Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence

Hello all,

I have a couple of small questions that I wonder if someone might be able to help me with;

• Re Guys evidence - "I had discussed the matter privately with a very small number of admins I trust, and I mailed the arbitration committee about the block on Thu, 01 Nov 2007 at 12:25:29 UTC" - I'd like to ask Guy to disclose who this very small number of admin.s are. This is the heart of my assertion of unethical behaviour, and I'd like it now to be open and transparent. Not only do I feel that I have the right to know, but I sincerely believe that this information is best out in the open. - hopefully this very post is an appropriate way to make the request - but perhaps someone could copy a note to Guy's talkpage, or to another area of the Arbitration (I am still developing my understanding of the various sub pages etc.).
• I'm unsure as to the status given to statements given as part of the request for arbitration. It struck me that David's statement "I have not looked into PM's editing career itself" was a little incongruous with his issuing an indef. block, and feel that may be relevant somewhere, in some way.
• Would I be correct in thinking that if I wish my assertions to be considered by the committee, that I should copy them into the Workshop? I'll hold off on that, because it looks quite complicated - but I certainly do wish the Arb.s to consider them. Any advice would be appreicated.

Thanks all, Privatemusings (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think him discussing it with a small number of admins is relevant. You have obviously sought the advise of some experienced admins and if that's not important to the case, why should this be--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I don't really think that we need to discuss whether or not it is relevant as much as the fact that I consider it to be relevant, and wondered how best to request the openness I'm after. Perhaps it should be a motion "For the sake of openess and transparency, Privatmusings believes it would be valuable to know who comprises the 'small group of trusted admin.s'"? Privatemusings (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding No. 2 - Generally the statements are treated like evidence, i.e., the arbitrators read them, and take the arguements and evidence presented into consideration. If you would like to highlight something in a statement put either a principle, finding of fact, or remedy on the workshop related/based on the statement.

regarding no. 3 - yes, to make sure that your assertion/ideas/findings are evaluated by the committee make workshop proposals concerning them, and back the proposals up with information on the evidence page. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I'm getting my head round it a bit better now - Privatemusings (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

'RWI'

A note here, partly in response to Kendrick's question on Guy's talkpage, and partly because it's all relevant.

The reason I retired my original account is because it was a nickname that I have used for many years, and have some privacy concerns. They are not entirely unsubstantiated.

I told guy all of this in confidence, and he shared this information with the 'small no. of trusted admin.s' mentioned (see above for my request for openness on that one).

I didn't really want this information to be made public, and have been / am very very angry and unhappy about it. The cat is now well and truly out of the bag (after DG posted publicly really) - but I appreciate Guy's efforts finally to be discrete (resisting strong urge to mention horses.) - I also fully endorse Kendrick's evidence, which is certainly not compounding the problem whatsoever. The damage has been done. Privatemusings (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really want to bring it up, but I felt as full accounting as possible was required. Glad you thought it OK. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• PM, I was always discreet. The information would have been revealed by any CheckUser check, but I think it's a mistake to attribute malice to David when copy and paste might have been to blame. I have read every post twice to check I'm not revealing the original account by accident, it would be very easy to do and as you say not an easy one to undo afterwards. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your ideas and mine concerning ethics and discretion differ. I asked you very clearly, and politely not to share the personal information that I submitted with anyone, and you did. I told you that I would feel upset and violated if you shared the personal information, and you did. That is unethical and in indiscreet. Privatemusings (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin Only Evidence

I was just thinking of responding to Guy's "Problematic edits, problematic summaries" - when of course I realised that this evidence (and some other evidence) is only visible to admin.s. Is it possible for this evidence to be emailed to me? I suspect my reposnse will be along the lines of "well, I don't really think that those edits are sufficiently problematic to be even block warning worthy, let alone an indef. block" - note of course that no block warning ever did appear.

In any case, it's hard to present a sensible response to evidence that cannot be examined. Could it be suggested that all such evidence me emailed to me as a matter of course (you know, sort of like 'disclosure') - or I'd even prefer it if an uninvolved admin could see if there is any way to possibly undelete the evidence into a sub page or something here for full openness.

Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• The arbitrators are all admins, and you yourself made the edits. I'm not going to repost problematic material about Giovanni di Stefano for reasons that should be blindingly obvious. If you need to see the deleted text then it can be emailed to you by any admin on request, provided you do not repost it on Wikipedia (I say this for the avoidance of doubt, not because I think you would be that foolhardy). Guy (Help!) 14:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Guy - and I really really hope that you might be beginning to build your good faith in me - that's heartening.

I would like the edits emailed to me, essentially just to see how much I agree with your analysis of them, and to be able to respond appropriately - your note on not reposting them is not out of place, and you're correct that I would not be so foolish.

You know - if you're willing to have a conversation here and now about any of my actions, or if you're willing to think about whether or not I might be allowed to return to editing, then we really could save a lot of people a lot of time and effort. I obviously have some issues that I want to discuss - such as the human cost of an indef. block, and the way we all should treat information in confidence - but these discussions can be calm, quiet, and prolonged - and I don't think they're necessarily best achieved in an adversarial system such as seems to have been setup for this Arb Com.

It would mean a lot to me if you would be willing to talk - and I have absolutely no doubt that you have acted with the best of intentions, and from rock solid good faith. Thanks Guy, Privatemusings (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• For the avoidance of doubt, I have no good faith in you; that took a massive hit when you revealed that your main account was vastly less significant than the sockpuppet page made out, and vanished completely when you failed to listen to Fred at the di Stefano article. This is a statement of fact, not a value judgement. Send me a wikipedia email and I will reply with the deleted diffs as html files. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for your honesty at least - I've got this nagging feeling that you're a really good bloke - but you're way off on this one. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've recevied the email - thanks. Privatemusings (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of Mailing list

Is PM producing evidence, or opinion pieces here. Mercury 21:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, it would be very very easy for you to clear that up.

On the point of evidence or opinion - the links are right there to click on. This is not wild paranoia, it's simply depressingly clear from the posts that have been made. Privatemusings (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this exchange may illuminate the cause of my concerns;

(begin copied thread)

Yes, I've been thinking alot about that link and some of the statements various people made a few weeks ago. Both this and other comments clearly indicate that Privatemusings was identified, again incorrectly, by this group as another of the 'Wikipedia Review sleeper agents' lurking amongst us. Again, the user was placed under an indefinite block without warning. Privatemusings isn't !!, and thus there was less resistance to that particular railroading, but several people still objected on general principle. Thinking back over the history before the !! block has also given me some very strong indications as to who might be on this 'Sooper Seekrit' mailing list... and I can't say I like it. --CBD 17:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know who is on this secret mailing list? I think the names on that list might be of interest to a lot of Wikipedians. Cla68 (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's secret. Mercury 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(from the current thread discussing Durova's recent actions) - Privatemusings (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic when I said it is a secret. I doubt the existence of such a list. Mercury 21:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

To reply to the comment at the top of this section; Evidence (by or in relation to Privatemusings) is submitted to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence, which is a Project Page. This is the talkpage to the above project page, and is therefore not the place to submit evidence. It is the place to discuss the placing of evidence, and matters pertaining to it, and therefore Privatemusings comments are appropriate. I hope this is clear now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok sure, PM, could you place some evidence of the existence of the list on the project page? Mercury 22:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

PM, I suggest you respond specifically to each of Guy's claims. Relata refero (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've given it a go - and put quite alot more stuff into the evidence bits - I really appreciate your words, and hope that you might have the time to review mine - thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)