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

AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Nobs02

AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Nobs02/Evidence

Loftus and Gehlen
has recently made this useful edit as the result of a suggestion at Wikien-1.

Let me state emphatically, my response to Jimbo in no way implies support for Jimbo's premise the subject "was or is worthy of support"; I called attention to the case of Dr. Christina Jeffrey who said, 'The Nazi point of view, however unpopular, is still a point of view" and The Epopt improved the article.

As stated, I seek no punitive action against other users. One particular personal attack has continued to bother me and I simply wish to lay it before the Committee, not for punitive action against others, but to determine if it was warranted or fair.

Part III of this posting is reproduced here,


 * III


 * Nobs added 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 serves on Daniel Brandt's PIR Board of Advisers and is a principal source Old Nazi's, The New Right, and the Republican Party by Russ Bellant, Introduction by Chip Berlet, South End Press/Political Research Associates Series (1991), the book under discussion.   Berlet knew well what I was talking about, specifically Loftus and Aaron's claim 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


 * Nevertheless, seizing the opportunity, Plaintiff reproached me with a particularly vile personal attack. I placed the attack in evidence before the committee. I am grateful now for the opportunity to clarify the context of this.

Without boring you too much with content, here's another link which excerpted states,


 * 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."

An anon (not me) evidently reviewed my material and recently made this change. 

previous use of advocate
I have used an advocate once before as newbie. The process was a very beneficial learning experience. Later I even voted for the Admin candidacy of the party I was in dispute with. 


 * User_talk:Kc9cqj/Russell Tribunal
 * Talk:Russell_Tribunal/Archive2
 * Talk:Russell_Tribunal/Archive1

Sayre citation
claims that I used an "impossible" citation from what he referred to as a "Rare Book". At the time of that discussion, I had an earlier, hard cover edition in hand; the page numbers I used to make the original citation were from a later, badly tatterred revised paperback edition I have in storage. The page numbers did not match up, suggesting a change in text from one 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 (the one used in my original citation) is generally regarded as more acceptable. Being harried at the time with the ArbCom process, and faced with what I regarded as a troll deleting 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.

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


 * Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence


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

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

After an attack on my integrity by claiming my source was Douglas Reed 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."

which in his own words demonstrates no ideological kinship between myself and source he implies I used. Also, Timoteo then transforms an historical debate into some sort of ideological partisan warfare,


 * you must not even believe in your own side.

response to innuendo

 * 19:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "never heard of Douglas Reed, nor after an extremely cursory review, have see any reason to examine further"

text of e-mail forwarded to Arbcom-1
from Fred Bauder     hide details  Nov 17 to Arbitration Committee mailing list  cc Fred Bauder , Rob Smith  date Nov 17, 2006 9:02 PM    subject  Fwd: simple example

I have forwarded this, but I think you are digging into excessive detail.

Fred

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Rob Smith"  > Date: November 17, 2006 7:53:32 PM MST > To: "Fred Bauder"  > 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...."

[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop#Summary by Nobs01|http://www.godseye.com/stat/en/r/e/q/ Wikipedia~Requests_for_mediation_Cberlet_and_Nobs01_Workshop_5bdb.html
 * 1) 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

Thank you.

Nobs01

questions WP:ATT/Talk should consider
[synopsis of e-mail forwarded to Arbcom-1]

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...."

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."

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.

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

frivolous RfC
 24 September  RfC posted by 3rd party to,
 * draw some more attention to the situation, from editors who hadn't already been embroiled in it, some of whom might be able to engage with Nobs & you on the actual content issues - which I can't really do, because of my lack of familiarity with the sources.

Arbitration policy/Precedents Statement(s) of principle
 * Requests for comment and requests for arbitration should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse.

evidence of trollish behavior of

 * 02:52, 28 November 2005
 * Here Timoteo deletes my comments regarding Sayre citation

Timoteo in admits to being Anon:168.122.236.22

covert relationship
From Chip Berlet & Matthew N. Lyons, Liberal & Neoconservative Cooperation with State Repression, The Public Eye, (no date)


 * ''"This overly close and often covert relationship with law enforcement limits criticism by some human relations groups ...Some human relations groups engage in questionable activities ... This information is then made available to law enforcement and intelligence agencies..."'


 * Instances of Complainant "argueing in circles" over the definition of the phrase, "covert relationship" prior to Mediation --
 * original research
 * Appendix A
 * Yikes! Let's not go ballistic
 * Fine tuning
 * I repeat the same question--again


 * Instances of Complainant "argueing in circles" over the definition of the phrase, "covert relationship" during Mediation --
 * Who was called a spy, and why? What is a "Covert Relationship"
 * What is a covert relationship?
 * "spies"
 * Text A-3
 * A-3c
 * A-3e
 * Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/A3

Complainant, as a self espounsed expert on counterintelligence matters, used the tradecraft phrase in the aforementioned undated article, which can clearly be understood to mean "witting" relationship.

misuse of primary source (Example 3)
(see for two earlier examples)

Complainant states,


 * According to the U.S. government, regarding matching code names to real names: "the contents of traffic encrypted...must necessarily be fragmentary and subject to correction in detail....only about 15 per cent of the equivalences [matches of code names to real persons] are identified, some only tentatively." Meredith Gardner memorandum, "Covernames in Diplomatic Traffic," 30 August 1947,


 * In addition, the underlying documents claim only about 200 identitites were confirmed: "Over 200 named or covernamed persons found in the VENONA translations,
 * persons then present in the U.S., are claimed by the KGB and the GRU in
 * their messages as their clandestine assets or contacts. Many of these
 * persons have been identified, many have not been" Introductory History of VENONA and Guide to the Translations.


 * So even the U.S. Government refutes Nobs.--XXXXXXX 16:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[Ed. note: Complainant proposed using a text from an early memo discussing progress and method as being definitive of the end result of a 38 year investigation).

strawman arguement after RfC
Strawman

Complainant resonds

omitted evidence
excerpted text of Mediation Summary of Dispute

nobs said,


 * The dispute largely surrounds a group of secondary sources classified as "sceptics".


 * There have been no sources or citations offered for altering the langauge and integrity of primary source documents, properly referenced, by adding "alleged to's", "claims of", and "supposedly's". Likewise there is no sourcing for efforts to edit existing text from properly sourced secondary materials, with much the same language and reasoning.


 * It is 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. The distinct lack of, or absence, of sourcing for "sceptics", has lead to cries for "balance" and "NPOV". So numerous attempts have been made to invent "sources" out of thin air to achieve "NPOV". These unreferenced "sceptics" are usually refered to as "others", "sceptics" or "scholars", yet no one has brought forward another qualified source beyond the above mentioned four.