[Foundation-l] Do we need a Code of Participation?

Rob Smith nobs03 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 17 21:43:54 UTC 2007

On 11/15/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Rob Smith wrote:
> > On 11/13/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Marc Riddell wrote:
> >>
> >>> on 11/9/07 2:02 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge at telus.net wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The danger is that we do have people who will treat the proposed Code
> of
> >>>>
> >>>> Conduct as a hammer for beating newbies.  A code put in those terms
> >>>> would be as meaningful as shrinkwrapped software that tells me that I
> >>>> can't transfer the information to Cuba.
> >>>>
> >>>> I support the idea of a series of principles that we all hold dear,
> but
> >>>> not any kind of bureaucratic structure to support them
> >>> That's commune talk :-). Ray, by "bureaucratic structure" do you mean
> >>> people?
> >>>
> >> I'm talking more about structures that elaborate rules to make sure
> that
> >> everything is specified, or signing pledges...
> >>
> > I signed a pledge
> > here<
> >
> > .
> >
> That clearly arose in the context of an old dispute from two years ago.
> I have no basis for determining whether or not it was justified.
> What I'm talking about is general pledges that any editor would need to
> sign before ever being involved in a dispute.  The majority still carry
> on editing in their own specialties, consistently under the radar of
> chronic disputers.  To have every one of them sign a pledge would be
> demeaning.
> Ec

This is exactly the point: I signed a good faith pledge.  The initiator of
WP:DR had no less than 3 undisclosed COI's.  While I don not wish to revisit
all details, the presiding Arb had one COI, and more importantly encouraged
the complainant to circumvent official WP:DR after I singed a Good Faith
pledge.  Further, the complainant, presiding Arb, and others all were bound
to AGF in those days, as it was policy.

I did no participate in recusal motions, as I was demonstrating Good Faith
in the process.  In the midst of the process, the complainant calls me an
apologist of Nazis & anti-Semites because I asked him a question about a
book he edited wherein the author maintains Gen Reinhard Gehlen's
organization was made up of Jews working in the heart of Nazi intelligence
services.  Certainly the editor of that book would know I was asking about
the author's claim that the Gehlen organization was not made up of Nazis,
but rather of Jews.  Instead, the editor of the book libels me as an
apologist for Nazis, and ArbCom rubberstamps the libel by refusing to
sanction him for a personal attack.

This issue will never go away until we have action on my case, particulalry
if you wish to discuss having people sign pledges.  And I did not willingly
reveal my real life identity, I did so accidentally be responding to the
Complainant & presiding Arbitrators agreement to circumvent official WP:DR
at Wikien-1, which I had already signed to participate in Good Faith.

Rob Smith
aka Nobs01

More information about the foundation-l mailing list