This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 31 January 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 03:56, 31 January 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
← Back to Arbitration report
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Not sure how happy it is, or how arb-staleness is measured, but I have noticed that anything with a discretionary sanctions component seems to be getting kicked down the road these days. —Neotarf (talk) 07:21, 17 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. AGK 21:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- 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)