Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Evidence

Request for clarification from the committee

The problem of reposting of what some consider "personal information" still exists and affects the ability of parties to present their evidence. While there is some consensus among arbcomm members here that this information is public and acceptable, recent declarations from Tony and Ta bu shi da yu to block or seek desysopping for anyone "who continues to harass" Agapetos angel means those presenting evidence that Agapetos angel will likely take issue with are unable to present their evidence in full.

Would the arbcomm please address the issue of whether & how parties will be able to accurately and sufficiently present their cases before we present any evidence. FeloniousMonk 20:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's anything at all you are unsure about, you can email it to the private mailing list, or to an arbitrator, who will then forward it on. Please keep in mind, however, that this case is about a user's conduct. Dmcdevit·t 00:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, this case is about the conduct of several users, not just a user. agapetos_angel 07:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That wasn't the point of my comment, so I guess I was being imprecise in that regard. Dmcdevit·t 06:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I respectfully made the correction to ensure that your statement wasn't used as a tacit agreement to only examine my behaviour. Thanks agapetos_angel 07:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defence

As some items are being emailed only to ArbCom, it is impossible for me to offer a defence without them being likewise emailed to me. Jim62sch has made a very serious public allegation against me regarding illegal activity, and I request private examination of the so-called evidence that he is using to back this claim that he calls a statement of fact. I also request a public retration and apology when it is shown that this is yet another completely unfounded allegation. I've never done anything illegal, and I resent these constant character assignations. Thank you. agapetos_angel 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want these issues out in public, then so be it. We (FM and I) were e-mailing the other info due to the previous privacy concerns. You can't have it both ways. Either everything is out on the table, or we need to take the route we have taken. See FM's issue of sock- meat-puppetry re Dennis F. Recall the Google cached page that could not have been, in any way, the cached page based on Google's caching policies, and recall that the person whose name was inserted in place of yours never attended the school in question, does not know you, and could, if she wished, file charges for misrepresentation. You decide which way you wish to go with this. These are not unfounded accusations, they are fact. There will be no rtetraction, there will be no apology, as neither is required. Again, the decision on how to handle this is yours. Jim62sch 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a serious accusation about some supposed illegal activity that I was engaged in and state it is fact. I am requesting an email of this supposed proof so that I can properly defend your public accusation. Furthermore, I have no clue what you are talking about regarding 'the Google cached page that could not have been' and I have already stated that I do not know DF. agapetos_angel 05:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google cache is accessed by typing http://www.google.com/search?q=cache: before a URL. The 'cached page that could not have been' is the cache page that still exists. That conclusions were drawn and acted upon by others is not my fault. agapetos_angel 06:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contary to a comment made elsewhere, I do know how to use Google, and how the cache system works. The alleged cached file posted by DF was from January 25, 2005, an impossibility given that a number of people had googled your alias since that time. Additionally, the person mentioned in Dennis' cached file knew nothing of Agapetos angel or Bartow High School. I any case, the current cache is here: [1]. Just to be fair, noting that Google is not the only search engine, Yahoo's results are the same: [2]. Interestingly enough, the current page has had all of its data blanked.

Also, and this is weird, all reference to the name in question has been blanked: cache [3], current [4]

(ri) Jim, you made a mistake, and compounded it with another false accusation of illegal activity. Google forwards different users to different datacenters based on different variables. So the cache you view would be different than the cache others view if you access a different Google datacenter/IP. So 'the Google cached page that could not have been' is the cache other users who access one of the other datacenters might see (History of Google Datacenters). The information that was posted is evidently what DF saw, and then he drew seemingly incorrect conclusions. FM then acted on that information. As I had no part in any of that, it's a face-value false accusation, as well as your further mistake in accusing DF of altering data.

See About Google Datacenters for more information:

When you open a browser window and type in www.google.com you are going to Google just like everyone else, right? Well - yes and no. Yes you are going to Google BUT which Google are you going to? That is the question. When you type www.google.com into your browser window today, www.google.com redirects you, behind the scenes, to www.google.akadns.net. It is at this latter location that you are then routed to the Datacenter/IP Address that is both close to you in proximity (area of the Country) and experiencing lower traffic at that time. agapetos_angel 03:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see: WebRankInfo's Google Data Centers Tool which allows 17 separate Google datacenters to be viewed with one search. Searching the cache:URL produces the same information in each of the 17, identical to what DennisF reported. agapetos_angel 07:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Google cache dated 22 December 2005 shows the information was not the same as the February cache (but did match 25 Jan 2005). Google datacenter 64.233.179.104 (http://64.233.179.104/) is one of at least 20 datacenter locations now providing cache dated 22 December 2005. The January Google Dance was not instituted as Google was facing legal action regarding cache and copyright. The next Google Dance was February 2006, when the copyright issues were resolved, and by then information had already been changed according to the February cache. While the exact date of the change has not been determined, it is obvious that the timeframe is 22 Dec 2005 to Feb 2006, which coincides with the conflict. agapetos_angel 02:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question, I don't have a problem with forwarding the emailed evidence we've gotten to you so you can make a defense (as long as you also recognize that it's private), but you'll have to enable your email and send me off an email first. And I'll forward your response to the rest of the arbitrators, as I offered for FM above. Dmcdevit·t 19:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent copies of everything I submitted to the arbcomm to Agapetos angel; she has them already. FeloniousMonk 19:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, my email is enabled and has been since I joined. I did get a message the other day to verify it, which I thought strange after all these months (and after others like KimB and SV have emailed me). I tried to email you, but got the message page that you have chosen not to receive emails. I haven't receive anything from FM. I've closed my participation in this but would still like to see this supposed evidence. Thank you. agapetos_angel 14:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a recent change, and my email should have only been disabled for a bit until I confirmed it, as you had to. I'll email the info to you right now, in case you still haven't received it. Dmcdevit·t 09:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In turn, I should have the opportunity to respond to any rebuttal of the evidence I've provided made by Agapetos angel in private to the arbcomm. I'd appreciate any such responses being forwarded to me at the committee's convenience. FeloniousMonk 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query: should such rebuttals be forwarded to all parties or just the major ones? As a minor party, I'm fine with it either way. JoshuaZ 05:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished

I am not sure of the proper procedure but I am (hopefully) finished with my evidence. It should be complete enough to address the main issues with enough examples of the little issues that led up to this point. I apologize for the excessive wording, but it was necessary to provide context that simple diffs would not address. It is becoming apparent that every accusation I prove false breeds others that have to be addressed and they are progressively becoming more outrageous as time passes. Perhaps this will be stemed by this conclusion of my 'side'. I have to say that my time here so far has not been enjoyable overall, but I am hopeful for a postive outcome that will allow me to get back to editing without harassment. Thank you for this opportunity to be heard. agapetos_angel 06:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had one more falsehood to refute. Would it be appropriate to contact the other supposed 'sock/meat puppets' and ask them if they will offer evidence? agapetos_angel 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting tedious answering the continuing accusations. How is this process closed for review and vote? Is it automatic? agapetos_angel 04:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agapetos, there is what appears to be a typo in your Evidence. You have a link to joint_effect. I think you wanted it without the underscore. JoshuaZ 02:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll try to find and fix that. (didn't seem to make a difference either way, but I removed the underscore anyway) agapetos_angel 06:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about evidence presentation

My evidence section as it currently stands does not solely refer to difs. It refers to certain very short sections and also to certain relevant pages outside wikipedia. Is this acceptable? JoshuaZ 01:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agapetos seems to no longer be participating in the RfA

See here [5]. JoshuaZ 18:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section (above) indicated I was finished. Why was a new heading necessary? agapetos_angel 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed important enough a point to deserve its own section. Since you have edited this talk page, possibly you could clarify this comment. Are you participating in the RfA? JoshuaZ 01:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification. In this dif I gave above, it seemed like you were no longer in involved in the RfA. This is distinct from your comment in the above section that you were done with evidence. JoshuaZ 05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]