Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop

message: Nuclear, I apprerciate your interest but I can not wrap my mind around your comments.
:I have already stated 3 times that I feel he is telling the truth
:the truth of the matter is its not a verifiable claim. 
:As it stands noone can verify this and the situation becomes tainted
:verify that an anon did in fact make those comments and not The Epopt
:The Epopt insists on remaining on this particular hearing it also begs the question of why. Not only have they possibly posted evidence on their own behalf
That is essentially one statement that you believe the epopt and 4 implied accusations of falsity.  I can read those comments no other way.  (By the way, he is a he.)  Further, had the message been received by Arbcom-L, there would be no way to prove that one of the arbitrators hadn't sent it from an alternate e-mail account.  Getting really conspiratorial, you could have submitted the e-mail as a false flag operation.  Even if the evidence was posted here directly by an IP or brand new account, there would be no way to prove who it was or wasn't submitted by, except by checkuser, which can be trivially defeated if you know how.  
No, the bottom line is that unless all anonymous evidence (including IPs and single purpose accounts) is banned, you will have to trust in the process, among other things that the arbitrators are honest and don't have conflicts of interest when they say they don't. Thatcher131 23:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I do not find this in process. Transparency is most important here considering the situation. Your trust in someone is fine and well, but its not more important then transparency and a fully accountable system. You keep taking this personal, what I personally feel about his truthworthiness (word?) is not more important then the accountable and transparent system. I have no axe to grind so again, please do not take this as personal, its really an issue of magic evidence being presented by an Arbitrator with only their word as proof. Sure we can get super conspiratorial and claim the world is fake and Wikipedia took over everything, however arguing the slippery slope is a pointless and silly when we have a situation here and now. --NuclearZer0 23:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am willing to drop my request per something on the main page. Please read, let me know if this is satisfactory as it would confirm the statement of the user posting. Thank you =). Boomer vet, thats actually pretty cool. --NuclearZer0 00:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want transparency then you are seeking the wrong remedy.  The Epopt's recusal would still leave the statement in evidence.  What you seem to want is a motion to exclude the evidence. Thatcher131 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I am asking for two arbcom members to confirm recieving that email. I am not sure if you read my reply to Fred, but its not about the anon, its about transparency. Oddly I feel as though I am starting to be like a parrot as I have stated that simple sentence repeatedly. --NuclearZer0 00:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epopt recusal 

message: I've mentioned this on the proposed decision talk page, but also want to say this here regarding "On December 6, 2006, MONGO removed the full protection of September 11, 2001 attacks ".  A main source for the edit warring, User:Cplot, has been found to be using sockpuppets, was blocked, with the block noted on WP:ANI for review.  With Cplot no longer involved in edit warring on the 9/11 attacks page, the situation has settled down substantially into discussion about specifics, such as if/how to mention the Iraq War and War on Terrorism in this article, whether or not to include a particular link, etc.  I had tried semi-protection back on November 29th, and another admin quickly came in and gave it full protection.  I think semi-protection is fine, as it protects from sockpuppets and blatant vandals while allowing other folks to edit.  Pretty much everyone else involved on the page (both sites) has been fairly reasonable to work with.  MONGO didn't explicitly ask on the talk page if it was time to unprotect it, but could sense that it was time (from seeing the talk page discussions) to allow folks to edit the page and consensus was there for what MONGO did.  I have been gradually working to source the article better, and am glad to be able to work on it again. --Aude (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection removed by MONGO on [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]

message: I disagree with these proposed remedies because, again, there is no evidence that such behavior occurred.  I specifically object to failure to relate appropriately with some administrators, as this puts admins into a special class of protected user, which I don't feel we are.  User:Zoe|(talk) 16:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out on the /Proposed Decision talk page, the decision contains no findings that MONGO "fail[ed] to relate appropriately to some administrators." This is just assumed out of nowhere in the remedies paragraph, and it is not clear what specific evidence or incident is relied upon to support it. Newyorkbrad 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but that might refer to me in a cryptic way - I'm an admin too. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 18:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but I think you were acting as an editor with respect to that page rather than an administrator. See my comments on /Proposed Decision. In any case, it would be better if we didn't need to speculate. Newyorkbrad 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought that that might be the case, Seabhcan, but again, the wording makes it sound as if admins are special.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BusterD's proposed remedies