| Revision as of 04:05, 29 April 2013 editSm8900 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers63,984 edits →Mandated Jerusalem discussion appears to be a bureaucratic morass← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:09, 4 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,789 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 20) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 20 | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Talk header}} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| hi there. I left a note for anyone in Arbcomm, ]. feel free to write back if you wish. --] (]) 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 ] are both suitable for minor requests and questions). For a full and formal clarification, it is best to go to ] (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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 21:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank-you. If you could suggest this at the clerks noticeboard (]), 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. ] (]) 22:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Suggested. See ]. Thanks, ] (]) 00:12, 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. | |||
| #On , ArbCom resolved that a community discussion should be held to determine a consensus on wording for the ] article. | |||
| #On , ArbCom named an editor to moderate the discussion, and three admins who would have the duty of closing the discussion at the appropriate time. | |||
| #A discussion was begin at ] to decide on wording for an RfC. | |||
| #Preliminaries and the first three steps have been completed and archived (at great length), the last of them on 5 March 2013. | |||
| #Per the schedule at ], there are still four steps to go, three having indeterminate duration. | |||
| #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.) ] (]) 18:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Egad == | ||
| ::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. --] (]) 19:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a clerk around ] (]) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (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 ], so that is the best place to convene, providing all the people that need to be aware of this have been notified. ] (]) 19:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ::::hi there.sounds fine!! thanks for your reply. I have already done so. thanks!!! --] (]) 04:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3#Misplaced Pages:ACCR}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:09, 4 January 2025
| Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Misplaced Pages. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.
This page is the central location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist. Please click here to file an arbitration case • Please click here for a guide to arbitration | Shortcuts |
| Arbitration talk page archives |
|---|
| WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
| Various archives (2004–2011) |
| Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
| WT:RFAR subpages |
| Archive of prior proceedings |
Egad
Is there a clerk around -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
"Misplaced Pages:ACCR" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Misplaced Pages:ACCR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3 § Misplaced Pages:ACCR until a consensus is reached. JJPMaster (she/they) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)