This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) at 15:07, 7 May 2009 (→Complying with ArbCom expectations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:07, 7 May 2009 by Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) (→Complying with ArbCom expectations)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- Note how no body else, even the very biased Mongol editors who wanted to delete the article, stopped raising the point but you did. Also look at your history of disputes. Learning something Tenmei? I was back from a 5 day wikibreak and your comments are all over the place. Geez.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)