This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ferahgo the Assassin (talk | contribs) at 14:53, 1 November 2021 (→Requesting feedback from CaptainEek and Barkeep49: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:53, 1 November 2021 by Ferahgo the Assassin (talk | contribs) (→Requesting feedback from CaptainEek and Barkeep49: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Use this page to discuss information on the page (and subpages) attached to this one. This includes limited discussion of the Arbitration Committee itself, as a body. Some things belong on other pages:
| Shortcuts |
This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
---|
Open proceedings |
Active sanctions |
Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
Track related changes |
Requesting feedback from CaptainEek and Barkeep49
In DGG's recently closed amendment request, CaptainEek and Barkeep49 both said that they were going to look into the issue of editors misrepresenting sources (and the persistent inability of talk pages and noticeboards to resolve that issue), and have a discussion about how it could be addressed. However, the amendment request was closed by the clerks before that discussion could happen.
Could either of you please clarify the status of that planned discussion, and how you think this issue ought to be addressed? As I said in my last comment there, if someone is going to request another amendment or a full case, I think first there needs to be more clarity about what Arbcom considers to be within their remit in this respect, and which case (Fringe science or Race and intelligence) it should be filed under. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Category: