---------- 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
On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Rob Smith wrote:
---------- 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&diff=prev&oldid=30392874
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_Elections_January_2006/ Candidate_statements/Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=30343697
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_Elections_January_2006/ Candidate_statements/ Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=30396478#Question_from_nobs
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
I saw Kiko just the other day. What is this innocent person, living an ordinary life, doing on Wikipedia with false information about him?
Fred
On 11/25/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I saw Kiko just the other day. What is this innocent person, living an ordinary life, doing on Wikipedia with false information about him?
Fred
Thank you, Fred. Again I ask, "What evidence do you have that nobs did not attempt to discern the facts"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_El...
and
"I do a search on Kiko Martinez, one result says he blew himself up in 1970, another makes reference to Kiko Martinez's widow, and other results cite Kiko Martinez attending rallies and lectures but does not give a date. So I write, "Kiko Martinez, who may or may not have blew himself up in 1970, attended rallies and lectures on unspecified dates", yet cannot attribute that to one particular source, would be considered original research. nobs 20:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC) "
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&d...
The point being Mr. Bauder voted to accept the case " Based on Nobs01's edits to [[Talk:Chip Berlet]] " 02:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC), i.e. a Content Dispute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration...
Further evidenced by Mr. Bauder's next entry on the case,
"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)", i.e. a Content Dispute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01#Talk:Chip_Berlet
None of the Verifiable Citations I offered were intended as "personal attacks"; if blatant errors existed in the source material, I am extremely grateful for it being brought to my attention, which you did. The very fact that I altered course from writing on various Comintern activities in the 1930's & 1940's, to the NLG in the 1960's was because of the harassment I received since August 2005 (now 15 months). WP:Harassment defined as "actions which disrupt the editing activity of another user."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_o...
But this evidence too was ignored.
Again, all I seek is a review and proposed modification of 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.", and perhaps clarification of when the twelve months end in my probationary period (2006 or 2007?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_o...
P.S. I believe in letting bygones be bygones, and am spending the time now extensively reviewing all discussions on WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:BLP, and other such related discussions since last year. Thank you.
Nobs01
On 11/25/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Rob Smith wrote:
Thank you, Fred. Again I ask, "What evidence do you have that nobs did not attempt to discern the facts"
Given Kiko's phone number, you decided a call was not necessary before you libeled him on Wikipedia.
Fred
Honestly, I did not know he was alive until you told me so. And my source said, "…Francisco Kiko Martinez, also an attorney, was killed in a car when a bomb they were transporting exploded.100 "
footnoted to :<sup>100</sup> Sgt. A. McCree, ''A Case For Self-Defense,'' Military Police (Summer 1981).
And where, in the entry, can a libel be attributed to the user who is actually cut and pasting a portion of text attributed to the primary source document without adding comment? (Source: Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 115-117. ISBN 0-993592-96-5)
Nobs01
Plaintiff libelled Profs. Haynes and Klehr and Romerstein and advanced a conspiuracy theory,
"Haynes and Klehr and Romerstein are part of a project to make it appear that violations of civil liberties during the Cold War and McCarthyism were justified..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Americans_in_the_Veno...
accused them of being part of a lynching,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&a...
used the same reference to a "posse lynching" again
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&a...
Nobs01 stated,
"[Plaintiff] is asking the Committee to establish ...a special exemption privilege .... What has come into focus is [Plaintiff's] undisclosed conflict of interest when entering into (a) normal editing practices (b) dispute resolution processes. ...
"Prof. Klehr states in Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), p. 161,
"The NLG is an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL).... Over the years it has steadfastly supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan."
Chip Berlet#Resume states,
"[Plaintiff] is former vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild..."; also [10]
"[Plaintiff] posts at WikiIN-1, 7 Nov 2005 [11]
"I freely confess, I have a vested interest..."
"It is clear now, his vested interest extends to (1) breach of faith in dispute resolution, (2) impugning critics of the NLG, (3) continuing to advance notions of conspiracism to promote book sales by using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and self-promotion. nobs 17:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_...
It is evident that plaintiff has used his special exemption privilege to libel living persons. Plaintiff defamed me twice during the Arbitration Hearing (my name is now public via Wikien-1). Continuing the unfairness of the process, given the admitted errors, is not helpful in laying the matter to rest.
Nobs01
Send Save Now Discard Draft autosaved at 3:30 pm
New window Print all Expand all Forward all
Related Topics International Security Companies » International Security Insurance » International Security Conference »
« Back to InboxArchiveReport SpamDeleteMore actions... Mark as unread Add star--------Apply label: New label...‹ Newer 2 of 2382 Older ›
On 11/25/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I saw Kiko just the other day. What is this innocent person, living an ordinary life, doing on Wikipedia with false information about him?
Fred
Wow Fred. Another extraordinary coincidence in this case (I count about four now). Turns out Kiko's papers are closer to where I've been sitting and working the past few years than the bathroom I use.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:E2qQtWlea6gJ:libxml.unm.edu/rmoa/content...
Looks like I unwittingly may have become another unathorized biographer of another activist.
Now we see it wasn't past associations with Chip Berlet, or the NLG, why your transformed a Content Dispute into something it was not. It was a close and apparantly longtime personal friendship with Fransisco I. Martinez.
Robert Smith, aka nobs