QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:30am)
I don't send things to arbcom-l because in the past things I've sent there have been either ignored or returned with a message that the "moderator has rejected your posting". At least when I send something to a named arbitrator, and no response is forthcoming, I have a specific person I can hold accountable. Frankly, I think the main reason the ArbCom has long requested that emails be sent to arbcom-l is precisely so that unwanted communications can be plausibly denied. Getting a Wikipedian to accept accountability for his or her actions, or lack thereof, can be tough, but you have to start somewhere.
You could email arbcom-l and cc: an individual arbitrator.
I don't know much about list management practices in the past, but I would be surprised if there are any emails sent to arbcom-l in 2009 that have been "lost", intentionally or otherwise. We did have a very brief problem that caused a few ban appeal emails to be lost in the works, but the sender was also copying in individual arbitrators, so we forwarded them to the list.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:30am)
My discussions with NYB were in private IRC chat, and I had no expectation that he would share them with anyone else as he never indicated that he would. (NYB has never made a promise to me that he has failed to keep. That puts him heads and shoulders above most other Wikipedians.) Casliber, on the other hand, indicated that he would forward my comments to the appropriate forum. So your comments are at odds with his. Perhaps part of the problem is that I believe that the Casliber may believe that the ACPD is empowered to name additional members on its own authority, without consulting the ArbCom, and thus forwarded my self-nomination to them, while you seem to believe that the ArbCom is the sole party empowered to name additional members. In any case, it's obvious that you're not all on the same page. Perhaps you should figure out what it is that y'all are doing and get back to the rest of us.
I think that you should back up your assertions about what Casliber has said, or wait for him to comment before jumping to "obvious" conclusions. It could be simply that Casliber didn't get around to doing what he promised to do, or that I had already beat him to it, because I did it as soon as I saw your comment here about having problems getting your nomination through to the committee.
The committee have published the first round of members, and are proceeding with the second round (which includes consideration of every self-nomination we have received; I hope we haven't missed any) as if it will go ahead, but that is on the back-burner at the moment due to the RfC.
My understanding is that the committee expects the community will decide how the council membership is to be maintained after the second round of appointments.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 15th July 2009, 11:30am)
The only active "old dispute" I have with Wikipedia is your ongoing unwillingness to remove all references to me from your project space. I've requested this several times, but no action has been taken; I can't even get my old talk pages deleted. Perhaps you could show some good faith by executing this request (which I have made several times by several reasonable channels), instead of responding with some folderol about how I need to tag them with some unspecified tag that someone who has not been active in the site for three years would almost certainly not know.
You want
all references to yourself removed from project space, but also want to be a member of this council which resides in project space?
That makes me wonder if you are serious, as it would be very unorthodox for a person to have their past history in project side of Wikipedia wiped clean. That sai, I can understand that you may desire this as a prerequisite to involving yourself in the project side of Wikipedia again. If you do want this as a pre-requisite to being appointed, I think we can proceed with your nomination in round two, with the invitation not being official sent until you are happy with the outcome of the request to remove your name from the project namespace.
Requests like this have occasionally been sent to oversight-l, who then use a mix of oversight, ordinary deletion and page blanking to fulfill the request where they see fit. I suggest that you do the same as this request will likely require quite a bit of discussion between oversighters and yourself, and I expect there might need to be some compromise. For example, I recall that you participated in the most recent Arbcom election, and I doubt an oversighter would remove your name from there. If you have already sent requests about this using the typical channels, I am happy to look at the list archives if you will give me some indication on where I should be looking.