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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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&di… 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(a)ctelco.net> 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(a)ctelco.net> wrote:

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

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(a)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: 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.

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

Responding to questions with unrelated questions isn't really "answering" them, much less "in good faith". I think you know that. Jay.

No, Fred, he's making a much broader accusation; in fact a series of broad accusations unsupported by any evidence. Jay.

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(a)googlemail.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.

Sam Spade wrote: 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.

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(a)epoptic.org> wrote: