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

[Rob Smith]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 25, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example
To: nobs03 at gmail.com


On 11/20/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at 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