Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence

Posting of private e-mails

In my case, a user had posted a private e-mail sent by me to several users at the ANI, and many editors have relished and enjoyed that post, and people had cornered me, and put me to unnecessary stress: I was practically made to kneel down like a criminal and had to beg pardon! There may be several such instances about which I am not aware of. Now, when despite great reluctance, Rama posted the e-mails, people are talking in a different way. My observations show that Rama was forced to post private e-mails to validate his decision as an administrator, and by doing this he did nothing wrong to subvert any of the wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc. In my opinion, off-wiki evidences are acceptable under exceptional certain circumstances if it is proved that editors did anything to subvert the decision of the ArbCom. Right now, I do not have any opinion about the merit of the case, and I may come with further comments depending on the progress. --Bhadani (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this incidence (of my kneeling down) was reported like great news in some google groups! And, no one in a million plus wikipedians asked that user at the ANI that he should not have posted that private e-mail! --Bhadani (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Kneeling down before somebody is not a good idea, Bhadani.Herr=dab= 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

E-mail evidence policy

The original 'clerk notes' on the Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration page included this statement:

Private e-mail should not be posted here. E-mail it directly to any arbitrator if you feel it is important to the case. Thatcher131 02:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That statement was deleted from the 'clerk notes' when the case was opened. Considering the serious objections raised by Konstable, SBhushan, Dangerous-Boy, Bakasuprman, and myself regarding the use of the email 'evidence' in this case, it would be helpful to have a clear statement from the Arbitration Committee on if, and how, this evidence can be used.

If that original statement is still in effect, it raises the question of how can people defend themselves against evidence that only the prosecutor and judges can see? How can the larger community discuss the merits of a case where some evidence can be seen only by the admins prosecuting the case, and the arbitration committee? ॐ Priyanath talk 15:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would not be so obviously flawed in your reasoning - Only the prosecutor and judges can see? They wrote those e-mails. They know exactly what the problem is, on what basis the actions were taken. If they cannot dig into their inboxes to find the relevant e-mails, tough cheese... Konstable's allegations are not so much serious as day-dreaming nonsense and I will show exactly why. And last but not least, this is not a court of law. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are in a soup, sexy boy. You don't look sexy at all! You look pathetic. I am reminded of Sir Nick's cabal charges about a mail published in ANI. Nick's alleged letter contained abuse against User:Cyde. What came of it? Don't act like a noobie. 18:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paraqueet (talk • contribs)

Rama, the problem is that emails can be forged, or be out of context. Without knowing what you are trying to present as evidence, no one can comment on it. I do not mean to say the emails are forged! It is just about credibility.

A: Here is the evidence to hang him, your Highness!

B: What's in that black box?

King: Hmm..., the evidence is compelling!

A: Indeed it is! It calls for immediate action.

B: What's in that black box?

A: You should know, you committed the crime!

B: And what evidence you have?

King: I have seen it!

--Scheibenzahl 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, please stop saying that it is not a court etc. If this is wikipedia, then how come offwiki emails between two people be of any relevance to it? One should always remember that blocks are preventive, not punitive![1][2][3]

Pending further clarification from the committee, e-mails should not be posted publically as evidence unless the sender and all recipients consent. For now, hold any e-mail evidence until we hear from the arbitrators as to whether they will consider it and if so, to what address is should be sent. Only the arbitrators can decide how much credibility to attach to any particular message. I would assume that if they accept submission of private emails, they will also give the parties an opportunity to respond (privately) so all parties should probably have wikipedia e-mail enabled for this case, if you don't already. Thatcher131 15:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)