Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence

message: Tony Sidaway has presented no evidence in his section. While this is a common problem among those unfamiliar with the workings of ArbCom, I admit I find it rather unexpected here. Tony, do you want to move your statement to this talk page where it belongs? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My evidence is in the form of a statement.  The evidence is the statement itself. It belongs on the evidence page. --Tony Sidaway 02:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, Tony, your statement seems to say simply that the members of ArbCom (or Jimbo, or some other administrators) already know what you think and have done, so there is no need for you to spell it out. It is rather difficult for those of us who are not included in the select group who already know what you have done or think (particularly those of us have been concentrating on adding to the encyclopedia, rather than following the shenanigans on WP:AN or WP:ANI or WP:BN or WT:RFA or a hundred and one user talk pages) to understand or respond to that "evidence" unless you expand your statement with a description of (or at least links to) the points that you mention - for example, your at-length public statements on your involvement in this affair which clarify your thinking and actions, and your opinions on good adminship. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony - thanks for adding some evidence.  However, I think there are still areas in your statement that need some evidential underpinning. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Sidaways' evidence 

message: Is anything acceptable as evidence?  Apparently not (as Giano has found).  Is Cyde's post from Kelly Martin blog acceptable as evidence?  Presumably not, in so far as it contains personal attacks (presumably the personal attack that I see in Cyde's contribution is just as unacceptable as the personal attack that Doc glasgow sees in Giano's).
On that basis, would there be any objections to me just deleting (or, perhaps better, redacting) the objectionable bits from the blog post? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good thing I asked first then!  I had no intention of wading into clerkly waters.  Would one of the clerks be so kind as to tell me what I am and am not allowed to do?  I looked up at WP:RFARB but I can't see one allocated to this case, and can't remember which have been involved... -- ALoan (Talk) 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I asked User:FloNight, but User:Cyde has done it already (thanks again). -- ALoan (Talk) 19:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggested to Cyde last night that he might consider striking and withdrawing the evidence as it stands and replacing it with a neutral summation of Kelly's contributions in the past year. I was under the impression that persons submitting evidence were allowed to edit their evidence, and that alone, but upon re-examination, that isn't explicitly permitted by the guidelines of the Evidence page. If it was wrong for him to do so, I bear some part of the blame for suggesting it. It seems to me sensible that people should be allowed to withdraw evidence they've presented, as not being germane or appropriate upon reflection; perhaps the ArbCom should consider codifying such a policy (although I would suggest that it be done apart from this case, which is sufficiently overgrown and nebulous). Choess 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for looking through.  If that's so, then Doc's removal of Giano's comment, regardless of its content, was inappropriate.  Geogre 19:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting or redacting personal attacks?