| Revision as of 19:02, 19 February 2007 editBenBurch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,364 edits Wow if I had known the mess this would make...← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:16, 19 February 2007 edit undoChris Chittleborough (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,016 edits Calling Dean Hinnen a neo-Nazi ''is'' improper. I've asked JzG to consider an apology.Next edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| *There's no rule against interested editors chiming in with their view of the evidence and preferred outcomes. I don't see Guy taking a side, but if he is, that isn't improper. ] 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | *There's no rule against interested editors chiming in with their view of the evidence and preferred outcomes. I don't see Guy taking a side, but if he is, that isn't improper. ] 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **Calling Dean Hinnen a neo-Nazi ''is'' improper. I've asked JzG to consider an apology. ]<small>]</small> 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == The parties are not to tamper with each other's presentations == | == The parties are not to tamper with each other's presentations == | ||
Revision as of 19:16, 19 February 2007
The opposing parties don't need to lift a finger. JzG is prosecuting their case for them. Dino 00:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- There's no rule against interested editors chiming in with their view of the evidence and preferred outcomes. I don't see Guy taking a side, but if he is, that isn't improper. TheronJ 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Calling Dean Hinnen a neo-Nazi is improper. I've asked JzG to consider an apology. CWC(talk) 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The parties are not to tamper with each other's presentations
The parties are advised that it is not appropriate for a party to the case (or anyone else) to remove or tamper with the evidence, workshop proposals, or other submissions of another party. Please do not do so. In the event of a problem with another party's submission, please respond in your own section, or if necessary, ask a Clerk for assistance.
It is also suggested that jumping directly into the Workshop format may not be of maximum assistance to the arbitrators and that Workshop proposals must be supported by links/diffs or citations to the opening statements or Evidence page to be especially useful. Newyorkbrad 01:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I left them both messages about that (before I saw this), but they seem to want to do this part first. I did recommend to BenBurch the evidence page, perhaps he will contribute there. I will likely provide little or no evidence, since I am not really involved, other then that I filed the request. I will let them provide the evidence against each other for me. Prodego 02:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone directly to /Workshop myself, in cases where I was participating, but they were much more straightforward cases where many of the facts were undisputed and it was reasonable to give a diff or two right in the proposed findings where needed. In my mind, this case won't write easily in that format. Of course ultimately it's the parties' and participating editors' call. Newyorkbrad 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Brad, I would respectfully recommend reading the Evidence page first with all of its diffs, then the Workshop page. My Evidence page section bristles like a porcupine with diffs, and I plan to add more in the next couple of days. If either one (or both) of my initial motions happen to be denied, I'll have to expand and add a lot more diffs to the Evidence page. Tbeatty has also produced an Evidence page section that bristles with diffs.
- Opposing parties' efforts are noteworthy in that they haven't devoted much time or effort to collecting such evidence, choosing instead to devote most of their energies to posting ridicule, combative arguments and proposals on the Workshop page. (Or perhaps there isn't much evidence for them to collect ...) Dino 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone directly to /Workshop myself, in cases where I was participating, but they were much more straightforward cases where many of the facts were undisputed and it was reasonable to give a diff or two right in the proposed findings where needed. In my mind, this case won't write easily in that format. Of course ultimately it's the parties' and participating editors' call. Newyorkbrad 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Fensteren?
Where should this User:Fensteren info go? Ani Link Lots more on unblock L too. Thanks - FAAFA 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
He is clearly a sock puppet of User:DeanHinnen Isn't he? At least I intend to so argue. --BenBurch 04:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The RFCU said that he isn't. But make your argument, sir. Then I'll make mine. Dino 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow if I had known the mess this would make...
...I would never have bothered filing any of those RFCUs. --BenBurch 19:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)