Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the perspective of someone outside the dispute, it is unclear to me what this principle is supposed to mean: Wikipedia editors who engage in immature behavior by inappropriately focusing their attention on controversial users...

I appreciate that the phrasing was probably intended to soften whatever was meant, but I think the statement becomes unclear. "Focusing attention" seems to describe a mindset instead of behavior. Is there any way to express this more concretely?

Does it mean:

• Wikistalking?
• Harrassment?
• Something along those lines, but not clear enough to be labelled?
• Overreacting to a particular critic?
• Continuing to feed a troll?

The header "SNAKE! SNAKE!" doesn't help me much either. Does this refer to persecution? Or unfounded perception of persecution?

--Tabor 16:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It refers to overreacting Fred Bauder 18:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Cberlet a public figure? 2 Dispruption by Nobs01 3 Transparency in allegations of harassment 4 I am outraged 5 Problems with the Arbitration Process 6 Correction 7 Does this deal with Nobs01? 8 Finding on Nobs' talk page 9 Rangerdude admonished-comment 10 Requests for clarification 10.1 A "controversial expert exemption"? 10.2 "Modify Lyndon LaRouch 2"? 11 Thank you 12 I apologize 13 Dear Fred 14 More Non-Transparent charges 14.1 Request for clarification from HK 15 Is Chip Berlet an expert? 16 "Lack of insight" 17 Sam Spade's "personal attacks" 18 nobs personal attacks 19 Cberlet's personal attacks and discourteousness 20 Probation 21 Sam Spade probation 22 The way of Edsel

[edit] Cberlet a public figure?

A proposed statement of fact reads: "4) Cberlet, a minor public figure, has sometimes involved himself inappropriately ...."

I have doubt about whether Chip Berlet is a public figure for purposes of analyzing defamation and invasion of privacy issues, see Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.. Propose this finding of fact should read more like: "Cberlet, a presumably non-public person of sufficient notability to warrant a WP article, ...." FRS 15:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

We are not deciding about liability for defamation but regarding the courtesy which should be accorded to him as a Wikipedia editor. Fred Bauder 18:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me for this late response (I only became aware of this page yesterday.) Doesn't it seem to anyone else that Fred is in error, conflating Cberlet the editor with Chip Berlet, the commentator? If this precedent is set by the Arbcom, would that not mean, for example, that if Louis Farrakhan joined Wikipedia as an editor, he could demand a reduction of criticism in Louis Farrakhan, as a matter of courtesy? Or that editors with a strong POV on a certain subject, take for example User:SlimVirgin and Animal rights, could demand a tilt toward their POV in that area, as a matter of courtesy?

I think that this has an important bearing on the Proposed Finding of Fact and Proposed Penalty for User:Cognition. My impression is that Cognition couldn't care less whether you ban him or her, but I am concerned that the Arbcom's reasoning be clear, precise and equitable. The cited statements by Cognition[[1] are not a personal attack on User:Cberlet, but are framed as a commentary on Chip Berlet, the public figure, and I might add that Cognition's language at its most inflammatory ("Chip Berlet is a 5 cent thug," "Berlet, a small-time Goebbels") is less inflammatory than User:Cberlet's language characterizing public figure Lyndon LaRouche on various Wikipedia talk pages. Does the ArbCom propose to begin regulating comments made about public figures on Wikipedia talk pages? Because if that is the case, then Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore. --HK 15:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As per Cognition, IMHO, appears to be of the that species of an inbred "peculiar political animal" (see Political Research Associates#Criticism), probably on the staff of PRA. nobs 16:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As I read the new precedent, if Louis Farrakhan appears in an alleged peer reviewed journal, Farrakhan then qualifies for the priveleged expert exemption; but uniformity in this application probabaly hasn't been tested. nobs 15:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr.Bauder, it appears Mr. Chip Berlet's peer reviewed status is what affords him "controversial expert" status, which contrary to WP:NOR#Primary and secondary sources,

• such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia

and now exempts him from a host of Wikipedia policy & guidelines that apply both to content, and user conduct, unless I'm misreading this precedent. Thank you. nobs 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the third person and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). They must also cite publications, and may not use their unpublished knowledge as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify).

My proposed decision is subject to misinterpretation by anyone including Cberlet. My intent is that he is welcome and should not be hassled but should not throw his weight around. He may call extensively on his published research but ought not insist that Wikipedia articles mirror his work. We need to find ways of integrating the work of experts into our articles. In short he is entitled to respect but not deference. Fred Bauder 21:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The examples I posted in the General discussion [2], where Cberlet demanded of another lowly common user citations 6 times in 24 hours, and reverted my full citations twice, and inserted his unsourced original reseach all within the same time span, should merit some consideration by the Committee, at least how a "contorversial expert" treats common users with a modicum of courtesy. nobs 22:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not I am a "public figure" in terms of defamation, and to describe me as a "minor public figure" for purposes of Wikipedia seems fair. I understand the intent of the language to be exactly as Fred Bauder has desceibed above, and having said so, I rather expect my legion of fans will seek to hold me accountable to it. Sigh.... Obviously my view of my content contratemps with Nobs01 is from a wildly different perspective.--Cberlet 22:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's review this original research criticism of Prof. Harvey Klehr once again [3] (17:10, 22 August 2005). Can we say this undisclosed conflict of interest was inserted with good faith, or all the dispute resolution processes initiated over it? nobs 22:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Harvey Klehr, but no reason someone couldn't dispute some of his conclusions. Some citations would be nice though even if they are to Chip's own work. Fred Bauder 22:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem; he's got nothing to work with besides,

• Victor Navasky, The Nation; [4]
• Ellen Schrecker, [5],

and Schrecker has even changed her stance, [6][7], so Cberlet's use of her is outdated. He hasn't produced anything to cite himself with anyway. Now that I'm familiar with his historical research methods, we'll save that discussion for another day.

See Nobs01 response to evidence presented by Cberlet for full discussion. nobs 23:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispruption by Nobs01

In response to the alleged disruption by nobs and the example given in the findings, nobs fully qualified nobs use of "link and ties" when asked by User:Willmcw here [8], it is used in the same context used by Political Research Associates and Mr. Laird Wilcox. nobs 20:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transparency in allegations of harassment

I'll repeat here what I said of Fred Bauder's similar proposed finding on the other current Arbcom case that's dealing with this. Fred Bauder says here that I have "harassed" User:Cberlet yet offers absolutely zero diffs or other evidence of me doing this and cites absolutely no wikipedia policies I violated against Cberlet. He also "admonishes" me here and recommends an extremely excessive one-year probation for me here evidently for this same "offense," which he hasn't even bothered to specify or document.

The only thing Fred's proposed findings even say about my dealings with Cberlet is "see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw" - a user RfC I filed against Cberlet over the summer after Cberlet made multiple unprovoked personal attacks against me such as this one. I'd accordingly like to ask Fred or any other Arbcom member to explain their rationale behind any or all of these three proposed findings. If you're going to vote that I'm somehow "guilty" of doing unspecified wrongs against Cberlet, you at least owe it to the community and to me to explain exactly what it was that I did that caused you to reach this decision. Surely it couldn't have been filing an RfC against Cberlet for posts where he made flagrantly abusive attacks against me. Under Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, Arbitrators are required to "make detailed rationale for all their decisions public." I am posting this message because I do not feel that any such rationale has been offered in Fred's proposed findings against me, or for his accompanying proposed admonishments and penalties. Thanks for any clarification that can be provided. Rangerdude 08:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I am outraged

I am very unhappy w how this case is going, but I have no clue what to do about it. The evidence is clear, the precedent being set is horrific, and outside of asking Jimbo for help (which I have already done), I have no idea how justice is to be achieved at this point.

Sam Spade 23:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur completely. This case is being ramrodded through on shoddy and unspecific evidence by persons with documented personal biases toward Cberlet, who simultaneously turn a blind eye to his numerous and routine abuses of wikipedia policy on an almost daily basis. There is no justice in this Arbcom case - only propping up friends and penalizing anybody who has the courage to object when they commit flagrant wrongs. Rangerdude 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the Arbitration Process

Setting the current issues with the conduct of this arbitration hearing aside for the moment, the issues it has raised regarding the current arbitration procedures are extensive and in need of review.

Recusal Procedures - This case has revealed that the recusal procedures for Arbcom members with conflicts of interest in a given case are neither well defined nor adequate. Currently there is no well defined standard on what constitutes a conflict of interest where recusal would be appropriate. The current policy only states that "trivial" matters do not rise to the level of a recusal, and gives a single revert on a disputed article as an example of what "trivial" is. Clearly the examples that have been stated in this case as a basis for recusal requests go well beyond a single revert, yet some Arbcom members including one who has been asked to recuse himself nevertheless assert that they aren't sufficient for a recusal.

Right now the standard by which something merits recusal appears to be entirely arbitrary and dependent solely on whether or not the Arbcom member with a conflict of interest voluntarily acknowledges that conflict and takes the appropriate steps to recuse himself. That assumes all Arbcom members will be forthright about their biases in all cases all the time. If an Arbcom member doesn't do so there is virtually no recourse in the matter, and the conflict of interest will adversely affect and bias the outcome of the case. This is especially problematic if an Arbcom member finds himself reviewing a case with an editor or editors he particularly likes or dislikes, and decides against recusing himself to support a friend or penalize an enemy. It would be great if no Arbcom member ever found him or herself in this situation and would always be forthright in voluntarily recusing, but to assume that will always happen in every single case is simply naive. A better defined recusal procedure should devise a means to avoid this problem.

Evidence Procedures - Several issues have been raised in this case regarding the order in which findings are proposed. I think it is a reasonable goal in compliance with the Arbitration policy's transparency requirements that ALL findings and ALL penalties should derive from specific, conclusive evidence that is evaluated in an ordered manner. Put differently, the Arbcom should not be proposing enforcement procedures or penalties before it has made a finding of fact, and it should not be making findings of fact before it has decided on the principles involved in the case. The rationale behind this is strong and valid: if you vote on the sentence before you vote on the determination of guilt, pressure exists to bias the determination of guilt in a way that makes it conform to a sentence that has already been decided. The punishment should fit the crime, not the other way around. The same goes for determining the principles involved - if you vote on the evidence of a policy violation before voting on which policies it supposedly violates, an incentive exists to select policy interpretations that support an evidence finding that has already been decided. A breach of proper order of this sort is very dangerous to Arbcom decisions because it effectively allows the case to be manipulated toward a predetermined outcome regardless of the merits of the evidence put forth by each side.

"Wikilawyering" allegations - This term is thrown around way too much, and often out of convenience to avoid dealing with an unpleasant reality about the way a case is being handled. Since there is no formal wikipedia policy or guideline on what "wikilawyering" is and no means of distinguishing it from legitimate motions, it can be asserted in an arbitrary manner to just about any circumstance. There needs to be a definition of what "wikilawyering" is and is not. Otherwise, it's just a neologism of convenience used to discredit otherwise valid points. To be more specific, I do not think it is fair to say that making a motion explicitly permitted in an official guideline or policy is "wikilawyering." For example, the arbitration policy explicitly gives parties to the case a right to request recusal of Arbcom members with a conflict of interest. You can't just turn around and selectively beat parties over the head with "wikilawyering" allegations because they follow what the policy says to do. Same goes for RfC participation, or making comments in designated sections, or asking that specific rules about arbitration be enforced. Nor is it fair to dismiss a specific and clear policy violation on a technicality while the Arbcom simultaneously employs other technicalities to determine guilt and innocence.

On the other hand, it would be valid to say that somebody who posted a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that a party to a dispute is no longer actively editing is "wikilawyering." Defining this term would go a long way to resolving any "wikilawyering" problems as well. Whatever the case, this term needs to be better defined and applied with consistency, or else it should not be applied at all.

Consistency in Penalties - There needs to be some semblance of consistency in penalties proposed by the Arbcom for certain violations, especially if more than one party to the case violated the same rule. For example, if an admin and an normal editor both engaged in similar personal attacks on each other and violated NPA with similar severity, the penalty should be comparable within reason for both. It is neither fair nor consistent for the Arbcom to rule that both the normal editor and the admin engaged in similar personal attacks, then let the admin off with a slap on the wrist or warning because he's an admin but ban the normal editor for a month over the exact same thing. Admins should be held to the highest of standards to ensure the quality of their work, and that means giving them the same penalties as non-admins when the offense is the same. Simply being an admin should also have no bearing on whether or not a penalty is assessed against them. Admins who break the rules should get the exact same penalty they would get if they were not an admin for the same offense. To do otherwise would send a signal that admins are "above the rules" on Wikipedia.

Also, the maxim "let the punishment fit the crime" should apply. It would be absurd to ban somebody for a month on circumstantial or vague evidence and vaguely defined charges. It would be similarly absurd to let somebody who incontrovertably violated an important policy in a major way off with a simple "warning." Repeat offenders should also be treated in light of their excesses - an editor who has been warned in a past case for making attacks should not be let off with a second, third, or fourth warning. The penalty should be increasingly severe. Same goes for the nature of specific violations. An editor who spews venomous personal attacks and namecalling at everybody he encounters should be penalized more than somebody who mildly breached civility. An editor who inserts Hitler or Ku Klux Klan comparisons into wikipedia articles should be penalized more for NPOV violations than an editor who writes with a latent or unintentional bias toward a certain political party.

These are just a few suggestions of mine based on what I consider to be an unfortunate and highly unfair experience in this Arbcom proceeding. Based on the comments above and elsewhere from other parties in this case, it appears that I am not the only one who feels this way. Rangerdude 08:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to weigh in as one who feels this way, as well. Please note that Rangerdude and I hold vastly different POVs; in fact, on issues of economic policy, it would appear that our views are diametrically opposed. I also have nothing to gain with respect to this case, since as of yet there are no penalties directed against myself. Nonetheless, I think his critique of the way this case has been handled is on the mark. --HK 00:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Correction

Let me call to attention a possible error in the Proposed remedies; it reads,

Nobs01 banned for one month

5) Nobs01 is banned for one month due to disruption of User talk:Cberlet

should read "disruption of Talk:Chip Berlet. Thank you. nobs 17:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll correct that Fred Bauder 18:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[9] is not a personal attack.

Sam Spade 20:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It was certainly nasty. You have no business talking to anyone like this on Wikipedia. Courtesy is required. The suggested warning is to draw your attention to this problem. Fred Bauder 20:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No one has any business accusing me of plagiarism (I cited those sources repeatedly, as you would know had you properly looked into the matter), much less of vandalism. I was operating under the assumption that such false accusations were likely to result in consequence when scrutinized by wikipedia's adjudicators. At present it would appear I was mistaken, much to our collective shame.

I am uncertain if I will long continue to donate my attentions to a project so unwilling to engage in the neutrality and intellectual honesty it espouses, but if you for a moment suspect that I will refrain from speaking the truth to anyone, anywhere, for any reason, you are deeply mistaken.

I understand your desire to help a friend and colleague, but the right thing to have done would have been to recuse, and act as his advocate. Sam Spade 21:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I second everything Sam Spade said above. Fred is/was a lawyer, so certainly he's aware of the rationale behind conflict of interest recusals in any adjudicative matter. I don't know about Jayjg, other than to say that his refusal to recuse despite an obvious conflict of interest was par for the course of what I've seen on other articles from this extremely non-neutral and frequently combative editor. If Fred was on a jury hearing Cberlet's charges he'd be among the first to get dismissed, as would Jayjg and if either were the judge, motions would be filed taking it back to the judge pool for reassignment to another courtroom. This whole case only affirms Acton's principle applies in all facets of life, including at this project. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Rangerdude 22:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Very eloquent, but such obvious truths and demands for rigour are likely to be dismissed as "Wikilawyering". Sam Spade 14:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does this deal with Nobs01?

While Nobs01 has taken "no personal attacks" to a level I couldn't imagine (I am cautious to even call him a crank, as I think that is too much of a personal attack) against Chip Berlet, and certainly deserves a one month ban, I don't see a solution in play for Nobs01's massive disruption across Wikipedia articles. Lack of NPOV, removing paragraphs of facts that don't fit his POV, lack of citation etc. This case is called RFA of Nobs1 and others so shouldn't it be dealt with now? Me and Chip have posted examples on the Evidence page, I wish more people who had problems with Nobs would step forward. Ruy Lopez 01:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

He will probably come back after his month and act even worse and get banned from political articles, but he has had a good warning. It's up to him whether he learns anything. Fred Bauder 02:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: the instance in question deals with Talk:Chip Berlet, (1) not even an article namespace; (2) user Cberlet has demonstrated scant knowledge of anything related to Venona materials (it is ironic, Cberlet has not even read the Moynihan Commission report, despite his reputation as an expert on the FOIA & government secrecy). Fred, can you answer if it is a question of what I did, or the way I did it. Thank you. nobs 03:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What evidence do you have to make this claim?--Cberlet 04:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Which claim? nobs 04:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This claim: Nob01: "Cberlet has not even read the Moynihan Commission report." --Cberlet 14:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

From endless hours of discussion with Mr. Berlet, there is scant indication he is familiar with those sections dealing with Venona project (Chairman's forward and the Appendix's); and I have asked him point blank if he read it, never recieved a response, and if I remember correctly endured another personal attack. nobs 20:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Short answer, once again, no evidence, just lots of words that obfuscate that fact.--Cberlet 20:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The statement stands, Cberlet has shown no evidence of being familiar with the relevent portions of the Moynihan Commission report which deal with the Venona project. nobs 20:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The statement falters on the feeble legs of falsehood. Before I engaged Nobs01 in discussions over his edits on Wiki I read the Moynihan report, which is online [10], as well as several of the books that he so liberally cites from (using creative license in terms of what they actually say). I work at a library--I simply ordered them for the collection. I will be publishing an article on the revival of cold war countersubversion paranoia and apologia for McCarthyism. Thanks for the motivation.

I also read the very interesting chapter by well-known scholar Athan Theorharis here: [11], which I have not mentioned before so as to use as a trump card at this point. The highly-respected Theoharis does a scintillating job of pointing out where many of the cold-warriors cited by Nobs01 have made leaps of conclusion, exaggerations, biased findings, etc.

The issue is not, as Nobs01 is so quick to proclaim, that he has mastered the material while I have not. The issue is that we disagree, and that both our positions have proponents who are scholarly and have published their views. I even admit that my point of view is currently in a small eclipse, and was willing to insert only small counter claims on various Wiki pages.

But Nobs01 seems to be struggling with some emotional or psychological issues that lead him to act as if only he is the expert, while others, such as me, are incompetent. And when he is crossed, he sneaks off to his user page (or mine, or the entry on me) and dumps a steaming pile of verbal slime. So I fully support severe sanctions against Nobs01, not only for his tendentious self-important editing style and conduct, but for his ongoing nasty personal attacks.--Cberlet 21:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. You have confirmed my statement, "I could have argued Cberlet's case better than him", and was tempted many times to bring your attention to Athan Theorharis, but intimately seeing close up Cberlet's approach and methods, and a refusal to engage in issues of substance, preferring the tried and true personal attack, felt it wasn't worth it. nobs 21:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Assuming validity to your claims above, should I consider this an admission you have acted in bad faith? nobs 21:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So, Nobs01 is claiming that he knew my edits were justified by the work of Theoharis, but engaged in an edit war for months to censor and suppress that valid viewpoint?--Cberlet 21:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. nobs says if you needed some valid basis to stand on, nobs could have steered you in the right direction, rather than constantly changing the basis of your arguements, while maintaining conclusions that published works contradict. The problem was, Cberlet destroyed, over and over again, any good faith that is necessary to work together. nobs 22:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobs01, do you have any idea how arrogant this might sound? Good faith, in this formula, is built around your notion of your own superiority? A valid basis for edits can only be arbitrated by you? Good edits result when you reach down from Olympus to steer some mere mortal "in the right direction?" Is is at all possible that you have a distored view of your own superiority that gets in the way of good faith editing? Could that be even a tiny bit of the problem?--Cberlet 22:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Good faith can be demonstrated in discussion by focusing on the article, not blasting other users with invective & assigning motives, and especially when requested by another user to do so. nobs 22:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, it is the way you do it. I doubt the value of creating an article for every person mentioned in the Venona material, but that is a policy question. Being rude, edit warring, but especially putting all that crap on talk:Chip Berlet is not about adding useful content to the encyclopedia. Fred Bauder 13:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finding on Nobs' talk page

Fred et al - regarding your proposed finding: Nobs01 has converted User:Nobs01 into a sustained personal attack on Cberlet. Titled "The Extremist Personality", the page outlines "twenty-two common traits of extremists" with each linked to some example of Cberlet's editiing.

I believe that this is a direct product of growing frustration with the way the Arbcom has handled this case. While it is not the way I would go about voicing that frustration, I have to conclude that Nobs01 has a valid grievance with your handling of the case. Nobs is justifiably frustrated by the fact that the Arbcom, in a case designed primarily by you, Fred, has accepted each and every one of Cberlet's charges against five other editors with very little scrutiny of those charges, almost no transparency in its rationale behind each finding, and with harsh and lengthy sentences proposed against all of the accused editors. This frustration is furthered by the fact that the Arbcom has given virtually zero substantial consideration to voluminous evidence of policy violations, incivility, personal belligerency, page disruption, POV pushing and other offenses by User:Cberlet himself. After repeatedly attempting to call your attention to this evidence with only minor success on the Workshop page and virtually no consideration of it in the proposed decision, Nobs opted to present his grievances against Cberlet in essay form on his user page. As a method it may be lacking in tact, but as a protest against the highly biased proceeding that is taking place here it is a valid grievance. I suppose you'll try to penalize him for it and penalize the rest of us for whatever other fanatical and conspiratorial attacks your friend, professional colleague, and editing associate Cberlet chooses to fling our way, but in the end you have only yourself to blame for orchestrating such a shoddy, corrupt, ill-supported, and fundamentally unjust case on his instigation. Rangerdude 23:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly concur w this statement by User:Rangerdude. The ArbCom appears not to have reviewed the available evidence. Sam Spade 23:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The evidence is at User:Nobs01. Fred Bauder 00:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the evidence is @ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence. Have a look. Sam Spade 01:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Only nine of the 22 traits has a link, so the finding seems to be a factual exageration. The page doesn't mention Cberlet by name, and anyone following the links is free to draw their own conclusion as to whether the linked statements resemble the suggested "trait." To me, User:Nobs01's page shows a certain obsessiveness, and the verbatim copying of the "22 traits" (if that's what he did) raises copyvio concerns, but I fail to comprehend how it is a "sustained personal attack" --FRS 01:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's comments. Being that all nobs alleged "attacks" have met the proper standard of WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:RS, and none can be considered original research, yet the committee has seen fit to establish a special "Controversial expert" precedent, over the old WP:NOR#Primary and secondary sources of "such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia". I was gun shy about discussing any of the problems with the particular "controversial expert" whom the Committee chose to use to establish this precedent. My user page, as has been the habit in the past, has always contained items of interest to the community in some of the area's I've been working. As WP:V states, "verifiability, not necessarily truth". I appologize for going the extra mile of openly testing Mr. Wilcox's summation of the subjects' behavior, and not simply inserting Mr. Wilcox's language directly. Given the controversy raised, we shall accept Mr. Berlet's word, that The Public Eye is a "spawn" of the original CounterSpy magazine, and examine some evidence of what that means. Thank you all for your interest and concern. nobs 19:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rangerdude admonished-comment

Forgive me if this is NOMB but this diff [12] results in a statement that is not understandable:

Rangerdude is admonished to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Cberlet (Chip Berlet) who share the burden of being notable enough to have articles regarding them be included in Wikipedia.

What does "users such as User:Cberlet (Chip Berlet" mean?

I suppose what is meant, and what I would agree with, is that WP editors should avoid personal attacks on the subjects of articles, especially when they are living people, and notwithstanding that the subjects of the articles are also WP editors. But since NPA toward other editors is a policy anyway, it's not clear why the statement isn't just a tautology. --FRS 18:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am supposedly the subject of this finding, but I too am unclear exactly what the Arbcom is saying or even what I supposedly did to Cberlet that prompted this penalty. I have not personally attacked him at any place on wikipedia, and indeed my only edits that seem to have "offended" him were the addition of sourced and documented factual material regarding David Horowitz's criticisms of him to the Chip Berlet article. Cberlet didn't like those additions even though they were legit under WP:NPOV and he's taken it out on me ever since. I've asked the Arbcom many times to explain why I'm being penalized here and exactly what for, but I get no replies thus seemingly violating Wikipedia:Arbitration policy's requirement that "Arbitrators will make detailed rationale for all their decisions public." Rangerdude 20:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to engage in wikilawyering, but I was of the impression User:Cberlet and Chip Berlet are two separate entities (as Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates are two distinct entities); may perhaps be a Freudian slip regarding WP:OWN. nobs 20:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for clarification

[edit] A "controversial expert exemption"?

The Proposed decision contains the following proposed principle:

Controversial experts

5) Knowledgeable users, including those who have been engaged in controversial activities, are welcome to edit on Wikipedia, provided they cite reliable sources for their contributions and respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and Wikipedia is not a battleground.

It seems to me that it is incumbent upon the ArbCom, given the evidence that has been provided, to find either that Cberlet has failed to cite reliable sources for his contributions and respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, or to find that he has not. All the Proposed Decision does, in its present form, is acknowledge that there is a controversy.

I do not believe that Fred Bauder adequately answered the question raised by Nobs [13] regarding a "controversial expert exemption" precedent, apparently being established by the ArbCom with regard to Cberlet. Fred simply reiterates Wikipedia policy respecting original research, without addressing the more troubling issue: that the Arbcom is apparently granting Cberlet a free pass with regard to user conduct. In fact, on the Proposed Decision page, Fred opines that "Compared to other users on either the right or left who regularly edit on Wikipedia, he is model user," which strains my credulity. I can, in fact, think of a few examples of users with more egregious conduct problems, but I wouldn't use them as a point of reference; the reference point should be the general stated philosophy and objectives of Wikipedia, typified by the NPOV policy, and Cberlet's conduct is unacceptable from that perspective.

The statements by Cognition[[14], cited as a basis for banning him/her, are not a personal attack on User:Cberlet, but are framed as a commentary on Chip Berlet, the public figure, and I might add that Cognition's language at its most inflammatory ("Chip Berlet is a 5 cent thug," "Berlet, a small-time Goebbels") is less inflammatory than User:Cberlet's language characterizing public figure Lyndon LaRouche on various Wikipedia talk pages. Is there a double standard being established here? And under precisely what guidelines will editors be penalized in the future, for comments made about public figures on talk pages, ArbCom evidence pages, or other non-article fora?

In answer to your second question on how editors will be penalized for talk page comments on public figures, it depends entirely upon whether that public figure has one or more friends on the Arbcom. That's about the only substantive "finding" this case has made so far. Rangerdude 02:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only the priveleged expert exception, but Political Research Associates staff of eight persons is free to continue creating multiple sockpuppets to harass other users. The Committee has even voted on this principle already Wikipedia:Requests for_arbitration/Nobs01 and_others/Proposed decision#Harassment, which states,

• Wikipedia:Harassment prohibits actions which disrupt the editing activity of another user

The entire Venona series could have been completed months ago, incorporating views from all reputable published sources. Nonetheless, nobs has been the target of concerted harassment since mid-August, which the edit histories clearly show. nobs 19:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are no PRA sockpuppets. There is no such thing as a "controversial expert exemption." There is only a desire to ensure that editors do not take content disagreements and turn them into personal vendettas by disrutping user pages and text entires and text entry talk pages.--Cberlet 20:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

All this could have been managed in good faith, which was sorely lacking. And as to content, priveleged experts and their entities not only have a license to harass, they are also now granted exemption from WP:NOR, as this precedent clearly shows. nobs 20:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Modify Lyndon LaRouch 2"?

In my own view, my personal role in this proceeding has been minimal (other than in filing the counterclaim,) and there is no specific mention of myself in the proposed remedies. However, I am troubled by the vague wording of this proposed remedy:

Modify Lyndon LaRouch 2

2.1) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 is modified so that the remedies applied in Lyndon LaRouch 2 are applied to Cognition (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), and the general ban on LaRouche-related article editing is expanded to include Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, and Dennis King (and their talk pages).

Does this affect my editing? Does it only affect Cognition? If this is included in the final decision, will I be banned from editing the King and Berlet articles? If so, why? And regarding the articles in the "LaRouche Template," the ban, as applied to me in LaRouche 2, was not a "general" ban, but rather a one-year ban, subsequently re-set by User:Willmcw. Please clarify these matters, as the present wording is imprecise. --HK 15:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It would affect your editing by expanding the definition of "LaRouche-related article" to include Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, and Dennis King (and their talk pages) so you could not edit those pages. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 would apply to Cognition on the same terms it applies to you, except that he may continue to use that account. The length of the ban remains the same. Fred Bauder 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Then my second question remains, why? There has been no finding of fact regarding my conduct in this ArbCom case. With no finding of fact, on what basis is a penalty being applied to me? --HK 23:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It relies on the finding for the original decision; it is just an extension to some articles which were overlooked. Fred Bauder 01:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There is also no finding of fact that could justify any modification of Lyndon LaRouche 2. The only finding of fact that is remotely relevant is that Cognition made what is construed as a personal attack, in the form of an essay of sorts, on the evidence page of this proceeding, in which he makes a commentary on Chip Berlet, a public figure. What does this have to do with Lyndon LaRouche 2, or the articles on Berlet and King? Thus far, the Arbcom has found no fault in Cognition's editing of those articles, nor of my editing of those articles. The proposed penalty seems entirely capricious. --HK 22:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I am greatful to Fred for reviewing my evidence, and linking to it. I do however take issue with his conclusion:

"These transgressions do not justify proposal of further remedies. Compared to other users on either the right or left who regularly edit on Wikipedia, he is model user."

Perhaps further remedies are not going to be agreed upon, but suggesting Cberlet is a model user is something I find shockingly disagreeable.

As some of you are aware, I will not be providing further evidence in this case, and particularly not in regards to arbiters who might have recused. From what I know about the current policy regarding recusals, these arbiters cannot be forced to recuse unwillingly, and frankly the number of those who might have recused for one reason or another is extremely high in this case. Suffice to say that changes need to be made regarding recusal, and probably arbitration in general, and that I will continue to insist upon that. I will not however continue to fight a losing battle, or to take my judges to task for what I might view as their failings. Jimbo and the community will decide who is fit to judge, hopefully in an insightful and expediant manner. Sam Spade 13:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I apologize

I apologize for my attack on Chip Berlet on the evidence page of this WP:RfRa. While I was attacking Chip Berlet and not User:Cberlet, to attack a public figure who happened to have an account on Wikipedia may not literally be a violation of WP:NPA, but it was against the principle of the policy. Now that I have apologized, I ask the arbitrators to reconsider the sanctions against me proposed on this page. Cognition 21:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology Fred Bauder 21:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Fred

Dear Fred: It would be interesting to see some basis for this statement "dissatisfaction expressed by Nobs01", etc., which appears to be a cookie cutter statement pasted to four other participants. Unless the charge seems to be (unlike Cognition), some users choose to participate in the process, defend themselves against what Cberlet now admits were exaggerated claims [15]. I assumed good faith with the Committee, despite the evidence presented by those I was accused of leading "in concert", and the Committee's failure to set the record straight regarding that hyperbolic and defamatory smear directed at me by Cberlet in the presence of the Committee. My appologies. nobs 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More Non-Transparent charges

Hey Freddo - Care to explain what this is all about? "In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Rangerdude with the decisions reached in this case and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case he is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation" How the hell am I supposed to have any "insight" into the supposed role my "behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems" of this case when you apparently cannot even be bothered to clearly specify or explain the diffs and policies I supposedly violated! It's not like I haven't made clear and good faith efforts to get you to explain them either. I asked you many times and all I got was the run around plus the laughable charade of posting diffs to talk page requests where I asked Cberlet to quit personally attacking me in the middle of a dispute that he instigated. And when I dare object to such a shoddy non-transparent ruling, your reaction is to up the penalty and blame me for something that is no fault other than your own for outright refusing to be transparent in your proposals to begin with. It just goes to prove my thesis all along about your handling of this case. The outcome was not determined on the facts, but rather on which editors were friends with Arbcom members and therefore get impunity for their bad behavior while everyone else gets slapped with trumped up charges. Rangerdude 17:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You refer to "trumpted up charges". That state of mind shows lack of insight. You don't understand what you did wrong; thus it can be anticipated that you will continue to engage in the same behavior. Fred Bauder 22:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How exactly am I supposed to "understand" what I supposedly did wrong, Fred, when (1) you will not clearly identify what policy I violated, (2) you will not clearly indicate which posts of mine supposedly violated it, and (3) you will not explain how those posts were supposedly violations. Your rulings would find better reception, Fred, if you at least had the decency to fully explain and substantiate them, rather than ramrodding through penalties on behalf of your friends and political allies against anybody who has had the misfortune of crossing paths with them. Rangerdude 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification from HK

I am assuming that there is a typographical error here, where Fred Bauder proposes that I be placed on probation "...in view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Sam Spade with the decisions reached in this case and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case." It were no less mystifying, however, if I were to substitute my own name for Sam's, given that there is no finding of fact against me, and even the allegations against me in Cberlet's complaint boil down to nothing more than a few edits that he disapproved of in the article Chip Berlet, one and one half years ago. Consequently, I hope that you can understand how I might have a lack of insight into any role my behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me much more likely that Fred's proposed penalty is purely in response to "the dissatisfaction expressed ...with the decisions reached in this case." This would seem to be an offense akin to Lese majesty. --HK 16:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Chip Berlet an expert?

Wikipedia needs to decide what an expert is. Publishing books and writing opinion articles does not make one an expert, although, perhaps if they are best sellers it could make one notable. I don't see peer reviewed journals in his publications, and have I requested in the discussion page that any such publications be pointed out. He writes non-fiction books that are foot noted material and in them and his articles he assembles quite a bit of evidence for his theories. How is he different from Kevin McDonald, other than that his conspiracy theories are more politically correct on the left? I have rejected claims that Kevin McDonalds writings are "research", and unless I am missing some evidence of expertise, I would similarly reject claims that Chip Berlet and some of the other people who write in that area have performed "research", they have written non-fiction books and articles with footnotes. But there has been no peer review of both the evidence for and against their claims. Here are my criticims of Kevin McDonald, I submit that the same criticisms can be made of Chip Berlet and other "experts" in his area.[16] [17] If he has a track record of getting his facts and footnotes straight, then it is probably appropriate to site his works as reliable sources for those facts. Whether he is an "expert" or not probably goes more to whether publishing small circulation books makes him or others in that "field" enough of an expert to have their opinions cited. Can they defend the methodology they used to validate their theories or conclusions? Or have they merely selectively compiled evidence and then perhaps sinisterly construed it, much like McDonald. I suspect that McDonald has most of his facts right, and could probably be cited as sources for those. We just need to be careful to distinguish fact from opinion and theory.--Silverback 07:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Your points are logical, factually sound, and valid as far as true neutrality and assessments of expertise go. Unfortunately, they are also something that is likely to get you banned around here since Mr. Berlet has several friends on the Arbcom who generally view him as "more equal" than all us other wikipedians out there. Rangerdude 07:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have explained elsewhere in this montage of arbitration pages, I have written one article for a peer review journal, and have another in publication. I have recently been asked to be on the editorial board of a scholarly journal, and am a periodic anonymous reviewier for a peer review journal in sociology. I also have written entries for several specialty encyclopedias. I have written two reviews in the official review journals of academic groups, and recently published a major featured review essay on four books on the militia movement in the official review journal of the American Sociological Association. In addition I am invited to present formal papers at juried academic conferences, and have written chapters in a number scholarly books. I am listed as an expert on hate groups in a study on that subject published by the American Sociological Association. --Cberlet 14:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you point me to the peer review journal articles? I haven't been able to review all the writing here. I am sympathetic to the idea that one can be an expert without academic credentials, although I think that is more meaningful in a hard science than in a soft "science" such as sociology, especially a hard science where the contributions can be reproduced and the experiments have controls. I'd be interested in how hard the science is you have done is in the refereed work. In my encounters with you, you have been extending the concept of hate groups to elements of the Christian Right, and generalizing that influence to the whole Christian Right. While at some times and in some cultural and perhaps even academic environments daemonization of some groups may be acceptable and even considered respectable. In the past, and even in some cultures today it is acceptable and even respectable to daemonize jews. The type of evidence you assemble against "hate" groups, could also be assembled to show that progressives and liberals are hate groups against the rich or people of faith, or that marxists hate the burgoiusee and capitalists. You might claim that you target "true" hate groups that are "true" threats. But the damage to civilization caused by marxists, progressives, environmentalists and animal rights groups can also be documented. I am glad someone such as yourself and those on the other side is assembling evidence, but it is incumbant on each of us to conduct our own assessments of such evidence, and to keep it in perspective. The human mind is to prone to see links, influences and conspiracies in noisy data. --Silverback 23:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Minor publications in obscure specialty journals do not grant somebody automatic "expertise" or credibility. There are many junk journals out there as well - most of them being in-house publications on obscure subjects that generally involve promoting a political ideology or agenda. The fact that a journal would ask use non-academic and uncredentialed persons in any review or editorial board capacity is probably an indicator that it is not a high quality journal. Expertise comes from recognized credentials, recognized positions in a scholarly capacity, and scholarly consensus behind your work and publication. What I've seen of Mr. Berlet's credentials in these areas is generally insufficient to demonstrate expertise beyond that of a minor political activist. Consider the three measures I just suggested as they apply to his case:

1. Credentials - What accredited degrees or scholarly credentials does Chip Berlet have? What field are they in and what, if any, university has given him a degree?

ANSWER: As best I can determine from his biography pages on Wikipedia and his own site, Mr. Berlet does not have any degree in anything from any university. Not even a B.A. His highest level of education attained appears to be a few semesters in undergraduate sociology classes in the early 1970's at the University of Denver, which he states he droppped out of in 1971.

2. Positions - What accredited scholarly positions has Chip Berlet held?

ANSWER: As best I can determine from his biography pages on Wikipedia and his own site, Mr. Berlet has (1) never held a tenured position at any accredited university, (2) never held a non-tenured associate, assistant, or adjunct professorship at any accredited university, and (3) never held a formal faculty position of any level at any university, community college, high school, middle school, or even elementary school. Nor does he appear to have held any paid position as an editor or even reporter at a mainstream newspaper or media outlet. It should be noted that all of the aforementioned positions typically require an undergraduate degree at the bare minimum, and most university level positions require a J.D. or Ph.D. Mr. Berlet does not appear to have either. The closest he comes to any of these positions is being an occasional speaker to university students on campus activism topics at a half dozen or so universities, making for an awkward situation in which he was addressing groups of students who had likely attained higher levels of education than himself. He has also apparently served on an unpaid 11-member advisory board to a University-based research organization on millenialism.

3. Consensus and Publication - In which scholarly sources has Chip Berlet been published and what is the scholarly consensus regarding his work?

ANSWER: The majority of Mr. Berlet's published work appears to be in one of three forms (a) political and editorial pieces for PRA's in house publications, (b) political and editorial pieces for other political publications on the far left such as The Nation, the SPLC's magazines, and Mother Jones, and (c) reader op-ed pieces submitted to about a dozen or so newspapers. The quasi-academic publications that Mr. Berlet has appeared in include (a) minor journals on specialty topics that are likely 3rd or 4th tier in their fields at best, given that they apparently publish people without even a B.A., (b) political books by others espousing a leftist sociological position, and (c) a political book by himself and another espousing leftist positions. I see no evidence that he is a widely recognized "scholar" in any standard academic field, and no evidence that he is viewed as anything more than a minor name known best for his political activism.

Though my past experiences with him suggest to me he will take it otherwise, I post this with no intended disrespect to Mr. Berlet himself but rather as a simple assessment of his credentials as an expert. Viewed in any honest light, it is a stretch to say that Mr. Berlet has recognized expertise as established by the three aforementioned criteria in any scholarly or academic discipline. At the very most, he qualifies as a minor "expert" in political activism on the left wing of the political spectrum. While this certainly does not preclude citations of his work from wikipedia, they should be designated under source use guidelines to reflect that they are from a partisan and political source with a very strong POV. Anything more is a stretch. I know I certainly wouldn't accept a term paper from a student - even at the undergraduate level - using Mr. Berlet's work as a primary source, any more than I'd accept one using Maureen Dowd (who has a B.A., unlike Berlet) or Ann Coulter (who has a J.D., unlike Berlet). Rangerdude 19:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Undergoing this process I have begun to review some of Mr. Berlet, who "shares the burden of notoriety", material going back decades. While the general subjects are operative over his career, there does appear to be a more subtle approach to various themes since about 1997, which is noticible among reviewers and the works themselves. This is due perhaps to two factors: (1) age and maturity of the author (2) some professional criticism he recieved in the late 1990s. However, what is very apparent throughout, is an internal inconsistency. Numerous examples abound, and if time allows before the committee axe falls, I could cite several examples. For now, I would encourage review of An Introduction to Propaganda Analysis, a very short piece available on the Chip Berlet namespace, and it appears the substance is derived from other peoples work. Note especially "Lees seven hallmark tricks of the manipulative propagandist":

Name Calling: hanging a bad label on an idea

Card Stacking: selective use of facts or outright falsehoods

Band Wagon: a claim that everyone like us thinks this way

Testimonial: the association of a respected or hated person with an idea

Plain Folks: a technique whereby the idea and its proponents are linked to "people like you and me"

Transfer: an assertion of a connection between something valued or hated and the idea or commodity discussed

Glittering Generality: an association of something with a "virtue word" to gain approval without examining the evidence

I would like to add more comments, however due to restrictions, and other abominations I've committed, I've probably stretched the limits of tolerance already. nobs 19:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The article[18] clearly attributes the "Seven Hallmarks" to the Lees. The other list is a summary of the standard falacies of logic. This attempt to suggest that I am a plagiarist is both wrong and, frankly, sad.--Cberlet 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

My friend, I appologize, no suggestion is intended. The reader in fact must take Mr. Berlet's reference to Lees & others is accurate, (and in good faith, there is no reason not to). And we can assume the author of this article is well studied in the subject. It is presented, I assume, as an object lesson to the readership. But I hesitate to say anything more, being unpriveleged and non-peer reviewed (no sense getting my hands, face & butt slapped any more than already). nobs 20:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Example of internal inconsistency [19]. Briefly, we all are familiar with the subjects of "Right–Wing Populism", "Old Nazi's, the New Right, and the Republican Party", and dozen's of other works. We may sum up Mr. Berlet's view (if he will allow) as quoted here:

[Q]: Why dissect the right this way? Why not just lump them all together and say, "Let’s make sure they all are out of power and can’t dominate the country"?

CB: We do need oppose them and we don’t want them to run the country. People who are progressive should be running the country. They’d be doing a better job, at least in my mind." [20]

Then, despite the often shrill rhetoric, and other assertions other writers have deemed questionable (to phrase mildly), we have a quote like this:

"Once they seized state power, these fascist movements liquidated their leftist partners and instituted even more repressive and authoritarian regimes. While this is an unlikely outcome in the U.S., there are other dangers…” [21].

The phrase, "...this is an unlikely outcome in the U.S....", is simple and clear. It means it is unlikely a right-wing fascist movement will seize power in the U.S., liquidate their enemies, and institute a repressive authoritarian regime. This stands in marked contrast to the "too close for comfort" theme that is the driving force behind PRA's mission. nobs 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This is PRA's mission statement:

"Political Research Associates is a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights."

The theme of the book I co-wrote, Right-Wing Populism in America, not published by PRA, is not the mission of PRA.

The cutting and pasting of snippets of text taken out of context and assembled to make some relatively incoherent and obscure point just to attack me and the organization for which I work is continued evidence that Nobs01 is not willing or able to take this arbitration seriously or accept responsibility for his actions.--Cberlet 23:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sir: As stated, "if Mr. Berlet will allow"; if Mr. Berlet feels the above quote is out of context in expressing his views, then please advise. Nobs01 stated in his original Statement [22], nobs viewed Cberlet v nobs as a content dispute. The arbitrators have found nobs actions from about Nov. 12-14 on the Talk:Chip Berlet page a "personal attack"; nobs felt at the time it was properly sourced per Wikipedia policies. The ArbCom findings differ. People evidently can hold different opinions. I believe since Cberlet & nobs first contact, nobs has conducted himself with respect and dignity toward Cberlet (with the exception of the ArbCom findings since Nov. 12). Nobs01 also thought it was too huge a task to dig up every personal attack Cberlet has levelled against nobs since the beginning, one reason being I believe in forgive and forget, and think it's undignified to rub other peoples personal slights in their face. And I'd ask the ArbCom to find one, simply one instance ever of a personal attack by nobs on any user, or even a 3RR warning. But the ArbCom has determined the squeaky wheel gets the grease. My biggest mistake is an over concern with content, and an unwillingness to get down and dirty with other users over user conduct toward myself. Pardon me for taking Wikipedia's entire mission too seriously. nobs 23:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Lack of insight"

Is it really true that people are being put on probation for "dissatisfaction" and "lack of insight"? What the heck kind of justification is that? It sounds like those could be rephrased as "disagreeing with the ArbCom" and "being wrong, because the ArbCom is right". This is truly frightening.

I haven't read the actual RfAr that spawned this (I wonder if this puts me on the "lack of insight" list), but I cannot imagine any possible dispute justifying such a decision. I really hope that I've misunderstood something, but there didn't seem to be much to misunderstand about the wording of the decisions.

Fred Bauder, James F., and the Epopt, you seem to be the ones making or supporting these decisions. Do you have any explanation? rspeer 21:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This case is more-or-less a continuation of a long ordeal involving rampant POV pushing on any article related to Lyndon LaRouche. Before the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, HK was one of the primary POV pushers. He's continued to skirt the boundaries of that ruling, although he has not violated it directly. I see this is simply an extension on his general ban on LaRouche related editing. The wording could be more clear if this indeed the intent, but this is simply my opinion as a periphally involved party.--Sean|Black 22:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that he's already got his ArbCom penalty, and to extend his punishment here just because he spoke up is double jeopardy, as well as a really bad precedent for anyone ever giving input to the ArbCom. If he's done something new that is bad enough that it has to be remedied by the ArbCom, then there should at least be a finding of fact. And what about Sam Spade? It seems he's being penalized for the same thing. rspeer 22:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This is based on the notion that they "did nothing wrong" and their assertions that the arbitration was totally unfair. Under the circumstances we most likely have a repeat customer. Wikipedia:Probation seems appropriate as it takes 3 arbitrators to impose a penalty which must be for good cause. Fred Bauder 22:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I've paid little attention to the other's cases, trying rather to get the Committee to focus on the Cberlet v nobs dispute; the "acting in concert" ploy apparently was successful in obscuring the evidence. I understand one "conspirator" has not edited any Berlet related articles since February, which is probably the reference to "double jeopardy" above. If Mr. Bauder would be so kind to advise, what possibly are user:nobs appeal rights to get a strictly separate hearing on my case. Does Jimbo Wales do that, or can I ask Mr. Wales to ask a newly elected Committee to review my case separately from the others? Thank you. nobs 23:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred, I will agree that probation is not a very harsh remedy -- in fact, few remedies are. But any remedy should have a reason behind it, not just that you don't like the person. Specifically, I think HK is compeletely allowed to make "assertions that the arbitration was totally unfair" - that's my entire point. It is not a violation of Wikipedia policy to question the ArbCom, and I'd like to make sure it doesn't become one.

That just leaves 'the notion that they "did nothing wrong"', which is really vague as you stated it. Are you saying that HK's offense was claiming that he did nothing wrong? If he did something wrong, why don't you show it the normal way, in a finding of fact, and then sanction him for what he did wrong instead of what he said to the ArbCom so you don't set such an awful precedent? rspeer 06:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade's "personal attacks"

I've examined the two examples characterized as "personal attacks" by Sam Spade. The one with an expletive is uncivil, but does not appear to be a personal attack at all. If is characterizing statements made by Cberlet, some with specificity and then the more general characterization, "other ugly statements".

The other statement "I get the impression your incapable of anything resembling intellectual honesty", is making a characterization of Cberlet that is an attack on his character. But it is in response to this statement "I still think it is an almost incoherent ultraconservative rant, but if SamSpade wants it in the text, he needs to avoid the issue of plagiarism of Lind's work", which also appears to be an attack on Spade's character, not that it justifies another attack. But also note that rather than analyzing Spade's proposed text. Cberlet just characterizes the quote as an "almost incoherent ultraconservative rant". Even out of context the quote appears to be intelligible, was Cberlet analyzing it in good faith? I would have pressed Cberlet to express his objection with more rational specifics, but perhaps there is more history here that led to some frustration on Sam's part. However, if this is as far as the "personal attacks" went, it hardly would seem to require arbcom attention.--Silverback 02:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, you need to do more than cursory glancing at this set of complicated issues. The reference to an "almost incoherent ultraconservative rant" is clearly a reference to the text from a contentious and idiosyncratic article about political correctness by Lind ("an almost incoherent ultraconservative rant") that was inadvertantly plagiarised by Sam Spade. Sam Spade for many months refused to accept that it was plagiarism. What I was saying, per Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV AND attribution, was that if Sam Spade wanted that text to remain in the Wiki article as a representative of the conservative view of political correctness, he at least had to make the text entry reflect that it was from Lind. It was not a personal attack on Sam Spade. This arbitration will not benefit from superficial and flawed observations from someone with a long history of this sort of behavior such as Silverback, with whom I have had many confrontations. There is "more history" here, and you are in the middle of it, so let's not play coy. I have never blocked conservative material from a page when it was properly cited and germane to the text. I was the Wiki editor who finally added a cite to a serious conservative book that dealt with political correctness. On the other hand, you, Silverback, have repeatedly challenged my cited entries without bothering to do any substantial research whatsoever. Just your personal opinions. So please do not pretend there is no history between us.--Cberlet 04:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned our history on Christian Right issues above, so I am not pretending or playing "coy". If your recall correctly, I researched your cited entries enough to have one or two of them removed or balanced by putting them into proper context. Your "almost incoherent" comment was obviously a reference to the quote immediately above it, which did not take much effort to understand. The references you cited in our encounters are almost all from people who write books weaving negative material about some individuals and trying to demonize a whole group. Work very much like your own. I'm sure you would not want to be judged by your most extreme or negative statements, or by the mistakes you have made, when on balance you are a well intentioned individual.--Silverback 08:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet says: "I have never blocked [conservative] material from a page when it was properly cited and germane to the text." Then we have this experience [23] which had to be entered into evidence twice before it got a hearing. In full context, Cberlet demands citations 6 times [24][25][26][27][28][29], simultaneously, while deleting "proper citations germane to the text" [30][31], and adds original research [32][33]. What did the committee find? "Table pounding" [34], whatever that is. Now, through the use of intimidation, Mr. Bauder is silencing his critics. nobs 17:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] nobs personal attacks

A personal attack is basically another form of original research. Nobs01 "personal attacks" were all sourced to these,

• Richard S. Welch, Washington Post, (29 December 1975), p. A16. ISSN/ISBN 01908286
• To The Surprise Of A Few...., Security Intelligence (24 August 1992), 5.

• Public Eye Staff, The Public Eye (Vol II, Issues 1 & 2, 1979), 3.

• For The Record, Washington Post, 27 July 1980.

• Letterhead, Political Research Associates, 1999.

• Guardian (11 January 1984).

• Guardian (11 July 1984), reprinted in Stop The Grand Jury, John Brown Anti-Klan Committee (November 1984).

• Sgt. A. McCree, A Case For Self-Defense, Military Police (Summer 1981).

• The Public Eye (Volume IV, Issues 1 & 2, 1983), 20-21.

• Harvey Klehr, Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 161.

• The Public Eye, Volume III, Issues 1 and 2 (1981).

I may have left out a few. But a fair review would note they were all added to a discussion page virtually with little or no comment and nobs made no claim of plagerizing thier content. nobs 02:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cberlet's personal attacks and discourteousness

I've analyzed the four postings presented as evidence for Cberlet's personal attacks and discourtesy. The first and fourth are definitely personal attacks. The second, "overhaul your attitude" is uncivil. The third questions Sam's good faith, so can be construed as a personal attack. Still, all these are not that serious by wikipedia standards. I doubt either Sam's or Cberlet's "personal attacks" are the reason this is before the arbcom. These just don't rise to ARBCOM significance. I suspect this is more about POV issues and content. However, I find the arbcom voting curious, since Cberlet's statements seem more serious than Sam's. Although, I can understand it if the focus is on Sam's expletive. Such language is the only thing I have ever had to remove from my talk page.--Silverback 02:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Probation

I protest this in the strongest possible sense. No one should be punished for perceiving a mistrial, an unfair verdict, or Judicial misconduct. I will not edit under such humiliating circumstances. Sam Spade 04:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade probation

The motion to put Sam Spade (talk • contribs) on probation has received a couple of dissents, stating it is too harsh and unwarranted here. Perhaps the Arbcom has seen worse behavior in other cases than the evidence of plagiarism and personal attacks brought to bear against Sam Spade in this case; however, I'm a bit concerned about the possibility of excessive leniency here. In the context of considering Sam Spade's long career on Wikipedia, rather than an isolated set of incidents involving Chip Berlet, probation is more than warranted. Sam Spade has a long history of starting crusades against users he dislikes; his user page is even set up along the lines of a mock "detective agency" confronting his enemies on Wikipedia. Before it was Chip Berlet, I was one of the users targeted by Sam Spade, and he came close to driving me off Wikipedia on several occasions. Further, I have been contacted by email with other users citing Sam Spade as the major reason behind their decision to leave Wikipedia... Sam Spade does do good work on Wikipedia. But it is time to close down his proverbial "detective agency." 172 19:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

He's not half as bad as 172. We can't just fling everyone that has strong opinions off. But note I proposed the remedy and voted for it. Fred Bauder 20:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Because he agrees with your POV... My issue was the "Wikilawyering," as many users find his backing of certain "underdogs" more disruptive than helpful, not POV. Sam Spade, is of course, quite entitled to his POV; and should feel welcome to promote it on Wikipedia. Actually, I think that he will be much more effective at promoting his POV if he starts focusing more on content as opposed to personalities. 172 03:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I most certainly do not agree w Fred Bauder's POV! I don't know what it is, but I am sure I don't agree w it ;) As far as all this POV vrs. wikilawyering stuff, its a smokescreen. "Wikilawyering" simply means standing up to those with a monopoly on the power here, namely admins and those above them, in a logical way. As far as my POV... as you should know by now, my POV is that factually accurate, verifiable information should be cited in a neutral manner. Sam Spade 10:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, if you want me to close my phreaking detective agency, or quit wikilawyering (i.e. trying to defend wiki-underdogs against wiki-old timers and insiders) that would be fine. The probation however is only a milder version of blocking me for a year, and I won't stand for it.

I have volunteered here for over 2 years now, and provided you w 30,000 edits and a featured article. I have 5 barnstars (from five different users), and have helped out in about 5 winning ARBCOM cases. I was planning on linking family members to the wikipedia this christmas to view articles I have edited, and my user page and such. Instead I have deleted all personal information, so that no one who knows me needs to know the shame you have put me thru.

Disregarding all of that, you have taken 2 contested personal attacks (against one Chip Berlet), and one act of purported "plagiarism" (I made an honest mistake, one I was so clueless about as to not have realised until examing the evidence for this trial!), and turned them into an ARBCOM case. What kind of workplace is this? Why would I want to volunteer here under probation? Sure, I like to read encyclopedias, but is this supposed to be worth it? If I volunteered at the YMCA instead, i would have had a plaque by now, not a court case. Sam Spade 22:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think putting Sam Spade on probation for one year is too harsh; but probation for one month would be a way to try to get Sam Spade to understand that despite his many useful edits, his aggressive and sometimes arrogant manner of going after editors he targets as his "enemies" needs some self-inspection and modulation. We are all volunteers. We all get frustrated with other editors. The main point I was trying to raise in the arbitration was not about content disputes, but about the serious issue of crossing boundaries from content disputes into editing text in actual entries about Wiki editors with whom another Wiki editor has had a content dispute. In addition, using User Talk pages as battlegrounds is problematic to me. I made Sam Spade part of the arbitration because I thought Sam Spade had crossed some boundaries that needed to be made clearer. The issues of some of his nastier personal attacks and his confusion over the issue of plagiarism were related to this. I would like to point out that I tried repeatedly to get Sam Spade to look more carefully at the issue of plagiarism, which Sam Spade still refers to as "purported." I see no indication that Sam Spade takes these issues as seriously as they need to be taken. His threats to leave Wikipedia reflect this inability to accept criticsm in a constructive manner. One year probation is too long, but no probation at all given his current attitude toward this arbitration process is too lenient.--Cberlet 23:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My attitude is no basis for punishment! What actions on my part are suggestive of a need for probation? And why is all the evidence against Cberlet being ignored? Sam Spade 00:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't ignore them, but note that even Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Discourtesy_and_personal_attacks_by_Cberlet is not passing. I doubt more aggressive measures would get anywhere even if I felt them justified, which I don't. A bit of hero worship is involved I think. As to your point of view Sam, as seen from 172's viewpoint, as I think the Communist state as it has been practiced in the 20th century was totalitarian (and can provide an almost infinite amount of well-sourced information showing that) he thinks we are in agreement. Obviously we are not except possibly on that particular point, but denying that point is 172's thing. Your one year probation is not passing either. I would just take it as a warning to not fuss and struggle so much. As Mindspillage said, "I think this may well be justified by his general pattern of behavior, but not for the evidence brought up in this particular case." This is a sound observation. But you have dodged the bullet this time. So make the most of it. Fred Bauder 13:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed my previous statement here because my wife said it was unreasonable, and made me seem like a nutjob, and I couldn't really disagree. It did make me feel a bit better at the time I wrote it, but I guess thats not whats most important long term.

I do want to say I found this case very discouraging and unfortunate. I wish the ARBCOM was more concerned about the appearance of impropriety, Chip Berlet hero worship notwithstanding.

I am aware that at least in regards to myself, the Arbiters (particularly User:Jayjg) acted in an impartial manner, and that deserves some praise. I was not railroaded, as I suspected was occurring. On the other hand I hardly feel I "dodged the bullet" or any such thing, and ominous statements like that certainly encourage a dubious attitude on my part regarding wiki-justice.

In sum, I never set out to antagonise any of you, and I'm sorry it worked out that way. I think it very clear that my involvement with the project has been overwhelmingly beneficial in regards to the task of writing an encyclopedia, but I admit I have been unable to successfully integrate with the wiki-community. Perhaps WP:AGF can give us all some guidance in that regard. Sam Spade 07:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and Merry Christmas. Sam Spade 21:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The way of Edsel

To avoid going the way of the Edsel, Wikipedia must sooner or later decide if it wants to be a reliable source as per its own policies, or just another propaganda mouthpiece, like PRAVDA and CBS News, dominated by a nomenklatura. Persecuting whistleblowers who expose abuses of a priveleged elite may not be setting off on the right foot. nobs 22:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You've said your thing well enough Nobs, if you think CBS News is some foul propaganda mouthpiece, rather than a flawed organization which mostly does good work, you just don't get how knowledge works. Some folks do their best, while often failing. Others do their worst, blindly propagandizing; you are one of the latter. Fred Bauder 13:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)