Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Electoral Commission: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Nominations period: Comment |
→Nominations period: +cmt |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::Who gives you the authority to do this unilaterally!!! Power hungry Arbitrator thinks he can do whatever he wants! This should have gone to an RFC! I demand an ArbCom case! I demand you resign! <small>(thanks GR, thanks Brad, that error was introduced [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2016/Electoral_Commission&diff=next&oldid=743070956 by some moron] last year and no one caught it then.)</small> --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 16:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC) |
::Who gives you the authority to do this unilaterally!!! Power hungry Arbitrator thinks he can do whatever he wants! This should have gone to an RFC! I demand an ArbCom case! I demand you resign! <small>(thanks GR, thanks Brad, that error was introduced [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2016/Electoral_Commission&diff=next&oldid=743070956 by some moron] last year and no one caught it then.)</small> --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 16:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::It looks like the early money is on "Example 1." [[User:Neutron|Neutron]] ([[User talk:Neutron|talk]]) 19:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC) |
:::It looks like the early money is on "Example 1." [[User:Neutron|Neutron]] ([[User talk:Neutron|talk]]) 19:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::I have the utmost faith in {{noping|Example 1}}. Shouldn't we have a watchlist notice or something? [[User:Alex Shih|Alex Shih]][[User_talk:Alex Shih|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 01:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:12, 10 October 2017
Nominations period
This page says nominations are open for seven days, but the period they are open for as up to eight days. Which is right? GoldenRing (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Let's leave the dates alone since changing them would affect the rest of the schedule. I've made the correction to reflect that it's actually an 8-day period. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Who gives you the authority to do this unilaterally!!! Power hungry Arbitrator thinks he can do whatever he wants! This should have gone to an RFC! I demand an ArbCom case! I demand you resign! (thanks GR, thanks Brad, that error was introduced by some moron last year and no one caught it then.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- It looks like the early money is on "Example 1." Neutron (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have the utmost faith in Example 1. Shouldn't we have a watchlist notice or something? Alex ShihTalk 01:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- It looks like the early money is on "Example 1." Neutron (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Who gives you the authority to do this unilaterally!!! Power hungry Arbitrator thinks he can do whatever he wants! This should have gone to an RFC! I demand an ArbCom case! I demand you resign! (thanks GR, thanks Brad, that error was introduced by some moron last year and no one caught it then.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)