Content deleted Content added
Bdj (talk | contribs)
→‎[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Requests for comment]]: In practice the arbitrators are more flexible and the clerks often let a case molder for a week on the page before removing it as rejected
Line 623:
::::::::What's a reasonable alternate conclusion? It seems pretty obvious that if you believed the claims you make, that you would make an effort to resolve the issue. Instead, you're grousing here about how unjust things are. If you're dropping this because you don't know how to do an RFC and would like assistance, I'd be glad to answer any questions if it'll help. - [[User:Chairboy|C<small>HAIRBOY]]</small> ([[User_talk:Chairboy|☎]]) 13:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I know full well how to do an RfC and how RfCs go, that's why I didn't bother with it. If it's a formality people are going to want to see to accept the inevitable, I'll go through with it and then we'll be back at ArbCom in a couple weeks. --13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Since four arbitrators have already declined the case is rejected, unless my knowledge of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy|Arbitration policy]] fails me. You might as well get cracking. If you're serious about not delaying the nevitableinevitable, that is. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 13:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Your knowledge fails you, as usual. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
::: You could be right in this instance. I was relying on the following part of the policy: ''The Committee will reject a case if four or more arbitrators have already voted not to hear it, or if a reasonable period has passed without overall acceptance and it is unlikely to be accepted.'' In practice the arbitrators are more flexible and the clerks often let a case molder for a week on the page before removing it as rejected.
 
::: Still, since you don't want to delay the inevitable, you don't have to sit around until that happens. You can get going now, in fact. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 14:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)