| Revision as of 17:25, 22 April 2009 editEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →Tenmei to ArbCom clerks← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:42, 24 April 2009 edit undoEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →Tenmei to ArbCom clerks: Qui tacet consentitNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| ::] characterises my arguments as , which implies that he/she understands something more than nothing. In the same sentence, ] alleges that no one can understand my arguments, which implies that the label "vexatious" is a hollow complaint. This is a bit puzzling, but I guess I probably get the point ...? --] (]) 17:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC) | ::] characterises my arguments as , which implies that he/she understands something more than nothing. In the same sentence, ] alleges that no one can understand my arguments, which implies that the label "vexatious" is a hollow complaint. This is a bit puzzling, but I guess I probably get the point ...? --] (]) 17:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Complying with ArbCom expectations== | |||
| ] argues that my serial ArbCom contributions are not constructive and that they are unhelpful -- and . | |||
| If there are errors of procedure which I'm wrong to overlook, please identify how I can ameliorate these flaws in my ArbCom participation. | |||
| My strategy is to try to understand the points ] raises and then to address them ''seriatim.'' This is a massive task, given the manner in which "Evidence provided by Teeninvestor" was constructed. In my view, this task is made more difficult because of the way ]'s proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies are laid out. In the context ] contrives, I am guided by ] which I take to mean that the one who is silent is said to agree ('']''). | |||
| If there is arguable merit in ]'s comments and complaints, I fail to see it at this point; but at least I can take the prudent and timely step of seeking an opinion from someone who understands the process better than I do. --] (]) 20:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:42, 24 April 2009
Tenmei to ArbCom clerks
The following constructive comment was posted on my talk page:
- 21:59, 6 April Teeninvestor posted I find it strange that in your response, you did not respond to any of my diffs and resorted to complex, vextatious arguments that no one can understand. Also, keep in mind the limit is 1000 words...
I need more time to make my contribution shorter. We have been encouraged to please submit our evidence "within one week, if possible." This suggests that I may reasonably ask for more time. --Tenmei (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- The rough draft will be cut tomorrow. I plan to finish editing on Friday. --Tenmei (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Teeninvestor characterises my arguments as vexatious, which implies that he/she understands something more than nothing. In the same sentence, Teeninvestor alleges that no one can understand my arguments, which implies that the label "vexatious" is a hollow complaint. This is a bit puzzling, but I guess I probably get the point ...? --Tenmei (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Complying with ArbCom expectations
Teeninvestor argues that my serial ArbCom contributions are not constructive and that they are unhelpful -- diff and diff.
If there are errors of procedure which I'm wrong to overlook, please identify how I can ameliorate these flaws in my ArbCom participation.
My strategy is to try to understand the points Teeninvestor raises and then to address them seriatim. This is a massive task, given the manner in which "Evidence provided by Teeninvestor" was constructed. In my view, this task is made more difficult because of the way Teeninvestor's proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies are laid out. In the context Teeninvestor contrives, I am guided by WP:SILENCE which I take to mean that the one who is silent is said to agree (qui tacet consentit).
If there is arguable merit in Teeninvestor's comments and complaints, I fail to see it at this point; but at least I can take the prudent and timely step of seeking an opinion from someone who understands the process better than I do. --Tenmei (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)