Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Is there any progress update on the proposed change to case naming? If there isn't any imminent change, then I would like to merge the proof of concept I discussed earlier into the {{ArbCase}} template. It would work as usual on existing case names, but also allow defined aliases to work. isaacl (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a January proceeding at AE that is now moot in the sense that my one-month topic ban from the Donald Trump article has ended, but it’s not moot in the sense that User:NeilN is presently relying on it to give me a broader and indefinite topic ban in response to a since-deleted comment at my user talk page. Can I or should I explicitly include that January AE proceeding in my request for Amendment of Neil’s sanction that is currently under way, or is such inclusion already implied? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Alex Shih, the arb who most recently wrote at this page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Doug Weller who wrote at this page next most recently. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These two arbitrators, User:Doug Weller and User:Alex Shih, have been actively editing, so I guess they just don’t feel like answering. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? This is kind of a silly question. Yes, obviously if you think something is pertinent to your request then you should link to it. Of course everyone has the best of intentions when it comes to background reading, but it's always helpful to have links centrally located. I gather you mean this, which you'd already linked in the first version of your statement, which predates this thread by three days. Am I missing something here? You posted four times here to ask if you should link a thing you already linked? I hope I'm confused because there's another link I'm missing? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Opabinia regalis, my inquiry above has been answered at the clarification and amendment page by User:Doug Weller who said “make the choice yourself”. Accordingly, I expanded the list of parties, and the decision affected, and the clauses to which an amendment is requested. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For The Signpost, I need to know something. The clerks noted that with 9 active, 5 Arbs is a majority for this case. The vote is now 8/0/0. Is there something holding up formal acceptance? Is there a clerk shortage as suggested in the comment? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's because the arbs are discussing potential case scope before opening.[1] bishzilla _ROARR!! superclerk to the rescue 18:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Agree with Bishzilla (which is always wise). There's a majority to accept a case but some of those accepts are for a narrow user-conduct examination with referral of wider issues to a wider audience, while other accepts are for a broader case that looks at whether there is a systemic conduct issue across the full range of related articles. Best to decide this before we go forward, but it's taking a while behind the scenes.

Hopefully this thread will encourage us all to speed up our bureaucratic pettifogging elevated discourse. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]