Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FeloniousMonk

I strongly oppose this. This is just User:Sam Spade's sour grapes. It really boggles the mind how Sam can protest his innocence all the time while simultaneously edit warring, antagonizing other users, and engaging in personal attacks. Exploding Boy 20:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Procedural note: Email is outside the scope of wikipedia dispute resolution, and should be ignored. (this is what FeloniousMonk alludes to in his response.) Kim Bruning 22:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Correction: Email has been deemed admissible by the arbcom as evidence. FeloniousMonk 16:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please reference the relevant arbcom case. Kim Bruning 19:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Jimbo said e-mail evidence could be used, I believe. I'll try to find the comment. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * See bottom of the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * In addition to the comment of Jimbo mentioned by SV, there is precendent in past arbcom cases of email being admitted as evidence. Also, a current arbcom member, Sannse, has informed me by email that "email has been used as evidence in arbitrations." This fact was confirmed by a former arbcom member as well. FeloniousMonk 21:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Evidence, maybe, but I'm not sure what an off-wiki e-mail exchange has to do with it. I'll go talk with them arbcom folks some more myself. :-) Kim Bruning 22:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Two arbcom members have said email is admissible as evidence, where they said it is immaterial. I suggest starting with Sannse.
 * Here are cases where email has been accepted as evidence, establishing precedence. There's a number of others as well that I have not listed, but can if called on.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * FeloniousMonk 22:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * We use email evidence in exceptional circumstances as secondary evidence backing up other evidence from Wikipedia itself, or (for example) to provide the basis for us to make additional explanatory notes about the actions of people who are going to get banned anyway. Email in general is outside the scope of the Committee, however.
 * None of this is relevent to RfCs, however, as it, unlike the Committee, is a community process, and bound by the policies of Wikipedia. The Committee is an off-shoot of the supreme power that Jimbo wields, and operates under a different framework in certain cases, including email.
 * James F. (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This differs somewhat from Sannes' statements to me, but that's expected. I have not seen it stated in policy that email is not admissible as evidence in RFC. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This also fails to address the distinction between email that is sent through the wikipedia site functionality; the "email this user" button, and email that is sent independent of wikipedia systems. Any email sent using wikipedia website functionality that constitutes a personal attack would seem to be an abuse of the system, compounding the charge. Also not noted is how this relates to when an editor admits publicly on wikipedia that he used the site's functionality make a personal attack without fear of being held responsible by the community, something Sam has done. Intentionally side-stepping policy to deliver a personal attack with impunity is a cynical misuse community standards and so should not be afforded the protection of the policies. To do so is to reward abusive editors for being creative in delivering personal attacks. Editors who hold the community's ideals in contempt by subverting its policies should not be rewarded. FeloniousMonk 23:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I should make it clear here, that none of what I said on this matter was as an arbitrator. I was, at the time, a mediator and gave my opinion on that basis. Without checking back through saved emails, I can't remember my exact words on the subject, this was some time ago -- sannse (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Background on Kim Bruning's role in the conflict
Kim Bruning's efforts at suppressing the evidence of Sam Spade's emailed personal attack makes it relevant and appropriate here to note his participation and role in this conflict. FeloniousMonk 23:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The day I received Sam's email in November 2004 I went to Kim Bruning for help. Kim refused to assist me in resolving the email incident amicably.
 * Kim Bruning has acted on Sam's behalf many times in this conflict as less than a neutral mediator, a point he's admitted.

*Popping up from cover, examining several holes in helmet*

If you don't want me to help you out here, you could just say so, no need to open fire, y'know! Kim Bruning 18:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * But if you don't want people to open fire, you shouldn't get involved in the fight. To cite only one example: when some time ago SS offered a transparently insincere apology to Felonious Monk, in which he carefully apologised only for what wasn't offensive or what he hadn't said, you posted to SS's Talk page telling him what a mensch he was, and how that would take the wind out of FM's sails (or words to that effect).  That was clearly and unequivocally to take sides, and there have been other less unequivocal occasions on which you've done the same.  It simply isn't credible for you to claim to be neutral, much less an honest broker, in any dispute concerning SS. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, um, I'm going to reply to that one over e-mail if you don't mind. Kim Bruning 23:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The comment to which I referred above is here. It refers to the fake apology here. I think that my memory was pretty accurate on both counts. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 11:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this RFC valid?
Quoting WP:RFC
 * For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by diffs showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours. The diffs should not simply show evidence of the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The two users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.

This has been certified by one user. It seems to be a single dispute between that user and the person who's conduct is in question. No recent attempts at resolution have been attempted.--Tznkai 17:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * RFCs that fail to meet the two person threshold are removed by those who maintain the RFC pages as time permits. FeloniousMonk 17:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither are valid. I removed them from the Rfc page, and they should be speedily deleted, SqueakBox 18:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Can the arbcom use e-mails as evidence?
Kim and FM were discussing this above. Here are diffs from Jimbo's talk page, where an editor asks whether private correspondence like e-mails ought to be used as evidence by the arbcom, and where Jimbo appears to answer yes.  SlimVirgin (talk) 11:14, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks SV. As Kim has told me many times before Jimbo's opinion is definitive at wikipedia. And his opinion on email being admissible as evidence is unambiguous and specifically cites as an example what Sam did of such a situation. I appreciate you actually taking the time to this look up. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)