| Revision as of 03:34, 28 February 2006 editAgapetos angel (talk | contribs)2,142 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:42, 28 February 2006 edit undoJim62sch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,810 edits →Defence: choose a pathNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| ==Defence== | ==Defence== | ||
| As some items are being emailed only to ArbCom, it is impossible for me to offer a defence without them being likewise emailed to me. Jim62sch has made a '''''very''''' serious public allegation against me regarding illegal activity, and I request private examination of the so-called evidence that he is using to back this claim that he calls a statement of fact. I also request a public retration and apology when it is shown that this is yet another completely unfounded allegation. I've never done ''anything'' illegal, and I resent these constant character assignations. Thank you. ] 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | As some items are being emailed only to ArbCom, it is impossible for me to offer a defence without them being likewise emailed to me. Jim62sch has made a '''''very''''' serious public allegation against me regarding illegal activity, and I request private examination of the so-called evidence that he is using to back this claim that he calls a statement of fact. I also request a public retration and apology when it is shown that this is yet another completely unfounded allegation. I've never done ''anything'' illegal, and I resent these constant character assignations. Thank you. ] 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :If you want these issues out in public, then so be it. We (FM and I) were e-mailing the other info due to the previous privacy concerns. You can't have it both ways. Either everything is out on the table, or we need to take the route we have taken. See FM's issue of sock- meat-puppetry re Dennis F. Recall the Google cached page that could not have been, in any way, the cached page based on Google's caching policies, and recall that the person whose name was inserted in place of yours never attended the school in question, does not know you, and could, if she wished, file charges for misrepresentation. You decide which way you wish to go with this. These are not unfounded accusations, they are fact. There will be no rtetraction, there will be no apology, as neither is required. Again, the decision on how to handle this is yours. ] 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:42, 28 February 2006
Request for clarification from the committee
The problem of reposting of what some consider "personal information" still exists and affects the ability of parties to present their evidence. While there is some consensus among arbcomm members here that this information is public and acceptable, recent declarations from Tony and Ta bu shi da yu to block or seek desysopping for anyone "who continues to harass" Agapetos angel means those presenting evidence that Agapetos angel will likely take issue with are unable to present their evidence in full.
Would the arbcomm please address the issue of whether & how parties will be able to accurately and sufficiently present their cases before we present any evidence. FeloniousMonk 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- If there's anything at all you are unsure about, you can email it to the private mailing list, or to an arbitrator, who will then forward it on. Please keep in mind, however, that this case is about a user's conduct. Dmcdevit·t 00:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Respectfully, this case is about the conduct of several users, not just a user. agapetos_angel 07:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. That wasn't the point of my comment, so I guess I was being imprecise in that regard. Dmcdevit·t 06:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Respectfully, this case is about the conduct of several users, not just a user. agapetos_angel 07:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- I understand. I respectfully made the correction to ensure that your statement wasn't used as a tacit agreement to only examine my behaviour. Thanks agapetos_angel 07:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Defence
As some items are being emailed only to ArbCom, it is impossible for me to offer a defence without them being likewise emailed to me. Jim62sch has made a very serious public allegation against me regarding illegal activity, and I request private examination of the so-called evidence that he is using to back this claim that he calls a statement of fact. I also request a public retration and apology when it is shown that this is yet another completely unfounded allegation. I've never done anything illegal, and I resent these constant character assignations. Thank you. agapetos_angel 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you want these issues out in public, then so be it. We (FM and I) were e-mailing the other info due to the previous privacy concerns. You can't have it both ways. Either everything is out on the table, or we need to take the route we have taken. See FM's issue of sock- meat-puppetry re Dennis F. Recall the Google cached page that could not have been, in any way, the cached page based on Google's caching policies, and recall that the person whose name was inserted in place of yours never attended the school in question, does not know you, and could, if she wished, file charges for misrepresentation. You decide which way you wish to go with this. These are not unfounded accusations, they are fact. There will be no rtetraction, there will be no apology, as neither is required. Again, the decision on how to handle this is yours. Jim62sch 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)