| Revision as of 15:59, 19 July 2006 editFormeruser-82 (talk | contribs)15,744 edits →Jayjg's tortured evidence← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:00, 19 July 2006 edit undoFormeruser-82 (talk | contribs)15,744 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| :Perhaps because you and Kim are responsible for the entire mess. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | :Perhaps because you and Kim are responsible for the entire mess. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::That is the line you and Jay are certainly pushing. However, as we see from the fact that Jay had to alter his statement twice, it looks like you have to torture evidence in an attempt to argue that point |
::That is the line you and Jay are certainly pushing. However, as we see from the fact that Jay had to alter his statement twice, it looks like you have to torture evidence in an attempt to argue that point. ] 15:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:00, 19 July 2006
I will compile a full list of actions other than edits soon, after tomorrow 5 pm ET. -- Kim van der Linde 17:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I find it interesting that you have gone from being a supposedly neutral mediator, to being self-appointed prosecutor-in-chief. Your accusations -- and your debatable reading of the article-naming guidelines, and your other conduct -- will be dealt with in due course. 6SJ7 16:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I modified the above comment after seeing the complete chronology of the moves, which you apparently added recently. With that context, it will be very easy to explain what I did, but I am not sure how you will explain your accusatory behavior, in light of what you did (as shown in the chronology). 6SJ7 16:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is not a big surprize, as even as "neutral mediator" Kim took a very partial stance, joining evenytaly one side in this content-debate. Maybe it is her behaviour as "mediator" that has brought us where we are and a better mediator would have prevented what has transpired. Zeq 16:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Removal of threaded dialog
Please read the instructions at the top of the evidence page and follow them. The evidence page isn't for general discussion. Please feel free to use this talk page for that putpose. For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Consensus on moves
What is the standard for a disputed move? There was a reference somewhere to "approval voting", which suggests a majority is needed, rather than consensus? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- At least 60% when through WP:RM, see Misplaced Pages:Moving_guidelines_for_administrators#Determining_consensus. -- Kim van der Linde 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- See also Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority, which is also relevant. -- ChrisO 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- The 60% was missing when I first checked WP:RM in regard the move issue. It's back, now.
- See also Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority, which is also relevant. -- ChrisO 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg
This edit is curious. Jay had initially claimed that Kim and I had "started" numerous polls. Off the top of my head I don't recall starting any polls so I asked Jay on his talk page which polls I had started. His response was to add "or participated" (see the first link above). So now my crime is having merely participated in polls? Why does Jay not metion the dozens of others, including himself, who participated in these polls, why just Kim and myself? If I didn't start any polls why does Jay see the need to imply that I might have (started or participated) and somehow link me with Kim as if we are acting in cahoots. Jayjg's presentation of his evidence is tortured to say the least. Homey 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg's tortured evidence
This edit is curious. Jay had initially claimed that Kim and I had "started" numerous polls. Off the top of my head I don't recall starting any polls so I asked Jay on his talk page which polls I had started. His response was to add "or participated" (see the first link above). So now my crime is having merely participated in polls? Why does Jay not mention the dozens of others, including himself, who participated in these polls, why just Kim and myself? If I didn't start any polls why does Jay see the need to imply that I might have (started or participated) and somehow link me with Kim as if we are acting in cahoots. Jayjg's presentation of his evidence is tortured to say the least. Homey 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
An update, upon Jay's latest edit to his evidence I have now been cleared of the crime of "starting" polls, this crime now belongs to Kim alone. This is still a misrepresentation of the facts though as Kim is not the only person to have opened polls. A number of individuals opened polls "confusing" and otherwise, including User:Su-laine.yeo, User:Humus sapiens, User:Bill Levinson, User:Kendrick7 and none other than User:Jayjg yet only Kim is singled out for poll opening and the act of opening a poll is put forward as some sort of crime. Why is this? Why has Jay singled out Kim's opening of a poll to the exclusion of all the other polls, including his own?Homey 04:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps because you and Kim are responsible for the entire mess. SlimVirgin 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- That is the line you and Jay are certainly pushing. However, as we see from the fact that Jay had to alter his statement twice, it looks like you have to torture evidence in an attempt to argue that point. Homey 15:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)