| Revision as of 15:39, 20 December 2006 editMorwen (talk | contribs)Administrators56,992 edits →um, right← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:48, 20 December 2006 edit undoDurin (talk | contribs)25,247 edits →um, right: Response to MorwenNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| *It should be noted that on multiple occasions where Husnock has been involved in disputes he has indicated his departure is imminent or that he lacks time to contend with issues in the dispute. I do not call into question whether these statements have any veracity. I do think it necessary to conclude this arbitration regardless of the presence of Husnock in the debates or no. --] 15:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | *It should be noted that on multiple occasions where Husnock has been involved in disputes he has indicated his departure is imminent or that he lacks time to contend with issues in the dispute. I do not call into question whether these statements have any veracity. I do think it necessary to conclude this arbitration regardless of the presence of Husnock in the debates or no. --] 15:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **Perhaps we should attempt to get someone at ] to post in his defence. I am concerned to leave no room for later questioning of the validity of any eventual ruling based his abscence during it. By the way, I am content to leave your historic disputes over images out of this. ] - ] 15:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | **Perhaps we should attempt to get someone at ] to post in his defence. I am concerned to leave no room for later questioning of the validity of any eventual ruling based his abscence during it. By the way, I am content to leave your historic disputes over images out of this. ] - ] 15:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ***To the first point, I agree; but finding someone willing to do that may be problematic. To the second point, I am content to leave it in the past as well. Bringing up past events does nothing to serve the needs of the project. Arbitration should be corrective, not punitive. Any actions deemed necessary in past events have already been taken. Are there past events? No question. There's a number of disputes in the past, and my dispute with Husnock over images is just one of them. All of us make mistakes. All of us, hopefully, learn from them. In Husnock's defense, while there are some attributes regarding his editing behavior that I still find problematic, he does not repeat the same mistake twice once he understands something is a mistake. As to what I feel are problematic attributes, these are adequately within the scope of the current dispute involving Husnock. Thus, restricting the scope of this arbitration to this dispute should, in my opinion, be sufficient to address any concerns. --] 15:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:48, 20 December 2006
Real world calling
This is a rather fascinating process which has been fun to watch. However, I will probably not be here to see it finished as tomorrow I am getting redeployed to another country that is one syllable and begins with an I and ends with a Q. As such, this affair is not as important as what is going on in the real world. Afer all, as a friend told me once, this is the internet and Arb Com isnt a real court of law (but, without a doubt, a respected court of Misplaced Pages).
I also intend to completely leave Misplaced Pages and devote my efforts back into professional publishing instead of publishing it here. I never advertised it, but I am a professional writer (mostly non-fiction WWII) and am working on both a non-fiction work, a political fiction novel, and a sci-fi game overview. Hopefully those will soon see the shelf of a bookstore near you.
I encourage this process to finish for I would be happy to see the outcome. However, at this stage, I only ask for some simple things.
1) This process ends as quickly as possible. Husnock formally and hereby states that I give up all rights as an admin.
2) IP addresses and statements about where people live cease at once. The CamelCommodore incident led to several posts where it was very clearly stated where he and I live and this should not continue.
3) The investigation into CamelCommodore ends and, in the spirt of good faith, that account is unblocked and the person who started allowed to contribute to Misplaced Pages. There is no reason to keep it blocked as I have stated over and over it is not me, others have sworn it is a sockpuppet, but in the end the account has done no real damage to the site. Keeping a block on a person who was drawn into a complicated situation, by others, which they really didn't understand in the first place is simply not fair.
4) The Misplaced Pages account of Husnock not be blocked in any way as I may wish to return to this site in a year or so.
5) All hate and discontent stop between users. Husnock is actually a pretty nice guy when you get down to it.
Again, I would very like to see what the arbs have to say about this whole affair (copyright, death threat, AfDs, Camel, etc). I'm sure this is one of the more interesting cases they've seen.
With that, I log off and say goodbye. Good-bye! -Husnock 08:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- "Iraq" is polysyllabic. --EEMeltonIV 14:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
um, right
So, um, yes. I'm going to leave the sarcasm out, because I'm sure the same thoughts will have occured to anyone monitoring this case. What is the procedure now that User:Husnock has (a) left wikipedia (note that he claimed this before) and (b) has declined to submit evidence. Is the process to be conducted in absentia, or suspended or what? Morwen - Talk 11:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- It should be noted that on multiple occasions where Husnock has been involved in disputes he has indicated his departure is imminent or that he lacks time to contend with issues in the dispute. I do not call into question whether these statements have any veracity. I do think it necessary to conclude this arbitration regardless of the presence of Husnock in the debates or no. --Durin 15:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should attempt to get someone at WP:AMA to post in his defence. I am concerned to leave no room for later questioning of the validity of any eventual ruling based his abscence during it. By the way, I am content to leave your historic disputes over images out of this. Morwen - Talk 15:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- To the first point, I agree; but finding someone willing to do that may be problematic. To the second point, I am content to leave it in the past as well. Bringing up past events does nothing to serve the needs of the project. Arbitration should be corrective, not punitive. Any actions deemed necessary in past events have already been taken. Are there past events? No question. There's a number of disputes in the past, and my dispute with Husnock over images is just one of them. All of us make mistakes. All of us, hopefully, learn from them. In Husnock's defense, while there are some attributes regarding his editing behavior that I still find problematic, he does not repeat the same mistake twice once he understands something is a mistake. As to what I feel are problematic attributes, these are adequately within the scope of the current dispute involving Husnock. Thus, restricting the scope of this arbitration to this dispute should, in my opinion, be sufficient to address any concerns. --Durin 15:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should attempt to get someone at WP:AMA to post in his defence. I am concerned to leave no room for later questioning of the validity of any eventual ruling based his abscence during it. By the way, I am content to leave your historic disputes over images out of this. Morwen - Talk 15:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)