Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence

message: Can someone please let me know how we can access the history of deleted articles so we can review the evidence being presented? Thanks. --Leifern 18:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only administrators can see deleted revisions. Sean William  @ 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one needs deleted revisions for ArbCom evidence purposes, a temporary restore (with blanking and protection) is appropriate, and has been done many times before.  Do you need the article restored for this purpose? Xoloz 00:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be appropriate - and I hope have all parties with me - that it would be unfair to present evidence that not all involved parties have access to. I'm not sure how to do it technically, but I have to imagine there must be ways. --Leifern 01:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask for specific articles at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review, noting that it is for the ArbComm and the full history is needed.  GRBerry 12:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The clerks can do it without DRV, I think.  I'll work from ChrisO's list; add any additional requests here. Thatcher131 14:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think restoring the talk pages may also be useful, if possible.  Thanks, Mackan79 14:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh! Thatcher131 14:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence references

message: If we are going to examine edit histories, the history of this article is relevant.  A lot of the material was collected here before being spun out into the individual articles.  --Ideogram 23:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Allegations of apartheid]]

message: In response to a dialog I just removed from Picaroon's evidence suggestion, I would like to point out that editors' behavior during Arbitration may indeed be taken into account by the Arbitrators.  Those who do not regularly follow arbitration cases might be surprised at the behavior that occurs here, when you would expect editors to know that every comment will be read by the Arbitrators.  Far from being on their best behavior, some editors have received harsher sanctions than were originally considered partly because their poor behavior during the case gave the Arbitrators little confidence that moderate remedies would have the desired effect. Thatcher131 14:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. I suspected that would be the case but it's helpful to have it spelled out. (Is this stated anywhere in the arbitration policy?) -- ChrisO 15:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.  I'll look into it.  I would hope that Don't moon the jury or When on trial for assault, don't punch the witnesses would be common sense, but experience has shown otherwise. Thatcher131 15:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The arbitration policy is full of generalities and there doesn't look like a good place for this (which is different than the long-standing prohibition on MEDCOM being used as evidence).  But I did add a note to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case. Thatcher131 15:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments made during Arbitration 

message: Am I supposed to respond under the comment, or am I supposed to respond somewhere else, or not respond at all?--SefringleTalk 02:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Workshop page, under the comment. On the Evidence page on you own section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: On the evidence page, you are supposed to provide evidence, including evidence that you bring up because of other evidence.  If you want to discuss what the evidence means, that would belong on the Workshop page.  GRBerry 02:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have 4 options.  You can make an evidence section of your own that contains a rebuttal subsection.  You can offer an explanation on the talk page.  You can comment on any relevant workshop proposals tied to the evidence (such as "# Sefringle has disrupted wikipedia to make a point" if it exists). Or you can use the analysis of evidence section on the workshop page to explain your case. Thatcher131 12:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: responses to evidence

message: Can the Arbitrators give me a hint on how far back the ArbComm is likely to find more evidence helpful?  I've got a huge list of pages to work through, and it could easily take me a few weeks (or more) to work through the list.  I'd rather not waste my time researching and everyone else's time reviewing evidence that we can know in advance will be useless.  GRBerry 21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably reasonable to go back as far as the end of last year's arbitration on this subject, but no further. --John Nagle 04:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How far back to go with evidence? 

message: His evidence section is full of misrepresentation, bad faith, and continued personal attacks.
Perhaps he doesn't understand what "shitlist" means, so we could forgive that, but the rest is prima facie fabrications.
I do not call him a troll for participating in an AfD, which has indeed speedily closed, but for his general behavior taken as a whole, a fact that should be obvious to anyone following this arbcom (my mentions of this clearly predate the 7th AfD).
However, his repeated accusation of antisemitism and "israel hating" in the AfD was clearly trolling, as was his opposition to the speedy close that was an obvious response to a POV-driven jumping of process.
I call him a troll because that is how his behavior is like. He uses terms like "Israel hater" but then says it doesn't apply to any of the editors; he says "we" are creating articles to "balance" things, and then denies he is guilty of WP:POINT; he is disruptive and unhelpful, yet calls others uncivil for pointing this out.
 
Insult -> excuse. Insult -> excuse.  Insult -> excuse. No discussion or consensus seeking, but disruptive boldness. 
A classic example of a troll.
I am willing to hear legitimate arguments to the contrary, but this is a good faith opinion. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sefringle's "evidence" 

message: ... what part of "If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page" is unclear? Please stop commenting and edit-warring in other peoples' evidence sections. MastCell Talk 19:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be an interesting exercise to look at the people behaving like this on ArbCom pages and wonder just how they would behave in regular editing when the spotlight is not on them! PalestineRemembered 16:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People, please... 

message: My response to evidence presented by Palestine Remembered:
I find the repeated allegations by Palestine Remembered to be excessive, unfounded, and uncalled-for, as well as unhelpful. They are completely off-topic, and do not pertain in any way to this proceeding. --Steve, Sm8900 20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have withdrawn the Sm8900 canvassing a 3rd time allegation, since I understand User:HG thinks you may have seen his contributions elsewhere and that's what made you ask him to go to that page. PalestineRemembered 21:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I appreciate this constructive move on your part, as well as your helpful willingness to contact me directly to let me know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to evidence