| Revision as of 15:01, 10 February 2009 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 edits →Sockpuppetry accusation: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:01, 10 February 2009 edit undoPhilKnight (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators125,473 edits notificationNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ]. ] (]) 15:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | ]. ] (]) 15:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==] == | |||
| As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the ] has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad ], described ] and below. | |||
| *Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. | |||
| *The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. | |||
| *Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. | |||
| *Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently ]), or the Committee. | |||
| These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions. | |||
| Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary. | |||
| This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged ].] (]) 18:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:01, 10 February 2009
mike nicol
Award for turning the other cheek
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| To reply as calmly to attacks as you did above is already uncommon; but to then defend your attacker when she is attacked is a sign of a truly magnanimous character. — Sebastian 07:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
Sockpuppetry accusation
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Landed little marsdon. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
- The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)