| Revision as of 02:39, 7 January 2007 editNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits →Contradictions in the proposed decision: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:09, 7 January 2007 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,576 edits →Contradictions in the proposed decision: more stuffNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| 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) | :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) | ||
| ::I agree that making clear that neither is acceptable and that one or other did happen, is enough. But would like that point formally made. I found several impassioned vows by Husnock that Dan Rappaport was indeed someone else, but I'd take those with a pinch of salt after seeing all that has happened in this case. Ah, here we are, it was in Husnock's initial statement for the ArbCom case : ''"I will state right now on the honor of everything I hold dear, this is a real person. I have known him since my days in Korea and he uses this site for its material but doesn’t really edit."'' - quite frankly if, after this, Husnock admits to Rappaport being a sockpuppet (and I'm still not entirely convinved, partly on the basis of that very strong statement by Husnock), then I couldn't bring myself to trust anything Husnock ever says again. Only a full and frank admission from Husnock, with full apologies, and a demonstration and understanding of why abusive sockpuppetry is so bad, would mollify me. Possibly others don't feel as strongly about this. | |||
| ::Also, the proposed decision currently only scratches the surface, but maybe that is just as well. If there was abusive sockpuppetry by Husnock, it was a sustained campaign in several locations over several days, a point that is not made clear yet. See the ] I provided for Husnock pleading for CamelCommodore to be unblocked, and CBD's ] that Husnock was inconsistent, to put it politely. As for the IP postings to the Workshop pages, either Husnock is one of them, or this case has become a spectacle being followed by several (serving?) people from the UAE, again either of which is not really ideal. ] 03:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:09, 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)
- I agree that making clear that neither is acceptable and that one or other did happen, is enough. But would like that point formally made. I found several impassioned vows by Husnock that Dan Rappaport was indeed someone else, but I'd take those with a pinch of salt after seeing all that has happened in this case. Ah, here we are, it was in Husnock's initial statement for the ArbCom case : "I will state right now on the honor of everything I hold dear, this is a real person. I have known him since my days in Korea and he uses this site for its material but doesn’t really edit." - quite frankly if, after this, Husnock admits to Rappaport being a sockpuppet (and I'm still not entirely convinved, partly on the basis of that very strong statement by Husnock), then I couldn't bring myself to trust anything Husnock ever says again. Only a full and frank admission from Husnock, with full apologies, and a demonstration and understanding of why abusive sockpuppetry is so bad, would mollify me. Possibly others don't feel as strongly about this.
- Also, the proposed decision currently only scratches the surface, but maybe that is just as well. If there was abusive sockpuppetry by Husnock, it was a sustained campaign in several locations over several days, a point that is not made clear yet. See the evidence I provided for Husnock pleading for CamelCommodore to be unblocked, and CBD's evidence that Husnock was inconsistent, to put it politely. As for the IP postings to the Workshop pages, either Husnock is one of them, or this case has become a spectacle being followed by several (serving?) people from the UAE, again either of which is not really ideal. Carcharoth 03:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)