Self-explanatory, RFC will be closed with immediate effect.

Users who endorse closing this RFC:

1. The first motion to close is confusing. If we close the RFC, it won't be open at all, whether 1, 2 or 3 months from when it goes live. Closing or suspending this RFC seems the best thing to do (see my rationale in the comments on the suspension proposal). -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Users who oppose closing this RFC:

1. The community has spoken. They want this to run. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse the suspension of this RFC

LessHeard vanU ( talk) 08:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply

1. This wasn't opened at the most opportune of times. Viridae ^Talk 08:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply

   Agreed Davewild ( talk) 08:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply

   but have a look at Neil's proposal

2. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 11:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
3. For reasons detailed in the comment below I propose that this RFC be suspended indefinitely and replaced by policy discussions. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Things done in haste often produce undesirable outcomes. — Animum ( talk) 16:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Let's give the arbcom a chance to explain themselves first. -- Duk 20:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing stopping them from adding views and statements to this RfC. -- Badger Drink ( talk) 00:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• It's been a day now, and the collective arbcom has not managed to extract its collective head from its collective anus and answer for themselves, so I'm striking my support for the motion to suspend. -- Duk 04:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Users who oppose the suspension of this RFC

1. I think that a proposal to suspend, particularly given this one's complete lack of timescale, is a bad idea, and would simply bury issues under the rug. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
2. Delaying discussion on this because "there's too much drama about ArbCom right now" is pointless, there is no sign that the drama about ArbCom is going to die down any time soon, and every sign they will continue to act in drama generating ways. ArbCom have been given every opportunity to self correct in it's past, and shows no sign of doing so. "Postpone until after the drama has died down" seems to me to be burying our heads in the sand in hopes it'll go away.-- Barberio ( talk) 12:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And Arbcomm needs some sunlight right now. -- Filll ( talk | wpc) 14:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Now that its started, best to let it run its course. Lawrence already made a great start on it before this current drama happened. Better to get it over with sooner rather than later, and well ahead of the next arb committee elections in the fall. Amerique ^dialectics 15:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
5. We need to discuss this sometime. It will be a complicated discussion--there is more than one issue. We might usefully start now, when there is a good deal of public attention, so we will have the benefits of a wide range of opinion. DGG ( talk) 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
6. I think this should continue despite all the drama it is causing. If using a secret debate through back doors without the knowledge of anyone involved should be addressed now while there are many editors aware of what is going on, well sort of. I believe things can now be started to address items and more can be added when and/or if more information becomes available. A lot of editors are concerned about all of this and like me not knowledgable about what the history of all this may have to do with it. -- CrohnieGal ^Talk 16:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Transparency folks endorsing, transparency is what we seek. If we suspend or close it means that we accept secret tribunals. I never will, and if secret tribunals become SOP, I'm outta here. (Yeah, yeah, I'm just another damned liberal :) •Jim62sch• ^dissera! 16:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose, strenously. JeanLatore ( talk) 17:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
9. Is there any well Tony Sidaway won't poison? Weighted Companion Cube ( are you still there?/ don't throw me in the fire) 17:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
10. Strongly oppose. The discussion has not even began in earnest. Nsk92 ( talk) 17:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose. Other Wikipedias (the Italian one) have outright removed/deleted their local Arbcoms, so the community can certainly impose any binding anything if there is consensus for it on any facet of the local project as long as it doesn't conflict with Office. rootology ( T) 18:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose, it is clear that there is concern about certain actions of the Arbcom (or elements thereof) & confusion about the rôle and responsibilities of the Arbcom, and this RfC provides an appropriate environment for such concerns to be aired, and for the community to work towards a consensus. DuncanHill ( talk) 18:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
13. Fiercely oppose Speaking as an observer of his behavior over a few years, I find it hard not to see this as part of a pattern in Tony's actions: he quickly terminates any discussion someone tries to start over an issue that (1) is critical about how thigns are done at Wikipedia, & (2) has a lot of angry people eager to add their opinions to it. Even if nothing comes of this discussion, this discussion is vital because it is allowing people to express their frustration. And, again speaking as an observer of Wikipedia in general for almost 6 years, Wikipedia is often a frustrating place to get useful work done in -- either in fixing policy, or simply trying to improve articles. For that reason, maybe the best act to take is not only to keep this RfC open indefinitely, but to grant to Bishzilla the extraordinary powers to incinerate anyone who proposes closing it. -- llywrch ( talk) 19:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
14. This issue needs to be resolved. Kelly ^hi! 20:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
15. This needs to be discussed before it gets any worse. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
16. There are significant issues that ought to be openly discussed and not shoved under the rug. I see the "yeas" and "nays" on this particular !vote are not along the "normal" partisan lines around here, which is probably a good thing; too much on Wikipedia these days has come down to people rallying with their friends and allies and against their enemies regardless of the merits of the particular position on the particular issue. *Dan T.* ( talk) 20:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
17. This is the best and most needed discussion I've seen on Wiki in a long time. And it's only just begun!-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 21:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
18. Now is as good a time as any for this. RMHED ( talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
19. See my above comment in re: waiting until the entire house is aflame before calling the fire department. -- Badger Drink ( talk) 00:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply
20. Discussion is overdue. Insufficient grounds to suspend. Keep going. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply
21. This discussion is seriously needed. -- Chetblong ( talk) 05:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply
22. No. There are some good proposals on the table, and if they gain support, incorporating them will be a huge plus. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply
23. No way. We're just getting started. — _Maggot ^Syn 10:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply
24. I oppose any kind of indefinite suspension, but more strongly advocate caution of action and procedure when it comes to the matters relating to this RfC. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 10:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply
25. There is never a bad time to make improvements to WP. Antelan ^talk 15:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply
26. It would have been better to wait a few days, so that we know whether to focus on "No Secret Trials" or "What Happens if an ArbCom Member Makes a Unilateral Announcement and Says It Represents the Whole Committee." But it's too late now, it's started, and good issues are being raised. -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply
27. Too much has happened at this point, and the discussion is well advanced, even if it is unfocused and overly broad. Any attempts to delay the discussion would almost certainly do more harm than good. Doc Tropics 20:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC) reply
28. — xDanielx ^T/ _C\ ^R 07:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
29. I oppose any sort of suspension or postponement of this RFC. All wikipedians need to be able to have faith in the Arbitration process even if it means starting over from scratch. Let the light shine without further delay. Albion moonlight ( talk) 09:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
30. No, this should absolutely not be closed. The ArbCom does not have the authority to make new policies/boards/whatever. They only have the authority to "hand down a binding decision when all other methods of dispute resolution have been exhausted". Lately, they have been far overstepping their bounds, and this RFC has a good chance of forcing them to obey the rules. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
31. In general, the value of terminating discussions on Wikipedia has been proven repeatedly to be close to nil. Splash - tk 12:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
32. Don't be silly, we're making good progress here. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 12:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
33. Closing / suspending this RFC will simply push potentially useful and constructive discussion to other, less-visible and less-frequented locations on Wikipedia. Neıl 龱 13:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
34. Bstone ( talk) 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
35. Utterly Oppose - I am seeing lots of good suggestions and ideas here. Nothing is served by silence. Low Sea ( talk) 20:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply
36. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Cenarium ^Talk 02:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
37. Perhaps not the perfect time to begin, but looking back over the past year, it is unclear that there would ever have been a perfect time to begin. The timeframe of collecting data for 3 months will allow much feedback not directly related to the recent 'incident' -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply
38. Bad idea. Stifle ( talk) 15:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC) reply