This Arbitration Committee has beenmentioned by a media organization: Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018)."The 15 People Who Keep Wikipedia's Editors From Killing Each Other".Wall Street Journal.

WT:ACArchives

Late 2003 – May 2005 May 2005 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2008 April–October 2008 October 2008 – April 2009 April 2009 – March 2010 March 2010 – February 2011 February 2011 – July 2011 July 2011 July 2011 – October 2011 October 2011 – late May 2012 late May 2012 – September 2012 September 2012 – February 2013 March 2013 – July 2013 July 2013 – November 2013 November 2013 – October 2014 October 2014 – November 2015 November 2015 – December 2016 January 2017 – January 2019 January 2019 – May 23, 2019 May 21, 2019 – January 2020 February 2020 – March 2021 March 2021 – June 2022 June 2022 – July 2023 August 2023 – November 2024 November 2024 – present

I'll probably be taking a few weeks off from formal Arbitration Committee work for my other main enjoyment on wiki -- helping other editors and admins on a piecemeal basis with "whatever comes along", and content work, project space work and cleanup fitted around that.

I probably won't be able to get away for this during January - March (first 3 months of 2009 committee) so if it looks quiet-ish during late October - December, I might try to do so then. Not a big deal, figured I'd mention in plenty of time.FT2 ^{(Talk | email)}10:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify... later in the year, and for enjoyment and balance, not stress.FT2 ^{(Talk | email)}06:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that there is another upcoming election cycle, I would like to formally announce my resignation from the Arbitration Committee, effective immediately.

The Uninvited Co.,Inc.15:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Committee work, The Uninvited Co. As I told you privately, I think of your past comments often as I consider proposals in case rulings.FloNight♥♥♥18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so do I. Not perhaps "think" in quite the same sense.Bishonen |talk12:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your work, UC.Caulde18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts with the Committee.Cla68 (talk)06:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not about to revert a clerk on an arbcom page, not even on a stylistic nicety.[1] However, what's the point of bluelinking ex-arbs who don't have userpages. It just creates the false impression that there's a page there to click on. If redlinks are thought undesirable (and why?) can I suggest de-linking, rather than giving a false positive for a link.--Scott MacDonald (talk)18:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, upon reflecting on this again, I concur with you; I've reverted myself. Occasionally, in my constant striving for appearance perfection, I go a bit overboard. :-)
  Regarding simply removing the red links and having no link whatsoever, that's a good solution, actually, although for now I'm simply leaving the page as it was before.
  Regards,18:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the community itself (whose operations are always public and transparent), ArbCom is the principal organ that has power over editors. I believe therefore that we need to change this policy so that all ArbCom proceedings are public and transparent. I realize that this would also mean limiting ArbCom to its principal mission, the last resort for resolving disputes among editors who in the course of working on articles violate personal behavior policies.

I realize that there are some cases, principally concerning abuses of power by ArbCom and people delegated to use checkuser, that raise confidentiality issues and require privacy. In the discussion of a curent case brought to ArbCom by Thatcher, Mackensen wrote thatit should never have been made public in the first place. I think we need a clearer barrier between these different kinds of cases. Therefore, I propose creating a separate committee to deal specifically with these cases.

Since ArbCom already complains of being overburdened, I imagine its members would welcome this.

I hav eno specific proposals about who the new committee would be constituted or function. Obviously its mission would need to be very dlearly defined, and limited. And there would need to be some mechanism for appeal. But I would invite others to make specific proposals.Slrubenstein |Talk20:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be inactive on RFAR for November and possibly part of December, to spend a month or so on mainspace, project work and admin work generally. I'll also be completely leaving all CU work (except quick or serious cases) to other checkusers now we have them, as well as working in the background on some long term matters relevant to ongoing problems we're familiar with. If a seriously problematic RFAR case wanders by I might be active on that one, but we'll see - that's a possibility any time of the year. For the record, this is much more in the nature of a well deserved vacation following a year's arb-ing, than any kind of tiredness. Unless said otherwise, I'm inactive on RFAR cases probably till around the end of November or Arbcom elections.FT2 ^{(Talk | email)}08:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be resigning from ArbCom effective the end of the current term. Three years is too long (for me, anyway.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆16:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Noindexed pages
• Wikipedia pages referenced by the press