Talk:2007 pet food recalls/Version1/Archive 2

message: >Begin modified statement<
>User:Johntex is attempting to re-word another user's comment in an effort to preserve the saliant points while removing any offense.<
Actually, it's mentioned twice in the timeline, and has been from the beginning as far as I can tell. I still haven't had time to read the JOG version, but it was because he might have omitted some salient fact like this in writing from scratch that I crosslinked. It didn't seem wise to accept his assertion that the crosslink was "useless". BTW, I'm aware that one wouldn't normally have an explicit content fork, but what happened here was quite abnormal and I justify the crosslink under WP:IAR.  The reviews of the resultant article are good, but I have concerns about his behavior as an administrator. Andyvphil 16:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to address my "behavior as an administrator," I have not used a single administrative action in this edit dispute (i.e. protection, deletion, or blocks).  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You did act as an administer in deleting a comment by me that questioned your possible motivations for creating a new article in a way that the previous article could not even be seen in the history.Jfwambaugh 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record I agree Jeffrey has not used or abused any administrative actions.  Please keep in mind that the statement above by Andyvphil is not an exact quote.  I may have miscommunicated Andyvphil's intent.  In any case, this is not the best venue for discusison of editors.  We should try to get back to discussing the content. Johntex\talk 17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what forum will I be able to honestly address the impossibility of what I have been asked to believe? Andyvphil 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:DR.  The first step is generally to try to talk it out in a productive mannar with the other user on their talk page. Johntex\talk 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:DR says "...or use the talk page associated with the article in question." The policy seems mainly directed at content disputes, which is not what is going on here. I did not, accuse JOG of abusing his powers as an admin. As an editor I think he disregarded the wiki process and offered a justification -- that he thought this story was still unaddressed in Wikipedia three weeks in -- that would be no less amazing for being true. WP:DR also says "Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary." If I think there's a prima facae case, when do I get to say so? I don't see any steps short of requesting Arbitration, but I'm supposed to take some such steps.... Puzzling.  Andyvphil 14:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, is ignoring 3RR a perogative of administrators? Andyvphil 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins are supposed to follow WP:3RR except in cases of clear-cut vandalism, or in certain other extremely sensitive situations - such as potential libel. Johntex\talk 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More discussion on the two versions