Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

note

hi there. I left a note for anyone in Arbcomm, here at this page. feel free to write back if you wish. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed reply. These pages don't get much traffic and are not watched closely, but they should be. I've asked my fellow arbitrators and the clerks to keep an eye on these pages. The short answer here is that the page you left that note on is a closed case page, and the wrong place to ask that question. I see a similar question has been asked below (this page and WT:ARBCOM are both suitable for minor requests and questions). For a full and formal clarification, it is best to go to WP:ARCA (the clarifications and amendments page). I see someone has filed a clarification request there, and hopefully over the coming days I and other arbitrators will find time to look at that. Apologies again it took so long to find the right place. Carcharoth (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to have a "closed case page" template that directed people to the right place to ask questions? Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you. If you could suggest this at the clerks noticeboard (WT:AC/C), or point them here, that would be best. Clerks are generally responsible for that sort of thing, both doing it and assessing whether something like that is feasible. Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested. See WT:AC/C#Closed case template. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

hey, thanks for your replies on that. I understand. thanks. I also appreciate the actions you have taken on this, as you have described above. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Mandated Jerusalem discussion appears to be a bureaucratic morass

The issue here is the same one raised in the previous section, but I would like to try to explain what seems to have happened in a way that people who haven't followed the process can understand.

1. On 27 Dec 2012, ArbCom resolved that a community discussion should be held to determine a consensus on wording for the Jerusalem article.
2. On 12 Jan 2013, ArbCom named an editor to moderate the discussion, and three admins who would have the duty of closing the discussion at the appropriate time.
3. A discussion was begin at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion to decide on wording for an RfC.
4. Preliminaries and the first three steps have been completed and archived (at great length), the last of them on 5 March 2013.
5. Per the schedule at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Schedule, there are still four steps to go, three having indeterminate duration.
6. At that point, if it ever comes to pass, an actual RfC will commence.

This is absurd. Can the current ArbCom do anything about it?

(For what it's worth, I am totally uninvolved here. I wasn't even aware that this process existed until yesterday, and am trying to act as a neutral reporter.) Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Looie496, thank you so much for your input on this. by the way, for the record, my concern level is rising slightly, owing partly to the fact that not only have I not gotten any replies, but there also seems to be almost no activity at all, even on other topics, at several of the pages where I have posted some mild queries. that includes this arbcomm page, and also some others as well. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for posting here (see also my reply above). Steve, I can check your contributions history to see where else you left questions, but I think the reply above and this one will answer it. The right place to ask for clarification is WP:ARCA, so that is the best place to convene, providing all the people that need to be aware of this have been notified. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

hi there.sounds fine!! thanks for your reply. I have already done so. thanks!!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

for the record, here are the other talk pages where I left queries about this. this includes the personal talk pages for several members of Arbcomm, and others.

• User talk:SilkTork
• User talk:Roger Davies
• User talk:Kirill Lokshin
• User talk:Nyttend
• User talk:NuclearWarfare
• User talk:Hertz1888

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Premature closing of MathSci's Rfe against D.Lazard by Future Perfect at Sunrise?

Future Perfect at Sunrise has closed an RfE only minutes after my last comment.[1] I sincerely doubt that this is enough time for everyone to have had a chance to read what I said or even had time to consider it. My understanding of Wikipedia's process of dispute resolution is that editors should engage in a good faith attempt at resolving the dispute. But what are editors supposed to do when AE admins don't provide an opportunity to resolve such disputes? I'm at a loss at what I should do next. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)