| Revision as of 12:14, 18 February 2008 editNewbyguesses (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,860 editsm user blanks the sandbox← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:22, 18 February 2008 edit undoNewbyguesses (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,860 edits dsa---Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Evidence presented by ]== | |||
| ===Mantanmoreland mis-states the case=== | |||
| MM's evidence-- | |||
| Sockpuppeting | |||
| ...Most of the contents of this page have been on the ASM website for well over a year. If Judd Bagley, Overstock's spokesman and operator of ASM, were not coordinating this, I am sure he would have a case for copyright infringement...(User:Mantanmoreland) | |||
| That is the same old argument, it is easily refuted. All known socks of WB are listed at ] and ''none'' of them have posted to the arbcom. case, as far as i can see. | |||
| ===Mantanmoreland sets the agenda=== | |||
| MM's evidence-- | |||
| (user:mantanmoreland)--The rest of his *]'s* "evidence" relates to the raw deal he supposedly has gotten through much of his wiki-life, and has nothing to do with this arbitration. | |||
| With respect Mantan, it is for the arbitrators to decide what is to do with this arbitration, not yourself. | |||
| ===Mantanmoreland appeals to the wrong peer group=== | |||
| MM's evidence-- | |||
| The editors who know Sami and I best, and are not necessarily friends of either of us, believe quite firmly that we are different people based on writing style and the positions we took, and didn't take, in 600-odd emails. (User:Mantanmoreland) | |||
| Mantan, it is not a matter of the editors who know you best, but of '''all''' the WPeditors, most of whom have never met you; they are your peers. | |||
| ===Non-notability=== | |||
| Mr. Weiss, Mr. Bagley and ] are apparently notable, since there are reliable souces such as the New York Times. Where are the citations evident for ] or Bagley, or Weiss, in the Australian newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age (Melbourne), or The Gaurdian newspaper. Naked short selling is no more notable, globally, than is *Clothed tall buying*. | |||
| It may well be the case that no-one, outside of Bagley and Weiss and the sock-puppets they have manufactured and the acolytes they have garnered, has any interest in this topic. There is no gain whatsoever for en.wikipedia to become embroiled in a petty stoush between two cantankerous and untrustworthy parties. en.Misplaced Pages ought not to be involved, we have better things to do. These are not matters for an encyclopedia. I do not believe sending articles to Afd is necessarily the expected outcome from an Arbcom. case. Nevertheless, if these articles were deleted, en.Misplaced Pages would be the richer. | |||
| ==Evidence presented by {your user name}== | |||
| ''before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person'' | |||
| ==={Write your assertion here}=== | |||
| Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring. | |||
| ==={Write your assertion here}=== | |||
| Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks. | |||
| . | |||
Revision as of 12:22, 18 February 2008
Evidence presented by User:Newbyguesses
Mantanmoreland mis-states the case
MM's evidence--
Sockpuppeting
...Most of the contents of this page have been on the ASM website for well over a year. If Judd Bagley, Overstock's spokesman and operator of ASM, were not coordinating this, I am sure he would have a case for copyright infringement...(User:Mantanmoreland)
That is the same old argument, it is easily refuted. All known socks of WB are listed at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of WordBomb and none of them have posted to the arbcom. case, as far as i can see.
Mantanmoreland sets the agenda
MM's evidence--
(user:mantanmoreland)--The rest of his *Cla68's* "evidence" relates to the raw deal he supposedly has gotten through much of his wiki-life, and has nothing to do with this arbitration.
With respect Mantan, it is for the arbitrators to decide what is to do with this arbitration, not yourself.
Mantanmoreland appeals to the wrong peer group
MM's evidence--
The editors who know Sami and I best, and are not necessarily friends of either of us, believe quite firmly that we are different people based on writing style and the positions we took, and didn't take, in 600-odd emails. (User:Mantanmoreland)
Mantan, it is not a matter of the editors who know you best, but of all the WPeditors, most of whom have never met you; they are your peers.
Non-notability
Mr. Weiss, Mr. Bagley and Naked short selling are apparently notable, since there are reliable souces such as the New York Times. Where are the citations evident for Naked short selling or Bagley, or Weiss, in the Australian newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age (Melbourne), or The Gaurdian newspaper. Naked short selling is no more notable, globally, than is *Clothed tall buying*.
It may well be the case that no-one, outside of Bagley and Weiss and the sock-puppets they have manufactured and the acolytes they have garnered, has any interest in this topic. There is no gain whatsoever for en.wikipedia to become embroiled in a petty stoush between two cantankerous and untrustworthy parties. en.Misplaced Pages ought not to be involved, we have better things to do. These are not matters for an encyclopedia. I do not believe sending articles to Afd is necessarily the expected outcome from an Arbcom. case. Nevertheless, if these articles were deleted, en.Misplaced Pages would be the richer.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks. .