| Revision as of 08:44, 7 May 2015 editDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators263,857 edits →top: sectioned discussion only please← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:31, 11 May 2015 edit undoRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits case managementNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| | image = ] | | 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> | | 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) | |||
| }} | }} | ||
Revision as of 11:31, 11 May 2015
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
 |
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 /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page 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 /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.