---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com Date: Nov 9, 2006 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute Resolution To: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net
On 11/9/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I think I was in error. This is a spill over from legal conventions that is probably inappropriate on Wikipedia
Fred
Thanks, Fred. What are my Appeal Rights in getting my ban lifted and modification of the probationary period since this error affected presentation of defense and the subsequent course of the proceeding?
nobs01
WP:RS/History now states,
"To be verifiable, research must be based on the primary documents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#History
(note the term "must")
Nobs01 stated exactly this as such,
"I insist on primary source data"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venona_project&diff=prev&...
Nobs01 view in dispute mediation is now Official Wikipedia Policy.
Please review Evidence nobs presented in the locus of dispute, which was ignored, i.e.User: Cberlet's inclusion here,
"Note identifying "KANT" as Harry Magdoff is not in original transmission, and contradicts the text of the transmission. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&di...
whereas the primary source
https://www.cia.gov/csi/books/venona/b35.gif
clearly identifies Magdoff as KANT, twice.
Retrieved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Workshop/General Discussion (available here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration...)
":#Here is a classic illustration of Cberlet in action. This series of edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I._F._Stone&diff=19650792...] Cberlet demands citations from another editor 6 times in 24 hours; simultaneously in interaction with nobs, Cberlet deletes citations [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Magdoff&diff=19793302&am...] and adds original research [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&di...].
I don't know what others call this, by I view it as lack of good faith editing at minimum. [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] 21:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Lack of Good Faith, violation of the Harassment Policy, and an abuse of process by pursuing dispute resolution entirely based upon his Original Research.
I request a limited reopeing of the case so a modification of the Probationary period can be considered. Thank you.
Nobs01