Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
...and no one came?
It looks as if I may owe the Committee a deep apology for pressing so hard for this to be opened. At this point, the presentation of evidence is, I think, pretty much in the hands of The Rambling Man, who is the actual claimant in this issue. I don't know if TRM is planning on participating or not (his views about the Committee are well known not to be favorable) and I don't feel that I can ask him, as we don't get along all that well.
I do hope that someone comes forward to present evidence, one way or the other. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Which I believe were in part related to this throwaway comment I made on someone else's talkpage. FWIW I was not talking about facebook or other similar 'social' websites. If arbcom want clarification let me know - but it was not as straightforward as OR's comment appeared to imply. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I've trimmed my evidence to some number of words. If I've exceeded the limit, please grant me more words. Legacypac ( talk) 00:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The evidence submitted by DocumentError was submitted after the deadline for submission of evidence. For this reason (and only this reason), it should not be considered. Mjroots ( talk) 16:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@
Purplebackpack89 and
Swarm: The evidence phase was closed at
16:31, 14 September 2017. A minor extension of 8 hours was granted to an editor who submitted a last minute request statement and then the page was closed. Your submissions on 17 September 2017 were too far from the deadline for an extension and were removed. However, if you are still interested in the case, we would encourage you (and all other interested editors) to participate in the workshop phase of the case.
Mkdw
talk 16:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Please repost Swarm's statement. He made an important point not brought into evidence by any other editor. Legacypac ( talk) 02:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
...and no one came?
It looks as if I may owe the Committee a deep apology for pressing so hard for this to be opened. At this point, the presentation of evidence is, I think, pretty much in the hands of The Rambling Man, who is the actual claimant in this issue. I don't know if TRM is planning on participating or not (his views about the Committee are well known not to be favorable) and I don't feel that I can ask him, as we don't get along all that well.
I do hope that someone comes forward to present evidence, one way or the other. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 13:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Which I believe were in part related to this throwaway comment I made on someone else's talkpage. FWIW I was not talking about facebook or other similar 'social' websites. If arbcom want clarification let me know - but it was not as straightforward as OR's comment appeared to imply. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I've trimmed my evidence to some number of words. If I've exceeded the limit, please grant me more words. Legacypac ( talk) 00:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The evidence submitted by DocumentError was submitted after the deadline for submission of evidence. For this reason (and only this reason), it should not be considered. Mjroots ( talk) 16:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@
Purplebackpack89 and
Swarm: The evidence phase was closed at
16:31, 14 September 2017. A minor extension of 8 hours was granted to an editor who submitted a last minute request statement and then the page was closed. Your submissions on 17 September 2017 were too far from the deadline for an extension and were removed. However, if you are still interested in the case, we would encourage you (and all other interested editors) to participate in the workshop phase of the case.
Mkdw
talk 16:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Please repost Swarm's statement. He made an important point not brought into evidence by any other editor. Legacypac ( talk) 02:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)