| Revision as of 06:30, 12 March 2011 editDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 edits + statement, will add diffs later← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:21, 17 August 2011 edit undoXeno (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators103,385 editsm unnecessary; included in transcluded templates |
| (208 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{RFARcasenav|case name=Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling|clerk1=NuclearWarfare|clerk2=X!|draft arb=Coren}} |
|
{{RFARcasenav|case name=Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling|clerk1=NuclearWarfare|clerk2=|draft arb=Coren|draft arb2=Roger Davies}} |
|
{{ArbComNav}} |
|
{{ArbComNav}} |
|
|
__NOINDEX__ |
|
{{notice|Create your own section to provide evidence in, and '''do not edit anyone else's section'''. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 ]. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.}} |
|
|
|
{{ombox |image=none |text= This page has been ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and '''do not edit in anybody else's section'''. Please limit your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 ]. Giving a short, concise presentation '''will be more effective'''; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a ], an editor's contributions, or a ] for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the ]. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect '''within your own section'''. Please do not try to refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move. |
|
|
|
|
|
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at ]. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at ]. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page. |
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by Dreadstar== |
|
|
===Unblock of Ludwigs2=== |
|
|
Again, I apologize to the Committee. I have zero admin experience of dealing with AE blocks, and didn't realize the full implications of it. Overall, I've only made a total of four unblocks in the past two years (including this one); the other three were unrelated to AE and were of blocks made by me where the blockee gave assurances of better behavior – so I have no history of unblock abuse. |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the Ludwigs unblock, I saw what appeared to be a hasty block that would increase drama, with several editors on both sides of the debate speaking out against it (and I believe no one in favor when I unblocked), so my aim was to reduce drama quickly. I apologize that my actions had the opposite effect. When I began to realize the implications of it being an AE block, I e-mailed the Committee to explain my actions. I was unsure how to proceed at that point: to reblock for the sake of process seemed wrong, so I waited to hear from Sandstein. When he came back online he filed the case immediately, so there was no opportunity to look for another way forward. |
|
|
|
|
|
It would be helpful to me and possibly others to clarify what conduct, in what venues, by which editors, regarding what issues, should fall under an AE restriction. I didn’t see this as being directly related to the Pseudoscience ArbCom case. Also of help would be verification that any block marked as AE be treated as AE, even if the association seems distant. |
|
|
|
|
|
But, once again, mea culpa here, and let me assure everyone that it definitely will not happen again. ] <small>]</small> 06:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
|
|
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|
|
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring. |
|
|
|
|
|
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|
|
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
|
|
''before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person'' |
|
|
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|
|
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring. |
|
|
|
|
|
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|
|
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks. |
|
