| Revision as of 16:23, 19 March 2008 editShell Kinney (talk | contribs)33,094 edits move out of start of discussion | Revision as of 18:52, 19 March 2008 edit undoAbd (talk | contribs)14,259 edits please warn User:Fredrick day for edit warring and incivility.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| It should be noted that the nominator and a number of commentors here were involved parties in the Arbitration involving PHG, and thus an effort to remove this material, without guidance from ArbComm, could be considered <s>furtherance of a content dispute.</s> ]. I will list, here, involved parties in the Arbitration, for the convenience of the closer of this debate. The Arbitration was begun by: | It should be noted that the nominator and a number of commentors here were involved parties in the Arbitration involving PHG, and thus an effort to remove this material, without guidance from ArbComm, could be considered <s>furtherance of a content dispute.</s> ]. I will list, here, involved parties in the Arbitration, for the convenience of the closer of this debate. The Arbitration was begun by: | ||
| *{{userlinks|PHG}} | *{{userlinks|PHG}} | ||
| Line 12: | Line 11: | ||
| :: frankly I don't think it makes one Iota of difference to the discussion. --<span style="font-family: Mistral">]</span> 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC) | :: frankly I don't think it makes one Iota of difference to the discussion. --<span style="font-family: Mistral">]</span> 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::Really? Why then revert my replacement very brief comment referring to this here, with an uncivil summary? If it will have no effect, why take such risks to avoid its visibility?--] (]) 18:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Summary also taken out, without being placed in Talk. This is clear edit warring.== | |||
| :The nomination and some comments here are claimed by me to misrepresent the ArbComm decision, thus possibly prejudicing the situation. A header was placed here with information on that, it has been moved to Talk by editors on one side of this debate, please see Talk for this page, I assert that the information there is relevant to any review of this debate.--] (]) 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The above text is NPOV. Opinion is attributed. User:Fredrick day day reverted it out with the summary: | |||
| ::(so let it proceed then, your attempts to slur good faith editors by associate should cease or you should be blocked for disruption.) | |||
| I see nothing in what I wrote, shown above, that slurs any editor, nor does it impugn the good faith of any. This edit summary is uncivil and amounts to a personal attack. Would someone please warn ] and take this to ] if response is not satisfactory? I have to go pick up the kids and will be busy until late with them.--] (]) 18:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:52, 19 March 2008
It should be noted that the nominator and a number of commentors here were involved parties in the Arbitration involving PHG, and thus an effort to remove this material, without guidance from ArbComm, could be considered furtherance of a content dispute. COI. I will list, here, involved parties in the Arbitration, for the convenience of the closer of this debate. The Arbitration was begun by:
- PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Eupator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (added as initiating party)
Other editors presenting evidence in the Arbitration, appearing to be involved (that may not be an accurate judgment):
- User:Kafka Liz (nominator)
--I don't have time to complete this list here, I intend to come back later, or anyone else may do it.--Abd (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, based on a comment in my Talk from Shell, this information placed here is not intended to discourage in any way the participation by any editor who was involved in the arbitration. It is merely based on my opinion that the potential conflict of interest should be declared, because otherwise it may prejudice the appearance of the debate. Theoretically, it should have no effect, because only arguments count, but, in fact, we do place some weight, sometimes, on numbers of !votes.--Abd (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- frankly I don't think it makes one Iota of difference to the discussion. --Fredrick day 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Really? Why then revert my replacement very brief comment referring to this here, with an uncivil summary? If it will have no effect, why take such risks to avoid its visibility?--Abd (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Summary also taken out, without being placed in Talk. This is clear edit warring.
- The nomination and some comments here are claimed by me to misrepresent the ArbComm decision, thus possibly prejudicing the situation. A header was placed here with information on that, it has been moved to Talk by editors on one side of this debate, please see Talk for this page, I assert that the information there is relevant to any review of this debate.--Abd (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The above text is NPOV. Opinion is attributed. User:Fredrick day day reverted it out with the summary:
- (so let it proceed then, your attempts to slur good faith editors by associate should cease or you should be blocked for disruption.)
I see nothing in what I wrote, shown above, that slurs any editor, nor does it impugn the good faith of any. This edit summary is uncivil and amounts to a personal attack. Would someone please warn User:Fredrick day and take this to WP:AN/I if response is not satisfactory? I have to go pick up the kids and will be busy until late with them.--Abd (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)