Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-05-07/Arbitration report

Slight crossed wires here, I think, as my quote seems to have become attached to the wrong thought ...

The new FOFS are in response to new evidence presented over the last week/ten days.

The overall delay in voting is probably caused by the need for arbitrators to get fully up to speed on a complex case with a three year time span etc.

I hope this helps,  Roger Davies  talk 17:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Roger, just read over it again, honestly not sure what you see is backwards. You are completely free to edit the article itself to shift around the quotes. I'm not clear what you think it out of place. Apologies. Lord Roem (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I had hoped that the case would clear the air, and we could go back to editing. It seems that I was overly optimistic.  Currently the proposed decisions are more extreme than even the plaintiff asked for, despite the cause of the case being shown false on day one.  I am however extremely heartened by the support on the talk page of a number of colleagues including some critics and editors who I am meeting for the first time.  I will be posting a summary of the case on my user page in due course. Rich Farmbrough, 17:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC).