---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com Date: Nov 24, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: Fwd: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example To: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com Date: Nov 24, 2006 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example To: Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. I won't bore your excessive detail, however the impression lingers that the case of Nobs01 and others "acting in concert" was not handled fairly. I pled guilty to a breaching experiment that warranted a one month ban. The "personal attacks" occurred on my own user page and not in conversation with others after reams of evidence were presented and ignored.
You state, "if you had been able to work effectively with others." -- this is precisely the heart of the evidence that was denied. I can document through diffs that (a) I acted good faith to resolve disputes (b) I had no reputation nor ever been accused of personal attacks prior to the Arbitration case, and was quite forgiving for what was directed at me. The "simple example" here shows that in discussion, and in dispute resolution process, I was focused on upholding Wikipedia Citation Policies and WP:NOR. As I declared in my Operning Statement,
"This is primarily a content dispute, which [plalintiff] has made little or no effort to use proper citations or methods, insisting upon his priveleged POV as an "expert". "
The Mediation Summary of Dispute reads,
"...no less than invalid research methods, attempting to impeach primary sources with unqualified secondary sources, or secondary sources with unqualified secondary sources, or both with original research to push POV. "
http://www.godseye.com/stat/en/r/e/q/Wikipedia~Requests_for_mediation_Cberle...
My "simple example" here shows the fruit of the process. Sure I got banned and smeared, but it is Wikipedia's own stated policies I have asked to be upheld. And this one simple example (among numerous) is not a sloppy mistake of an inexperienced editor. It is deliberate intellectual dishonesty, abuse of NOR and CITE to use Wikipedia as a soapbox -- all sanctioned by the ArbCom .
Nobs01
On 11/20/06, Dmcdevit dmcdevit@cox.net wrote:
There may have been some earlier discussion I can't see, but you seem to be under the impression that material has some bearing on your banning. It doesn't though; you were banned for personal attacks. Nothing here gives me reason to question that decision. You could have had unfettered access to the articles that you wish to edit with this material, if you had been able to work effectively with others.
Dominic
Fred Bauder wrote:
I have forwarded this, but I think you are digging into excessive detail.
Fred
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Rob Smith" nobs03@gmail.com Date: November 17, 2006 7:53:32 PM MST To: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@ctelco.net Subject: simple example
Fred,
Venona project currently reads,
"...a number of current authors consider the Venona evidence on Hiss to be inconclusive."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project#Alger_Hiss
and points to this source document
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page61.html
Nowhere in this cited source does it identify "a number of current authors", The document in fact states, "Over the past decade, objections have been raised about possible linguistic anomalies or discrepancies in VENONA message 1822. The document revealed today [from original handwritten Russian cryptanalytic worksheets], however, closes these debates. "
This is precisely what I stated in my disallowed evidence,
"...There have been no sources or citations offered for altering the language and integrity of primary source documents...numerous attempts have been made to invent "sources" out of thin air...These unreferenced "sceptics" are usually referred to as "others", "sceptics" or "scholars...."
http://www.godseye.com/stat/en/r/e/q/ Wikipedia~Requests_for_mediation_Cberlet_and_Nobs01_Workshop_5bdb.html #Summary_by_Nobs01
The posted remedies essentially amount to a lifetime ban ("The ban may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators after its expiration) without an opportunity for an Arbitration Hearing. In fairness, given the admitted errors, I request a limited reopening and review of the remedies as they pertain to me.
Thank you.
Nobs01
Arbcom-l mailing list Arbcom-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l