Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Arbitrators prepared to answer a few questions

sent to arbcom mailing list too...
I followed up the talk page notes with this message to the arbcom mailing list just now; G'day folks,

I dropped a note into to some of your talk pages recently entreating arb.s to try and engage the community 'on-wiki' - and explaining that I'd see that as hugely beneficial - I think there's a present need for better communication 'output' from the committee... This is just a short follow-up to that note.

It will take only 60 sec.s of your time to take a look here; Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee/Arbitrators_prepared_to_answer_a_few_questions

and sign up if possible. Participation by all stakeholders would be fantastic of course! (Jimbo, ex-arb.s - all of you who have much wiki experience and 'clue')

please consider heading over there and signing up, I think it would really help - at the very least it builds confidence that this communication channel actually gets through!

many thanks,

PM.

- the only difference being the link was a full URL (and I signed my name)... fingers crossed some will follow Kirill's example! I really hope so! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Format
Might it be possible to change the section structure such that each question has its own section, rather than each questioner? I think the current setup is going to get very confusing very quickly; and it would be helpful to have an obvious canonical numbering so that answers could be cross-referenced. Kirill (prof) 02:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, the questions cover three separate areas currently. I am happy to rearrange if there is consensus. Do we expect any more questions or have we covered most issues via the existing ones I think is the issue. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

How to tell when an arb comments
Can we have something like "Summary of statements so far:" that makes it easy to see when an arb has replied. The part that says who's willing to reply isn't very helpful. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The existing information is updated by hand. You are welcome to add a "last responded to" section, but unless you are monitoring it around the clock, it will become stale quickly.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you to the ArbCom members who have taken the time to share insight as to how the process works. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors who endorse this statement wish they'd said it first:
 * 1) davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

 * ;-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there some place that explalns what happened?
I've looked at a number of pages, and I keep seeing people explain or say that it's been explained, and other people say they don't understand. None of the pages made it clear to me. Is there a page with an explanation where people are generally satisified? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs)