• Was it really necessary for the invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates to completely replace the reports about ongoing arbitration cases? Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't say it replaced the reports, that would mean the reports were there in the first place. I think understaffing may be a concern here. –xeno^talk 12:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely certain what this graph is intended to represent. I note, also, that it appears to only include pages of current cases, and does not include amendment requests, clarification requests, noticeboards, talk pages of noticeboards or other committee-related pages, anything to do with the AUSC, any other committee-related subpages (including the current CU/OS candidate pages). If that could be added in, it might give a picture that is a bit more realistic for people who are attempting to assess the amount of discussion related to the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits graph is for all arbcom activity (Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Jorgenev/arbcomwatchlist). "Pages in the Arbitration Family" meaning all arbitration pages of any type. You are right though that I am missing the edits from the elections, I forgot about them and so I didn't think the watchlist needed updating this week. I only tabulate page views for cases because pages like the amendment requests or enforcement requests are transcluded onto a single page and so that individual page data is lost. JORGENEV 09:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]