Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) |
Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) →Scope of this Arbitration?: and on responding |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:More specifically, should the Evidence section cover only the period of time since EEML case? The both participants have been already scrutinized during this previous case. On the other hand, if I have to answer to allegations made by Vlad_fedorov in your AE request, I must go back in time. Same with many other allegations. And regardless to anything, I will say whatever is necessary to explain why I have been targeted by Russavia. [[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys|talk]]) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
:More specifically, should the Evidence section cover only the period of time since EEML case? The both participants have been already scrutinized during this previous case. On the other hand, if I have to answer to allegations made by Vlad_fedorov in your AE request, I must go back in time. Same with many other allegations. And regardless to anything, I will say whatever is necessary to explain why I have been targeted by Russavia. [[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys|talk]]) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Most important, can I respond only to something posted by others on Evidence page (so far nothing), because the number of different claims in AE request was enormous?[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys|talk]]) 04:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
::Most important, can I respond only to something posted by others on Evidence page (so far nothing), because the number of different claims in AE request was enormous?[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Biophys|talk]]) 04:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
I would suggest that the scope be limited to disruption in the EE area since the EEML case. Anything before that should have been brought up during EEML so any continuing disruption in the topic area would be the concern. As far as responding, please keep any response in your own section and brief, if possible limited to your interpretations of the diffs provided or possible diffs that contradict the assertion being made by the other person. Long explanations without diffs aren't terribly helpful. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 10:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:14, 7 April 2010
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: Amorymeltzer (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Hersfold (Talk) |
Scope of this Arbitration?
Can a clerk possibly find out exactly what the scope of this arbitration is? Is it dealing specifically with the AE report? Or anything and everything? Please advise, as I would not want to waste mine and the committees time with dragging up things from the way past. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 18:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- More specifically, should the Evidence section cover only the period of time since EEML case? The both participants have been already scrutinized during this previous case. On the other hand, if I have to answer to allegations made by Vlad_fedorov in your AE request, I must go back in time. Same with many other allegations. And regardless to anything, I will say whatever is necessary to explain why I have been targeted by Russavia. Biophys (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that the scope be limited to disruption in the EE area since the EEML case. Anything before that should have been brought up during EEML so any continuing disruption in the topic area would be the concern. As far as responding, please keep any response in your own section and brief, if possible limited to your interpretations of the diffs provided or possible diffs that contradict the assertion being made by the other person. Long explanations without diffs aren't terribly helpful. Shell babelfish 10:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)