| Revision as of 22:13, 5 May 2009 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits comment | Revision as of 12:41, 6 May 2009 edit undoJayen466 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,622 edits actually ...Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| ]: | ]: | ||
| :''Jayen466 is topic banned from Scientology for |
:''Jayen466 is topic banned from Scientology for one month.'' | ||
| ::Currently at 1 support, 0 opposes, 0 abstains. | ::Currently at 1 support, 0 opposes, 0 abstains. | ||
Revision as of 12:41, 6 May 2009
Stacks of evidence
Rather than stray farther off topic the main body of this peer review, am posting here. Jayen466 has posted to the main page of this peer review, and has neglected to supply the full context of his quote or the disclosure that ought to accompany it. He quotes arbitrator Sam Blacketer in a current arbitration case. The full context is as follows:
- From careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee concludes that, since his request for adminship in September 2008, Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protects · deletions · moves · rights) does not appear to have deliberately violated policy and/or deliberately misused administrative tools. (proposed decision)
- Yes. There is stacks of evidence that Cirt does not like Scientology, but we already know that, and it's not the subject of this arbitration. There is no evidence of a significant problem in administrative tool use. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Subsequent to Sam Blacketer's vote, that text was changed to From careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee concludes that, since his request for adminship in September 2008, Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) does not appear to have
deliberately violated policy and/ordeliberately misused administrative tools.- Currently at 6 supports, 0 opposes, 1 abstain.
- Subsequent to Sam Blacketer's vote, that text was changed to From careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee concludes that, since his request for adminship in September 2008, Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) does not appear to have
- Yes. There is stacks of evidence that Cirt does not like Scientology, but we already know that, and it's not the subject of this arbitration. There is no evidence of a significant problem in administrative tool use. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Jayen466 himself is also a named party to that arbitration case. An outstanding finding regarding his participation is also relevant:
- Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has made many constructive edits in the Scientology topic though this has been offset by edit-warring apparently to advance an agenda, , , .(proposed decision)
- Currently at 1 supports, 0 opposes, 0 abstains.
- Jayen466 is topic banned from Scientology for one month.
- Currently at 1 support, 0 opposes, 0 abstains.
No remedy is proposed at this time regarding Cirt.
Self-disclosure: I am also a named party to the Scientology arbitration. This is purely procedural as the named party; I do not edit the topic. I have been Cirt's mentor for over a year.
In fairness, it would be more appropriate for Jayen to either supply the full and appropriate context or else withdraw his accusation from peer review. In a conflict that is already long and heated, it would reflect well on everyone to resolve something amicably rather than migrate the dispute to this new forum. I would gladly courtesy blank this post if we achieve a mutually agreeable resolution here. Durova 22:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)