Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence

message: I will compile a full list of actions other than edits soon, after tomorrow 5 pm ET. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal of threaded dialog

message: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps because you and Kim are responsible for the entire mess. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think anyone who even glances at these arbitration pages can see what you and Kim are like. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think anyone who looks at how Jay's had to shift his "evidence" when challenged can come to the conclusion that his argument isn't very credible. First we have the argument that Humus didn't really mean it when he said there was "no consensus", now we Jay falsely claiming that I opened numerous polls when I opened none. Homey 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jayjg's evidence

message: I'm confused about what's happening here. I didn't put up evidence about Kim van der Linde's misuse of admin tools, because Fred proposed an amnesty, which I think is an excellent idea for a number of reasons, primarily because we all need to move on. However, people are now putting up fresh evidence against Jayjg in relation to other articles. If there are to be sanctions against anyone for policy violations, there must be sanctions against everyone who has done anything similar, and that means I need to put evidence up. However, I would very much prefer not to as I think enough damage has been done. Could Fred please say how he sees this working out so I know how best to proceed? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put up a proposed decision. Fred Bauder 02:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Fred. I notice that others are continuing to put up evidence and proposed principles, so it's getting somewhat confusing. I'm going to ignore what's happening on the workshop and evidence pages, in that case, and assume that the proposed-decision page is the only thing that matters. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amnesty