---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com Date: Nov 25, 2006 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example To: nobs03@gmail.com
On 11/20/06, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
There may have been some earlier discussion I can't see
Discussion during proposed rewrite of Wikipedia:Verifiability reveals some of the process abuses (I would encourage reviewing the entire subsection "Query").
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&d...
Mr. Bauder comments that the ArbCom case was essentially a content dispute,
"Ok, here's the problem. You put stuff on there about Kiko Martinez; what does Chip Berlet have to do with Kiko Martinez? Fred Bauder 20:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01#Talk:Chip_Berlet
and in in the 2005 Candidate Questions Mr. Bauder again refers to a content dispute,
"...He lists one man as having been convicted of a crime and being dead when I sometimes chat with the same man at our local library."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_El...
my rejoinder,
"So I have a published source that says Kiko Martinez blew himself up in 1970; [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] says he sometimes chat's "with the same man at our local library", my inclusion is valid as [[WP:V]], whereas Fred's is uncitable. [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] 21:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
"uncitable", i.e. Original Research.
See also for a fuller exposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_El...
In Summary, the Plaintiffs pursuit of Dispute Resolution lacked merit, had numerous conflicts of interest and outright policy violations that brought the matter to Arbitration. Once in Arbitration, Defendants Evidence was either disallowed or totally ignored. Ultimately, Defendant in stupidity and frustration made "personal attacks" on his own User Page. Defendants arguement then -- and now -- is that there was never any basis for pursuing Dispute Resolution. And Mr. Bauder now admits, denying me a right to defend myself "was in error".
The question now is, is it reversible error. I've served my time, carry no grudges, and only seek some modification to the language, "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" given the admitted errors.
Thank you.
Nobs01