Wikipedia talk:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Nobs02

Nobs01 stands alone (Appeal)

Involved party

Nobs01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior arbitration

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others

Nobs01 seeks a limited review of remedy 11) Nobs01 banned for personal attacks and modification of the language, "The ban may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators after its expiration". Appellant contends this constitutes an unfair burden based upon the fact certain evidence was disallowed unfairly branding Appellant as a troublemaker. Appellant seeks a "time served" result or whatever substitutional remedy the Committee may also deem appropriate.

Appellant seeks no punitive action against other users.

Several statements have been made which unfairly cast Appellant in a negative light. This is largely through a confluence of unfortune circumstances and mistakes. Appellant's training, interest and editing activity is reflected mostly in historical subjects and biographies of dead people. Appellant's first contact with Complainant arouse in a biography of a 92 year old gentlemen prior to WP:BLP, and Wikipedia is now much improved with the creation of such policy. This case however, fell through the cracks.

Appellant wishes to lie 2 Motions [1][2] before the Committee regarding personal attacks which disrupted the previous hearing. One such attack was from a suspected sockpuppet whom the Committee later took punitive action against based upon the same evidence the suspected sockpuppet presented against Nobs01 in the initial hearing. It is the unanswered nature of those attacks which now makes Appellant a target for abuse.

Appellant accepted the final ruling of the Committee and has not circumvented it. This limited review is quit simple, should not involve an inordinate amount of time, and provides the Committee with the opportunity to rectify an oversight. Appellant wishes the Committee to recognize a onetime error on his part, and the burden now imposed unfairly makes him a target.

unfounded allegations

Complainant initially alleged a conspiracy of five editors led by Nobs01 and others acting in concert

Fred Bauder discovered

"So far I have found no evidence of that" [3]
"The fact that with the exception of [two other users], discrete remedies are proposed for each user serves" [on Motion by Nobs01 to publish a Finding of Fact] [4]
"Nobs and his co-defendants were not such a [ideological] block" [5]
"For a start, there is no finding that there was any conspiracy." [6]
"When [Complainant's] claims were investigated, we found no conspiracy" [7]

An Amicus Statement was made referring to "our friends in the LaRouche movement" [8]

Complainant also alleged that "Nobs01 [and others] work as team regarding LaRouche".

These unfounded allegations, now in the official record, constitute an unfair burden Appellant must bear, after having served his 12 month ban.

omitted evidence

The omitted evidence surrounds two RfM's, the second being accepted.

Policy ruling: good faith = harassment

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Dispute resolution

Statement of principle

5) users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages and on the talk page of any article in dispute.

Cases involving this principle

Avala

29 July

20:14
- nobs posts on Complainant's talk page
  - As a gesture of good faith in resolving a myriad of disputes [9]

31 July

20:43
- nobs posts on Complainant's talk page
  - Dear Sir: I approached you in good faith; please direct any personal sentiments regarding my postings or others to my Talk page. [10]

20:45
- Complainant responds
  - I have no interest in a side conversation. [11]

3 August

19:42
- Complainant again responds
  - Please carry out all contact with me through the talk pages of specific articles. I have no interest in continuing to engage with you outside the actual editing process. Messages left here will not be responded to. [12]
20:12
- Complainant's first RfM; refers to Appellant’s gesture of good faith and application of dispute resolution precedents as
  - harassment [13]

22 November

Question to Presiding Arbitrator,
- How many personal attacks through edit summaries and Talk page postings am I supposed to expose myself to, when I approach a user in good faith to resolve disputes, without it legitimately being considered "harassment"? [14]

Presiding Arbitrator responds,
- ...link to the mediation procedure is inappropriate as anything said in mediation by any party or the mediator is not admissible as evidence. [15][16]

Appellant responds,
- The interpretation of this evidence then is, that when a User declares a "good faith" offer, Wikipedia policy considers it "harassment".

Evidence presented by Clerk in Appeal of VeryVerily

The evidence presented by an ArbCom clerk on the request of an arbitrator in the Appeal of VeryVerily stated,

in November last year, Timoteo III began making controversial edits to Alger Hiss, and engaged in revert warring. ([17], [18], [19]) His edits appeared to suspiciously agree with Ruy Lopez's; Ruy had also edited the article before. ([20], [21], [22], [23])

The suspected sockpuppet gave Evidence in Nobs01 initial hearing and made statements which were extremely damaging of Nobs01 personal integrity (see Motion 1), and may have affected the outcome of process. ArbCom made Principals, [24] Findings of fact [25] and took punitive action for abuse [26] in the VeryVerily case.

Motion 1 by Nobs01

I pray the committee to examine if these attacks on my integrity

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence#Evidence of False Statement with False Citation(s)

Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 1#Evidence of False Citations, Repeated Substantially

were warranted, given the "account for this discrepancy", below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by Appellant:

Timoteo III (talk · contribs), a possible sockpuppet of a sanctioned user [27], claims that I used an "impossible" citation from what he referred to as a "Rare Book" [28]. At the time of that discussion, I had an earlier, hard cover edition in hand; the page numbers used to make the original citation were from a later, tattered and fragile revised paperback edition I have in storage. The page numbers did not match up, suggesting a change in text from the earlier edition to the later revised. As is my habit, I would prefer to examine both editions to see what changes there may have been, and of course the later edition (used in the original citation) is generally regarded as more acceptable. Being harried at the time with the ArbCom process, and faced with what I regarded as trollish behavior [29], and deletion of references and citations, I made an editorial judgement.

The original citation was to

Ralph de Toledano and Victor Lasky, Seeds of Treason, (Los Angeles: Western Islands Rev. 1962), pp. 231-234.

Toledano, who actually attended the proceedings, cited his source in the earlier edition I had in hand as,

Testimony of Francis B. Sayre and Sumner Welles, House Un-American Activities Committee, Washington D.C., 7 December 1948;

Timoteo III discovered the "testimony to be sealed and private", which I assume to be true. However, this does not justify the torrent of abuse heaped upon me by Timoteo on that discussion page, and on the ArbCom Evidence page.

After an attack on my integrity by claiming my source was Douglas Reed [30] Timoteo tips his hand that it is nothing more than a frame-up intended to slander and smear me,

"Even the anti-Zionist crackpot directly contradicted most of what you wrote above." [31]

in his own words demonstrating no ideological kinship between myself and source he implies I used. Also, Timoteo then transforms an historical debate into a game of partisan warfare, but doesn't understand why I won't play,

"you must not even believe in your own side."

Comment by others:

Motion 2 by Nobs01

A particularly vicious personal attack occurred in the midst of the Arbitration which went unanswered. Appellant wishes to lay before the Committee to determine if it was warranted or fair.

During a discussion on the book Old Nazi's, The New Right, and the Republican Party by Russ Bellant, Introduction, and Edited by Chip Berlet, South End Press/Political Research Associates Series (1991), Nobs stated parenthetically,

"I found Loftus's comments regarding the Gehlen organization quite interesting. That was closer to the direction I wanted to go after the Venona series; perhaps you could put in a good word with the ArbCom and we could collaborate on that."

(John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews, St. Martin's Press (1994). Loftus, formerly of the Carter Administration Justice Dept. Nazi-hunting unit, is an important source for the book under discussion. Loftus claims that the Gehlen organization were not Nazi's at all, but members of the "Max network" of Zionist Jews.)

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/vegyes/secretwar_06.rtf

the authors [Loftus and Aarons] continue, "the Max network was not made up of Fascist Jews. They were, in fact, Communist Jews who risked their lives inside the heart of the Third Reich's intelligence service."

Seizing the opportunity, Complainant reproached Appellant with a particularly vile personal attack. This was placed in Evidence before the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Appellant is grateful now for the opportunity to clarify the context. Since beginning this Appeal, the "Nazi insult" [32] has been removed from the article, as has the conspiracist "Nazis in the CIA" link.

Comment by others:

Motion 3 by Nobs01 on restoration of omitted evidence

Appellant motions for immediate restoration of all pages related to omitted evidence,

as per Mediators statement 00:48, 21 November 2005,

"I've deleted all the pages and will restore them once the ArbCom case concludes." [33]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by party:

Comment by others:

Second RfM

Complainant initiated a dispute with an attack subhead over the origin of the phrase,

"The following were members of the Victor Perlo network".

Complainant maintained the phrase needed to be attributed to Elizabeth Bentley; Appellant documented over several pages, the phrase could not be attributed to Bentley, and the origin was FBI. This dispute was the basis of Complainant's RfM, yet in his Workshop summary attributed the phrase to the FBI. ^{[citation needed]}

Clear evidence of entering Mediation in bad faith, nonetheless, disallowed in Arbitration.

questions WP:ATT/Talk should consider

[synopsis of e-mail forwarded to Arbcom-1] [34]

The omitted evidence reads in part,

"...numerous attempts have been made to invent "sources" out of thin air...These unreferenced "sceptics" are usually referred to as "others", "sceptics" or "scholars...." ^{[citation needed]}[35]

Venona project, the key article used to initiate WP:DR now reads,

"...a number of current authors consider the Venona evidence on Hiss to be inconclusive." [36]

and points to this source document

http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page61.html

Nowhere in the 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 [evidence on Hiss]. The document revealed today, however, closes these debates. "

Appellant stated in his Goals of Mediation

(1) Maintain the integrity of primary source valid historical documents. ^{[citation needed]}

This is a clear example of altering the integrity of a primary source.

other recent incidents

From the same article talk page,

a user asked 04:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC),

"...the following citation was removed, ibid pg. 146-47; "Hiss was indeed a Soviet agent and appears to have been regarded by Moscow as its most important." Was the removal deliberate and agreed upon?"

a second user supported the inquiry 06:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC),

"... I am sure we can find it ..."

a third party responds 11:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC) responded,

"it may have been me that messed up that reference when I merged in a "Significance of Venona" article some months ago..."

The answer is in the omitted evidence, copiously and in good faith supplied by user nobs, ^{[citation needed]}

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Secrecy: The American Experience, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1998), pg. 146-47; "Hiss was indeed a Soviet agent and appears to have been regarded by Moscow as its most important."

The omitted evidence prophetically stated,

"...no sourcing for efforts to edit existing text from properly sourced secondary materials..." ^{[citation needed]}

closing remarks

Appellant asks Committee to take into consideration past conduct prior to Arbitration: Appellant never once received a 3RR, or for that matter had any reputation for personal attacks.

Draft statement by Neigel von Teighen

by Neigel von Teighen, AMA advocate taking the case for User:Nobs01 = User:Nobs02 (with permission by User:Fred Bauder [37] and [38])

I'm here to back up Nobs01's appeal on number 11 of Nobs01 and others case final decision as I believe he was mistakenly considered to be part and also leader of an "ideological block" intended to harrass another user. This appeal, differently as any other made before, tries to prove how wrong were those accusations and also revert the ban that derived from it (the already mentioned No. 11 decision), for Nobs01 had good-faithedly not violated it and certainly agrees on being put under another remedy to show his good faith. I believe this is a very concrete issue (as opposed to earlier appeals that were too broad on their petitions) and that won't need too much time for being decided.

As you surely know, Number 11 (titled Nobs01 banned for personal attacks) states:

11) Nobs01 is banned for one year for personal attacks. 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. All extensive personal attacks shall be removed and his user and talk page protected. Passed 6-0

Number 12 puts Nobs01 on Probation for a year.

As the 1 year ban is ending on 23th December 2006 ([39]), we're appealing for a rewording of no. 11 that:

Does not establish the potential ban by 3 arbitrators, because of the circumstances that led to be decided.
But also puts Nobs01 under Mentorship for some amount of time as a way he has agree with to guarantee its good faithed acts.

As you see, our request is very specific and concrete: mentorship instead of potential banning by 3 arbs. Also, we don't pretend to reword number 12, which places Nobs01 on Probation neither any other decision taken. Also, we don't seek any punitive action against other users. We know ArbCom has never decided in favor of an appeal, mainly because of the inflated petitions of the appealing parties, but we really believe our request is very reasonable.

But what's the reason behind this? I personally believe the original decision is completely unnecessary nowadays. Nobs01 has proven to have good faith in completing his ban and hasn't ever tried to sockpuppeteer in Wikipedia. Also, he has proved to have good faith before ([40], accepted Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01, and see also diffs below). He recognizes his responsability on the dispute with User:Cberlet; that's why he would be pleased to be placed under Mentorship, to become a better editor being guided by one of our best recognized users. Personally (just not as advocate!), I think is a very remarkable attitude.

But, also, there is another reason to revise the first arbitration's decision. This ban was established because of assuming that Nobs01's actions were part of a party's agenda trying to push its POV and disrupt Wikipedia's neutrality. This has been proven to be false (see below) and admitted by User:Fred Bauder later. This occured mainly because of an erronous omition of evidence coming from a mediation attempt, in a very strange decision by the arbitrators. I say "strange", because User:Vfp15 had used mediation in a similar purpose on the very famous (and conflictive) Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute in which I also acted as advocate, so it would very interesting to clarify that point in order to reach the proposed ban-lifting we're requesting.

I beg the Arbitration Committe to accept this, please. --~~~~. --Neigel von Teighen 15:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neigel: How's this for the opening,

I am speaking on behalf of Nobs01 who was mistakenly considered to have led a group of editors harassing another editor. This appeal, Nobs01 stands alone (Appeal), seeks to redress a heavy handed remedy which was imposed largely through actions and inactions which occurred during the previous hearing. Nobs01 has now completed his one year ban, and in good faith, has not violated the ban. Certain evidence had been errantly disallowed in the original hearing—evidence that indicates Nobs01 in good faith attempted to apply the prescribed dispute resolution processes—but was denied by the complaining party. I believe this case is not that complicated, the issues are fairly clear, and should not involve an inordinate amount of discussion."

Nobs02 01:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there you have a new opening based on yours. --Neigel von Teighen 15:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion by Neigel von Teighen

To be used on case/Workshop

The concrete motion I present the ArbCom to review for its decision is to change this text:

11) Nobs01 is banned for one year for personal attacks. 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. All extensive personal attacks shall be removed and his user and talk page protected.

By this:

Nobs01 is banned up to 23th December 2006 to complete his one year ban for personal attacks. After this ban expiration, Nobs01 will be placed on Mentorship for 1 year.