This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 21:52, 11 October 2009 (header). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:52, 11 October 2009 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (header)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)|
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)
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)