Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Sgerbic questions: Reply |
→Sgerbic questions: Reply |
||
Line 75:
:Sorry about the edit conflict Barkeep - So can you please explain if I'm responding to everything during the evidence phase? Or do I wait till the non-evidence (whatever criteria that is) is removed? Otherwise this is going to become quite tedious and me generally saying, "that's not how it happened and here is the context of the issue" and that will get even longer. I've tried to explain our training procedure on one of these giant lists of text on one of these admin groups - I believe it is also listed on the Sgerbic user page. I may present evidence of the pages that I have written, but I can't out my team, so it is up to them if they want to do so. But I expect it will be done privately as we mainly edit in main space and rarely deal with admin areas, thus avoiding drama. Already with all these comments my percentage of edits to main space is dropping. I have a page sitting here on my desktop that badly needs a rewrite, but I have lost all appetite for getting work done. [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 21:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
::You should not feel a need to respond to every piece of evidence. A couple of strategies are you can respond to representative examples or group by a theme and respond to those themes. If something would be apparently baseless you can also trust that the arbs will see that. If you feel like you've explained certain things, like training, it is worthwhile to link to that diff. Beyond that I'd encourage you to take a (re-)look at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Open_cases]] and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Evidence_and_argumentation]] which have advice for you on topics we've been discussing. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
| |||