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

message: 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)

message: 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 , it is used in the same context used by Political Research Associates and Mr. Laird Wilcox.  nobs 20:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispruption by Nobs01

message: 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)
thread_title: Transparency in allegations of harassment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I am outraged 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problems with the Arbitration Process

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Correction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The evidence is at User:Nobs01. Fred Bauder 00:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the evidence is @ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence. Have a look. Sam Spade 01:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Finding on Nobs' talk page

message: Forgive me if this is NOMB but this diff  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rangerdude admonished-comment 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: "Modify Lyndon LaRouch 2"?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you for your apology Fred Bauder 21:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I apologize

message: 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 .  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)
thread_title: Dear Fred

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: More Non-Transparent charges

message: 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)
thread_title: Request for clarification from HK

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  which had to be entered into evidence twice before it got a hearing.  In full context, Cberlet demands citations 6 times , simultaneously, while deleting "proper citations germane to the text" , and adds original research .  What did the committee find?  "Table pounding" , whatever that is. Now, through the use of intimidation, Mr. Bauder is silencing his critics.  nobs 17:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sam Spade's "personal attacks" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  nobs personal attacks

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cberlet's personal attacks and discourteousness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Probation 

message: The motion to put  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The way of Edsel