Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Hillman-comment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Statements supporting RfArs

Hillman: it is usual in evidence phases for outside parties to offer evidence and short commentary under new sections titled something like Statement by Hillman, and for other interested editors to offer vote-like summaries as to whether they think the statement is fair or not.

I'd say what you have written is too long for a regular statement. Why don't you move it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Evidence/Hillman, write a short summary of what you have written here and link to the longer version? --- Charles Stewart 03:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't I? Because that seems to conflict with the instructions at the top of the page.---CH 03:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

How so? What I describe is consistent with what I understand of the RfAr process, and has been done on many RfArs in the past. --- Charles Stewart 03:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Postscript: After glancing at some of the other RfArs I am familiar with, while sometimes the evidence phase distinguishes between parties to the RfAr and other editors, more often they do not. Otherwise what I wrote I believe is correct. The discussion of potential remedies is best summarised on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop. --- Charles Stewart 03:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Charles, I tried to find the discussion on the page you cited, but didn't see anything which was obviously relevant. It's not that I don't believe you (this is the first RfAr in which I have even participated to the extent of leaving a statement), just that I don't understand precisely what I am supposed to do. If you like, and if you think this would be appropriate, feel free to move my statement and to provide the appropriate template "frame". ---CH 03:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

I've moved the page and split it into statement and this talk page.

What I recommend that you do is write a brief summary of this evidence page, avoiding speculation about potential remedies and post it to the Evidence subpage, together with a link to this page. When arbitrators start talking about possible remedies, then summarise your view of remedies and post it to the Workshop subpage, probably linking again to this statement. The point is to avoid cluttering up these phases with discursive arcs as much as possible: arbitrators have a lot of stuff to digest and this kind of summary style helps with that. --- Charles Stewart 05:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)