[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example

[Rob Smith]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 24, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example
To: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 24, 2006 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example
To: Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at 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_Cberlet_and_Nobs01_Workshop_5bdb.html#Summary_by_Nobs01

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 at 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 at gmail.com>
> >> Date: November 17, 2006 7:53:32 PM MST
> >> To: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud at 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 at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
> >
> >
>