Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2017 CUOS appointments

(Pinging ArbCom due to time sensitivity) {{ping|Casliber}}, {{ping|DGG}}, {{ping|Doug Weller}}, {{ping|Drmies}}, {{ping|GorillaWarfare}}, {{ping|Keilana}}, {{ping|Kelapstick}}, {{ping|Kirill Lokshin}}, {{ping|Ks0stm}}, {{ping|Mkdw}}, {{ping|Newyorkbrad}}, {{ping|Opabinia regalis}}

Could someone please explain to me the discrepancy between "23:59 UTC, 29 September: Community comments end.", and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee%2FCheckUser_and_Oversight%2F2017_CUOS_appointments%2FCU&type=revision&diff=802951346&oldid=802916645] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee%2FCheckUser_and_Oversight%2F2017_CUOS_appointments%2FOS&type=revision&diff=802951377&oldid=802936533]? These discussions still have active participants within them in the last 24 hours. I don't mean to be a stickler for detail here, but if you're going to bother saying "23:59 UTC, 29 September" why close the discussions ~nine hours early when discussion is still happening? Ok sure, the voice of the community's already been expressed, and it's highly unlikely things will change. Still, why bother establishing a specific minute when comments will be closed ...and then not stick to it? I've pinged all of ArbCom here only because of the time sensitivity, if ArbCom feels this is important enough to reverse. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

:Ah shoot, that's my bad. Somehow the timestamp was lost when I copied the schedule to the CUOS2017 appointment page, so I actually thought I was late in closing comments. Reopening now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

:* No worries. As I said, I think the outcome is obvious. I just thought the early close odd. I would have been fine if it was left closed. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)