Kudos to Anthony/AGK for taking the bull by the horns. I hope that his public discussion of the Muhammed Images case inspires emulation among other members of ArbCom. Here's hoping this case can be wrapped up efficiently and definitively — two adverbs not used in connection with ArbCom over the past year. I have hope. Carrite (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a little sad to see an Arb case (Betacommand 3) which arose from a request to review whether a proposed task fell under the terms of a previous ArbCom editing restriction, having such draconian suggested remedies as bans. RichFarmbrough, 18:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Honestly, CBM's evidence looks pretty damning to me. Your "evidence" lacks diffs entirely. What were they supposed to do? --NYKevin @068, i.e. 00:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to Arbitration report