| Revision as of 21:52, 11 October 2009 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits header← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:55, 11 October 2009 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits noteNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| Just added in all of my evidence. I could add more specific evidence when requested. --] (]) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | Just added in all of my evidence. I could add more specific evidence when requested. --] (]) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Material posted by rmcnew on evidence page far in excess of 1000 words == | |||
| This material was by the case clerk, copied here, and then by the drafting arbitrator (me) and archived at ]. The reason I did this was because it was overwhelming this talk page. ] (]) 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == You guys need to re-read the arbitration pages == | == You guys need to re-read the arbitration pages == | ||
Revision as of 21:55, 11 October 2009
|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: MBisanz (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Carcharoth (Talk) |
Note from Rmcnew
Just added in all of my evidence. I could add more specific evidence when requested. --Rmcnew (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Material posted by rmcnew on evidence page far in excess of 1000 words
This material was removed from the evidence page by the case clerk, copied here, and then further removed by the drafting arbitrator (me) and archived at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Evidence/Archive 1. The reason I did this was because it was overwhelming this talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You guys need to re-read the arbitration pages
Just a bit of advice to the involved parties. Your 'evidence' reads like a lecture and is very soft on evidence. None of you have provided the number one most important thing required for arbitrations and thats DIFFS. Long paragraphs about the other persons bias will get you nowhere if you don't have diffs proving disruption in specific circumstances. Seriously, read the arbitration pages that talk about what you should say and how to say it. Its even in the template.
{Write your assertion here} Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
For example: Saying 'his entire thesis screams original research' would qualify as an assertion, but it needs to be backed up with difs of specific edits which show this and possibly some words to put the diff into context. Saying 'Observe, he repeatedly attempts to' and then providing the Arbs with nothing to observe won't get you far. Diffs, Diffs, Diffs. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)