Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Baku Ibne, et al./Proposed decision

Any provision on Rovoam's vandalism?

Dear ArbCom,

I understand your hesitance and caution in dealing with my case against Rovoam. In fact, I am grateful to you all for being so patient and cautious. I very much hope you were equally attentive to the complaints, evidences and arguments of the parties involved and your final judgment will be based not on 'impressions' but on 'evidences'.

I am not going to address the issue of “personal attacks” and “unhelpful editing” incriminated against me without any evidences for that whatsoever. I have substantially addressed my views and objections on this at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Baku_Ibne,_et_al. and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Arbitration_Committee_noticeboard. I very much hope that ArbCom will not put any restrictions on me whatsoever. It is a matter of principle and justice for me and I treat this case with utmost seriousness.

I want to drag you attention to another issue.

The only ‘remedies’ proposed against Rovoam in ‘Proposed Decision’ are personal attacks parole and revert limitation. There is no mention of Rovoams vandalisms, which is in my view a serious omission. I can’t think of a possibility when a person who vandalized the page saying “I like this war” ([1]) and even threatened to “bring a hundred friends from all over the world” and “destroy the idea of Wikipedia!” ([2]) get along with his outrageous and malicious implicit and explicit vandalisms (and these are only the most obvious ones). Please, see the evidences presented by me and Tony Sidaway once again for details.

Again, I believe, the problem lies in erroneous initial problem formulation.

Perhaps I’m not fully right, but in my personal opinion, ArbCom (or to be more specific, Grunt) has somewhat hurried to set forth all the ‘proposed remedies’ before the parties managed to present their evidences properly ([3]). This initial erroneous approach which put me virtually on the same level as Rovoam and did not allow for differential treatment, is, in my view, at the core of the confusion and misperceptions among the ArbCom members regarding my reaction to Rovoam’s actions.

I ask the ArbCom in include a separate provision regarding Rovoam’s vandalisms (whether explicit or implicit) and to express their viewpoint on this as well. Hope my request will be treated positively.--Tabib 12:34, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)