Rama's Arrow (talk | contribs) |
Rama's Arrow (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 371: | Line 371: | ||
::'''Support''' he violated my privacy and persecuted my civil rights!--[[User:Dangerous-Boy|D-Boy]] 06:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
::'''Support''' he violated my privacy and persecuted my civil rights!--[[User:Dangerous-Boy|D-Boy]] 06:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::'''Support''' he has already doctored evidence (there was no email from D-Boy to that list) and unless his content is validated by another party, I don't trust his evidence.[[User:Sbhushan|Sbhushan]] 15:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
::'''Support''' he has already doctored evidence (there was no email from D-Boy to that list) and unless his content is validated by another party, I don't trust his evidence.[[User:Sbhushan|Sbhushan]] 15:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
::In reply to Priyanath's point - yes, I was a direct recipient of these e-mails. And there really is no such thing as "second-hand" emails - if, as you feel, the author(s) wanted to keep a conversation from others, these emails should not have been sent to me and other parties, period. If the author(s) wanted to send me one message, but not the other, it was their responsibility to not include that thread. Ultimately, it was their action that unravelled this gang - so why should I or anybody else feel that privacy was violated? I cannot force anybody to send me one of their emails. They sent it, I saw it - they would not have sent it if I was not supposed to see it. I will explain everything fully in my case/evidence statement, which I will be able to submit soon. But for now, lemme just say - one fine day I received a series of emails in my inbox, which upon examination, proved that Baka, D-Boy and co. were discussing how to gang-up on Dbachmann and subverting Wikipedia with a banned user, Hkelkar. Am I supposed to sit on my hands and watch? There have been plenty of occasions where off-Wikipedia investigations have been used to resolve complex problems. No one can effectively argue that an editor discussing subversion with a banned troll via email is not serious - what do you expect? That Hkelkar and Baka would discuss these things "on-Wikipedia?" [[User:Rama's Arrow|<font color="orange">'''Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)'''</font>]] 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
:'''Comment by others:''' |
Revision as of 06:19, 10 May 2007
This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.
Motions and requests by the parties
Request to ArbCom to provide structure
1) Could Arbcom provide some structure to the arbitration? Please look at the discussion so far, looks like every one is interpreting this differently. Also any remedies and action should be provided after evidence is presented
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Please look at the discussion happening on the RfAr pages. It is becoming free for all. Remedies are being proposed before even any evidence is presented. Please also provide structure as to how the accusations of sock and meat puppet are to be interpreted. As should be obvious by now, there is no on-wiki evidence. Rama's Arrow choose to interpret WP policies different then the intent of policy. RA's is also mixing and matching evidence from different sources and selectively providing evidence. Please provide guidance as to what evidence is admissible, how do we insure that evidence is not doctored, and how can that be correlated to on-wiki activity. In other words, some transparency to the proceedings?Sbhushan 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support --D-Boy 17:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you have any insurance that the evidence is not doctored. You just have to trust the Arbcom I think. There is enough transparent in the process. You will come to know what the arbs think when this case will move to the voting phase. Surely the arbs will will be asking the same questions that you are asking, don't you think? - Aksi_great (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comments in response to Aksi's statement - I don't trust RA to provide complete evidence and I accuse RA of doctoring evidence. If Aksi claims to have seen the evidence, can Aksi provide the date when DesiGeek said in the email that he is HKelkar? Can he also provide the date when D-Boy sent an email to the mailing list. I saw emails from end of March and I did not see a single email from D-Boy to the list. On what basis did RA accuse everyone? How can I defend myself against any accusation and how can process be transparent, if I don't see any evidence against me? So RA gets to make this serious accusation, destroy credibility of other editors and also refuses to provide evidence to support the accusation and Aksi is trying to defend his action. Aksi, do you have any idea about fair process? The request for guidance was to ArbCom and not to Aksi.Sbhushan 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comments So true. Aski has shown nothing but contempt for this arbcom and contempt for the parties involved. He clearly has an agenda with his cabal.--D-Boy 02:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comments in response to Aksi's statement - I don't trust RA to provide complete evidence and I accuse RA of doctoring evidence. If Aksi claims to have seen the evidence, can Aksi provide the date when DesiGeek said in the email that he is HKelkar? Can he also provide the date when D-Boy sent an email to the mailing list. I saw emails from end of March and I did not see a single email from D-Boy to the list. On what basis did RA accuse everyone? How can I defend myself against any accusation and how can process be transparent, if I don't see any evidence against me? So RA gets to make this serious accusation, destroy credibility of other editors and also refuses to provide evidence to support the accusation and Aksi is trying to defend his action. Aksi, do you have any idea about fair process? The request for guidance was to ArbCom and not to Aksi.Sbhushan 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I support Sbhushan's request for some clear guidance by the committee. A couple of those being accused (Sbhushan and Scheibenzahl) have never been involved in an RfA. In order to defend themselves, it would be fair and appropriate for them to understand some things about the process of this particular RfA, otherwise the very RfA-experienced admins prosecuting the case have an unfair advantage. Namely — What evidence is going to be allowed, and in what way (email evidence particularly)? Is it customary for there to be such a paucity of evidence over one week after a case has been opened? How much time will they have to defend themselves if and when evidence is presented (the justifiable delay that was requested by some parties was very generally granted, with no clear timeline)? You can well imagine how troubling it is to be accused of something with no understanding of how to defend yourself, and then to have your personal information exposed on Wikipedia, all at the same time. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- CommentThere is nothing special to be done in an RfA. From my experience in the Hkelkar (1) RfAr, the ArbCom gives enough time for everyone to put forth their statements. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I support Sbhushan's request for some clear guidance by the committee. A couple of those being accused (Sbhushan and Scheibenzahl) have never been involved in an RfA. In order to defend themselves, it would be fair and appropriate for them to understand some things about the process of this particular RfA, otherwise the very RfA-experienced admins prosecuting the case have an unfair advantage. Namely — What evidence is going to be allowed, and in what way (email evidence particularly)? Is it customary for there to be such a paucity of evidence over one week after a case has been opened? How much time will they have to defend themselves if and when evidence is presented (the justifiable delay that was requested by some parties was very generally granted, with no clear timeline)? You can well imagine how troubling it is to be accused of something with no understanding of how to defend yourself, and then to have your personal information exposed on Wikipedia, all at the same time. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 14:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Rama's Arrow to provide evidence for his accusations
1) Rama's Arrow claimed lots of on-wiki evidence to support his accusations. Rama's Arrow has not given any reason for delay in presenting his evidence.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Rama's Arrow should be requested to present on-wiki evidence for his accusations of Sock and Meat puppet. He should also present evidence that the accused were knowingly in communication with HKelkar. He has made a very serious accusation and he should show real evidence to support his accusation. He has damaged credibility of lots of editors based on his “conspiracy” theory.Sbhushan 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support --D-Boy 17:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - You cannot force anyone to present evidence. If RA does not provide evidence, then there won't be any finding of facts and remedies about whatever RA has said. I am sure RA has some reason for the delay. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - RA accused and banned everyone; he initiated the ArbCom. If he is not going to provide any evidence, then he should be penalized for making these baseless and serious accusations and destroying credibility of other editors. He already choose the penalty (the same as what he did to others).Sbhushan 00:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There is serious insult that has been done to us. I have not seen one shred of evidence from RA which is basically why we are and in this mess. it's based on his false accusations and he shown one shred of proof that we're meat puppets.--D-Boy 02:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - RA accused and banned everyone; he initiated the ArbCom. If he is not going to provide any evidence, then he should be penalized for making these baseless and serious accusations and destroying credibility of other editors. He already choose the penalty (the same as what he did to others).Sbhushan 00:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- As if you are not aware, 3-4 parties are currently away due to exams - have some respect (if you understand the concept) for other people's real-life commitments. I plan to submit my case statement and evidence very soon - everyone will have enough time to examine it. In the interim, give the hooting, hollering and bitching a rest. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 05:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Bakasuprman, Dangerous-Boy and Sbhushan are restricted
1) Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sbhushan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are restricted to editing arbitration-related pages for the duration of the case.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Given the nature of the charges, I don't really see a need for such measures at this point. Such restrictions are typically imposed when parties are continuing to engage in flagrantly disruptive behavior outside the arbitration pages; has anyone suggested that this would be the case here? Or that there's some other danger in letting them edit for the time being? Kirill Lokshin 14:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- My position is that I blocked them for their meatpuppetry/collusion with Kelkar. I was within my rights as an administrator to do so. This case has come to ArbCom because a few criticized the basis for my actions. As a result, these users were unblocked to make statements, participate in proceedings - note that at the ANI discussion, this exception was not made necessary (although a brief dispute arose over Bakasuprman's need to make a statement at ANI). While ArbCom decides whether or not these blocks are to be upheld, my opinion is that these users are obligated to respect the sanctions of the blocks as a courtesy to the policies to be upheld and those who felt the blocks were justified. This is different from a case entirely focused on user behavior, where the "innocent 'till proven" principle comes in. If I had not filed an ArbCom based on the reaction of a few at the ANI discussion, these editors would still be blocked as per the wishes of the majority of those who express opinions at ANI. To be sure - several administrators who endorsed the blocks had seen the evidence that is the basis of my actions. Thus these editors are obligated to show some courtesy to the community. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 16:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- A dispute has arisen on my talkpage concerning whether Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be permitted to edit while this case is pending. Administrator Rama's Arrow initially blocked these two editors for alleged meatpuppetry on behalf of banned user Hkelkar. Partly at the instance of an arbitrator, the users were unblocked at the time this case was filed. Rama's Arrow's position is that the unblock should be limited to allowing them to edit only pages relating to the arbitration. This was indicated in the unblock summary in their block logs, but I do not believe this was explicitly stated to the users at the time they were unblocked. Dangerous-Boy and Bakasuprman have interpreted that they are unblocked for all purposes and have been editing unrelated articles, which Rama's Arrow believes is not appropriate. Under the circumstances I believe it would be helpful to have the views of arbitrators on this issue. If the arbitrators would prefer not to intervene, then views of one or more previously uninvolved administrators are requested. Please note that I am not taking a position on whether or not restrictions should be imposed. Newyorkbrad 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have not studied the case to see whether this ban is warranted. Rama's Arrow believes these users were conditionally unblocked, however no such conditions were described on their user talk pages, and I'm not sure that, as the filer of the case, he is the appropriate person to impose such conditions anyway. RA apparently unblocked at Kirill's request, but Kirill also did not specify "to only participate in Arbitration." Thatcher131 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the restriction for 2 reasons: 1) parties have asked to delay the proceedings; 2) Priyanath's section on the evidence page suggests that the accusation isn't suitable. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 08:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- A dispute has arisen on my talkpage concerning whether Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be permitted to edit while this case is pending. Administrator Rama's Arrow initially blocked these two editors for alleged meatpuppetry on behalf of banned user Hkelkar. Partly at the instance of an arbitrator, the users were unblocked at the time this case was filed. Rama's Arrow's position is that the unblock should be limited to allowing them to edit only pages relating to the arbitration. This was indicated in the unblock summary in their block logs, but I do not believe this was explicitly stated to the users at the time they were unblocked. Dangerous-Boy and Bakasuprman have interpreted that they are unblocked for all purposes and have been editing unrelated articles, which Rama's Arrow believes is not appropriate. Under the circumstances I believe it would be helpful to have the views of arbitrators on this issue. If the arbitrators would prefer not to intervene, then views of one or more previously uninvolved administrators are requested. Please note that I am not taking a position on whether or not restrictions should be imposed. Newyorkbrad 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- In response to Kirill above, given that the individuals in question were blocked by an admin in good standing for disruption and meatpuppetry, I would suppose that there is indeed flagrantly disruptive behaviour to be feared. Hornplease 22:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- In response to hornplease, the admin in question broke the rules for due process in the block. Admins are supposed to hold up and enforce wiki standards and policy. Not break them. This was flagrant abuse that harmed the credibilty and good names of long established users.--D-Boy 02:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
E-mails should not be posted on-wiki
1) In the absence of permission from the sender and all addressees, contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Agreed --D-Boy 06:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed -- Samir 09:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- For clarity, should probably read "the sender and all addressees." Newyorkbrad 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Edited -- Samir 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Selective quoting from private correspondence is not prohibited on-wiki. There are many cases where quotes from IRC and mails have been posted on-wiki without consent. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This isn't IRC. My email address should not be posted on wiki. Otherwise, I would have contact me on wiki email on my userpage. How can you quote when there is no accountablity? the quote could be falsified by the plaintiff and the evidence and the juries verdict contaminated.--D-Boy 06:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that this is not a court of law. There a re no plaintiffs and no juries. The ArbCom is not bound by US laws on what evidence should be permitted and what not. If you care to look carefully at what I have said then you will understand that I do not endorse the publishing of email addresses. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the email addresses are not published, then no the quotes cannot be accounted for. this creates a questionable transparency. Whether or not this is a court of law or subject to US laws is not question. Wiki is the people's encylcopedia. There must be transparency.--D-Boy 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that this is not a court of law. There a re no plaintiffs and no juries. The ArbCom is not bound by US laws on what evidence should be permitted and what not. If you care to look carefully at what I have said then you will understand that I do not endorse the publishing of email addresses. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This isn't IRC. My email address should not be posted on wiki. Otherwise, I would have contact me on wiki email on my userpage. How can you quote when there is no accountablity? the quote could be falsified by the plaintiff and the evidence and the juries verdict contaminated.--D-Boy 06:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Rama's Arrow posted e-mail messages on-wiki
1) Rama's Arrow posted the contents of several e-mail messages on WP:ANI, which included the e-mail addresses and real names of Wikipedia users.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Well actually I do kinda oppose the FoF's proposed conclusions regarding the disclosures, but I will respond/explain my points fully when I submit my statement. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 05:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed -- Samir 09:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. I don't think even Rama would oppose this FoF. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Rama's arrow is desysopped
1) For breaching confidentiality in posting private correspondence on WP:ANI, including the real names and e-mail addresses of Wikipedia editors, in the absence of the consent of all addressees and senders of e-mails, Rama's Arrow's administrative privileges are revoked. He may re-apply for adminship at any time through Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I appreciate the supportive and abusive comments. Frankly, I can't care less about adminship and if ArbCom feels desysopping is needed, so be it - if I'm not empowered to do my job of protecting Wikipedia, what's the point of being an administrator? I'm certainly not interested in all this whining, bitching, moaning and endless arguing. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 05:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. I figure someone else is going to propose it eventually, and it may as well come from someone who doesn't support it: my personal thought is that it is too harsh -- especially in context of Nirav's other exceptional administrative contributions -- and I much prefer number 2 below -- Samir 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I agree that someone is going to propose it. I wholeheartedly oppose this move. I think Nirav did what he thought was right to do in light of the evidence he had. Though he blocked the users, he did make a note at ANI about it. The move was supported by a lot of admins and users (and was opposed too). As consensus was not reached about the validity of the block and evidence, this ArbCom case was opened. There is nothing wrong with what Rama did, this is just how things can turn out to be in wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nirav has a long history of being one of the most fair and even-handed admins on Wikipedia. Even though I believe that publishing people's real names and email addresses on ANI showed extremely poor judgment, his long and very positive track record far outweighs this one-time mistake. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Rama's Arrow is admonished for breaching confidentiality
2) For breaching confidentiality in posting private correspondence on WP:ANI, including the real names and e-mail addresses of Wikipedia editors, in the absence of the consent of all addressees and senders of e-mails, Rama's Arrow is strongly admonished.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Support abuse of power under color of authority--D-Boy 06:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support exposing personal information without a good justification. Based on escalation at ANI, he should have got guidance from ArbCom before exposing private correspondence.
- Actually Samir, I am more inclined to oppose/reject this "remedy" than the ones calling for my desysopping. I completely reject all your conclusions regarding disclosure, and I will explain my points in my case/evidence statement. I have apologized already for any possible harm due to my indiscretion, but I will not respect any reprimand for doing something I believe was 100% correct. And I do request that all parties be patient and hear out what I and the other 3-4 parties currently away have to say, before reaching their conclusions. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed -- Samir 05:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Rama's arrow is desysopped
3) For breaching confidentiality in posting private correspondence on WP:ANI, including the real names and e-mail addresses of Wikipedia editors, in the absence of the consent of all addressees and senders of e-mails, Rama's Arrow's administrative privileges are revoked. He may re-apply for adminship at any time through Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
4) For blocking editor's indefinately without a single evidence of meat-puppet activity. His actions based on speculation are against established guidelines. In absence of clear rules, he should have asked guidence from ArbCom before taking action. He has damaged editors credibility and stopped them from contributing to the project.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Support - Where is even a single diff of me engaging in sock/meat puppet activity? Aksi has posted some on-wiki evidence related to some editors - where is evidence against me? Also, don't you think we should hold off on remedies and actions till evidence is presented? RA has not presented any evidence yet. He claimed to have lots of on-wiki evidence, why is he not presenting it? He also posted private and confidential information about me on public site without justification. I am getting hate email because of his actions and his actions have turned me off from more contribution to the project. I request ArbCom to force RA to present his evidence. Private emails should NOT to be shared in public. Sbhushan 16:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support He slandered me! --D-Boy 06:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Rama's Arrow's second hand email evidence is not allowed in any way
5) For this case, including being shared privately with the Arbitration Committee and other involved parties.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- In reply to Priyanath's point - yes, I was a direct recipient of these e-mails. And there really is no such thing as "second-hand" emails - if, as you feel, the author(s) wanted to keep a conversation from others, these emails should not have been sent to me and other parties, period. If the author(s) wanted to send me one message, but not the other, it was their responsibility to not include that thread. Ultimately, it was their action that unravelled this gang - so why should I or anybody else feel that privacy was violated? I cannot force anybody to send me one of their emails. They sent it, I saw it - they would not have sent it if I was not supposed to see it. I will explain everything fully in my case/evidence statement, which I will be able to submit soon. But for now, lemme just say - one fine day I received a series of emails in my inbox, which upon examination, proved that Baka, D-Boy and co. were discussing how to gang-up on Dbachmann and subverting Wikipedia with a banned user, Hkelkar. Am I supposed to sit on my hands and watch? There have been plenty of occasions where off-Wikipedia investigations have been used to resolve complex problems. No one can effectively argue that an editor discussing subversion with a banned troll via email is not serious - what do you expect? That Hkelkar and Baka would discuss these things "on-Wikipedia?" Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. *By 'second hand' I mean emails that were not sent to Rama's Arrow directly, as a recipient, by the original author of the email. This evidence is inherently unreliable due to questionable chain of custody; it breaches personal privacy; it sets a terrible precedent for the future by creating a climate of mistrust and lack of good faith on Wikipedia. I include this under remedies because it can also be seen as a remedy for his error in publishing these emails and revealing private information. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I do not think there is any way we can force anything on the Arbcom as to what evidence is permitted and what is not. The ArbCom has some of the most trusted members of the wikipedia community and I think they are intelligent enough to see all the evidence and decide what to do by themselves. Also I would urge User:D-Boy not to flirt with WP:NLT by throwing around words like slander and "persecution of civil rights". - Aksi_great (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Aksi, I'm not trying to 'force' anything on the committee with this request. I am trying to point out that the exposure of people's real names and email addresses on Wikipedia is an extremely serious matter — far more serious than the accusations being made. For that reason alone, I believe this case should be dropped altogether. Short of that, I'm requesting the committee to consider not allowing evidence that has been tainted by the most serious breach of personal privacy possible on Wikipedia. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see. He accused me of being on some cabal. Blocks me without any warning, without any ANI, and ArbCom. Then, he accuses me of meatpupperty with no evidence! That's slander! I urge you not to flirt WP terms. I think arbcom should include you as an involved pary. Don't threaten me.--D-Boy 07:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops. my bad. you're already involved.--D-Boy 07:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
10) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
11) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: