[WikiEN-l] NPOV trainwreck

Mon Dec 5 16:21:20 UTC 2005

Asking that people look into and comment on the arbitration is appropriate.  Bringing the arbitration issues here, and expanding them to content disputes, is not.  I have already agreed to stop all edits on Wikipedia until the arbitration is over--relying solely on a few discussion page comments when I feel it is important.  Obviously I disagree with the way Sam Spade presents the matter, but this is simply not the place to have the conversation. I note only that Fred Bauder and I MAY have had a brief conversation many years ago.  Maybe not. That we both once belonged to the same national organization with thousands of members, is hardly significant.

For details, by all means visit the arbitration and make comments.

Cberlet

________________________________

From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org on behalf of Sam Spade
Sent: Mon 12/5/2005 10:59 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NPOV trainwreck

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&diff=29933639&oldid=29931256

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 at ctelco.net> wrote:
> You need to look no further then Talk;Chip Berlet and User:Nobs01 to
> see that Nobs01 is not being railroaded but being sanctioned for
> personal attacks. Talk:Chip Berlet has been spammed with a large
> volume of material regarding other people and other activities based
> on Chip's membership in the National Lawyer's Guild. It is like
> blaming any one who is a member of the Democratic Party for Clinton's
> sex adventures. User:Nobs01 starts off: "The Extremist Personality"
> then proceeds to link the "twenty-two common traits of extremists" to
> edits of Cerlet. The policy of the arbitration committee is not to
> carefully investigate the truth of personal attacks but to sanction
> the attacker. The reason a lengthy ban is proposed in the case of
> Nobs01 is that when it seemed he would be sanctioned with a one month
> ban for one attack he responded with another lengthy attack.
>
> No one is giving authority to Cberlet to make thing ups and then cite
> them. He would probably be wise not to cite himself extensively, but
> anyone else is free to, as in a limited area, right wing and
> totalitarian movements in the United States, he is a generally
> recognized expert.
>
> As to the article, Chip Berlet: he has been criticized, for example
> by David Horowitz, and under our NPOV policy, reports of those
> criticism may be legitimately included in the article on him.
> Deciding what criticisms and how extensive they ought to be is up to
> the normal editing process.
>
> Chip Berlet is no more neutral than Sam Spade and he need not be. As
> a Wikipedia editor the requirement is that he respect our policies
> and abide by them which he more or less does.
>
> He did initiate the arbitration case, but that is trouble which we
> welcome as opposed to endless edit warring and personal attacks. When
> his claims were investigated, we found no conspiracy but a lot of
> piling on by various POV editors with a right wing perspective.
> Looked at individually, they were engaged in a number of combative
> activities which are mentioned in the proposed decision. Sam Spade,
> for example, seems to not have access to adequate sources but is
> inclined to argue about the sufficiency of sources put forward by
> others. This is a dead end because you can't legitimately argue about
> something you can't or won't look at.
>
> Fred
>
> On Dec 4, 2005, at 8:46 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
>
> > The results are one sided. There is a mountain of evidence. Nobs is
> > being railroaded, and Cberlet appears about to be given authority to
> > cite himself whenever and wherever he might find an opinion, based on
> > his "expert" status. I don't contest that he merits an article (altho
> > it is a bit of a resume), but I do contest his neutrality and range of
> > expertise. That, combined w the mountains of evidence against him and
> > the conflict he has fostered (5 people he rounded up and shoved
> > together just in this one case!) should provide all the proof you need
> > of the difficulty he presents.
> >
> > Sam Spade
> >
> > On 12/4/05, Matt Brown <morven at 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 at Wikipedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l