User talk:Jtl/Sandbox

COI, WP:V, & Ruy Lopez
Jtl, I notice you make these claims:


 * As Nobs01, he received a 1 year block for personal attacks

Did you know I was the first, if not only, user ever banned for "personal attacks" who provided sourcing and footnotes to the attacks from a "reputable, mainstream source", i.e. The Washington Post?


 * on January 28, 2006. This was extended due to "ban evasion with sockpuppet" and is currently due to expire December 17, 2007.

User:Guy Champman, MONGO, the Mediation Committee and several others  thought the ban extention was rather unfair.


 * In the original case, he was variously described as "a crank, pure and simple"; as someone who "deletes true information for personal fantasy"; and as someone who "baits people into protracted, absurd debates by consisently(sic) being uncooperative, uncompromising, unfair, and unrestrained in using dubious methods, facts, sources, and outright fraud to promulgate POV drek."

Yes, did you notice in the Appeal the user, Ruy Lopez, who made such statements later received ArbCom sanctions for a long history of questionable editing and abusive behavior? In a further irony, this same editor who called me a crank one year later, as User:KarlBunker, initiated the plea to reconsider extension of by ban, saying “I'm no great friend of nobs and far from being a fan of his political POV, but I'm concerned that there may have been an accidental miscarriage of justice here,” and "not because I'm a friend of Nobs, but because I believe this block-renewal was deeply unjust. Because of Nobs' political stance, I fully expect to be caught up in some unpleasant edit disagreements with him when he's unblocked. But fair is fair, and I'm darned if I can see anything fair about this current block," and “the circumstances are usual, and this punishment exceeds the spirit and intention of the law,”  and “I still think it's grossly unfair,” and “I really think this was an unjust.”

As to the original case, numerous conflicts of interest occurred, both on the part of complainant and ArbCom. A small sampling is this, |, which to the best of my knowledge is the only time a statement was removed from the official record of ArbCom proceedings and cannot be found on the page in the closed record. Another can be found here, where I told Fred Bauder, “Now we see it wasn't past associations with Chip Berlet, or the NLG (cp:National Lawyers Guild) why you transformed a Content Dispute into something it was not."

Refs
I wrote that passage, Rob. Whether or not your block was fair, I chose those quotes at a glance because they most accurately reflected my experience of you on Conservapedia. --Robledo 17:07, 28 June 2007 (CDT)


 * As Robledo said, he wrote that passage. This page is a test of a possible future version of Conservapedia:Sysops on Wikipedia and the content about you came from there.  If you want to continue this discussion the talk page for that page is probably the appropriate place. --jtl talk 17:21, 28 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, if you want criticism, I can supply it. But what is cited I don't beleive is fair or accurate.  My ArbCom case was extraordinarily unique, and is still ongoing and under review.  In December, another Motion will be entertained.  My case was directly related to (a) creation of WP:BLP, (b) rewrite of WP:V, (c) certain new clauses in WP:ATT, (d) and the origins of the Daniel Brandt controversy.   And virtually anyone familiar with myself and editing practices knows I am extremely civil, and idea that verifiable citations can be considered "personal attacks," many still consider not only laughable, but a scandal that Wikipedia still must one day address.  RobS 20:46, 28 June 2007 (CDT)