| Revision as of 20:08, 1 January 2012 editPaoloNapolitano (talk | contribs)1,670 edits →Disproportionate relation between evidence and proposals against WillBeback: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:13, 2 January 2012 edit undoWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits →ArbCom deciding content: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| Several users have made proposals against WillBeback in multiple paragraphs, however, only one user, who has written one paragraph has presented evidence against WillBeback. ]] 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | Several users have made proposals against WillBeback in multiple paragraphs, however, only one user, who has written one paragraph has presented evidence against WillBeback. ]] 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == ArbCom deciding content == | |||
| I was surprised to see active, non-recused ArbCom members expressing their opinions on how the Ospina review should be summarized, and even more surprised to see Jayen466 make an edit to the TM article about it with the summary: "per comments at arbitration". One of the foundational principles of the ArbCom is that it resolves behavioral disputes, not content disputes. Article content should be discussed and agreed upon at article talk pages, with input from noticeboards as necessary. Arbitration pages are not the right place. I am going to revert the edit and invite all interested parties, including recused ArbCom members, to come to a consensus on the talk page over how to summarize the material. <b>] ] </b> 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:13, 2 January 2012
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. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Deadlines extensions
Per request from drafting arbitrator User:Roger Davies, the deadline for evidence submission is extended to 23:59 (UTC) 2 January 2012. Consequently the workshop deadline and proposed decision date are also extended to 9 January and 16 January respectively. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Disproportionate relation between evidence and proposals against WillBeback
Several users have made proposals against WillBeback in multiple paragraphs, however, only one user, who has written one paragraph has presented evidence against WillBeback. PaoloNapolitano 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom deciding content
I was surprised to see active, non-recused ArbCom members expressing their opinions on how the Ospina review should be summarized, and even more surprised to see Jayen466 make an edit to the TM article about it with the summary: "per comments at arbitration". One of the foundational principles of the ArbCom is that it resolves behavioral disputes, not content disputes. Article content should be discussed and agreed upon at article talk pages, with input from noticeboards as necessary. Arbitration pages are not the right place. I am going to revert the edit and invite all interested parties, including recused ArbCom members, to come to a consensus on the talk page over how to summarize the material. Will Beback talk 20:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)