Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Request for speed
I request that this is voted on quickly, one way or another, if only because of the users we sanctioned whose sanctions were removed temporarily to allow them to participate in this arbitration. The uncertainty over their future should be resolved.

Also, the workshop has turned into a mess of trolling and personal attacks. I've let it go because of the tradition that you get to say almost what you like on ArbCom case pages, but my patience is rapidly evaporating. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent points Moreschi and I've been thinking along the same lines. I'm posting a note on the workshop page that I'll protect the page if it continues. If you catch it before me, hit my talk page and email me so I can get to it soonest. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I put the same msg on the evidence page too. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment on 'Administrators commended' remedy
As a passing comment, I would encourage the #Administrators commended remedy to be passed in this case. Although I understand Jpgordon's rationale for opposing, I feel that arbitration all-too-often becomes a "doom and gloom" situation, with almost absolutely all passed decisions dealing with the negative side of the project.

Furthermore, the commended proposal has the added benefit of removing any "cloud" hanging over the names of the administrators in question. It is often the case that an administrator who is named as an involved party in an arbitration case has something of a grey shadow hanging over their name; although I agree that the remedy confirming their actions goes some way to correcting that, a specific comment from the Committee would be beneficial in that instance.

Just my two pence. Anthøny 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You do have a good point; but I don't really think commendations are a "remedy" for anything. Perhaps the finding of fact should say they acted in a commendable fashion? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, in which case, I would urge the Committee to to add that part of the remedy into the finding - eg; "ChrisO (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), and Moreschi (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) imposed sanctions on a number of editors whom they concluded had been involved in the external group. They are commended for their diligence in investigating and effectively dealing with this matter." Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I just don't like commendations. But I'll give it some thought. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see why (in an unusual sort of way), and I suppose it's not actually necessary, given that the sanctions are confirmed in a separate remedy. Probably the commending can be avoided, but in the finding, I do think a link should be provided for "concluded" - to the page where they set out their reasoning etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment on "Sanctions confirmed" Remedy
I'm not Gilead Ini, so I think it would be wrong to confirm the sanctions.Gni (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What's this? A straight denial finally?
 * Are you the only one who has ever edited from this User:Gni account? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 05:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Normally I find postmodernism a bore - but all of a sudden I've become enamored of phrases like the de-centering of the subject and the bricolage of identity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're lying. If you're not, prove it. The burden of evidence says you're telling outright fibs. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, one of the most irritating aspects of this whole business has been the rank dishonesty of the people we sanctioned. Zeq was asked something like 19 times, I think, whether he was the author of the CAMERA e-mails but refused to confirm or deny it. Gni has refused to confirm or deny as well, up to this point, but his belated denial simply isn't credible in the light of the evidence. And I note that the Register reported, "Gilead Ini sees things differently. Declining to say whether he's behind the Gni account..." A bit of honesty from all involved would not have gone amiss. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the delicacy of this issue. I understand the reasoniong behind this edit. however, this a little bit more complex than this. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Very nice, Moreschi. Not only are you apparently the judge, jury and executioner here, but you also seem to subscribe to the principle "guilty until proven innocent." You say: If I'm not lying, prove it? I respond with this.


 * I hope, too, that the arbitrators will consider your reply here as reason to rethink commending you. It's crass, and marked by the gun-spinning swagger that IMHO is unbecoming of someone who holds some (virtual) power.


 * Both Moreschi and ChrisO refer to "evidence." What that evidence is, despite any half-hearted attempts to cobble together a case, is still beyond me. What is the evidence? That I'd at some point made edits from a CAMERA IP? That I'm interested in the Middle East? The mere idea that you believe you can prove my identity is mind-boggling. All the more so considering the lack of evidence. And even more so considering that now (having given up on my thought that I needn't comment on my identity since Wikipedia allows for anonymity and condemns revealing identities, and since I didn't believe it relevant to the case) I'm stating that I'm not Gilead. And now ChrisO suggests it should be held against me that I addressed my identity "belatedly." Seriously??


 * Some assumptions should be challenged. Or in the very least least, assumptions shouldn't hold the weight of actionable evidence in Wikipedian "law." Gni (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if you aren't Gilead Ini, you still have many other problematic editing behaviors.--208.111.26.88 (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)