Revision as of 11:44, 3 May 2006 edit Tearlach (talk \| contribs) 6,734 edits →Expertise of the users: conduct, not topic, is usually the issue ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:49, 10 June 2006 edit undo Midgley (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 7,015 edits m →Effective arguments: sp Next edit →
Line 47: It is mistaken to argue on the assumption that an RFC functions like a court of law. See [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering]]. Arguing about flaws in the Mediation and RFC process is usually a waste of time and will make editors, admins and eventually Arbitrators look dimly upon you. Take the time that you could spend arguing about the details of process and apply it to trying to gather useful evidence. The first to try to rules-lawyer the arbitration process invariably loses — because they wouldn't be rules-lawyering if they had a case, and ththe ~~esame~~same may be taken to be true of RFCs, with the addition that rules-lawyering an RFC tends to predict the progression of the case to ArbCom, and might reasonably be used as a cue to take it there rather than waiting for tardy responses to be completed. ==Discussion==

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/How to present a case: Difference between revisions