Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lightbreather (talk | contribs) at 17:02, 25 May 2015 (→Lightbreather's section: SOS.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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.

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 comment only in their own section.

Lightbreather's case

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.

 Roger Davies 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. Ca2james (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sectioned comments are enforced on this workshop talk page, not the workshop page proper. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 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. Ca2james (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather's section

Regarding the Case management 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? Lightbreather (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, I would again like to ask: Who is this editor 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. Lightbreather (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, AGK, and Roger Davies: I am very concerned about this section of the workshop area: Proposals by Mike V: Proposed findings of fact. Can you please chime-in ASAP? Should I also notify the WMF Community Advocacy people? Lightbreather (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Faceless Enemy's section

@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 WP:ASPERSIONS. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)