Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others

Case Opened on 19:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Complaining witness

• Cberlet (talk · contribs)

Nominal defendants

• Nobs01 (talk · contribs)
• Rangerdude (talk · contribs)
• Cognition (talk · contribs)
• Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs)
• Sam_Spade (talk · contribs)

Statement by Cberlet

Please limit your statement to 500 words

These editors, in various combinations and in various ways, have recently particpated in an editing war involving Wikipedia entries under my real name Chip Berlet, and the name of my employer Political Research Associates, both on the text pages and the discussion pages. I have been involved in editing disputes with all of these editors. The current editing war at Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates gives the appearance of using text entries in Wikipedia and discussion pages to bully another editor (me - Cberlet) in retaliation for editing disputes. A policy regarding such situations needs to be articulated, and if appropriate, the participants named above held accountable.--Cberlet 21:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This case involves establishing the boundaries of proper editing and discussion behavior on Wikipedia when a Wiki editor is also the subject of a Wiki entry under their real name and identity. The editors named in this arbitration vary greatly in terms of their behavior, with Nobs01 having the most problematic edit history. Some other editors named have simply participated on the discussion page. All have been involved in editing conflicts with me as a Wiki editor, and then been involved in editing or discussing the entries on me and my employer.

At the heart of the case is a complicated set of questions. If individual Wiki editors are discouraged from editing entries on themselves, what policies might be appropriate to advise Wiki editors who have been in editing disputes with an editor for whom there is an entry? What are the proper boundaries when digging up negative and derogatory information about a fellow Wiki editor with whom one has had a dispute? Is there not a built in bias? Shouldn’t there be some ground rules?

Since Wiki relies on published materials, does a person attacked on Wiki need to “publish” a response to every criticism posted on some marginal website or published in some highly POV print publication? How can persons with entries on Wiki defend themselves against the posting of false, malicious, and potentially defamatory text?--Cberlet 22:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs01, Cognition, Rangerdude Herschelkrustofsky work as team regarding LaRouche [1] []and Chip Berlet [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]-follow links after "user in question" who is Cberlet.

Nobs01 proclaims that after his superior edits I "crapped my pants" [7].

Cognition uploads distorted image to entry on Chip Berlet [8] after inserting POV into Chip Berlet [9]

After editorial content disputes with me, Herschelkrustofsky visits Chip Berlet to add negative material [10] [11].--Cberlet 14:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky, also suggests I am a government agent: "One of these editors briefly enjoyed, back in the 1980s, the status of being a cut-out for intelligence circles who were deployed against LaRouche; he has subsequently gone into well-deserved obscurity, and is now using Wikipedia as an attempt to relive his glory days." [12].

After editorial content disputes with Sam_Spade [13] and Sam_Spade telling me "I suggest you chill the fuck out" I seek mediation [14] Sam_Spade visits Chip Berlet to add negative material [15] --Cberlet 14:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

After editorial content disputes with me, Rangerdude visits Chip Berlet to add negative material [16]--Cberlet 14:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Counterclaim by respondant Herschelkrustofsky

Cberlet's POV pushing

In the second LaRouche arbitration case, a unanimously adopted finding of fact was that "A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia." If this was intended to be a gentle warning to Chip Berlet/Cberlet, it has fallen on deaf ears.

All respondants in this case have referenced Cberlet's POV pushing, and indeed, that is the one and only thing that the respondants all have in common: objection to said POV pushing, and objection to the attendant tactics such as the frequent personal attacks. The wide variety of examples which will be presented on the evidence page should help to deflate Berlet's standard, ad hominem argument, that his only quarrel is with "Lyndon LaRouche supporters."

Cberlet's original research

Much of the self-quoting that Cberlet has introduced into Wikipedia has never been published outside of his website. Cberlet argues that this website is not "his" per se, but that of his employer. However, the company in question is so small that Berlet is free to use the website essentially as his personal blog, as illustrated by this diff, where he says, "I have been forced to set up a web page just to rebut the many false LaRouchite claims appearing on Wikipedia: [17]." Berlet has also argued[18] that, because his company (PRA) issues a print version of the pages on this website, then the material should be regarded as "published" and therefore suitable for Wikipedia source citation; this is a distinction without a difference -- it is still miles apart from being published by a reputable, mass-circulation publication. There are also other websites, of a fringe nature and not suitable as Wikipedia sources, where Berlet's opinions are quoted, and which are subsequently inserted into Wikipedia by Cberlet as source material, as in this example (the website in question is this one.) More examples will be presented on the evidence page, including Cberlet's attempts to disguise original research by attributing his views to anonymous "critics," a tactic covered under WP:AWT.

I recognize that Chip Berlet's views have also appeared in some "mainstream" publications, and I have no objection whatsoever to these publications being used as sources for Wikipedia. However, I think that it is important to make the distinction, because the views that Berlet expresses in these more reputable publications are often dramatically different, and considerably more suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, than the citations to which I object.

In the form of relief, I request that the ArbCom rule that Cberlet and his POV allies, including User:SlimVirgin, User:Willmcw, User:Snowspinner, User:Adam Carr and others, may not not insert material originating with Chip Berlet unless it can be shown that such material has in fact been published in a reputable publication, and that Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Chip Berlet or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.

Cberlet's exploitation of Wikipedia for commercial purposes

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish Cberlet's commercial exploitation from his POV pushing, because both involve copious insertions of references to himself. In the case of the articles Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates and Conspiracism, Cberlet and his surrogates seek to dominate and control the content in violation of WP:OWN, presenting himself, his business, and his "niche" topic in the most favorable possible light. At Chip Berlet, the photo preferred by Cberlet and his surrogates is a highly stylized, artificially colored commercial portrait that is something of an embarassment to Wikipedia, because it makes the page look like an ad. Cberlet refers to it in this diff as a "publicity shot."

Cberlet's incessant violations of Wikiquette, including personal attacks

Cberlet's violations in this department have already been extensively referenced in respondant statements. Little more needs to be said about it here; the examples will be presented on the evidence page.

--HK 11:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Rangerdude

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Insofar as it involves me, this request for arbitration is completely frivolous. This is a case of an editor, User:Cberlet, who believes he personally owns and/or controls the content of Chip Berlet, an article about himself in real life. In doing so he commits a violation of WP:OWN. Berlet also frequently self-cites his own material, such as in this edit to the Ludwig von Mises Institute where he adds a link to a highly partisan Southern Poverty Law Center opinion piece he authored as if it were a factual source.

As this case relates to the other editors he named, most if not all appear to have drawn Mr. Berlet's wrath by editing either his article in a way that is critical or differing with his strongly exhibited POV's on other articles. While each of these editor disputes should be analyzed individually, there is certainly no "acting in concert" between any of them and myself against Mr. Berlet. All communications I have made with any of the other editors is public on wikipedia article and user talk pages, and in the few instances I have done so with these editors, the topic was something other than Mr. Berlet. Thus, as far as I can tell, Mr. Berlet's real grievance with me is entirely drawn from the fact that he doesn't like the content I added to an article he claims as "his" own, no matter how sourced and valid that content may be.

I have participated in edits on the Chip Berlet article in the past where I made counterbalancing NPOV additions. At the time I made these additions, the article was generally positive about Mr. Berlet and largely lifted from his own self-bio on his website at Political Research Associates. Mr. Berlet is a vocal political figure who writes with a strong leftist editorial POV. To counterbalance this bias, I added sourced and documented criticism of Berlet by conservative columnist David Horowitz to the article as WP:NPOV dictates. In seeking to comply with NPOV I also added several quotes and links to Berlet's responses to Horowitz so as to ensure his side of their dispute was aired as well. Mr. Berlet immediately reacted in hostility to this addition in a talk page post he titled "Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page" (emphasis added), which called for expunging the Horowitz criticism from the text and substituting a link to Horowitz's articles on the bottom of the page.[19] This case is one of many where Mr. Berlet has referred to the Chip Berlet article as "my page" and has tried to control its content, violating WP:OWN

Berlet made similar attempts to exercise ownership over his organization's article, Political Research Associates. In a post that alleged bias against PRA, Berlet stated "We have discussed this problem at PRA, and we feel this situation needs to be addressed"[20]. In my response to this I suggested it was generally inappropriate for PRA to attempt to exercise control over an article about itself and suggested Mr. Berlet should "add to the article—not to subtract from it" if he felt that it was imbalanced against him.[21] Mr. Berlet then responded in a post that contained hostile venom-laced attacks on persons who had criticized him and their supporters:

• "So far we have had this page taken over by...fans of a small uber-libertarian think tank the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
• "The critics of PRA quoted include...David Horowitz, who acts as the carnival geek of the ultraconservative political right."[22]

This same post by Berlet alsol alleged that Lyndon LaRouche activists had taken over the article, yet when I looked into this allegation I was unable to find any LaRouche edits in the article's history at least since last year if at all.

Back on Chip Berlet a dispute over the size of Horowitz material followed and the page was temporarily protected until a version of the text was agreed upon. This agreement was reached between August 9th and 14th[23] and a neutral admin removed protection.[24]

From that time until the present I have kept the Chip Berlet article on my watchlist. When another content dispute involving other editors emerged earlier this week around November 12th or 13th, I read through the dispute and made a grand total of four talk page contributions. Two of these proposed compromises aimed at resolving the dispute [25] [26] and the other two urged editors whose tempers were flaring up to assume good faith [27] [28]. This arbitration request by Mr. Berlet stems from the November 12th-present dispute and now alleges some sort of vast conspiracy between myself and other editors to subvert articles that he appears to think he owns since they are about him. As can be plainly seen in the edit diffs indicating my involvement in this latest dispute, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, one of the editors who is generally supportive of Mr. Berlet - SlimVirgin - even agreed with one of the suggestions I made as a possible compromise.[29]

In light of the above, I urge the Arbcom to reject and dismiss Cberlet's request, at least as it pertains to me, as frivolous. Should the Arbcom decide to investigate it further, I would urge them to examine the WP:OWN issue as it pertains to Mr. Berlet's behavior on articles pertaining to him in real life. Rangerdude 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Recusal Request

I would also like to request that User:Jayjg recuse himself from this case due to extensive past involvement in disputes involving Mr. Berlet and the propriety of using Chip Berlet's political material as sources. Jayjg's edits and stated opinions on this subject have exhibited strong support of Mr. Berlet that could potentially compromise the fairness of this case. [30] [31] [32] [33] He should accordingly recuse himself as required by Wikipedia's arbitration policy. Thank you in advance for compliance. Rangerdude 05:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Spade

Here is a brief summary of Cberlet's history of aggression towards myself.

The charges Cberlet brings are of course absurd, and in my regards likely consist of nothing more than a recent thank you note from nobs on my talk page, and questions I asked here. I have no idea who User:Cognition is, for example, and have had only fleeting contact w the other named parties. It would be interesting if Cberlet or my other accusers provided evidence for their claims.

I had, however, been considering bringing a case against Cberlet for his neverending POV pushing (have a glance at his contributions sometime), but I am uncertain he is so bad as to require banning.

I will examine my evidence, and his recent contributions, with what little time I have to spare during midterms, and will comment regarding a counter-suit at another juncture.

Sam Spade 23:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Case against Cberlet

Cberlet is the clearest example of POV pushing I know of on the wikipedia. I intend to make this as clear as possible.

Premises:

• User:Cberlet is Chip Berlet
• Chip Berlet is notable enough for a wikipedia article
  • Chip Berlet is an a opinionated journalist
  • We know what Chip Berlet's POV is (roughly)
• Cberlet makes edits of the same POV as he expresses in his profession, sometimes even citing his POV.
• Cberlet's POV is not often notable

Examples:

• Cberlet cites himself
  • [34]

• Cberlet expresses his POV on his articles talk page
  • [35]

• Opinionated edits regarding his employer, Political Research Associates
  • [36], [37], [38]

While the wikipedia has many professors (or other sorts of experts on various matters) who are also editors, they are not allowed to cite themselves, by name, in the article namespace; nor express their POV therein. If someone else cites them due to their notability, that is of course allowed. They should not however become interfered in such matters.

Sam Spade 00:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Herschelkrustofsky

Since February of this year, I have made no edits to Chip Berlet and a grand total of three edits to Talk:Chip Berlet: this one, where I caution other editors about the use of weasel terms; this one, where I answer a question by Willmcw about Berlet's employment at High Times magazine, and this one(with a four word follow-up question to SlimVirgin here,) regarding the use of an advertising-style promotional photo in the article.

And I have added this one today. --HK 01:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Consequently, I have reason to wonder what motivated Cberlet to include me in his request for arbitration. I also find it odd that Cberlet wishes to represent such a heterogenous grouping of editors as "acting in concert." Berlet cites two messages on my talk page from Nobs01, while omitting my response on Nobs' page; to put the matter in context, I have reconstituted the entire exchange here.

As regards his case more generally, I agree with Rangerdude that this falls under WP:OWN. Wikipedia policy protects User:Cberlet from personal attacks, but provides little protection to Chip Berlet, the public figure (an irony to be appreciated by those of us who witnessed Cberlet's repeated biting of newcomer Zirkon in discussions over the article Fair comment.) Chip Berlet is without a doubt a public figure, although if he were as prominent in his field as Snowspinner, SlimVirgin and Willmcw insist, I should think he would have no need to spend hours each day promoting himself via Wikipedia. User:Daniel Brandt, in his own abrasive way, attempted to argue that he should "own" the article Daniel Brandt, and met with little sympathy. Of course, Cberlet should not need to edit the article Chip Berlet, because he has SlimVirgin and Willmcw as proxies to do it for him.

--HK 07:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)]

Recusal Request

I would like to second Rangerdude's request that User:Jayjg recuse himself from this case due to extensive past involvement in disputes involving Mr. Berlet and the propriety of using Chip Berlet's political views as source material. --HK 13:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Nobs01

I believe there is a long trail of User:Cberlet editing in bad faith and other applicable policy violations. This is primarily a content dispute, which Cberlet has made little or no effort to use proper citations or methods, insisting upon his priveleged POV as an "expert". His opening statements here, "acting in concert", "most problematic, or "as team regarding LaRouche", are provably false, and may be another policy violation of abuse of process. The same is provable regarding his Mediation request. If necessary, the other users named here should be separated from User:Cberlet's conspiracy theory about "digging up dirt".

Let me also add, I have always acted in a manner that separates Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet, acting in the capacity of a fellow Wikipedian, from the Chip Berlet Wiki article.

However this case proceeds, before it concludes, we shall document that Mr. Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates, was singled out by an authority widely recognized as the "foremost analyst of left and right wing extremism" in America, as one of four of the most extremist organizations purporting to be a "Watchdog group". This may be helpful to Wikipedia, given the overreliance on Mr. Berlet as an inhouse "expert", which may have created NPOV distortions in several articles. nobs 00:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Grand total of 3 edits lifetime were content was added to Chip Berlet, [39] [40][41]; 20 edits total lifetime since 13:23 3 August 2005 as follows: 4 rv; 11 fmt, notes, cites, or further reading; 1 wikify; 1 img. Given the above claim "Wiki editor is also the subject of a Wiki entry... Nobs01 having the most problematic" please mark as Exhibit 1 of abuse of process [42] nobs 02:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Exhibit 2 Abuse of process Cberlet's most recent breach of good faith.

• 9 August

• nobs posts: "Notice: As gesture of good faith in anticipation of collaborative efforts & dispute resolution on other pages, I will be abstaining from further input in this article or other articles directly relating Mr. Chip Berlet (until such a time as suspension of abstention etc.)"[43]

• 19 October
  • Cberlet raises in Mediation,
    • "Whether or not the Category:Soviet spies is accurately named"[44]

• note: this was agreed to earlier as part of Mediation as well.

• 7 November
  • Cberlet solicits assistance at WikiIN-1 to list Category:Soviet spies at CfD since "I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter" [45]. nobs 02:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Exhibit 3 Abuse of process (Abuse of process = false statements) Cberlet lists 2 diffs above to support claim of "work as team regarding LaRouche", and "acting in concert"; this is the only contact with this User I've ever had in Wikipedia, and he didn't even vote at the CfD [46]. My second posting to him was a response to his objection on my Talk page [47].

Please see, Political Research Associates, A Study in "Links and ties", pgs. 114-131 for analysis of the "pathology" of using "links and ties". nobs 04:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Exhibit 4 Abuse of process Allegations have been made here and elesewhere user:nobs was "digging up dirt" to "denigrate" User:Cberlet; when the time comes, nobs will be able to document, through Wikipedia diffs the material came into nobs hands quite accidentally (with the help of User:Ruy Lopez, no less) on a completely different subject unrelated to the Chip Berlet article. When the material did come into nobs hands, nobs request Cberlet in September to respond to it, twice. Acting in good faith, nobs spent the time to fully qualify the source of the information, and the nature of the issues raised. Nobs01 never set about with the intent to "dig up dirt". nobs 04:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• How User:Ruy Lopez found Laird Wilcox Report.[48]
  • "Google shows the words "magdoff", "kant" and "venona" appear on exactly four web pages ("hiss", "ales" and "venona" appear on over 700). One of these pages is Nobs01's Wikipedia entry, so it's really three entries. One is from a white supremacist site, which seems to be quoting from another source. One is from some far-right red-under-every-bed author, who basically accuses pretty much every known figure on the left, whether communist or not, of being a Soviet spy - Alger Hiss, Harry Magdoff, Harry Dexter White, even IF Stone for God's sake. The other is a memo referring to the original Venona message"
    • "far-right red-under-every-bed author", i.e. John Earl Haynes, Library of Congress Manuscripts Division [49]
    • "memo referring to the original Venona message" cryptome
    • "a white supremacist site, which seems to be quoting from another source", i.e. Volksfront publishing Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999. nobs 05:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Exhibit 5 Abuse of process Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Dispute resolution states,

users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages

• 31 July
  • 20:43
    • nobs posts on Cberlet's talk page "Dear Sir: I approached you in good faith; please direct any personal sentiments regarding my postings or others to my Talk page"[50]; Cberlet continues blistering personal attacks elsewhere.
  • 20:45
    • "I have no interest in a side conversation."[51]

• 3 August

• "Please carry out all contact with me through the talk pages of specific articles. I have no interest in continuing to engage with you outside the actual editing process. Messages left here will not be responded to." [52]

Hence, it was at User:Cberlet's insistance the material at Talk:Chip Berlet be dealt with publicly. nobs 03:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Third parties

Statement by Snowspinner

I would hope that the arbcom would take this case, as it touches on a major issue we face on Wikipedia, which is the treatment of expert contributors. Cberlet summarizes the situation accurately - because of his opposition to several groups - most notably our friends in the LaRouche movement - he is a target for harassment and defamation. On the one hand, as we've learned in countless cases (John Byrne, the Bogdanovs), we have to be careful about letting editors dictate the content of articles about themselves. On the other, it would be a far graver mistake to allow expert contributors to be driven off through campaigns of harassment by their political enemies. Phil Sandifer

One issue that I think this case makes clear is that editing to bolster the representation of one POV is not itself a violation of NPOV - yes, Cberlet's edits unquestionably reflect his POV. But even in the example of the edits Sam cites to Political Research Associates, the edits seem to me to be good NPOV edits. In one case, after wholly rewriting the article, CBerlet also adds an NPOV tag to it, showing, to my mind, extraordinary concern for the policy. But the edits cited - removing inaccuracies, trimming quotes that just slander, but don't support any of the claims made in the article - these are good things to do. They do not magically become bad things based on the editor who does them. Phil Sandifer 16:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Gamaliel

While it's important to resist the wishes of public and semi-public figures who wish to eliminate criticism of themselves, this goes beyond that and into the realm of grudges and personal attacks. Insertions of tangental and irrelevant references to Berlet in a number of articles and screens of references to "body counts" add up to a POV pusher with a grudge against this user. Gamaliel 22:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

I hope the committee will accept Cberlet's case. Chip Berlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created in May 2004 [53] by an IP address within a range known to have been used by the LaRouche accounts (Herschelkrustofsky et al), who used the page as a platform for LaRouche criticism of Chip until the second LaRouche arbcom case in January 2005. In July, Rangerdude fell out with Cberlet on other pages, opened an RfC against him on July 25, and then started editing Chip Berlet on July 28 [54] (the first time he'd edited it), inserting criticism, which raised a potential legal problem of negative material being inserted with malice. (I'm currently having to defend myself, in the arbcom case against Rangerdude, against charges that I violated NPOV and AGF when I tried to stop him. [55]) Now Nobs01, who often edits with Rangerdude, is inserting that Chip was closely associated with "defender[s] of terrorism," and has made comments that look like threats, implying that if we don't retain the material, he'll insert even worse, which again raises the issue of malice. "If you want to spend weeks discussing the Weather Underground, Philip Agee ... fine. In the end, you may wish the namespace only included 'an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism'," [56] "The two deaths from terrorists incidents can be included to give context, if necessary," [57] and "Mr. Berlet knows efforts to suppress documentation often lead to more documentation being presented." [58] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

In fairness to Rangerdude, he has made a helpful suggestion for compromise between Nobs01 and the other editors, and hasn't backed Nobs up this time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Flcelloguy

As mentioned above, a mediation was requested between Cberlet and Nobs01 by Cberlet on September 27 and began shortly thereafter. As a member of the Mediation Committee, I was assigned to the case, which involved several articles relating to the VENONA project. Mediation has been ongoing ever since and was only suspended today by myself because of this Arbitration case. I only bring up the mediation because it is mentioned by the plaintiff above, and also because the mediation involves the plaintiff and one of the defendants (Nobs01). The matters that we discussed at mediation only related to the VENONA project article; thus, the issues are at best tangentially related to the issues brought up in this Arbitration case. However, it is clear that Cberlet and Nobs01 stand on different sides of the river and that both are in dispute with each other more than just at the articles that mediation covered.

The mediation is on Wikipedia and is available at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01 and its corresponding subpages. I will be more than happy to detail the mediation more clearly or to clarify any questions that Arbitrators may have regarding this mediation on request.

Thanks very much. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

• Accept ➥the Epopt 23:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 02:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Based on Nobs01's edits to Talk:Chip Berlet
• Accept Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

Principles

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point

1) Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point#State your point; don't prove it experimentally provides that parody or a breaching experiment is often a disruption of Wikipedia.

Passed 8-0

Personal attacks

2) Wikipedia:No personal attacks provides that "Using someone's political affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said political affilitions are mainstream or extreme" is an unacceptable personal attack.

Passed 8-0

Autobiography

3) Wikipedia:Autobiography, a guideline, discourages persons who have an article about themselves in Wikipedia from editing it, suggesting that they provide input on the talk page, but points out the need for citing published sources for information to be acceptable.

Passed 8-0

Don't bite the newbies

4) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, admonishes Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of Don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.

Passed 8-0

Controversial experts

5) Knowledgeable users, including those who have been engaged in controversial activities, are welcome to edit on Wikipedia, provided they cite reliable sources for their contributions and respect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Passed 8-0

Harassment of controversial experts

6) The policy expressed in Wikipedia:Harassment as applied to controversial experts forbids violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground by undue focus on Wikipedia articles regarding them or organizations affiliated with them, or on their editing activities.

Passed 8-0

SNAKE! SNAKE!

7) Wikipedia editors who engage in immature behavior by inappropriately focusing their attention on controversial users should be extended some decree of understanding as this is a predictable newbie error.

Passed 8-0

Harassment

8) Wikipedia:Harassment prohibits actions which disrupt the editing activity of another user.

Passed 8-0

Cite sources

9) Users are required to adequately cite the source of any information they place in Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia:Cite sources. Information which is unsourced may be criticized on that basis, and ultimately be removed. A clear understanding of plagiarism is required.

Passed 8-0

External activities of users

10) Use in external activities of such tactics as "links & ties", or guilt by association may be properly reported in a article; however, use of guilt by association by any party on Wikipedia is unacceptable. Wikipedia requires verification of information by a reliable source, Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research.

Passed 7-0-1

Banning for point of view editing

11) Despite their welcome to Wikipedia, editors with strong partisan points of view may be banned or otherwise restricted if they are not courteous, engage in personal attacks on their "opponents", or aggressively edit in a point of view way which violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Passed 6-0

Findings of fact

Disruption by Nobs01

1) Nobs01 has disrupted Wikipedia by posing extensive material that he calls "links & ties", essentially guilt by association to Talk:Chip Berlet, see for example Talk:Chip Berlet#Intelligence Identities Protection Act and [59]. These postings to the talk page of an article about a Wikipedia user constitute harassment.

Passed 7-0

Personal attack by Cognition

2) Cognition has made a sustained personal attack on Cberlet [60]

Passed 8-0

Personal attacks by Sam Spade

3) Sam Spade has made personal attacks on Cberlet [61] [62].

Passed 7-0

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.

Passed 7-0

Over-involvement by Cberlet in Chip Berlet

5) Cberlet, a minor public figure, has sometimes involved himself inappropriately in the content of the article on himself [63].

Passed 6-1

Sam Spade and sources

6) Sam Spade's use of citations is less than desirable; see Talk:Political correctness/Archive 5#Dispute header and Talk:Political correctness#Plagiarism allegations

Passed 7-0

Personal attack by Nobs01 on Cberlet

7) Distressed by the proposed remedies in this case, 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 editing.

Passed 6-0

Remedies

Removal of personal attacks

1) The "links & ties" material posted by Nobs01 on Talk:Chip Berlet or any other page may be removed by any user as personal attacks.

Passed 7-0

Modify Lyndon LaRouche 2

2) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 is modified so that the remedies applied in Lyndon LaRouch 2 are applied to Cognition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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).

Passed 7-0

Cognition placed on personal attack parole

3) Cognition (talk · contribs) may continue to edit under that name but is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole.

Passed 7-0

Rangerdude placed on probation

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

Passed 7-0

Rangerdude admonished

5) Rangerdude is admonished to extend respect and forgiveness to users such as User:Cberlet (Chip Berlet)

Passed 7-0

Cberlet cautioned regarding autobiography

6) Cberlet is cautioned to avoid over-involvement in the article on himself.

Passed 7-0

Nobs01 banned for one month

7) Nobs01 is banned for one month due to disruption of Talk:Chip Berlet

Passed 7-0

Cognition banned for one month

8) Cognition is banned for one month due to an egregious personal attack on User talk:Cberlet

Passed 7-0

Sam Spade cautioned to avoid personal attacks

9) Sam Spade is cautioned to avoid personal attacks.

Passed 7-0

Sam Spade cautioned regarding citation of sources

10) 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.

Passed 8-0

Nobs01 banned for personal attacks

11) Nobs01 is banned for one year for personal attacks. The ban may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators after its expiration should personal attacks of the virulence found in this case continue. All extensive personal attacks shall be removed and his user and talk page protected.

Passed 6-0

Nobs01 placed on Probation

12) Nobs01 is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Nobs01's probation shall automatically end.

Passed 7-0

Herschelkrustofsky placed on Probation

13) Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others. Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Herschelkrustofsky's probation shall automatically end.

Passed 7-0

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.