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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l