Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Evidence

message: Just a quick corrective note - I'm not an admin (nor have I ever been one). Aleta (Sing) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. Sorry about that. I thought you were an admin already. I fixed that. Horologium (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! :) Aleta (Sing) 22:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm not an admin.

message: There seems to me to be an enormous disconnect to complain about Sanchez's incivil comments at a Columbia University blog post entitled "Dirty Sanchez", which serves only to disparage Sanchez, and to complain about comments left elsewhere. Considering that now-banned User:Pwok runs a site which is dedicated to destroying Sanchez, and Aatombomb was promoting the site, by URL, on Wikipedia before it was even "live" (see this diff), one has to wonder about the pot/kettle issue here. Discussing the enormous off-site harassment that has been directed toward Sanchez (virtually all from left-wing and/or gay-activist sites), it's not surprising that Sanchez has developed a bit of a bunker mentality. I was going to avoid discussing off-site harassment, but (as happened in the Crockspot RFA), detractors of a particular editor find it impossible to separate off-wiki behavior from on-wiki behavior. Do we really need an exhaustive listing of all the blogs and "progressive" sites which have attempted to burn Sanchez at the stake? Horologium (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Horologium, I think it should be noted, is a Sanchez apologist; I think this is only fair given that he has characterized me as an 'SPA' and 'Sanchez antagonist.' If there was a rule against the pot calling the kettle black here, I was not informed of it. Since the behavior of all editors involved is being examined, there's no issue with presenting evidence. If I am at fault as well, it does not change the evidence itself. I am making a good faith effort to follow the process and will abide by the ruling(s) of the arbitrators. Making side comments like this demonstrate your lack of good faith in this process. If you want to start an RFC on me as well, go right ahead. Aatombomb (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  One addition: I think it is more notable that he engaged in such obvious sock puppetry than the nature of the comments. Nevertheless, the comments are consistent with the kind he's made here. It's definitely his 'editorial voice.' There are other comments at youtube and liveleak that I could reference as well. Aatombomb (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aatombomb's evidence 

message: It is typical that all these sub-pages exist?  If not why do we have these?  Perhaps since I've never been intimately involved in an ArbCom before, I'm not aware of the standard procedure.  Why isn't this page linked off the RFA Bluemarine page ? Wjhonson (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is the standard format for an Arbcom case. There are four pages (besides the main page) and four talk pages (although sometimes they will be empty). Horologium (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More pages