Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Izehar

Re: Zocky's vote

What are you talking about? Would you care to clarify the lack of judgement (sic.) please? Are you referring to my opposition to Zodrac's proposition that Vilerage be banned (which you concurred with). I didn't know that assuming good faith in the absence of evidence was bad. From the moment Vilerage denies doing what he was accused of and there is no evidence to the contrary, I have no reason not to believe him. It doesn't seem like poor judgement to me. Izehar (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What absence of evidence? Go to http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/perp.html . 100% undeniable evidence there. No absence of evidence there. No possible reason to dispute it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's close to hearsay - no good, it means that I have to take Brandt's word for it. He's just saying he is (like you are) - he hasn't proved to us that he is. According to WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. He hasn't given any evidence; he just says he has evidence. Why doesn't he prove his claims? When he does, then I may support action against Vilerage. Until he does, WP:AGF applies. Izehar (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You jumped to the conclusion. I was referring to your idea that misspelling in quoting constitutes libel [1]. Zocky

It could constitute libel under English law. If a court were to hold that what he said would cause a reasonable person to believe the untrue negative statement, it could. I'm a law student, believe me. It all comes down the jury. I have to tell you though, IMO they'd probably dismiss it, but under strict legal theory it could constitute libel. Izehar (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about explaining your vote now. Izehar (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not going to change my vote. Let's just say that your actions in the Brandt case do not meet my admin criteria, ok? Zocky 13:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - as long as I know the real reason behind it (my disagreeing with you, how dare I?). Izehar (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence, please? What failure to deal gracefully with opposing opinions (sic)? I'm merely pointing out the flaws in the reasoning. I never said you weren't entitled to vote whatever you want – I was just answering some issues you addressed and I must add, failed to account for. Izehar (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems impossible to get the last word on one's own vote here without spelling stuff out in details:
- Your involvement on the Daniel Brandt talk page, including insinuations that something was libel when you had no basis to believe that it was anything but a typo, was not helpful to the writing of the encyclopedia.
- You seem emotionally attached to the result of this vote and contents of this page. That alone indicates the failure to understand that adminship is not a big deal and is enough reason to oppose you becoming an admin.
- As for the evidence of not taking opposing opinions gracefullly, I'm replying to you for the fifth time, and you are still challenging my vote. Not to mention that you just claimed that I'm voting oppose because you disagreed with me. Zocky 14:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was a fair comment under legal theory and if you had taken the time to check it, I said that it is either a spelling error or a false claim about me. I did not exclude the possibility that it was a typing error. Why are you misrepresenting me? I am emotionally attached to people's perception of me after your misleading comments about me. Also, I am not challenging your vote, I am challenging your motives behind your vote. I never asked you to change your vote, only to explain it (the explanation obviously would be commented on and after that, it is up to you whether you change it). Izehar (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be under the impression that RFA pages are intended for chatting about what we think of each other. I thought that I made it clear that the upper explanations is my final word on the matter. Zocky 14:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not under that impression. I just like our moves to be explained - you know, bring everything out into the open. Izehar (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]