| Revision as of 17:02, 25 May 2015 editLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits →Lightbreather's section: SOS.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:50, 8 August 2020 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits blankingTag: Replaced |
| (101 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
__NOINDEX__ |
|
{{Casenav}} |
|
|
|
{{ombox |image=] |text= This page has been ]. }} |
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
| type = content |
|
|
| image = ] |
|
|
| text = <center><big>'''Comments on this page are to be sectioned, not threaded. With the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and <u>comment only in their own section</u>.</big></center> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ivmbox|<big>''']'''</big> |
|
|
|
|
|
Because of the unusual number of participants with i-bans in this case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that: |
|
|
|
|
|
1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the ]. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the ] to ''link'' to material on the /Evidence page. |
|
|
|
|
|
2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans. |
|
|
|
|
|
3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
4. Similar arrangements will apply to ] and the ].<p> |
|
|
] <sup>]</sup> 11:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ca2james' section == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious about how comments on the workshop page will work what with threaded discussion being prohibited. If an editor wishes to comment on a proposed item, does that editor create their own "Comment by editor" section somewhere or should they do something else? Thanks for the clarification. ] (]) 02:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sectioned comments are enforced on this workshop talk page, not the workshop page proper. Thanks, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 02:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I see now that I misinterpreted the notice regarding sectioned comments. My apologies, and thank you for your speedy reply and your patience. ] (]) 06:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Lightbreather's section == |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the ] notice on the workshop page. Item #4 says, ''Similar arrangements will apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.'' Does that apply to the i-ban suspension ''in addition to'' the separate talk-page sections? ] (]) 16:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I would again like to ask: Who is this editor {{u|Esquivalience}} who started editing November 1, started adding to the workshop area before the evidence phase was closed, , and proposed deleting an essay in my sandbox? |
|
|
|
|
|
I asked on the evidence talk page, and their answer, especially their style of editing it - and in my talk section - makes me anxious. ] (]) 16:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Doug Weller|AGK|Roger Davies}} I am very concerned about this section of the workshop area: ]. Can you please chime-in ASAP? Should I also notify the WMF Community Advocacy people? ] (]) 17:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Faceless Enemy's section == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{re|Lightbreather}} why not file a SPI if you have a strong suspicion of who it might be? If you have strong evidence of a distinctive editing style or something, then go ahead and present it. Otherwise this just feels like more ]. ] (]) 16:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
