"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:49:17 -0600:
Looks like I've been dragged back into a major WP Arbitration case. Judd
Bagley, Director of Communications at Overstock.com is at the center of it,
and is talking with a couple of independent journalists about Arbitration
process. While most of the public is familiar with WP, few know of ArbCom,
and these journalists want to shed more light on it. What has happened is,
while the whole Arb case, a proposed policy dealing with "attack sites" and
modifications to exiting policy are aimed at protectying living persons from
defamation and slander, I have been seriously defamed in the very
Arbitration process, SlimVirgin alleging without a shred of evidence that I
maintain one of six attack sites they want to put on the spma blacklist. I
do not maintain such an atack site.
Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:23:53 -0400:
How much of the content of the site titled "Chip Berlet, Slim Virgin,
and Wikipedia" is true and correct?
TerryH
"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:48:31 -0600:
I read that article once; most of it has some basis, however it was probably
written by a member of the Lyndon LaRouche organizations, an organization
that deserves harsh criticism and Berlet has been at war with for years.
Their effort has always been to "link and tie" me to the LaRouche
organization, a strategy that won't work. LaRouche is an arch-defender of
New Deal FDR Democratic politics, and my anti-Communist credentials are
impeccable. I already have a ruling from WP ArbCom Chairman Fred Bauder
stating he investigated the allegation, and found there is no basis for it.
Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:01:29 -0400:
In your description of Lyndon H. "Lefty" LaRouche, you tell me nothing
I did not learn at Yale University in my four years as an
undergraduate. I was a freshman when LaRouche ran for President against
Ford and Carter. I was also present when LaRouche obtained my
organization's sponsorship of him under false pretenses--and then
proceeded to say such gems as, "Aristotle was a Persian spy."
TerryH
"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:12:09 -0600:
LaRouche has been the target of the Anti-Defamation League since he ran in
1980 and was able to find enough donors to a half hour information on
broadcast TV (in the days prior to cable). The ADL regards him as a fascist
one-worlder, and is scared to death of him because he was able to (1)
broadcast his fascist one-world conspiracy theories to a wide audience, and
(2) raise money to propagate the fascsist conspiracy theories.
By the mid 80s, the ADL recognized messages like LaRouches could no longer
be contained by just keeping him off television, that Internet technology
represented a new challenge that need to be combated. And that is the
subject of the link I provided elsewhere on this list, *Nazism, the
Internet, and the Culture of Violence.
*
"Terry" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:20:28 -0700:
LaRouche! Phelps! I say put them both on Hell's Island and leave them.
They both literally give me the creeps.
Phelps I suspect of actually being a Demon. Yes, a literal agent of Satin.
--TK
"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:03:53 -0600:
For those of you following the BADSITES case, all the Remedies boil down to
this link being the problem. http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=115 This single
webpage is what has set of the firestorm over there, and is a very
interesting read on the inner workings of the cabal. What User:WordBomb
(Mr. Judd Bagley) discovers here, very much corroborates similiar findings I
made over a year ago regarding SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg.
Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:26:18 -0400:
The below implies that WP's administration has gone berserk. Are you
sure about this?
TerryH
"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:52:43 -0600:
I've been speaking privately with Judd Bagley, Director of Communications ar
Overstock.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/writerjudd , also goes by username
WordBomb. He is at the heart of the [[WP:RfArb/Attack sites]] case which
involves a cast of 1000s of virtually everybody who is anybody in the inner
cabal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attac...
as
well as all the extras and wannabe's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/...
I asked him to write up a few paragraphs we could add our [[Wikipedia]]
entry and hear the issues straight from the horse's mouth. Also perhaps
something for Biases in Wikipedia as well.
A word of caution: SlimVirgin clearly has me on her hit list, so we need to
review carefully what he submits so CP does not become a target of WP's
proposed BADSITES policy. I suspect it may take Bagley a few days as the
Arb case appears to be approaching a critical stage. (This case will be an
extension of, or clarification of the MONGO case regarding linking to, or
the use of offsite personal information about WP editors).
"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:56:01 -0600:
I didn't catch this till now, Bagley's bio says,
"April 1999 -- December 2000 (1 year 9 months)
spokesperson and speechwriter in the Gov. Jeb Bush Administration,
especially over areas relating to state-regulated businesses and
professions.
"Terry" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:28:16 -0700:
Want I should send a message to Jeb, asking about him?
--TK
Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:19:11 -0400:
Rob:
You cannot account for the motives of berserkers, any more than you can
account for taste.
The primary review we need is making sure that what we submit, we can
establish as true. Truth is an absolute and complete defense against a
charge of libel or slander.
The next review is how much of this information we ought to bother
publishing, and how much might we better reserve for the edification
of, say, a candidate for seniority in administration. We could also use
this as a defense against an even wilder charge of libel. Suppose, for
example, SlimVirgin decides to sue us for our "examples of liberal
bias" catalog? We can show that SlimVirgin is a berserker, anyway, and
that therefore no court ought to take seriously anything she says.
But the best use of this information, at the present moment, is to
justify a policy that says that verbatim copying of Wikipedia
content is strictly forbidden. Not only can we rule it unreliable,
but also--and more to the point--we ought to be very careful of giving
a berserker sufficient grounds to use the legal system against us.
With regard to this: Under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation
License, if you copy from a GFDL source, you must attribute your copy
to that source. We don't want to give even the appearance of
relying on Wikipedia for anything--or violating the terms of that
license.
TerryH
"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:05:15 -0600:
SlimVirgin would have to reveal her real life identify to sue anyone, and
that is very much the core issue to all of this. She is seeking to remain
anonymous and unaccountable, and she writes Wikipedia's core policies.
Right now, we need to investigate Overstock.com, a publicly traded NASDAQ
stock with $778 million in revenue and was the subject of some controversy.
I'm not certain we can take WP's version of the controversy, but here's
their link on the subject. Bagley I hope will give us his version of the
story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judd_Bagley#AntiSocialMedia.net
Temlakos <temla...@gmail.com>, Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:25:56 -0400:
I fail to see how WP's criticism of Overstock.com has much merit. At
issue is a practice called naked short selling, which is
selling a stock short without bothering to borrow the stock first from
your broker. I am shocked that such a practice is even allowed, and I
applaud the directors of Overstock.com for seeking to put a stop to it,
both as regards their own common stock and in general.
Beyond that, the discussion of Overstock.com's litigation is 200-proof
eye glaze. Seriously--WP thinks that AntisocialMedia.net was founded to
criticize that? Trouble is, the issues on AntisocialMedia.net
go far beyond any arcane discussion of short selling that might or
might not be proper (or advisable to allow).
TerryH
"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:53:32 -0600:
The RfArb/Attack sites case is rich in material to use to update our various
WP articles. Look at this Proposed decision from the Chairman, "
"In contrast to the subjects of articles, Wikipedia users and administrators
are generally of *markedly lower social status*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attac...
User:JzG, who rubs shoulders with Queen Elizabeth responds,
"So I'm of lower social status than the porn stars and big-busted models?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12857&st=80&p=51525&#e...
The Proposed decision regarding Michael Moore says,
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits
to Sicko <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko>, published his image on its main
page <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Arbcom.jpg>. This was
combined with links to edit both Sicko
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko>and the editor's user page and
updates on the "controversy". Despite complaints
from the user<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27...>,
opinion generally favored retaining links to the site.
Here's the external page that got MichaelMoore.com in trouble as an "attack
site", trying to "out" a WP editor:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Arbcom.jpg
"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:47:37 -0600:
Update: Fred Bauder, ArbCom chairman posted this at wiken-1 on Sept. 20,
"But MichaelMoore.com? Slashdot? Conservapedia? There are legitimate
encyclopaedic reasons to link to these (specifically, [[Michael
Moore]], [[Slashdot]] and [[Conservapedia]].
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-BADSITES-ArbCom-case-in-progress-p1280737...
This is encouraging, and frankly I'm impressed.
"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:17:23 -0600:
I've been distracted today with *WP:RfArb/Attack sites *case. It's nearing
a crucial conclusion, and ArbCom has reached majorities on several
principals. This one here is interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attac...
and
looks like it may fail, but the to Arbs who supported it seemed to be at
odds on everything else, so they may try rewriting the language again.
That proposed Principal would be twofold, (1) it would mandate them to
respond to [[Biases in Wikipedia]], and (2) "whether it is communicated
according to our procedures or not," is basically Fred Bauder & the
other Arb admitting to the validity of my claim which I posted *directly on
the Arbirtration page* despite being banned from Wikipedia. And this
Principal, *All living individuals deserve protection *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attac...
looks
"ify" right now, it may pass or may fail, but it would be an extremely
important change if they can refine it and agree on some acceptable
compromise.
Aschla...@aol.com, Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:32:08 EDT:
Thanks much, Rob. Please keep us posted. Good luck in the lion's den!
In Christ,
Andy
"Terry" <terry.92...@gmail.com>, Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:05:47 -0700:
Same as what Andy said.
Please, everyone, make sure CP never turns into that snakepit!
--TK
"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:13:15 -0600:
Here's some of the background to the dispute; the *New York Times* Business
section covered some if it back in January
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/business/20online.html?_r=2&adxnnl=...
Gary Weiss, formerly of *BusinessWeek* and now Forbes.com is somehow
involved. Right now they are debating why should WP ban linking to Judd
Bagley's site (AntiSocialMedia.com), if a MSM source, the New York Times,
links to it.
"Rob Smith" <nob...@gmail.com>, Sun, 7 Oct 2007 15:08:17 -0600:
Update: It's hard to determine if ArbCom is deliberating or debilitating in
this case. They've only agreed on few Principals and Remedies, little
public discussion in nearly two weeks. They have agreed upon
Policy matter remanded to the community 3.2) The community is encouraged to
develop a policy compliant with Wikipedia's key
policies<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Key_po...>regarding
the circumstances, if any, under which "attack sites" may be
linked.
Meaning they are gridlocked, and throwing it back to WP Community process to
develop new "core policy" which has resulted in another stalemate and
gridlock in the Community. The only recent action is *WP:Community sanction
noticeboard* has been nominated for deletion. All this is incredible. The
Community Sanction policies were developed to relieve an overburdened
ArbCom, leaving ArbCom to deal with the real tough questions. In the
WP:Attack sites case (a real tuff question), ArbCom throws it back to the
Community. The Community responds by wanting to delete the previous solution
developed by the Community to relieve ArbCom of tuff decisions.
Wikipedia has turned into a bureaucracy that functions like a dog
chasing its own tail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipe...
)