Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-05-13/Arbitration report: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Neotarf (talk | contribs)
as far as I know, this is still on the table
r
Line 3: Line 3:
* Under "other actions", the last item links to a clarification request that ended in ''March'' – two months ago. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
* Under "other actions", the last item links to a clarification request that ended in ''March'' – two months ago. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
**The notifications in March, for instance [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish&diff=543026854&oldid=542645472 here], said "The request is archived; however, an arbitrator is planning on offering an arbitrator motion 'very shortly'", but as far as I know, this has not been done. —[[User:Neotarf|Neotarf]] ([[User talk:Neotarf|talk]]) 16:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
**The notifications in March, for instance [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMcCandlish&diff=543026854&oldid=542645472 here], said "The request is archived; however, an arbitrator is planning on offering an arbitrator motion 'very shortly'", but as far as I know, this has not been done. —[[User:Neotarf|Neotarf]] ([[User talk:Neotarf|talk]]) 16:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
***By a happy coincidence, the follow-up to that clarification request was scheduled some time ago to take place this week. However, the original clarification surely does not belong in this week's arbitration report, given how stale it now is. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 21:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:48, 16 May 2013

Discuss this story

  • Under "other actions", the last item links to a clarification request that ended in March – two months ago. AGK [•] 15:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notifications in March, for instance here, said "The request is archived; however, an arbitrator is planning on offering an arbitrator motion 'very shortly'", but as far as I know, this has not been done. —Neotarf (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • By a happy coincidence, the follow-up to that clarification request was scheduled some time ago to take place this week. However, the original clarification surely does not belong in this week's arbitration report, given how stale it now is. AGK [•] 21:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]