Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Please restore Talk:Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush

Would an admin clerk or Arb kindly restore Talk:Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush? Comments on that page are needed for evidence. I propose moving it to a subpage of this case, if possible. Thank you.- MrX 00:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconding this, I had multiple diffs saved from that talk page to use as evidence, didn't even occur to me that they'd be inaccessible once the AFD wound down. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Callanecc and DGG in case they didn't see this request.- MrX 16:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The request has been forwarded to the arbitrators. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.- MrX 16:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Page restored for the purposes of the case. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Euryalus.- MrX 01:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect's non-participation

Collect has stated in his initial statement and on his talk page that he will refuse to participate further here, however he is posting "rebuttals" to evidence given here (by me, Mr X, and Ubikwit, so far) on his user talk. Do I need to bother to respond to/refute what he's saying about me there? Will the committee be reading arguments made on his user talk? Fyddlestix (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't post the link from this device, but the guide to arbitration makes clear evidence needs to be posted at the /Evidence page, and not on Usertalk pages. Collect is entitled not to contribute to the /Evidence page, but the committee will decide the case in what is before it. Obviously, if in reviewing your own conduct you wish to proactively explain or rebut anything that needs explaining or rebutting, go for it. But like any other case, you do not need to formally respond to pieces of third-party talkpage commentary. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Further: Bosstopher has posted on behalf of Collect. Of course, Collect remains welcome to post directly as well. Collect (or Bosstopher) - thanks for the reference to the essays, which I've now read through. I encourage other people to do this too - some of them offer good advice on resolving editing disputes. But I'd welcome clarification on why you'd like these included in the evidence. Is it to illustrate your editing philosophy, in response to claims made by others on the /Evidence page? -- Euryalus (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to clarify the essays are meant to be their own rebuttal to claims made about combative essays. I'll update my evidence section to clarify this. Bosstopher (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

One blaring problem is that possibly the most combative of Collect's essays, User:Collect/z, is not included in the list provided by Bosstopher. The original unsanitized version is especially Battleground. I would hope the arbiters peruse all of Collects essays rather than only the cherry-picked few. This subversion (demanding the consideration of off-site discussions as evidence) of the ARBCOM case/evidence/workshop/decision process is beyond the pale. Without "fair witnesses" at Collect's talk page, better known as clerks, there is no-one trained in the art of maintaining proper decorum and impartial evidence presentation. Which leaves only Collect to question and grill editors at his discretion and determination. While I have, as of yet, not provided evidence, I am an interested party and observer.. Buster Seven Talk 12:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)