| Revision as of 02:37, 7 January 2007 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,578 edits →Contradictions in the proposed decision: tweak← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:39, 7 January 2007 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,486 edits →Contradictions in the proposed decision: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| The proposed finding of fact, and four other references (; ; ; ) to "sharing of password" contradict each other. It should be made clearer that ''either'' 'Dan Rappaport' is someone else and Husnock shared his password with him, ''or'' Husnock engaged in abusive sockpuppetry. Not both. ] 02:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | The proposed finding of fact, and four other references (; ; ; ) to "sharing of password" contradict each other. It should be made clearer that ''either'' 'Dan Rappaport' is someone else and Husnock shared his password with him, ''or'' Husnock engaged in abusive sockpuppetry. Not both. ] 02:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :There's no way to tell for certain. (I recall seeing an admission that Dan Rappaport = Husnock, but so far I've only found the admission re Camel Commodore, and frankly, the case has reached diminishing returns.) Perhaps it would be sufficient to say that it was one or the other, and neither is acceptable. ] 02:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:39, 7 January 2007
Arbitrators
- Arbitrators active on this case
- Fred Bauder
- Jdforrester
- Morven
- Charles Matthews
- Dmcdevit
- Raul654
- SimonP
- Kirill Lokshin
- New arbitrators inactive on this case
The newly appointed arbitrators are assumed by default to be recused from cases already open at the time they took office. If an arbitrator becomes active on this case (by declaration or activity), his/her name will be moved to the active list and the majority adjusted accordingly.
- Flcelloguy
- Paul August
- UninvitedCompany
- Jpgordon
- FloNight
- Blnguyen
Comment on proposed decision
I don't want to make too big a deal out of this if it passes, but I believe this case was accepted primarily to deal with Husnock's activities and the perceived need to address his status (this was before he accepted his desysopping). While I don't endorse every word that has been written for the past two months by User:Morwen, this was a highly unusual situation and I do not believe that including an admonition toward her in the remedies in the final decision is necessary or helpful. Newyorkbrad 01:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Contradictions in the proposed decision
The Husnock has misused sockpuppets proposed finding of fact, and four other references (; ; ; ) to "sharing of password" contradict each other. It should be made clearer that either 'Dan Rappaport' is someone else and Husnock shared his password with him, or Husnock engaged in abusive sockpuppetry. Not both. Carcharoth 02:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's no way to tell for certain. (I recall seeing an admission that Dan Rappaport = Husnock, but so far I've only found the admission re Camel Commodore, and frankly, the case has reached diminishing returns.) Perhaps it would be sufficient to say that it was one or the other, and neither is acceptable. Newyorkbrad 02:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)