Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others

message: Will you please change the title to nobso1 et al. vrs. Cberlet, or something else indicative that Cberlet is on trial here? Sam Spade 20:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the motion.  nobs 20:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: if it is irrelevant, why refuse 2 requests? Sam Spade 21:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The title may be relevent for precedent, alleging conspiracy where none exists.  Perhaps it should remain.  nobs 21:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, whichever. My real question is if the counter-claim against Cberlet has been accepted? Sam Spade 21:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression is that respondants may file a counterclaim as soon as the case is accepted by ArbCom. I am preparing mine now, and will post it soon. As I indicated in my statement, the four major areas are Cberlet's POV pushing, original research, exploitation of Wikipedia for commercial purposes, and personal attacks. If anyone knows of any other important violations of policy, they might want to file another counterclaim, otherwise, I invite you to prepare evidence relevant to those four points. --HK 01:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I would like to make a formal request to allow the mediator, User:Flcelloguy, retrieve my Summary of dispute from the Mediation Workshop; the dispute fundmentally remains the same as articulated there.  nobs 02:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Material from the mediation is confidential. Fred Bauder 04:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As Fred states, mediation should remain confidential. In either case, I don't see how the summary is pertinent — the ArbCom is investigating a disptue at Chip Berlet and its associated articles, which were not discussed at all in mediation. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated, this is primarily a content dispute; Cberlet avers to disputes on other pages, but it's no big deal, I can construct my dispute summary from memory.  It has not changed.  Thank you both for responses.  nobs 01:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: I've had a couple of civil exchanges with Rob Smith, aka nobs01, and he wants to know when he can come back.  I don't think I'm being trolled, he's been very polite, and he is asking not demanding. He's seen on WikiEN-l from time to time, his comments there are also rational and not in my view disruptive.  I know he came back as nobs02 to ask to be let back in, but that was with the encouragement of others (and yes I saw he edited mainspace, which was silly, but if he was genuinely trying to evade a ban he'd hardly have chosen such an obvious name - he's not stupid, after all). A reset for a further year seems harsh to me, since it was only days before the ban expired anyway.  OK, maybe I am being trolled, but I said I'd ask anyway.  Guy (Help!) 20:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only peripherally involved in that I declined an unblock of nobs02 and that I follow the unblock-en-l mailing list.  It is my opinion (in a sort of non-binding manner) that a block extension of one month instead of one year is perhaps more appropriate.  It really all comes down to whether this user deliberately violated the conditions set down for the account, nobs02, or whether the user was acting in good faith.  If the user deliberately violated the conditions, a one-year extension is completely appropriate.  Whether the violation was in bad-faith or not is unclear to me.  --Yamla 20:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just so.  I really don't think it was; he asked if it would be permissible to register an openly declared secondary account in order to contact ArbCom, several of us thought this was probably acceptable as long as that's all he did, but of course he did stray a fraction outside of those bounds, which may have been gaming the system or not, it's hard to say.  Guy (Help!) 21:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I had raised the same question on Dmcdevit's page and he and Fred Bauder were of the view that the full one-year ban extension was warranted. It still seems extremely harsh to me, but I was not around at the time of the original arbitration case. Would endorse a review or clarification here. Newyorkbrad 22:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, nobs01 could have returned to editing on 23 December 2006 if had been willing to edit under the terms of his probation. Instead, he filed a rather argumentative appeal in which he tried to reargue the prior case to get the probation lifted. Thatcher131 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be fair, the argumentation ws the work of the AMA advocate, not nobs01.  This was not one of AMA's stellar moments. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I did think a year was harsh, but I also think there is very little chance Nobs can edit successfully. The notion that we can "just reblock him" is not realistic. I don't think we can be blamed for avoiding an obvious trainwreck. Fred Bauder 14:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been many editors that have been significantly more abrasive, incivil or have engaged in personal attacks than Nobs, yet are still editing and adding arguably far less worthwhile information than Nobs is capable of. I don't know all that has gone on since, but in emails with him, I think he is very interested in trying to restore his credibility and has zero interest in being disruptive.--MONGO 21:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  And to that I will add that he has been a model of civility and calm on the mailing lists lately. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification from January 2007