Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Motion by Rangerdude that Jayjg and Fred Bauder be recused for personal friendship and affiliations with Cberlet

1) I request that User:Jayjg recuse himself from this arbitration for reasons outlined here. Rangerdude 02:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Refused. You have provided no valid reason for recusal; four comments made on a talk page on August 4 are not "extensive past involvement in disputes involving Mr. Berlet". Jayjg ^(talk) 20:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I don't think there's enough here for you to show that Jayjg has personal animosity toward you or that he are prejudiced against your position. Jayjg appears to have formed an opinion, certainly, but it appears to me that that opinion is informed rather than arbitrary and is mainly evidenced by positive statements of an editor you are opposed to, rather than negative statements about you. Arbitrators are entitled to recognize quality in other editors.
   • Arbitrators cannot be expected to absent ourselves from the day to day operation of the wiki simply so that we can maintain an appearance of impartiality. In fact, it is our demonstrated competency in engaging in such activities that tends to get us appointed as Arbitrators; to force us to abstain entirely from that would be harmful to the Wiki.
   • In my opinion, the mere participation in an RfC by endorsing an opinion or making a brief comment does not involve oneself enough to mandate recusal, at least not in most circumstances and certainly not in these. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
3. I have looked at the links Rangerdude has supplied and find that they do not form a sufficient basis for a mandatory recusal Fred Bauder 16:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
4. My involvement with Chip Berlet fell far short of friendship. The National Lawyers Guild includes a wide variety of people with diverse opinions. My criticisms of Rangerdude were in the course of an arbitration case. Combined, these considerations are not sufficient to require recusal. Fred Bauder 03:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Contrary to his claims above, Jayjg's comments on those talk pages, which are a small sample, indicate a strong personal bias toward User:Cberlet and his content. Examples:

• [1]"Nonsense. Cberlet's material has clearly been shown to be encyclopedic, and you have completely failed in showing it is not."
• [2]"His (Berlet's) work has been quoted in encyclopedic sources; that's all that is required."
• [3]"WP:AUTO is a guideline, not a policy, Cberlet has not violated it, and it relates directly to articles about the authors or works they have written, not other articles, and certainly not Talk: pages."

These edits threaten the impartiality of this hearing as they show that (1) Jayjg has already decided and vigorously asserted that Cberlet's disputed content is "encyclopedic," and (2) Jayjg has already decided that Cberlet has not violated WP:AUTO in attempting to influence the content of his own pages. As both of these issues are among what's being considered in this case, Jayjg's statements above should be considered prejudicial. Should Jayjg continue to participate in this Arbcom hearing, I do not reasonably see how any outcome involving his input could be considered fair, impartial, or valid in light of these demonstrated biases. Rangerdude 20:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's more evidence that Jayjg even participated in the earlier dispute resolution phases of this case:

• [4] - voted in support of Cberlet in user RfC
• [5] - Stated support for Cberlet
• [6] - Endorsed Cberlet's position in RfC.

It is completely inappropriate for an Arbcom member who was directly involved in a dispute himself to participate in a case about that dispute. Rangerdude 20:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Two comments on an RfC in July is nothing like being directly involved in a dispute. By the way, it's rather deceptive to pretend that the last two links are two separate comments, or that the first comment is a "vote in support of Cberlet". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly - If you will take a moment to review some the links where those diffs came from you will find several examples of Jayjg expressing personal animosity towards me. One of his votes in favor of Cberlet praises him for work on articles that he claims "were being distorted by people too close to the subject to be objective" - a repetition of an insinuation made by some on the User RfC I filed against Cberlet that I was personally affiliated or connected to the Ludwig von Mises Insitute, which is false. He also posted a gratuitous insult against me on the Chip Berlet article's talk page [7]. Jayjg also made several derogatory and personal comments about me on the Talk:Jesus page back in May including these: [8][9]. These are just two of many instances where Jayjg has expressed similar animosity. Also, correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe that Jayjg has been involved in substantial disputes with at least two other parties in this arbitration. I am not asking that any arbcom member who has ever weighed in on a simple past dispute with an editor here be recused. I am asking, however, for the recusal of an editor who has been involved in multiple past disputes with other parties to this case (including disputes that led to this case itself) and who did not participate in them on friendly terms. I ask that because those past disputes inescapably prejudice his ability to evaluate the evidence of this case, and thus render a fair review impossible. Rangerdude

I've reviewed your additional claims and find them lacking in substance. Your characterization of the edits in question does not agree with what I find upon reviewing them. Please discontinue this sort of legalistic maneuvering and concentrate instead on presenting your theory of the case and the evidence supporting that theory. Kelly Martin (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Kelly - I would not have made this request if I did not genuinely believe that Jayjg's participation in this case is highly prejudiced based on his past involvement in this very same dispute and his past history with several editors involved. Nor is it "legalistic maneuvering" to make a request of this sort - in fact I am doing exactly what Wikipedia:Arbitration policy instructs me to do in this situation: "Users who believe Arbitrators have a conflict of interest should post an appropriate statement during the Arbitration process." You are indeed permitted by that policy to disagree with my rationale for this request, but I do believe that the evidence I have presented regarding Jayjg's conflict of interest here far exceeds the "trivial reasons" where recusal is not required, such as a single revert of an involved editor. As to my case and evidence in this proceeding, they have already been posted at the appropriate page. My concern now is whether or not that evidence will be fairly and accurately evaluated along side the evidence offered by other users. While I am optimistic that most Arbcom members will attempt to do so, I remain concerned that Jayjg's evaluation of this evidence will be prejudiced toward Cberlet and against the editors he has disputed with previously for the aforementioned reasons. Rangerdude 10:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I also move that User:Fred Bauder be recused from this hearing for three reasons:

• (1) He has admitted to personally knowing Cberlet in the past through their mutual participation in a political organization. This fact inescapably prejudices his judgment in a case where he does not similarly know the 5 other involved parties in person.
• (2) The context in which he knew Cberlet was through the National Lawyer's Guild, a highly politicized and partisan organization with strong political biases against the political right. Mr. Berlet is a public political figure on the political left, and at least two of the accused "defendents" in this case are affiliated on the political right. Sharing a strong common political affiliation with Cberlet similarly prejudices this case toward his side and against the side of persons from the opposite political viewpoint.
• (3) Fred Bauder repeatedly employed strong prejudicial language and assertions against me in another current dispute resolution before the evidence was even reviewed and before any determinations have been made (documented here) and has accused me of having a bad "wikikarma" (which he coined at Wikipedia:Wikikarma) - a ridiculous neologism that violates the required good faith assumption at WP:FAITH. Intentional or not, these past events have prejudiced Fred Bauder's participation in this case to a degree that I have no confidence I will receive anything even remotely resembling a fair hearing or accurate evaluation of the evidence. I accordingly thank him for his time in this matter, but request he volunteer his recusal in favor of more neutral Arbcom member participation. Rangerdude 00:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

<----First, I note the sublime irony that in this arbitration one of the parties is claiming that some parties are "affilated on the political right" and yet, conversely, when I point that out on a talk page it is a "personal attack." Fabulous. Second, I have no significant personal friendship or affiliation with Jayjg or Fred Bauder. Jayjg and I interact solely on Wikipedia, which is an open book. It is likely that Fred Bauder and I briefly crossed paths at some meeting of the National Lawyers Guild, falsely portrayed here as a nest of communist terrorists. As I recall, Fred was neither. As he accurately has explained, this was a cordial, yet brief, interaction; and one that I did not have a clear recollection of until he jogged my memory. Hardly grounds for recusal.--Cberlet 03:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) (Moved from wrong page, note to Fred--Hiya. I wondered about that. Wasn't sure, but the Guild is a small organization, likely to have crossed paths. Been a long time. :-) --Cberlet 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It was only when I got to looking at your biography that I remembered a conversation with someone who had decided to become an investigator that must have been with you. Had you been going to law school or were you a cab driver? My memory is rather fuzzy, but I think we were in some common milieu. Fred Bauder 13:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

In the early 1970s I was doing some paralegal work for some NLG attorneys in Denver, and being trained as an investigator by PI Sheila O'Donnell, and was invited to join the NLG as a paralegal. It depends on what year it was. Early 70's and I was briefly living in a house in Denver with some NLG folks such as William Hazleton and Marcia Tremmel (Goldstein). Rudy Schware once represented me in a matter. If it was later it was probably at the Denver convention of the NLG. At that time I was pursuing the idea of getting a PI license. I only recalled the conversation after you mentioned it.

The time frame is not quite right. I must have been thinking of someone else. The conversation I remember was at the Lawyers Guild Office in about 1976 and Pat Stanford, who ran the office, was there. Fred Bauder 16:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Still might have been me, but maybe not. I still spent time in Denver every year through the early 1980s, and would hang out in the Guild offices with folks including Pat Stanford. When did the NLG offices move from the low white building on Pennsylania near Colfax? Also housed at various times, VVAW, Vine DeLoria, College Press Service, Kathy Bonham law office, and Straight Creek Journal. Although there was another guy who hung out with the NLG who became an investigator about that time. We looked a bit alike. Too long ago to really remember.--Cberlet 18:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me for intruding between a reunion between old aquanitances, but can Cberlet clarify (a) is this his own language:

• "Public Eye" Another spawn of the first "Counterspy." Not currently publishing. Last issue Spring 1989. [10]

(b) can Cberlet clarify the use or meaning of "spawn", i.e. is it the same personal, and/or funding source. Thank you. nobs 19:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually Chip, the personal attacks you made on that talk page consisted of rudely dismissing my attempts to reach a compromise with you as "passive/aggressive baloney," falsely accusing me of "ruling the LvMI page with an iron fist," and describing me as a "perfect echo of the undemocratic elitist arrogance of the Institute he fawns over."[11] Though your vitriol abounds in posts like that, there was surprisingly little in the way of innocently pointing out my conservative leanings. Rangerdude 05:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have proposed that I be "cautioned to avoid personal attacks" in the findings. Fair enough. But one of the issues here is that you are a litigious Wikibully, and that you did rule the LvMI page with an iron fist, and then after other editors crafted a real compromise, you began a harassment campaign against me that was framed in a classic "passive/aggressive" way. That's why you ended up here in an arbitration. If you check my contributions on Wiki you will see that while I often get into editing debates with other editors--including those of the "political right,"--I usually help craft constructive compromises through collective editing.--Cberlet 15:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There's that word again, "bully". Cberlet uses it in his opening statement [12]. I thought this was an unusual word for a 54 year old man to use. User:Cognition also uses it in his famous diatribe [13]. These are precisely the things a professional document analyst pays attention to, which was one factor used in Motion 3, given the other evidence nobs presented that User:Cognition should not be precluded as acting in concert with User:Cberlet in this proceeding. [14]. Mr. Bauder agreed to the plausibility. nobs 18:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Of course JayJG would refuse this...Jimbo Wales, who says he runs Wikipedia as some Ludwig von Mises ideal model ignored the last ArbCom election and doesn't call a new one, simply appointing a Zionist (among other things) like JayJG to ArbCom, to buttress his other appointees like Fred Bauder. He has to, because the election put in candidates who were even-handed. JayJG is a joke, whether or not his sycophantic brown-nosing to Jimbo made him an Arbitrator or not. Which of course extends to all of ArbCom. I just looked over the evidence page and see people coming out of the woodwork to attack a person (Berlet), who in the real world is a respected author and the like, to defend Nobs01, who is obviously someone not playing with all 52 cards in the deck. I have watched Wikipedia become more and more unmanageable over the past few years, and I'm sure that trend will continue, all that money Jimbo made on porn has a while to burn. Plus, the articles in categories like Mathematics and Science are pretty good, it is only in the sections like History and Society where it becomes a joke, something that would be laughed out of the university of any industrialized country. It's only a matter of time before some other wiki takes up the slack, but it will be years before that happens, I'm sure... Ruy Lopez 08:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ruy, I hate to intervene or "butt in" here, but please do refrain from personal attacks. They don't accomplish anything except to antagonize a situation further. Thank you. Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue for an arbitrator is not their presumed point of view, but their ability to make decisions based on what users did. It is rather like you, Ruy Lopez, who might very well make a good arbitrator despite your well known point of view. I have never noticed you thinking you simply had the right to insert your point of view without some reliable source. The expectation is that an arbitrator will recuse themselves if they find their point of view interferes. This case has little or nothing to do with Zionism, presuming that characterization has some validity. Fred Bauder 16:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Fred - How can Jayjg fairly claim the "ability to make decisions based on what users did" when he already gave his vocal support to Cberlet and already ignored evidence of Cberlet's wrongdoings before this case was even filed? In your own case, how can you fairly claim the "ability to make decisions based on what users did" when you proposed a finding of guilt and penalty against me before even giving specific evidence of what, if anything, I did wrong and which policy, if any, I violated? I submit that in both of your cases your positions in this matter were prejudiced in favor of Cberlet, against myself and/or other accused "defendants," or both before the very first piece of evidence was even submitted. This prejudice may be intentional or it may not, but that is not the issue. The issue is the fact that it exists, and so long as it exists it is impossible for any of the parties here to get a fair, impartial, and accurate hearing that correctly determines "what users did" and makes a fair and neutral-minded decision based on that determination. Rangerdude 01:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Motion 1 by Nobs01 that proposals be removed from /Proposed decision

2) I motion the proposals that reference nobs specifically at Proposed final decision be suspended as premature as the process is still in the Evidence phase. nobs 18:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Evidence supporting those findings has been submitted. Fred Bauder 18:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Any Arbitrator may move a proposed finding or statement of principle onto the "proposed decision" page at any time. If you object to the proposals, make a substantial object to them either here or on the proposed decision talk page. Do not merely object to their presence as being "out of process", as that smacks of wikilawyering, which we tend not to like very much. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
3. I entered this case with an open mind. I can see that Chip Berlet has at times gone too far. But the elephant in the room is the smear tactics of Nobs01. The La Rouch advocates we have dealt with before. Rangerdude, you are a relatively new user, and have sometimes fallen into a conflict pattern. Wikipedia is "not a battleground." Fred Bauder 16:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Whether evidence supporting them has been submitted or not, it remains the case that not all parties to this dispute have even had time to respond to it. Proposing remedies and final decisions now is very premature and gives the appearance of an unfair proceeding. The same can be said of acceptance of this case by Jayjg, who was an active participant in this dispute in a way that supported Cberlet and has yet to respond to repeated requests for his recusal as required by the Arbitration policy. Rangerdude 19:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Let me include, the unsubstantiated smear Mr. Berlet has pronounced against Mr. Laird Wilcox, the source of nobs purported "links and ties", remains locked on the Chip Berlet article, and a Wikipedia namespace is now being used to propagate an unsubstantiated smear. These proposed findings only continue that problem. nobs 19:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem with jumping to conclusions in the decision stage before evidence has even been introduced or discussed - in effect, all of those decision proposals were made without even hearing both sides of the dispute. That creates a highly prejudicial environment in the case proceedings from the very start, which is why I consider Nobs' request to suspend these motions to be a valid one at this point. I hate to say it, but way this case has been handled to date does not give me much confidence in its fairness. Rangerdude 19:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

1. More evidence: the positive talk now going on at Talk:Chip Berlet#Proposal for a New Approach and Talk:Chip Berlet#This wikipedia article is ridiculous with editors who previously had no input in that article, and the constructive remedies being discussed, and any resultant improvements to the article after the lock is removed, would disprove Nobs01 "disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point". Further, as I pledged here [15], I will not edit war in the namespace, and limit my input in discussion. (also see earlier pledge, 9 August [16] which was adhered to; I'd be happy to abstain indefinetely if normal Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Processes and Precedents could be applied by all parties. Thank you. nobs 20:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs asks the committee to note, nobs good faith abstaintion from editing the Talk:Chip Berlet page on 9 August [17] remained in force until 12 November [18], after Cberlet's demonstrated breach of good faith, with the exception of the two questions on 20 September on Mr. Berlet's unsubstantiated ethics attack on Mr. Wilcox [19][20], at which time nobs was answered with another personal attack. nobs 02:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder has helped me see the error of my ways. I ask the Committee to take into consideration past conduct, I have never once even recieved a 3RR warning. Thank you. nobs 18:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion 2 by Nobs01 on "acting in concert"

1) I Motion for a Committe Ruling on Cberlet's conspiracy theory that users named were "acting in concert". To wit, Cberlet states,

• "Herschelkrustofsky, also suggests I [Cberlet] am a government agent"
• User:Nobs01 is charged with inserting language on Talk page, "certain American critics of the agency [CIA] as part of their effort to destroy it." [21].

This appears to be the product of a fantastic imagination, that users "acting in concert" are accusing Cberlet of being a government agent, while others are accused of suggesting Cberlet was among certain American critics who wanted to destroy the Central Intelligence Agency. And the Committee should take note of a reckless disregard by the complaining party to forge some semblance of a coherent arguement before filing an Arbitration Dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Someone familiar with both of you would not be surprised at the contradiction. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Fred Bauder 22:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. As my user history suggests, I have little or no interest in contempory politics. The dispute with Cberlet is over historical matters, and the fact that I have been concentrating on evidence from the 1930s and 1940s, while he wants to discuss the 1950s is really what Cberlet and my dispute is all about. So I specifically, and pointedly deny, what the Chairman suggests, that I am involved in any manner, capacity, or "conspiracy", regarding any political views and/or ideology, other than an historic interest in the political views of other persons, who for the most part now, are dead. nobs 23:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion 3 by Nobs01 immediate separation

1) I Motion the Committee to act immediately to separate User:Nobs01 case from others now, before any further Proposed principles or findings by other parties be posted in a case that bares principally my name. Thank you. nobs 03:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Propositions advanced regarding you are based on your behavior, not on any supposed connection with the other nominal defendants. Fred Bauder 04:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. The findings right now under Proposed findings of fact, in a case that alleges Nobs01 and others "acting in concert", alleging "Nobs01... work as team regarding LaRouche", reference a "Sustained personal attack". This is grossly unfair, and amounts to a disruption of the process that may warrant a counter claim by Nobs01 against Cberlet as a personal attack. I request immediate action on the question of "Nobs01... work as team regarding LaRouche". nobs 04:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

So far I have found no evidence of that. Fred Bauder 04:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I request the Committee to investigate whether this was a frivolous claim, and possibly an abuse of process, and User:Cberlet held to account. And I request a determination one way or the other be part of the committee's Proposed findings of fact. Thank you. nobs 04:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

We really don't get into that sort of thing Fred Bauder 04:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If a finding on this question can not be made, than I will restate my request to separate immediately my case from the others, particularly regarding the issue of "Nobs01... work as team regarding LaRouche"; this must be resolved. nobs 05:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Given the evidence nobs has presented, the possibility User:Cognition is another sockpuppet troll working in tandem with User:Cberlet cannot be precluded. nobs 20:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No, and I have thought of that, but it is more likely Lyndon La Rouche or a follower. Just because Chip Berlet views those tormenting him as a group does not mean they are or that we cannot sort them out according to what they have done, are doing and are likely do. In your case I highly advise removing all the negative material you have added to the talk page of the Chip Berlet article and apologize to him for putting it there at all. Right now you are "going 90 miles an hour down a dead end street." Fred Bauder 22:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. I will give serious consideration to what you suggest. nobs 22:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion 4 by Nobs01 on whether contributions to article namespace are admissible as personal attacks

1) I Motion the Committee publish a ruling whether good faith, properly referenced, independently verifiable, cited from reliable secondary source, insertions into a namespace are admissible by a Wikipedia user as evidence of a personal attack. nobs 22:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Whether they are personal attacks or harassment they are unacceptable, additionally they profoundly violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, not a battleground, not a platform for propaganda, etc. Fred Bauder 22:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties: I ask the committe to examine carefully this series of collaborative edits [22] [23] [24] between User:Willmcw and Nobs01 and determination be made of Cberlet's claims on the Evidence page that "Nobs assists Rangerdude and Cognition in posting negative material". nobs 21:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The above three colloborative insertions were all properly cited; also the the diff Cberlet uses on the Evidence page. Question is now why User:Willmcw was not named as "acting in concert", being that Willmcw acted in concert with nobs. I move again the Committee establish a Finding regarding either Cberlet's persistent bad faith editing, or abuse of dispute resolution processes. nobs 22:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion 5 by Nobs01 for clarification

1) Can Mr. Bauder expound more fully on this phrase, 'use in external activities of such tactics as "links & ties"' at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Proposed decision#External activities of users, particularly the word "tactic". More specifically, how a good faith inclusion of relevent biographical material of interest can be deemed a "tactic". nobs 18:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. "Smear tactic" Fred Bauder 22:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I count myself among those Mr. Laird Wilcox refered to in his Summary as one of Mr. Berlet's "imagined enemies" (Talk:Chip Berlet#3 quotes); if anything I have sympathy for Mr. Berlet who appears to be driven by a pathology to invent "enemies" were they don't exist. nobs 21:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion 6 by Nobs01 on findings of fact

1) I Motion the Committee publish in its Proposed findings of fact that there is no evidence "Nobs01... work as team regarding LaRouche", or whatever other relevent findings the Committee's investigation was able to uncover regarding this allegation. nobs 19:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The fact that with the exception of Hershelkrustofsky and Cognition, discrete remedies are proposed for each user serves. Fred Bauder 22:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Thank you. nobs 22:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Request for Findings regarding WP:OWN and other issues

I would like to request that the Arbcom consider the following issues in this case:

1) Under the principles of WP:OWN, behavior by which an editor attempts to exercise ownership or control over an article's content is considered inappropriate

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I don't see facts which would require mention of this principle. Fred Bauder 20:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Pertinent clauses include "Some contributors feel very possessive about articles they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders" and "if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page. Appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process." Rangerdude 19:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

2)User:Cberlet has attempted to assert ownership of the articles Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates by referring to these articles in a way that conveys an ownership claim and by attempting to exert content control over sourced critical material within them.[25]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. So far I have found suggestions by him on the talk page, which is permitted. Fred Bauder 20:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. The edit made by Cberlet here is a prime example of this. After I added fully sourced and documented criticism of Chip Berlet by David Horowitz to the article, Cberlet posted a message seeking its removal from what he called "my page." Rangerdude 19:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions on the talk page are indeed permitted, but Cberlet did more than that - he openly claimed on the talk page that the article was "my page" and solicited other editors to delete material that was critical about him. Directly recruiting somebody else to delete valid material is little different from doing it yourself, and if done for the purpose of getting around Wikipedia's general discouragement of users from self-editing pages about them this would seem to violate the spirit and purpose of having this restriction. Rangerdude 07:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Let me associate myself with Rangerdude's request in this matter. Cberlet has presented evidence that editors acting in good faith, inserting content into the Chip Berlet article, was a personal attack. A formal ruling by the Committee should address this question; can the Chip Berlet article bring a RfArb and make conspiracy allegations, etc? Or can User:Cberlet's formal presentation of evidence that other useres inserted in to the Chip Berlet be regarded as a personal attack. I presume the Committee operates under a presumption of innocence, and I have declared in my opening statement that I have always maintained separation between Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet acting the capacity of a fellow Wikipedian, and the Chip Berlet Wikipedia article. As the evidence page here suggests, it is the Chip Berlet article making charges of conspiracy, not Mr. Chip Berlet, fellow Wikipedian. nobs 18:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

3) User:Cberlet has engaged in personal attacks on the political affiliations, both actual and assumed, of other editors[26]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. He seems to have broken the rule against personal attacks. Fred Bauder 20:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Berlet's comment "So far we have had this page taken over by fans of convicted felon and neo fascist lunatic Lyndon LaRouche; and fans of a small uber-libertarian think tank the Ludwig von Mises Institute" [27] is a personal attack on political affiliations under WP:NPA. While I cannot speak for the alleged LaRouche supporters, Berlet's pejorative remarks about the "small uber-libertarian think tank the Ludwig von Mises Institute" were apparently directed at me. Rangerdude 19:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Motion to dismiss certain findings

I move to dismiss the charge located here and penalties proposed for it by Fred Bauder located here and here on account of lack of evidence. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Transparency are required to "make detailed rationale for all their decisions public," yet no specific evidence has been offered to date for the charge that I have "harassed" Cberlet and no specific policy violations have been alleged against me. Instead, Fred simply lists a link to an RfC I filed against Cberlet in July when Cberlet was personally attacking me in violation of WP:NPA and a link to Cberlet's evidence page statement against me, which contains little more than conspiratorial allegations and diffs showing no policy violation or impropriety on my part. It would thus seem that these charges and the proposed penalties based upon them fail to meet the transparancy requirement. At this point I do not even know specifically what I'm being accused of doing wrong here, what policies it violated, and how. I've asked Fred many times to make his charges more specific and thus clarify this matter, but those requests haven't produced much of anything substantive. In that light I'm accordingly asking the Arbcom to dismiss these charges unless they can be reformulated and fairly evaluated in compliance with the transparency requirement cited above. Thanks. Rangerdude 19:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Motion for injunction against Sam Spade's continuing harassment of Cberlet

After I proposed a discussion for the merger and rearrangement of several pages, Sam Spade began to systematically remove the proposed merger flags and notices and revert and redirect a whole series of pages that are part of that discussion. The discussion is at Talk:Right-wing politics. This is happening now. [28][29][30][31] [32] [33].--Cberlet 19:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

1. No thank you, politely negotiate. Fred Bauder 20:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh...OK.--Cberlet 20:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for statements of voting rationale

Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Requests states that "Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested." Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Transparency also states Arbitrators will make detailed rationale for all their decisions public. I am accordingly making three requests under these policies:

I. I request that all Arbcom members who have voted in favor of this finding that I "harassed" Cberlet to state their rationale for this finding by providing (1) the specific diffs where the alleged harassment or other alleged impropriety on my part occured and (2) the specific policy provisions these edits allegedly violated.

II. I request that all Arbcom members who have voted in favor of this remedy where I am "admonished to extend respect and forgiveness" to Cberlet to state their rationale by providing the specific diffs where I allegedly did not extend due "respect" to Cberlet in a circumstance that required it.

III. I request that all Arbcom members who have voted in favor of this remedy to place me on one year's probation for allegedly harassing Cberlet to state their rationale for this finding by providing (1) the specific diffs where the alleged harassment on which this penalty is based occured, (2) the specific policy provisions these edits allegedly violated, and (3) a specific statement of rationale indicating why any such alleged violation would require a 1-year probation penalty when other proposed remedies against Cberlet (i.e. [34]) are minor "cautions" without any penalty or enforcement.

Your prompt fulfillment of this request will be greatly appreciated. I am still greatly confused as to why I'm even being penalized or what exactly I did that was so wrong as to merit it, because the specific diffs behind these allegations have never been shown to me despite repeated requests. Instead there are only vague links to Cberlet's unsubstantiated allegations and an RfC I filed against him for making extensive personal attacks against me. Thanks. Rangerdude 09:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Three things:

1. The section of the Arbitration policy you refer to is about requests for cases, not votes within the cases themselves.
2. The diffs in which the behaviour is shewn is sufficient evidence for myself, and seemingly the rest of the Committee.
3. Policy is not merely written down as "specific policy provisions"; a great deal of Wikipedia's social contract is both unwritten and unwriteable. Harrassment and wikistalking are examples of unacceptable behaviours that, nonetheless, are not document in excruciating detail. We do not have a policy page that states that users who kill those with whom they are in debate so as to "win" are carrying out unacceptable behaviour, either.

Hope this helps.

James F. (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

James - Thank you for your answer, but unfortunately it has left me even more confused. What diffs specifically are you referring to? And what exactly is it about them that constitutes harassment? Cause all I've ever been informed of as the supposed justification for these findings are (1) a link to Cberlet's original allegation against me and (2) a link to the RfC that I filed against him when he personally attacked me over the course of several posts, which is hardly evidence that I "harassed" him. Regarding the Arbitration Policy, it also states under the transparency requirement that "Arbitrators will make detailed rationale for all their decisions public." I've seen no such transparency from any of the Arbcom members who have supported this finding, and multiple requests for clarification have produced only more vaguely worded responses that shed no further light on the subject and certainly contain no detailed rationale. I'd like to see a detailed rationale that specifically shows what, if anything, I did was "harassment" of Cberlet and in what way. I'd also like to see a detailed rationale that specifically shows the reason for supporting such a strict penalty against me for offenses that have not even been fully explained to me when editors like Cberlet are getting minor warnings that are nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I apologize if I sound like I'm complaining, but I truly am at a loss of explanation on why these findings are being made. I feel that the charges against me have simply not been stated or justified to any reasonable degree of transparency or specificity. I similarly feel that my repeated attempts to obtain clarification of them have been largely ignored or responded to with vague, unspecific assertions that do nothing to clarify the issue. If the charge cannot be transparently stated or explained as the Arbitration policy requires, then it should not be made or should be reevaluated to make it transparent and clear. Rangerdude 20:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

James - One more thing regarding your statement about specific policy provisions. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Final_decision the form for findings of fact is "XXX has/has not engaged in YYY behavior (in violation of ZZZ rule). (diff of Incident 1) (diff of Incident 2) (further diffs)" (emphasis added). Right now there is no such indication of a rule in the proposed finding. Rangerdude 20:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Temporary restrictions from Chip Berlet

1) Nobs01 (talk · contribs), Willmcw (talk · contribs), Cognition (talk · contribs), and Cberlet (talk · contribs) are prohibited from editing Chip Berlet until a decision is reached in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This seems to be an excessive request. I don't believe I've ever made any edits to Chip Berlet at any point in its history that would merit blocking me from that article, and certainly haven't done anything in the most recent dispute aside from suggesting a way conflicting editors could reach a compromise. Furthermore, since Cberlet is strongly discouraged from directly editing Chip Berlet anyway under WP:AUTO, this injunction would not substantially affect him and therefore would only penalize the other editors. Rangerdude 07:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

   Good point. I suppose I put you in there just because you were a party. While you did edit war there in August, I've taken you out. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to this proposal, and have offerred to do so voluntarily in the namespace on several occasions; I would like to remain having some limited, not disruptive, access to the the Talk page, if the community so allows. Thank you. nobs 18:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Has been protected for a week due to edit warring. Would like to be able to unprotect, without the edit war starting up again. See WP:RFPP, where it was brought up (an unrelated party requesting unprotection, currently can't edit.) Dmcdevit·t 23:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I suggest this prohibition be extended to inserting references to Chip Berlet into any other article for the duration of the ban. Gamaliel 08:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

   You are free to propose a more inclusive alternative, too. This is the basic injunction. Dmcdevit·t 09:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I would oppose Gamaliel censorship and anti-free speech proposal, as this may be lengthy process and litigation. nobs 18:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Overreact much? Given that this arbitration is about your actions in regards to Berent, my suggestion is just common sense. This project is not obligated to provide you with a soapbox to engage in free speech, it is here to construct an NPOV encyclopedia. Gamaliel 19:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"censorship" refers to properly researched materials with citations and "free speech" refers to Talk pages. nobs 02:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

2. I don't understand why I am included in this injunction. -Willmcw 09:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks by Sam Spade

3) Sam Spade has made personal attacks on Cberlet [35] [36].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. These are not substantive personal attacks. The first is an honest attempt at clear communication. The second was spoken in anger (having just been falsely accused of an illegal act), and while perhaps technically in violation of policy, was not particularly notable. Sam Spade 00:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
2. The cited breaches of decorum, each made under severe provocation by Cberlet, pale in comparison to the filth that spews from Cberlet's mouth on an almost daily basis around here. For example, Cberlet made this unprovoked personal attack against me just over an hour after we first met because I dared to ask him to develop a compromise version of his POV edits on an article's talk page. Sadly, it appears that the Arbcom Star Chamber cannot be bothered with evidence such as this, and instead prefers to penalize people who have responded to Cberlet's vitriol toward them in one of the few ways he seems to understand. Rangerdude 03:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sam Spade and sources

6) Sam Spade could improve in his use of citations, see Talk:Political_correctness/Archive_5#Dispute_header and Talk:Political_correctness#Plagiarism_allegations

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Of course I could, we all could. The problem is the policy simply isn't there. Wikipedia:Citations and etc... need a merger/overhaul. We need a consistant policy thruout the wiki of at least an undergraduate level of quality (possibly much better) if we expect to increase our reliability. I would be glad to be a part of such an improvement, and dialogue regarding it, but am in no way deserving of public shaming regarding my citations. Sam Spade 00:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Harassment of Cberlet

4) Rangerdude has inappropriately quarreled with and been involved in disputes regarding the article concerning a controversial and knowledgeable expert who is also an Wikipedia editor, Cberlet, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Rangerdude.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This charge is completely lacking in evidence. It shows no specific policy or guideline violation and gives no specific diffs documenting a single shred of evidence that I ever did anything wrong. This is nothing more than attempt to penalize me for (1) filing an RfC about User:Cberlet's frequent violations of WP:NPA and (2) adding sourced and documented material about Chip Berlet that Cberlet personally objects to for political reasons. Rangerdude 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
2. This is a typical instance of punishing the whistleblower, once which would not have been attempted had arbiters properly recused. Sam Spade 00:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Arbcom members: Please review Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Rangerdude for evidence that Cberlet was the one who initiated hostilities between us and inappropriately quarreled, not myself. I remained calm and reasonably polite toward him throughout our original dispute, and was met with nothing but venomous personal attacks by Cberlet in return. Rangerdude 20:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Cberlet engages in personal attacks

4) Cberlet has engaged in widespread and extensive personal attacks against User:Nobs01, User:Rangerdude, User:Sam Spade, and User:Herschelkrustofsky in violation of WP:NPA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I propose that the Arbcom make this finding regarding the behavior of Cberlet, which includes dozens of NPA violations against several editors over the course of several articles. Rangerdude 04:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Cberlet asserts ownership

5) Cberlet has inappropriately asserted ownership of the Chip Berlet article in violation of WP:OWN and has inappropriately attempted to exercise control over its content.[37]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I propose the Arbcom make a finding on this issue as well, as the evidence shows that Cberlet has repeatedly claimed that Chip Berlet is "my article" and tried to get factual material he doesn't like expunged from it. Rangerdude 04:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Round up the grammar police and have me shot! I should have written "the Wiki entry on my real persona Chip Berlet" instead of "my page." I was just getting used to how Wikipedia worked when I discovered monstrous falehoods plopped into the the Wiki entry on my real persona Chip Berlet. The evidence clearly shows that with rare exceptions, I had not edited the entry text in any significant way for many months until Cognition went ballistic, and then only to deal briefly with Cognitions malicious attacks such as the bad filched photo and a snide category listing. I have never claimed or asserted "ownership" of the page.--Cberlet 00:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Cberlet's problematic editing

Cberlet's inability to either edit neutrally nor to discuss his edits in a civil manner w those he views as his political opposition is unfortunate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. As this series of edits reveals [38][39][40][41], nobs reinserts Cberlet's own compromise language, and is threatened for doing so. Facts and compromise are meaningless, while tensions are ratcheted up because of his POV pushing, which is immune to reason.

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute between Cberlet and Nobs01

The article Harry Magdoff and espionage was the focus of some of the dispute between Cberlet and Nobs01, see Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Harry Magdoff

Harry Magdoff is, according to Wikipedia, "a prominent American socialist commentator" and an editor of Monthly Review. He remains alive. There is some evidence that he may have been a spy for the Soviet Union or at least been a source of information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Creation of article "Harry Magdoff and espionage"

Harry Magdoff and espionage was created by Cberlet on July 26, 2005 as a spin-off from Harry Magdoff [42] [43].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. The above posting by Cberlet is emblamatic of habitual deceptive practices and abuses of process; Cberlet did not create the NPOV titled article, Harry Magdoff and espionage, Cberlet invented a conspiracy theory with the POV title Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff, a POV fork which was his first disruptive entry into a polite discussion among several editors. [44] Several editors immediately objected to his Disruption of Wikipedia [45][46].

Comment by others:

"Creation of page Harry Magdoff"

Harry Magdoff was created by Nobs01 on June 6, 2005 as a stub based on an FBI investigation report [47]. Nobs placed the article in Category:Soviet spies [48].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Nobs01 created scores of biographical pages on Wiki so that he could note on these pages that these persons were Soviet Spies. In a number of cases this identification was problematic. Very little balanced biographical information was added by Nobs01. When challenged for citations to document his claims on the Harry Magdoff page, Nobs01 did three things that were not conducive to collaborative and accurate editing: 1) Nobs01 misrepresented several reports as representing the stated opinion of the "U.S. government," which turned out to be hyperbolic misrepresentations,as did other assertions. 2)Nobs01 buried discussion pages in mountains of text that was frequently non-responsive and on unrelated issues; and was sometimes garbled and little more than gibberish about "historiography" and "pre-qualified experts." 3) Nobs01 simply reverted or deleted text that raised alternative claims, even when properly cited to published material; and Nobs01 would dismiss the authors as not experts, biased, or even suggest they were complicit in Soviet spying. --Cberlet 17:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
2. The above claim, (1) "Nobs01 misrepresented several reports as representing the stated opinion of the "U.S. government", properly belongs in Cberlet's disruptive POV fork, Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff; (2) the same claim [49] is actually the work of User:TJive, not nobs (which proper research would reveal); (3) Cberlet "rewrote lead for accuracy" and inserted "government agencies" [50]; (4) nobs restored Cberlet's wording "government agencies" [51] after multiple edit wars including various sockpuppet vandals who appear to be acting in concert with Cberlet; (5) Cberlet deleted his own language [52] and shortly thereafter becomes threatening and abusive [53]; (6) Cberlet buries Talk pages with (a) invective and abuse (b) ideological warfare (c) little context relative to article discussion (d) few, if any citations for his POV; (7) Cberlet has presented no other sources to support his original research and/or POV, than the two here, User:Cberlet#Contrary view, and he may not even being using those properly, yet has been relatively unchallenged on both.

Nobs01 statement, "Cberlet has used a shifting basis of arguements" [54], even now has been demonstrated in Arbitration. nobs 04:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Cberlet nominates Category:Soviet spies for deletion

Cberlet nominated Category:Soviet spies for deletion. The category was retained due to lack of consensus [55]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I nominated Category:Soviet spies for deletion when I should have suggested a rename. I was unfamiliar with how to do this properly. I urge folks to read the entire discussion at the vote page (it is relatively short).[56], There was considerable sentiment that the name was problematic. While the category was briefly retained due to lack of consensus on the vote, I believe that was not the intent of many of the voters. The page has now been bifurcated properly into Category:Accused_Soviet_spies and Category:Soviet_spies which was what I was trying to figure out how to do. I apologize for causing a mess. What I was trying to do is what the majority of Wiki editors involved in the discussion have now done. Note that Harry Magdoff has been moved to Category:Accused_Soviet_spies, where he belongs.--Cberlet 17:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
2. This again is a great example of Cberlet assigning motives where they do not exist (see WP:AGF). Category:Soviet spies was not created by nobs, and nobs agreed several times, since the issue was first raised, there is a problem with the name [57][58][59][60][61][62][63]. On 27 August here, [64], nobs offers Cberlet "the hand of cooperation" on the Category talk:Soviet spies page to resolve this specific issue. It was later agreed to be discussed in Mediation. The problem here, again, is a total denial of scholarship over the past tens years, and an effort to continue rhetoric from 1948, that now declassified documents and other government reports deny and refute. Category:Accused Soviet spies, is ambiguous; it can be documented that some in the new Category never were publicly accused. Category:Alleged Soviet spies, according to recent scholarship, would include Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, and the "Assistant President" Harry Hopkins, who according to NSA/FBI files fit into a different designation than that of other identified sources in Venona transcripts, or other means of identification. Few editors have specifically discussed this problem, and meanwhile I've been plagued by Cberlet's other bogus arguements, frivolous RfC's & RfM's, or sockpuppet vandals intent upon disrupting inclusion of Venona materials in Wikipedia. nobs 02:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Let me insert a portion of a private e-mail from John Earl Haynes of the Library of Congress Manuscripts Division, a prominent source for much of the Venona series articles:

"One matter you might consider is just rephrasing occasionally the identification of persons identified in Venona as Soviet spies as, for example, persons identified in Venona as Soviet spies BY NSA/FBI ANALYSTS and that these identifications have been accepted as reliable in major books written about Venona: Haynes and Klehr’s _Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America_, Romerstein, and Breindel’s _The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors_, Nigel West’s _Venona: the Greatest Secret of the Cold War_, Moynihan’s _Secrecy: The American Experience_ and direct corroboration is provided in Weinstein and Vassiliev’s _The Haunted Wood_ and by the Gorsky memo.

"Also some people wince at the term "spy." Just for polite variation I often also use the phrase "knowingly cooperated with Soviet espionage against the United States" or some such. That, of course, is the definition of a spy but some people find it easier to take.

Anyone familiar with the discussion would see my definition of "spy" differs from Mr. Haynes, nonetheless I am barred from publishing original research. nobs 02:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No evidence of conspiracy against Cberlet

1) There is no evidence the users named as nominal defendants "work as team regarding LaRouche", were "acting in concert", or engaged in conspiracy against the complaining party.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. As per the stated finding of Mr. Bauder expressed at WikiEN-1 [65][66]. This finding is necessary, given Cberlet's opening statement, which may be regarded as a smear or personal attack, ""work as team regarding LaRouche", and now is part of the permanent record. nobs 17:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I agree that there needs to be a finding on something along these lines. Cberlet has repeatedly accused every editor in this case of "working in concert" with each other. I contend that he throws about this charge abusively, and falsely concludes that there is a "conspiracy" at work when he sees any two editors he dislikes making any edit whatsoever to the same article in proximity to each other, even though there have been no back channel communications and no orchestrated editing scheme against him. Cberlet's conspiracy allegations should accordingly be regarded as a personal attack on every editor he's accused, and should be weighed into the penalties against him. Rangerdude 17:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Cberlet's smear tactic, of naming five defendents as a bunch of "LaRouchie's", in my estimation was deliberate so it would be retained permanently in his opening statement. Abuse of process. nobs 18:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Sometimes it just gives me a headache. Please note that the actual paragraph in question states: "Nobs01, Cognition, Rangerdude Herschelkrustofsky work as team regarding LaRouche [67] []and Chip Berlet [68] [69]

[70] [71] [72]-follow links after "user in question" who is Cberlet."

1. Note the phrase structure of "work as team regarding LaRouche...and Chip Berlet." Perhaps it was not as clear as it chould have been, but I meant it as a reference to the diffs that followed. Sigh. I never meant to imply that all the named editors were in a gigantic conspiracist cabal; merely that in various combinations they had acted in concert to attack me on pages relating to LaRouche and the page entry on me.--Cberlet 22:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I never described all "five defendents as a bunch of 'LaRouchie's'." More hyperbole.--Cberlet 22:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sam Spade cautioned to avoid personal attacks

6) Sam Spade is cautioned to avoid personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. This is shameful. Condemning these "personal attacks" while ignoring the overwhelming evidence against Cberlet's routine violations of the same policy... The ArbCom needs a new standard of accountability regarding recusals. Sam Spade 00:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I concur completely. Cberlet has broken every single policy all the "defendants" have been accused of and then some. The Arbcom seems to be intentionally turning a blind eye to all that though, and instead is ramrodding quick penalties through against everybody Chip Berlet has ever attacked for vague, unspecified violations on evidence that does not withstand scrutiny. Rangerdude 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sam Spade cautioned regarding citation of sources

7) Sam Spade is reminded that information which is included in Wikipedia must be properly sourced; that information that is not properly sourced may be criticized on that basis and ultimately removed, and that the source of any information used should be cited to avoid plagiarism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I find this intensely disrespectful and completely unneccessary. I cited the source repeatedly. Sam Spade 00:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I concur that this is disrespectful of Sam Spade as well. If any citation guideline issue needs to be visited in this case, it's Cberlet's tendency to add links to his own material. Unfortunately the outcome of this case appears as if it has already been fixed in Cberlet's favor, no matter how much evidence of incontrovertable policy violations on his part is introduced. This case is setting an outright horrible precedent for wikipedia all around. It's essentially saying that if you're a minor notable figure with your own article, and if you happen to be personal friends with a couple Arbcom members, you can control that article's content to favor you with impunity and also get your buddies to impose harsh sanctions and penalties against any and every other editor who objects to you doing so. For example, I am still waiting for one single shred of specific evidence to be introduced showing I "harassed" or in any other possible way wronged Cberlet even though several members of Wikipedia's Arbitration committee Star Chamber have asserted it to be so without even specifying or substantiating their charge. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath. Rangerdude 03:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Others:

Rangerdude placed on probation

3) Rangerdude is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. Any administrator may ban Rangerdude from editing any article which he disrupts by aggressive tendentious editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by others:

1. This proposed remedy is excessive and, in all due respect, simply outrageous. There has not been one single shred of specifically stated evidence against me that I even violated any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and no specific diffs are cited in Fred Bauder's proposed "finding" that I somehow "harassed" Chip Berlet. I did no such thing and I defy anybody to present conclusive evidence otherwise. To rule me guilty of a charge that hasn't even been proven or specified, and then slap me with a one year penalty for that same unproven charge is an apalling precedent for the Arbcom and a gross abuse of wikipedia dispute resolution procedure. Rangerdude 00:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I could not agree more, this is a disgraceful proposal for all reasons mentioned. Sam Spade 00:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Others:

Cberlet prohibited from editing Chip Berlet

4) Cberlet is prohibited from editing Chip Berlet for violations of WP:OWN and WP:AUTO. He may continue to participate in content discussions on this article's talk page, but is cautioned against using this page to espouse content control over the Chip Berlet article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I propose the adoption of a remedy of this nature for Cberlet's attempts to control content on the Chip Berlet article. Rangerdude 04:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
2. No serious evidence presented that this is a problem. Not needed and over-reaching.--Cberlet 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Evidence of Cberlet attempting to control the content of the Chip Berlet article may be found here. Evidence of him doing the same at Political Research Associates may be found here. Rangerdude 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Cberlet prohibited from editing Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates

4) Cberlet is prohibited from editing Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates for violations of WP:OWN and WP:AUTO. He may continue to participate in content discussions on this article's talk page, but is cautioned against using this page to espouse content control over the Chip Berlet or Political Research Associates articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. No serious evidence presented that this is a problem. Not needed and over-reaching.--Cberlet 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Desperately needed if we are to expect anything benificial from this case. Does not go far enough. (see below) Sam Spade 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Cberlet and right wing/conservative politics and religion

1) {Cberlet is barred from editing articles relating to right-wing or conservative political or religious articles. He can use the talk page however, and his suggestions can be inserted by any other party.}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. SNAKE! SNAKE!--Cberlet 00:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Barring him completely from editing these articles may be a little excessive at this point. It would be fair, however, to place Cberlet on POV probation on articles involving conservative or religious themes on the grounds that he has aggressively promoted a left wing POV on these in the past. The probation could allow him to be banned from specific articles on conservative or religious themes if he engages in POV pushing there. Rangerdude 18:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
3. I believe it has now been demonstrated [73] the complaining party as per WP:V#Dubious sources, fits the example given in Mr. Bauder's revision. In response to the question,

"is a judgement made only about the specific reference in source material, or to the reliability of the author of such guilt by association tactics?",

Mr. Bauder states,

"Only to those using smear tactics." [74]

Seems there's three choices: (1) rewrite WP:V again to make clear the dubious source applies to the author, not just the reference used; (2) implement the above remedy; (3) edit war in specific articles, unless the complaining party chooses to repent; nonetheless nearly three decades of published materials by said author, The Public Eye, and Political Research Associates now appear highly suspect according to WP:V#Dubious sources. nobs 19:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dubious sources? So the editors at the New York Times, Boston Globe, various scholarly journals, book editors for scholarly texts--all of them are dimwits who cannot see that Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates are dubious sources? But Nobs01 can see this clearly. Just like he knew there was another key to the ice cream locker...--Cberlet 21:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nobs01 placed on probation

3) Nobs01 is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. Any administrator may ban Nobs01 from editing any article which he disrupts by aggressive tendentious editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I think we have done enough for round 1. He's banned for a month. We could go further with everyone in this case. It all ends with everyone banned from editing political articles, not a happy solution. Fred Bauder 02:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Mr. Bauder is close to the nexus of the problem; Venona series are historical articles, not political articles. There has been an extensive campaign to politicize the Venona series, which has been discussed on those pages, and a concensus emerged to not do that. Nevertheless, Cberlet has carried idological warfare over to other pages, not letting published sources or established facts deter his partisan crusade against imagined enemies. nobs 21:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
2. The interpretation of the Venona documents favored by Nobs01 is disputed by several scholars, and I cite them. I also suggest anyone who wants to delve into the criticisms of the scholars cited by Nobs01 take the time to read the excellent chapter by well-known scholar Athan Theoharis [75], But Nobs01 dismisses the scholars who disagree with him, reverts their quotes, deletes their cites, and then battles in an aggressive way that confronts editors who disagree with him with mountains of incomprehensible pseudo-intellectual text on the discussion pages. This is not ideological warfare, this is Nobs01--who seldom misses an opportunity to lecture us all on his superior wisdom, writing ability, and mastery of historiography--acting as if he owns the pages he edits, and wearing down anyone who disagree with him. None of the others in this case, myself included, come anywhere close to the type of disruptive activity by Nobs01 in his editing. A year probation? Sounds right to me. --Cberlet 21:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
3. The above posting is patently false. Review any of Cberlet's insertions on any of the Venona series articles, and you will find only two sources he uses, and nobs has not reverted them. The only reversion nobs has done is to Cberlet's original research. Cberlet has never once mentioned Athan Theoharis before today, which makes a mockery of this process if it is accepted on his word. nobs 21:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Here's the Wiki search results for "Theoharis" [76]; please, find one article nobs "dismisses the scholars who disagree with him, reverts their quotes, deletes their cites, and then battles in an aggressive way that confronts editors who disagree with him with mountains of incomprehensible pseudo-intellectual text on the discussion pages."

Nobs01 repeatedly challenged, dismissed, deleted, and reverted text containing arguments by Victor Navasky, Ellen Schrecker, Frank J. Donner, Miriam Schneir, and Walter Schneir. I specifically stated that I had NOT used Athan Theoharis as a source. The above search is meaningless.--Cberlet 22:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

1. More false statements, which I'd love to discuss. nobs 22:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Fred is correct that this case could go further toward the end of banning everybody or something to that effect. We do need to draw the line somewhere short of that, but then that line is drawn it should be straight rather than zig-zagged to assess different penalties for similar offenses. Right now virtually everybody Cberlet has accused in his case is getting charged with one or more substantial penalties with severe enforcement proposals. Cberlet, by contrast, is getting charged with minor warnings and slaps ont he wrist, even though he's broken most of the same rules others are being penalized for, often to a more severe degree. Penalties for comparable offenses in this case need to be uniform and specific. If Nobs broke NPA to a comparable degree as Cberlet, then both should get the same penalty. It's absurd however to put Nobs on probation for a year for NPA but then give Cberlet only a warning for the breaking the exact same rule. Rangerdude 23:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Same rule but the nature of the attacks is different by orders of magnitude Fred Bauder 00:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The evidence page suggests that Cberlet's attacks are of a comparable magnitude, and probably more so. Whereas Nobs is only accused of attacking Cberlet almost entirely in a single article dispute, Cberlet has attacked virtually every other person in this case at places all over wikipedia. Even if the final ruling did allow for different orders of magnitude, the two are surely closer together than the difference between a slap on the wrist "warning" with no penalties and a one year ban. Rangerdude 01:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Bauder: nobs alleged "attacks" are WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS. nobs "attacks" are nothing more than reading the Washington Post out loud. What can Cberlet cite for any abuse he's heaped on users daily. nobs 03:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Cberlet blanks a page

Editing the article Harry Magdoff and espionage Cberlet replaced an extensive article with a short summary [77], [78], [79].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Table pounding Fred Bauder 01:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Your suggestion should suffice. Fred Bauder 17:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I'm not ignoring personal attacks by cberlet. But I'm also not going to ignore the poisonous atmosphere they occurred in. Let's see if any other arbitrator puts up a remedy.Fred Bauder 19:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. The link to http://www.mises.org/etexts/intellectuals.asp should never have been removed from the article. Fred Bauder 20:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I propose that Cberlet be cautioned to avoid personal attacks. Seems fair. I do sometimes let my temper strike the keyboard.--Cberlet 23:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I deliberately avoided presenting in evidence Cberlet's personal attacks—I'm a big boy, I can take. They should be more viewed as evidence of editing in bad faith, burrying talk pages with personal innuendo, etc., and ignoring pleas to address substanive issues relating to the article under discussion. A recognition by the Committee that Cberlet's editing practices in this area have occurred would be helpful. nobs 17:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
3. I believe that more than a simple caution is necessary in this case. A caution would be sufficient if Cberlet engaged in occasional breaches of civility in heated arguments from time to time. The record clearly shows that this editor engages in direct personal attacks on a regular basis, and does so at even the slightest percieved provocation. In my own experience with him, he was already attacking me less then two hours after we first met - all in response to a polite request that he work out some POV problems with his edits on the talk page. If other editors are going to be given cautions for one-time breaches of NPA, then Cberlet surely deserves a stricter penalty for his widespread disregard of this rule. Rangerdude 18:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Let me add, Cberlet's abuse of edit summaries to deliver personal attacks and solicit assistance is extensive and habitual, and should not go unnoticed. nobs 18:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs01, Rangerdude, as always I am touched by your generosity.--Cberlet 18:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs is correct about Cberlet's abuse of edit summaries. In his very first post about my edits, he accused me in the edit summary of "shameless censorchip of criticsm" [80]. This attack was completely unprovoked and came in response to a polite request that he resolve POV issues with his proposed changes on the talk page. Rangerdude 19:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

1. The posting under Cberlet's personal attack subhead, in which nobs documents Cberlet's use of a banned sockpuppet troll acting in concert with Cberlet, Cberlet uses a personal attack edit summary [81]. It should also be noted, Cberlet's last position in that entire dispute, is now identitical to the view of nobs, unless Cberlet has shifted his arguement again. nobs 19:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Mr. Bauder: Let me restate, I view myself among Mr. Berlet's imagined enemies. I set out to contribute historical materials, not engage in partisan debates. And a reading of the disputed pages in question will see my constant pleading with Cberlet to not inject politicized debates into historical matters, and simply write a clean record of facts. Nevertheless, the poisonous atmosphere you reference, was largely the contribution of editors who insisted on injecting original research POV to refute what declassified government documents, various government reports, and recent scholarship have published. Honestly, I could have argued Cberlet's case better than him in any Venona related dispute, and was willing to do so. But because of the lack of good faith exhibited by Mr. Berlet, it wasn't worth bringing to his attention the valid arguements he should have been using. nobs 19:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Resonse: After reading this, I find myself reading Gibberish and Narcissistic personality disorder to search for clues, but, alas, it is just an impression, an echo, a faint scent, not a conclusion--perhaps I am merely disoriented.--Chip 19:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The analysis of extremism is really outside my field, and I leave that to recognized experts, like Mr. Laird Wilcox. nobs 20:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Response:

"...an interesting, informative book. Berlet and Lyons have forgotten more about right-wing politics in America than most of us know to begin with, and they put that knowledge to good use....a good book that merits close attention from scholars of the Right in America and of social movements generally."--Contemporary Sociology

"The history of the evangelical entry into politics is fascinating and complicated. There is an excellent account in Right-Wing Populism in America." --The New York Review of Books

"Berlet...and Lyons...do not see the racial, religious, social, and economic ideas of the Far Right as strictly marginal. Rather, they argue, right-wing populism is deeply rooted in American history. This detailed historical examination...provides a theoretical basis for understanding the actions and ideas of these movements....This work strikes an excellent balance between narrative and theory....Recommended for all public and academic libraries." --Library Journal

--Chip 21:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"John George and Laird Wilcox, two of the foremost analysts of right-and left-wing extremism", -- Racial Extremism in the Army, MAJ Walter M. Hudson, The Military Law Review, Vol 159 (Mar 99), Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159 [82] (see pgs. 7-10). He is also editor and publisher of annual guides on extremism. See Laird Wilcox, Guide To The American Right & Left.[83] Can you suggest a another source the United States Army should be using to profile the extremist personality? Even The Public Eye cites The Wilcox Collection as a source. nobs 22:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Fred - You state above that you're "not going to ignore the poisonous atmosphere" Cberlet made his attacks in. This is an unusual statement at least in my case, because Cberlet began attacking me personally almost immediately after we first met on July 25th. The chain of events began at about 18:24 on the 25th when I moved a major rewrite by Cberlet of the LVMI's controversies section to the talk page and stated NPOV objections to several of its sentences. This was done in the post here. My note on the talk page was detailed and explicit about my objections to his wordings. It also politely invited him to propose his changes there and work toward a consensus version. Cberlet responded to this note almost immediately with a personal attack on me in the edit summary [84]. Over the next two hours I repeatedly urged him to work things out on the talk page, and he continued to attack me in response culminating in his outright vitriolic slam against me here. If anybody "poisoned" the atmosphere in this dispute, it was Cberlet himself. Rangerdude 19:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You are getting into a content dispute here that is beyond my patience. I have done my best. I know much more could be done with the questions raised by this case, but I don't think it would be good to do so. My impression is that you removed a large block of well referenced material. Hard to justify that. Fred Bauder 20:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What I did, Fred, was what WP:NPOV directed me to do in situations like that one. I did nothing more than follow its instructions. From WP:NPOV "There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page." I did so in an extensive post detailing my objections here. Cberlet immediately repsonded with hostility and insults. WP:NPOV also recommends moving the disputed section to the talk page for discussion "if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it." Cberlet's belligerent attitude, personal attacks, and unwillingness to change the disputed passage except for a few minor word shuffles [85] convinced me that he could not be induced to change it in the article text outside of the talk page. Rangerdude 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Here is a classic illustration of Cberlet in action. This series of edits [86][87][88][89][90][91] Cberlet demands citations from another editor 6 times in 24 hours; simultaneously in interaction with nobs, Cberlet deletes citations [92][93] and adds original research [94][95]. I don't know what others call this, but I view it as lack of good faith editing at minimum. nobs 21:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps those books could serve as further reading, but they are not citations, a citation is to language on a page in a particular edition. Fred Bauder 22:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Very well. It was then footnoted to page, and here's Cberlet's response [96] (blanks the page). Later he actually alters primary source text [97] from a footnoted, first person eyewitness account, to a third party who was not even present to the context. (The same, and other illustrations also documented here [98], which he calls "reasonable" [99]; note also abuse of edit summaries, too). nobs 23:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Here Cberlet actually converts a written depostition into oral tesitimony [100], demonstrating properly cited facts mean nothing if they conflict with his POV, which he actually confesses to here Talk:VENONA project#NPOV, nevertheless lies (yes, I use the term "lies", in its full meaning) in his posting that he corrected it, which the edit histories prove he did not. nobs 23:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You say "Very well. It was then footnoted to page," but when I look at the article [101], footnote 7 is to the whole book The Secret World of American Communism Fred Bauder 00:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Footnote 7 is correct; that still would not justifiy wholesale deletion which he never raised in Talk. nobs 00:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is cited to page under ==Print== [p. 312 (Document 90)] nobs 00:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, but your cites are not well done, very confusing. Fred Bauder 01:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. It was collaborative, and somewhat hurried just then, but I believe it looks better now. nobs 02:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobs01 closing statement

I'll take the bullit on this one. Evidently Wikipedia is better and more improved now (see WP:V#Dubious sources). As someone said somewhere sometime, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it." nobs 02:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Best of luck. It's unfortunate that they decided to shoot the messenger in a case where a number of the "judges" also happened to be on friendly terms with plaintiff, and others apparently share in his extremely liberal political beliefs. Rangerdude 03:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This case provides a horrifying underscore below the argument for an elected ArbCom, rather than this Cabal of appointees. Sam Spade 20:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Sam Spade, but, here, here! Obviously I would want people like 172 and Secretlondon on ArbCom, but I think the elections did a good job, I think the elected people are pretty good. For example, while I don't think Raul654 is perfect, I don't think he is biased and he is usually fair. I can not say the same of some of the appointed Arbitrators. It is obvious they have incredible political biases. Ruy Lopez 02:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This RFA is called Nobs01 and others. While Nobs01 will probably be banned for a month for his very personal attacks against Chip Berlet, I don't think this deals with the long-term Nobs01 problem, a problem which anyone who looks at the evidence page where me and Chip Berlet detail some of what Nobs01 has been doing. In fact, the evidence page is composed of mainly two things: 1) Me and Cberlet's evidence against Nobs01, 2) Mostly cranks attacking Cberlet (One of the few who do not fit under the mostly heading is Sam Spade, who is not a crank, although he sometimes lets his POV creep into articles, I am not including him under the "mostly" heading).

Is there going to be an edit war across Wikipedia between Nobs01 and Chip, me, El C, Timoteo III, 172, Viajero, & FCYTravis? Or is this going to be solved now? Nobs01 rampage has finally reached ArbCom, let's do something about it. I'm not even raring for punishment, I just want to see it discussed how this will stop, how it won't be another few months of nonsense before we're all back in ArbCom again. Let's fix it now. Ruy Lopez 02:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Ruy Lopez, for your honesty and focus on long term solutions. I may not agree about Nobs, but I am glad to hear you perceive the rigour with which I attempt to enforce neutrality. I do of course have my opinions, and they may indeed creep thru on some rare occasion... one of which being my opinion that the wikipedia needs to provide unbiased, neutral information based on a variety of verifiable citations. I like to think of such feelings on my part as being less than "cranky". Sam Spade 16:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade closing statement

I'll quote a friend and fellow AMA advocate: "When blindness is so strong, there's nothing more to do."

Sam Spade 21:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)