Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Evidence

message: The problem of reposting of what some consider "personal information" still exists and affects the ability of parties to present their evidence. While there is some consensus among arbcomm members  here that this information is public and acceptable, recent declarations from Tony and Ta bu shi da yu to block or seek desysopping for anyone "who continues to harass" Agapetos angel means those presenting evidence that Agapetos angel will likely take issue with are unable to present their evidence in full.
Would the arbcomm please address the issue of whether & how parties will be able to accurately and sufficiently present their cases before we present any evidence. FeloniousMonk 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's anything at all you are unsure about, you can email it to the private mailing list, or to an arbitrator, who will then forward it on. Please keep in mind, however, that this case is about a user's conduct. Dmcdevit·t 00:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Respectfully, this case is about the conduct of several users, not just a user.  agapetos_angel 07:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. That wasn't the point of my comment, so I guess I was being imprecise in that regard. Dmcdevit·t 06:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand. I respectfully made the correction to ensure that your statement wasn't used as a tacit agreement to only examine my behaviour.  Thanks agapetos_angel 07:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for clarification from the committee

message: I am not sure of the proper procedure but I am (hopefully) finished with my evidence.  It should be complete enough to address the main issues with enough examples of the little issues that led up to this point.  I apologize for the excessive wording, but it was necessary to provide context that simple diffs would not address.  It is becoming apparent that every accusation I prove false breeds others that have to be addressed and they are progressively becoming more outrageous as time passes.  Perhaps this will be stemed by this conclusion of my 'side'.  I have to say that my time here so far has not been enjoyable overall, but I am hopeful for a postive outcome that will allow me to get back to editing without harassment.  Thank you for this opportunity to be heard.  agapetos_angel 06:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I had one more falsehood to refute.  Would it be appropriate to contact the other supposed 'sock/meat puppets' and ask them if they will offer evidence? agapetos_angel 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is getting tedious answering the continuing accusations.  How is this process closed for review and vote?  Is it automatic?  agapetos_angel 04:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agapetos, there is what appears to be a typo in your Evidence. You have a link to joint_effect. I think you wanted it without the underscore. JoshuaZ 02:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.  I'll try to find and fix that. (didn't seem to make a difference either way, but I removed the underscore anyway) agapetos_angel 06:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm finished

message: My evidence section as it currently stands does not solely refer to difs. It refers to certain very short sections and also to certain relevant pages outside wikipedia. Is this acceptable? JoshuaZ 01:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about evidence presentation 

message: See here .  JoshuaZ 18:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section (above) indicated I was finished. Why was a new heading necessary? agapetos_angel 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seemed important enough a point to deserve its own section. Since you have edited this talk page, possibly you could clarify this comment. Are you participating in the RfA? JoshuaZ 01:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Further clarification. In this dif I gave above, it seemed like you were no longer in involved in the RfA. This is distinct from your comment in the above section that you were done with evidence. JoshuaZ 05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agapetos seems to no longer be participating in the RfA