This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dave souza (talk | contribs) at 18:04, 14 September 2010 (→Everyone his own playpen?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:04, 14 September 2010 by Dave souza (talk | contribs) (→Everyone his own playpen?: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)User talk:Tony Sidaway/Notices
Everyone his own playpen?
Everyone his own playpen? In my professional experience, arbitration is a process of deciding between competing views, and arbiters would expect to see those views laid out rather than being given a one-sided case and analysing it from scratch. Inevitably, people will feel that their case would not be assessed fully if it's unstated. Which is why the back-and-forward discussion happens, wherever it takes place. Your advice on the best way forwards will be appreciated, and indeed whether you might think another view of your conduct is appropriate besides that of a self-described courageous editor. Of course that one's been pretty well discussed in full view, but others may be more obscure. . dave souza, talk 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)