Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Evidence

message: Now I'm the one that's curious.  Is Deeceevoice your alter ego/sockpuppet?  Otherwise, why is he/she editing all over your statements in Evidence?  That would go a long way toward explaining your overriding concern over a block on someone else. Ovadyah (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. It quite clearly states at the top of the page "Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section". It certainly goes some way to confirming my suspicion that some kind of "tag team" is operating here. --Folantin (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! No and if anything I would be deeceevoices' sock puppet, I think she's been here a lot longer than I have. Ramdrake and I have asked Deeceevoice, why her statement is is the wrong place. I'm certain she'll move it soon.  futurebird (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe it has much more to do with the fact that Deeceevoice has some real life issues now, and possibly didn't realize she was moving her comments to Futurebird's section. Either that, or we have one woozie of a schizo case (honestly we don't - I left DCV a message on her talk page to let her know).--Ramdrake (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  Thanks everyone. Ovadyah (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for being proactive and moving the Deeceevoice comments to the right place, Futurebird. Ovadyah (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for Futurebird

message: Bloodofox, has added a statement here, but I'm confused about if it belongs over there or in the evidence section. Is it in the right place? futurebird (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newyorkbrad dealt with it. Picaroon (t) 02:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It could be considered evidence. If Bloodofox would prefer to put it on the evidence page, I will not object. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have since made this move. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Right place?

message: How strict is the 1000 word limit? It seems like some statements have gone over this count. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine had, but I've now pruned it down to 999.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I wasn't telling anyone that they should cut down their statement! Rather, I'm at ~950 words, and I have more to say...but I'm not sure if I should go over the limit. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure anyone will be bothered by 1200 or even more. 1500 is probably the max though. I think the guideline is there to keep the evidence in focus and stop people rambling or ranting at enormous length. --Folantin (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1000 words?

message: My schedule now is backed up like crazy, and I just don't have time for this right now.  I have clients trying to get film in the can before the holidays, so I'm slammed -- and my own holiday commitments are catching up with me.  I need to know how much time I have.  (I still haven't actually written a statement -- just a response to someone else's comments, and even that needs to be edited.)  deeceevoice (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These ArbComs usually take forever at the best of times. I know some users haven't even begun to add their evidence yet. You could ask one of the avaliable arbitrators not to start reviewing the evidence until early January if you want to make doubly sure. --Folantin (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info, Folantin. I probably won't get to this until after New Year's.  deeceevoice (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've lodged a request with Kirill Lokshin. --Folantin (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How long will this matter remain open for comments?

message: Is it possible to retrieve a dif/history of a deleted article for evidence? Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. Could you state your intentions here? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - in my evidence against Dbachmann at HKelkar 2, I included "Threatening an editor in an edit summary with blocking, merely for disagreeing with his own POV" followed by a dif link. That dif points to a since deleted article. I'd like to add it to evidence here, if it's appropriate. But I can't see what it is. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 05:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, thanks. Admin also threatening, using the royal we, to block in dispute they are involved in. ~ priyanath talk 05:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for a Clerk 

message: I'm referring to Rokus01's Response to Mathsci.  If this was posted anywhere else I'd warn him for failure to AGF.  Saying "To put things clear from the start: I doubt his independence. His comments really puzzle me, his efforts to protect Dbachmann are too ridiculous" without evidence is unacceptable as proof in an ARBcom.  He has not provided evidence for making any claim against Mathsci's independence, Rokus has merely taken a rhetorical stance against Mathsci.
On top of this Rokus's remark that: "Thus, I declare the "neutrality" and "objectivity" of Mathsci sufficiently disproven, and his "testimony" worthless crap" is absolutely not acceptable here or anywhere else on wikipedia.  This is unacceptable incivility.  It demonstartes a failure to assume good faith on Rokus's part--Cailil  talk 17:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mister, I subscribe to WP:AGF a priori. However, after listening and verifying his allegations all of us have to arrive at an evaluation a posteriori. I detected the distortion of many facts, turning half-true statements into rhetoric insinuations that indeed are completely worthless as factual evidence. I am willing to show WP:CIVILity to persons, not to worthless crap. To say I uttered my impressions without evidence, while I already dedicated the equivalent of a small booklet here to point out Mathsci's lack of neutrality and objectivity, is to say the least a rhetoric stance against my evidence. Independence is something you have to prove, something you might have to fight for. Indeed, for independence you need qualities, not my WP:AGF. Don't think you'll get the good things in life for free. I will assume good faith to all that can't achieve any better, or that are hampered by the bonds of circumstances they can't throw off. Still I vehemently disagree to take it all for granted. Rokus01 (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that Rokus01 is failing to assume good faith of other users, and that his language is uncivil. I would urge him to moderate his language, and to reexamine his argument that Mathsci and Angr are pawns of Dbachmann--if for no other reason than the accusation is so ridiculous it may cause the arbitrators to conclude that all of his evidence is of similar quality. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL cover evidence in ARBCOMS don't they? 

message: I'm not going to reply to Moreschi, beyond saying that I agree with:
*The only thing they/we all have in common is that we are regular contributors to India related articles. Based on that one common trait, we have all been branded “nationalist trolls” by Dbachmann.
Addhoc (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to [[user:Moreschi|Moreschi]] 

message: Given Moreschi's involvement in talk page discussion at Afrocentrism and his (overturned) banning of me from editing the article, and his participation here, I'd like to add him to this Arb Com proceeding.  deeceevoice (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - I think we need to look in to his role as well. (Deeee, you should move this to the workshop page. I think that's where proposals go.) I thought of doing this myself but I'm still unclear on how this whole thing works. futurebird (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to add [[User: Moreschi]] to this proceeding