Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian/Evidence

Evidence
Evidence with diffs will be helpful if parties want us to consider lifting the admin imposed sanctions. Unless there is a strong reason given to lift them now, I support leaving them in place during the ruling and my vote reflects that on the PD page. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Grrrr...
I had about 1000 words inc diffs ready to roll and first WP froze out on me, and then my pc went into wobbly mode and lost the sodding file... I will try again tomorrow! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

To 86.44,XX etc.
Firstly, the case is closed - I don't know if the clerk will revert these pages or allow subsequent comments. If it is the latter; Those accounts I linked to show a high percentage of edits relating to Abtract or the matters in which he is contemporaneously involved - you the editor may have edited otherwise under different addresses, but I don't know what they are. Also, as you edit around a wide ranging ip address there is no feasible way of advising you of a ArbCom (of which you are not a named party). Lastly, you were not concerned with the harassment matter between Abtract and Collectonian but only the matters in regard to attempting to restrain Abtracts behaviour (in which you were generally unhelpful, IMO). I should advise you that, in not commenting on my evidence in respect of this ip range, it is obvious that the ArbCom decided that it was irrelevant - so perhaps you might consider it politic to withdraw now that you have said your piece. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw the post earlier today and wondered whether I should revert it, but decided not to bother. For what it is worth, the discussion of the 86... account played no role in my analysis of the case (as the arbitrator who wrote the decision) and I doubt it had much direct impact on the other arbitrators either. No further posts should be made to this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't object to not being informed of being dragged into the case, I object to your never addressing me at any stage, preferring to proceed in bad faith even to the level of Arbcom. I see you even now say nothing about your insinuations having been offered information which rebuts them, instead offering a post full of hostility. You even say now quite deliberately that i "may have edited otherwise under different addresses" but you "don't know what they are". So you're unapologetic, hostile to criticism, unwilling to assume good faith when the alternative is an insinuating smear against all evidence, and believe that attack is the best form of defense, traits shared by a small number of your colleagues, ones i like to call "bad admins".


 * As to being unhelpful, my substantive posts on this come to three. One was a view to the RFC, another was to an ANI thread. Both of these were careful to criticize Abtract, and i feel can have done little to hamper attempts "to restrain Abtracts behaviour" except if by that you mean "to indef block him". The third was in response to how your position seemed unchanged through all the views solicited in the RfC, those in the ANI thread, and those of your fellow mediators. Perhaps this third undermined your authority, but that was a post made at a very late stage in this asinine saga, and making what i believe to be a fair point.


 * The point that the case is closed with this part of the evidence unconsidered is understood, but a right of reply is pretty basic in any decent forum, so bringing up the question of reversion (and whether to "bother", NYB), is overly dismissive, especially since i could not be informed of the case while it was open. 86.44.27.201 (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)