" 

  Sincerely, thank you for your responses here AGK; they have been quite insightful. And yes, I did chew your arse out, but not because  you think I am thinking you are ""defending homophobia""; but because you came to my talk page and threatened me with an indef block over a comment which you weren't sure what attacking Fae; yet those editors who you know were acting in a homophobic way towards Fae, I can see no such warning towards those editors. So for some reason I wasn't afforded the same courtesies as others. Anyway, as we said moving on, I've accepted your apology, and we continue to discuss this. 

 On your talk page I also took you to task for what I, and many others, see as inappropriate interactions on wikipediaforum.com. You acknowledge two things in your reply, that I would like to continue to discuss here initially. 

 You mention that it's probably best that you stay away from sites operated by and which have participation in by people such as Eric Barbour. I couldn't agree more. Roles of editors who are Arbcom members are responsible to the community; not to people as Eric Barbour, who is not a member of the community, and not without good reason; and certainly not to Wikipediareview or Wikipediaforum. You stated that Wikipediaforum.com is more of a serious attempt at a WR. I disagree. For example, in that thread that you participated in, Eric states clearly that there is a ""private"" Wiki in which details on numerous editors are being collated; likely for use in future. This is not very transparent of them. 

 The second point is the most important point. Critique sites, in some opinions, may serve a purpose. But they should not be given information when detailed information on a case is not provided onwiki. Such as this case. Additionally, onwiki is the place to critique anything to do with the community, such as what I have done in the past, and am doing right now, because to do otherwise is playing into agendas that others may have with this community. 

 You noted above that you voted to ban Delicious Carbuncle. I can only see one place on WP where any such vote took place, and that was at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Block_request  note, that from that section to the very bottom of the page deals with Delicious Carbuncle; first where he tried to have me blocked for bringing in  the much supported view that he was harassing Fae  compare this to DC's summary that was supported by only a single person! Having gone thru this entire discussion I can't see your comments, nor vote, there. So this leads me to assume that discussion occurred on the Arbcom mailing list; because again, I can see no discussion anywhere onwiki by the Committee. 

 Just yesterday, I saw that the WMF has passed a resolution on transparency; it got me thinking, perhaps our community, and especially the Arbitration Committee, should have requirements for transparency on this project. But it already does have such procedures in place as per Wikipedia:AC/P#Committee_resolutions, which require that resolutions and their results be posted to the Arbcom noticeboard. In this instance, it has not occurred, and because there is no privacy concerns in relation to this case (banning of Delicious Carbuncle), so it is in itself a breach of the internal policies and procedures of the Committee; and even moreso when Fae was never notified of the outcome of discussions and votes. 

 In the interest of transparency, and keeping inline with these policies and procedures, I requesting that the Committee published as required, the resolution/s as it/they was/were discussed and was voted on, to the Arbcom noticeboard, and also in the interest of transparency for the following Arbcom members indicate whether they supported the banning of Delicious Carbuncle from the community for what many community members felt was harassment of Fae. 

 :#  Voted to ban 
 :#  ? 
 :#  ? 
 :#  ? 
 :#  ? 
 :#  ? 
 :#  ? 
 :#  ? 
 :#  ? 
 :#  ? 
 :#  ?  
 :#  ? 
 :#  ? 
 :#  ? 
 :#  ? 

 Only with the publishing of these resolution/s and their resultant vote/s can we even begin to say that the Committee is acting in accordance with requirements for transparency to the Community. And it is something that I, and undoubtedly othe