Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Lord Roem (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: PhilKnight (Talk) & Jclemens (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case

Courcelles
David Fuchs
Elen of the Roads
Hersfold
Kirill Lokshin
Jclemens
Newyorkbrad
PhilKnight
Risker
Roger Davies
SirFozzie
SilkTork

Inactive:

AGK
Xeno

Recused:

Casliber

Ncmvocalist evidence submission

Ncmvocalist has asked for a relaxation of the evidence rules to post a submission of around a thousand words or so. This seems to be a reasonable enough request, so I've suggested that he goes ahead. PhilKnight (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence cutoff date

Is the cutoff date for evidence June 28, as it says in the heading of this page, or July 11, as I have seen on several talk pages today? Neotarf (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notice on my talk page now says, "Please add your evidence by July 13, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes." This template seems to have acquired a life of its own. Neotarf (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the code is clearly buggy. The talk page version is just adding 14 days onto the current day (I clicked "edit" on the section on mine and that's what the code there does) rather than stating the actual date. The solution is to get the original mechanism to force a "subst:" onto users' talk pages when it first posts it, but I'm unsure where the script is to make the change to. Orderinchaos 09:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly missed response

"While simultaneously, Talk page and ANI discussion at the time did also endorse my action, and was very unfavorable about Deacon's reversal." [emphasis added] The multiple requests asked for diffs pertaining to both the talk page and ANI - not talk page or ANI; as my evidence indicates, the diffs pertaining to the ANI were not provided (instead, JHunterJ asked that request not be made anymore as it amounts to badgering). I think this is sufficient to make out the problematic aspect of that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same subject as the contrary claim. The set "Talk page and ANI discussion at the time" included endorsement of my action. Or hey, you could also stop lawyering about it and recognize that the actual move review (as opposed to the hyper-abbreviated misplaced ANI) endorsed the move, so there is no need to badger me any more about it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The just-concluded re-RM ended with the same result.[1]. Both the move review and the second move request went on longer than 3:33 (unlike the misplaced AN/I, which was too short and too misplaced to make out any problematic aspects other than its brevity and incorrect placement). At least some of the discussion in the most recent move request appears to have been informed by the supposed badgering discussion.[2] -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]