| Revision as of 10:27, 1 February 2012 editJoy (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators143,563 edits ←Created page with '==February 2012== Per Talk:Giorgio da Sebenico, you have already been notified how your actions violate the applicable policies, and I am filing a formal re...' | Revision as of 17:04, 1 February 2012 edit undoWGFinley (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,088 edits →Discretionary Sanctions: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Per ], you have already been notified how your actions violate the applicable policies, and I am filing a formal request regarding this ] violation at ]. --] (]) 10:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC) | Per ], you have already been notified how your actions violate the applicable policies, and I am filing a formal request regarding this ] violation at ]. --] (]) 10:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Discretionary Sanctions == | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="width: 100%; background: ivory;" | |||
| | ] | |||
| | | |||
| | The ] has permitted ] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at ]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the ]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], any expected ], or any ]. If you continue with the behavior on ], you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the ] section of the decision page. | |||
| Please familiarise yourself with the information page at ], with the appropriate sections of ], and with the case decision page.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} --> | |||
| |} | |||
| While there is no rule against ], editing anonymously in a disputed topic area such as this one will lead to allegations of ] against you whether well founded or not. I would suggest you may want to reconsider editing anonymously in this topic space. Also, your definition of consensus as reflected in is not accurate. Consensus ≠ unanimity. You may want to check out a section on the policy at ] as well as the essay on ] as continuing to make edits like that one could subject you to sanction. --] (]) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:04, 1 February 2012
February 2012
Per Talk:Giorgio da Sebenico, you have already been notified how your actions violate the applicable policies, and I am filing a formal request regarding this WP:ARBMAC violation at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Joy (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions
|
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Balkans. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Giorgio da Sebenico, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page. |
While there is no rule against editing anonymously, editing anonymously in a disputed topic area such as this one will lead to allegations of sockpuppetry against you whether well founded or not. I would suggest you may want to reconsider editing anonymously in this topic space. Also, your definition of consensus as reflected in this edit is not accurate. Consensus ≠ unanimity. You may want to check out a section on the policy at WP:TALKDONTREVERT as well as the essay on tendentious editing as continuing to make edits like that one could subject you to sanction. --WGFinley (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)