-direct the questions, Jack, and please don't try to make them about me. You made insinuations about the Arbitration Committee, please clarify. I'll repeat the questions:
- Do you think that the Commitee is trying to "purge right wingers"?
- Do you imagine that there are no "right wingers" on the
committee itself? 3. Why would you insinuate that Cberlet is any more the "friend and colleague" of members of the Arbitration Committee than are any of the other parties to the case?
Jay.
No, Fred, he's making a much broader accusation; in fact a series of broad accusations unsupported by any evidence.
Jay.
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net
He is referring to my disclosure that I may have briefly encountered Chip Berlet when I was in the National Lawyers Guild. I did not recuse on that basis as there was very little if any actual connection between us. I don't think membership or even active participation in the National Lawyers Guild forms a basis for recusal as there are a number of reasons why people join the National Lawyers Guild and participate in it. Other than involvement in legal work there is absolutely no test for membership. Successful participation is another story. I soon found out that since I did not support the Gang of Four I was considered chopped liver.
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:57 AM, JAY JG wrote:
Please don't try to re-direct the questions, Jack, and please don't try to make them about me. You made insinuations about the Arbitration Committee, please clarify. I'll repeat the questions:
- Do you think that the Committee is trying to "purge right wingers"?
- Do you imagine that there are no "right wingers" on the Committee
itself? 3. Why would you insinuate that Cberlet is any more the "friend and colleague" of members of the Arbitration Committee than are any of the other parties to the case?
Jay.
I am making a very specific accusation: Due to a long history of conflict with myself, JAYJG has no ability to be neutral in this case. His lack of recusal is far more striking than that of Fred Bauder. Both of them, along w other obvious concerns (Kelly Martin) makes this case a very bad precedent regarding recusals.
Sam Spade
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
No, Fred, he's making a much broader accusation; in fact a series of broad accusations unsupported by any evidence.
Jay.
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net
He is referring to my disclosure that I may have briefly encountered Chip Berlet when I was in the National Lawyers Guild. I did not recuse on that basis as there was very little if any actual connection between us. I don't think membership or even active participation in the National Lawyers Guild forms a basis for recusal as there are a number of reasons why people join the National Lawyers Guild and participate in it. Other than involvement in legal work there is absolutely no test for membership. Successful participation is another story. I soon found out that since I did not support the Gang of Four I was considered chopped liver.
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:57 AM, JAY JG wrote:
Please don't try to re-direct the questions, Jack, and please don't try to make them about me. You made insinuations about the Arbitration Committee, please clarify. I'll repeat the questions:
- Do you think that the Committee is trying to "purge right wingers"?
- Do you imagine that there are no "right wingers" on the Committee
itself? 3. Why would you insinuate that Cberlet is any more the "friend and colleague" of members of the Arbitration Committee than are any of the other parties to the case?
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I tell you guys what I'd like, and what I'd be perfectly happy w.
How about we put this case on hold until after the "elections", or whatever. That will give Nobs a chance to ruin or redeem himself (so you can ban him for a month or a year/lifetime as appropriate). It will also force Cberlet to interact on a civil basis ''before'' the case is over. And it will give an end to any complaints of impropriety. It strikes me as an "everybody wins" situation.
Sam Spade
On 12/5/05, Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com wrote:
I am making a very specific accusation: Due to a long history of conflict with myself, JAYJG has no ability to be neutral in this case. His lack of recusal is far more striking than that of Fred Bauder. Both of them, along w other obvious concerns (Kelly Martin) makes this case a very bad precedent regarding recusals.
Sam Spade
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
No, Fred, he's making a much broader accusation; in fact a series of broad accusations unsupported by any evidence.
Jay.
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net
He is referring to my disclosure that I may have briefly encountered Chip Berlet when I was in the National Lawyers Guild. I did not recuse on that basis as there was very little if any actual connection between us. I don't think membership or even active participation in the National Lawyers Guild forms a basis for recusal as there are a number of reasons why people join the National Lawyers Guild and participate in it. Other than involvement in legal work there is absolutely no test for membership. Successful participation is another story. I soon found out that since I did not support the Gang of Four I was considered chopped liver.
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:57 AM, JAY JG wrote:
Please don't try to re-direct the questions, Jack, and please don't try to make them about me. You made insinuations about the Arbitration Committee, please clarify. I'll repeat the questions:
- Do you think that the Committee is trying to "purge right wingers"?
- Do you imagine that there are no "right wingers" on the Committee
itself? 3. Why would you insinuate that Cberlet is any more the "friend and colleague" of members of the Arbitration Committee than are any of the other parties to the case?
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, we will finish the case and close it. If the dispute continues after the case is closed we will reopen it. Whoever is making the most trouble will be the focus of attention.
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 2:43 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
I tell you guys what I'd like, and what I'd be perfectly happy w.
How about we put this case on hold until after the "elections", or whatever. That will give Nobs a chance to ruin or redeem himself (so you can ban him for a month or a year/lifetime as appropriate). It will also force Cberlet to interact on a civil basis ''before'' the case is over. And it will give an end to any complaints of impropriety. It strikes me as an "everybody wins" situation.
Sam Spade
Jack, in my experience when editors involved in a case doesn't see it going the way they want, they almost inevitably claim that one or more of the arbitrators is biased against them, based on some long-standing (but undocumented) hatred for them. It's not quite as common for them to claim there is a vast community consensus supporting their viewpoint - I give you credit for having the chutzpah to do the latter.
Regards,
Jay.
From: Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com
I am making a very specific accusation: Due to a long history of conflict with myself, JAYJG has no ability to be neutral in this case. His lack of recusal is far more striking than that of Fred Bauder. Both of them, along w other obvious concerns (Kelly Martin) makes this case a very bad precedent regarding recusals.
Sam Spade
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
No, Fred, he's making a much broader accusation; in fact a series of
broad
accusations unsupported by any evidence.
Jay.
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net
He is referring to my disclosure that I may have briefly encountered
Chip
Berlet when I was in the National Lawyers Guild. I did not recuse on
that
basis as there was very little if any actual connection between us. I don't think membership or even active participation in the National Lawyers Guild forms a basis for recusal as there are a number of
reasons
why people join the National Lawyers Guild and participate in it.
Other
than involvement in legal work there is absolutely no test for
membership.
Successful participation is another story. I soon found out that since
I
did not support the Gang of Four I was considered chopped liver.
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:57 AM, JAY JG wrote:
Please don't try to re-direct the questions, Jack, and please don't
try
to make them about me. You made insinuations about the Arbitration Committee, please clarify. I'll repeat the questions:
- Do you think that the Committee is trying to "purge right wingers"?
- Do you imagine that there are no "right wingers" on the Committee
itself? 3. Why would you insinuate that Cberlet is any more the "friend and colleague" of members of the Arbitration Committee than are any of
the
other parties to the case?
Jay.
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
So you deny a history of conflict with me?
Sam Spade
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Jack, in my experience when editors involved in a case doesn't see it going the way they want, they almost inevitably claim that one or more of the arbitrators is biased against them, based on some long-standing (but undocumented) hatred for them. It's not quite as common for them to claim there is a vast community consensus supporting their viewpoint - I give you credit for having the chutzpah to do the latter.
Regards,
Jay.
From: Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com
I am making a very specific accusation: Due to a long history of conflict with myself, JAYJG has no ability to be neutral in this case. His lack of recusal is far more striking than that of Fred Bauder. Both of them, along w other obvious concerns (Kelly Martin) makes this case a very bad precedent regarding recusals.
Sam Spade
On 12/5/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
No, Fred, he's making a much broader accusation; in fact a series of
broad
accusations unsupported by any evidence.
Jay.
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net
He is referring to my disclosure that I may have briefly encountered
Chip
Berlet when I was in the National Lawyers Guild. I did not recuse on
that
basis as there was very little if any actual connection between us. I don't think membership or even active participation in the National Lawyers Guild forms a basis for recusal as there are a number of
reasons
why people join the National Lawyers Guild and participate in it.
Other
than involvement in legal work there is absolutely no test for
membership.
Successful participation is another story. I soon found out that since
I
did not support the Gang of Four I was considered chopped liver.
Fred
On Dec 5, 2005, at 10:57 AM, JAY JG wrote:
Please don't try to re-direct the questions, Jack, and please don't
try
to make them about me. You made insinuations about the Arbitration Committee, please clarify. I'll repeat the questions:
- Do you think that the Committee is trying to "purge right wingers"?
- Do you imagine that there are no "right wingers" on the Committee
itself? 3. Why would you insinuate that Cberlet is any more the "friend and colleague" of members of the Arbitration Committee than are any of
the
other parties to the case?
Jay.
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
Sam Spade wrote:
So you deny a history of conflict with me?
You know, if you want a recusal, you should probably be posting some really convincing diffs to the arbcom case talk page rather than complaining in distinctly the wrong venue. I mean, you could keep complaining here too, but even then those really convincing diffs would help show you're complaining about a real problem rather than the case seeming not to go your way.
(Note that saying "I annoyed him so he must hate me so he should recuse" or variations on such has generally not been accepted as a recusal reason.)
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sam Spade stated for the record:
So you deny a history of conflict with me?
Sam Spade
I deeply admire the basic concept at work here.
1. Troublemaker makes a career of causing conflict.
2. Troublemaker's career of conflict leaves a wake: a history of conflict with those charged with stopping conflict.
3. Troublemaker then cites his career of conflict as a reason why those charged with stopping conflict cannot stop the conflict he is making a career of causing.
4. ???
5. Profit!
It should be needless to say, but, alas, is not, that the ArbComm has not accepted this argument any of the dozen or so previous times it's been offered, and don't seem to be interested in it this time, either. Inciting conflicts with the ArbComm is not an effective way of preventing the ArbComm from ruling against you.
- -- Sean Barrett | We will chant in Old Nahuatl sean@epoptic.org | As we pray to Quetzalcoatl | Who gave us chocolatl | And that's good enough for me!
Thank you for clarifying my thesis:
That those who describe others as "troublemakers" (esp. persons such as myself without any serious charges against them, past or present) are incapable of judging them neutrally. You have already made up your mind, evidence be damned. You solidify the bigotry by comparing me to those you have censured before. This Ivory Tower injustice cannot long last. Your prejudices and flippant generalisations underscore your inability to fairly judge better than any argument I could make.
Sam Spade
On 12/6/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sam Spade stated for the record:
So you deny a history of conflict with me?
Sam Spade
I deeply admire the basic concept at work here.
Troublemaker makes a career of causing conflict.
Troublemaker's career of conflict leaves a wake: a history of
conflict with those charged with stopping conflict.
- Troublemaker then cites his career of conflict as a reason why those
charged with stopping conflict cannot stop the conflict he is making a career of causing.
???
Profit!
It should be needless to say, but, alas, is not, that the ArbComm has not accepted this argument any of the dozen or so previous times it's been offered, and don't seem to be interested in it this time, either. Inciting conflicts with the ArbComm is not an effective way of preventing the ArbComm from ruling against you.
Sean Barrett | We will chant in Old Nahuatl sean@epoptic.org | As we pray to Quetzalcoatl | Who gave us chocolatl | And that's good enough for me! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDlNpgMAt1wyd9d+URAvrgAKCBrE83/OST5r+TaUwd43qxdMUDOwCeJ2HS T3loV0jOZvHqoMmGKn0mp5g= =5P/3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l