QUOTE(One @ Sat 16th May 2009, 3:39pm)
Anyhow, this thread has gone on too long. My only purpose was to emphasize that there was not a secret agreement based on non-public evidence. The vote happened in plain sight for the reasons expressed.
But the evidence regarding checkuser, oversight, and deletion use
still isn't in plain sight, and what we have is
your representation as an ArbCom member that there was no secret agreement.
QUOTE(One @ Sat 16th May 2009, 3:39pm)
Just like every other committee on earth, the resulting decisions aren't necessarily logically consistent;
You are a member of a court that gives kangaroos a bad name.
Now, if you had published, for example, a log of all pages Jayjg had made oversights or deletions on, and a log of all Wikipedia usernames he had checkusered (along with timestamps) -- both pieces of information that would contain nothing confidential -- there would be some
evidence on which to evaluate your claim. As it is, you have made another in a long line of unsubstantiated claims by Wikipedia potentates, aimed at convincing people that there's
"Nothing to see here, move along". It's all very insular, and no one but a cultist would buy it.
QUOTE(One @ Sat 16th May 2009, 3:39pm)
I have nothing else to say here.
No doubt. Like Slim, the conversation closes when the questions become uncomfortable.