Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop
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.
Evoking the principles
@Callanecc: and @Robert McClenon: for avoiding future trouble, I believe that it would be now worth it to officially warn Nick to stop making extraordinary claims such as this without substantial evidence, he is carrying these accusations for over 14 days,[1] and never provides any diffs, contradictory to head note "Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all)". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware the evidence I had already supplied was insufficient, but I've added a large number of additional diffs as evidence, which I trust will satisfy all the parties, the clerks and the committee. Nick (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- You cite irrelevant discussions as warning 'prior' a block in question or people telling not to post on specific boards, though none ever said it. It gets even more worse when you add this diff as "disruptive behavior" even though it is someone else making the edit. Warning others about the BLP D/S is legit, especially when the user in question has recently violated the BLP. Nick, you should now keep this on the topic in place of throwing mass amount of irrelevant diffs when you are clearly misrepresenting each of them in wrong context. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- In fact it is "disruptive behavior" to notify me like this. You tried to make a WP:POINT at the same time there was an active discussion in matter more specific and you are not familiar with many Wikipedia polices and guidelines. You did not explain me further why you posted this and it looked like you were willing to post in my talk page every single ArbCom decision just to disrupt. After a short discussion I archived the page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- No it is not a disruptive behavior to notify you about the sanctions concerning the BLP violation that you had recently done and it lead to rev-del.[2] You actually attempted to tell that you were "aware" of those sanctions, however you couldn't tell how you were,[3] that alone speaks a lot. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- In fact it is "disruptive behavior" to notify me like this. You tried to make a WP:POINT at the same time there was an active discussion in matter more specific and you are not familiar with many Wikipedia polices and guidelines. You did not explain me further why you posted this and it looked like you were willing to post in my talk page every single ArbCom decision just to disrupt. After a short discussion I archived the page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- You cite irrelevant discussions as warning 'prior' a block in question or people telling not to post on specific boards, though none ever said it. It gets even more worse when you add this diff as "disruptive behavior" even though it is someone else making the edit. Warning others about the BLP D/S is legit, especially when the user in question has recently violated the BLP. Nick, you should now keep this on the topic in place of throwing mass amount of irrelevant diffs when you are clearly misrepresenting each of them in wrong context. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)