Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Husnock

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

1 Motions and requests by the parties
2 Proposed temporary injunctions
3 Questions to the parties
4 Proposed final decision

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Motion for quick close

1) Husnock has stated that he no longer opposes remaining de-sysoped. As such, I would encourage a 'speedy close' which ratifies the de-sysoping (addendum) and limits Husnock to one account (/addendum). While various inter-related issues have been raised here and on the evidence page I believe these other items are comparatively minor and can be handled by the community. Since Husnock indicates he will be providing no evidence this would have to be done by another party on his behalf or potential mitigation might be left out. --CBD 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I may do this, but am going through the sequence of events now. Fred Bauder 15:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just started studying this case, but it seems to have been mooted by Husnock's desysopping and departure; the case is about Husnock-the-admin, who no longer exists. I don't see how there's anything to be gained by carrying this case through; the proposed decision doesn't really establish anything important for Wikipedia as a whole. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This works for me. If this arbitration is constrained to recent events, desysopping seems appropriate and agreed upon by all parties and no other remedies seem needed. If we're to have other remedies, I think we'd have to open this arbitration up to review everything Husnock has done. I don't see that as a productive use of our time. --Durin 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see the pragmatic benefits in this. But I don't consider the underlying issues to be that minor: they seem to be part of the same pattern of behaviour. I was thinking of proposing remedies explicitly restricting this person to one account, and also perhaps some form of caution or probation, to take effect on his return. I do see the problem that he has declined/is unavailable to take part here, but you can't ban me because i quit is a bit of a cheap getaway. Morwen - Talk 17:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now that I have reviewed the sockpuppetry evidence I agree that limiting to one account would probably also be a good/uncontroversial idea. I'm just thinking that since parts of the case seem incontrovertible, and will not be contested in any case, that it would be beneficial to skip any waiting periods and deliberation over all the issues and hand down a ruling on the basics. Full deliberation would probably result in some sort of block period and/or other restrictions related to the article and copyright conflicts. However, I believe any further problems in those areas can be handled by normal means without need of an ArbCom ruling. --CBD 12:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't dispute that. Do you want to draft up sockpuppetry principles/findings/remedy? Morwen - Talk 12:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree this makes sense under the circumstances, with the understanding that other matters have not been adjudicated one way or the other. (I don't know that all of them are "comparatively minor," but I believe that many of them will be ameliorated or suited to resolution short of ArbCom level after the passage of some time.) As it happens, the ArbCom is in the process right now of setting a record for most cases accepted in a given week, and the newly constituted committee is going to enter the new year with a huge backlog. This makes it all the more helpful if this case can be resolved quickly and on narrow grounds. Newyorkbrad 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see what some of the arbitrators say first. When accepting, the wording indicated one or more of them wanted to examine things. I think we should give them a chance to do this. Husnock not presenting evidence is neither here nor there. The case can carry on in his absentia, and he can appeal if he wants to if he returns. Carcharoth 12:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think a couple of the arbitrators have indicated they are going to have less Wiki-time over the holidays, so things may slow down for a few days anyway. Newyorkbrad 12:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been my position from the beginning. It seems pointless to put the boot in under the circumstances; Husnock should just take a Wikibreak and come back when his tour is over. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Ratification of emergency desysopping

1) The action of a Steward in desysopping User:Husnock on an emergency basis is ratified and confirmed by the en:wiki Arbitration Committee. ~~Husnock's administrator access shall remain suspended during the pendency of this case. The question of permanent desysopping will be addressed in the final decision.~~ In light of Husnock's statement (see /Evidence talkpage) that he formally relinquishes his administrator rights, the desysopping is finalized.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'll edit this a bit but it is accepted Fred Bauder 14:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Involuntary desysopping can ordinarily be directed only by ArbCom but can be implemented by a Steward where, as here, an emergency is found to exist. With the immediate emergency having passed, the Arbitration Committee now has the opportunity to consider the issue and to ratify the action taken, which was appropriate. Under the circumstances, Husnock's administrator status should remain suspended during the case and until the serious issues raised in the request for arbitration and comments thereon are addressed. The question of permanent desysopping should be decided in the final decision, unless Husnock agrees to resign his adminship, which would certainly be in his and the community's best interests. Newyorkbrad 04:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this is a good proposal, to affirm the Committee's agreement with the original desysopping, while not yet making a decision on whether it is intended to be permanent. Ral315 (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Support this, I see no reason to beat Husnock over the head with this and I'd hope that any endorsement of desysopping would be with the explicit rider that this is without prejudice to re-application. No big deal, right? Guy (Help!) 11:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal updated in light of Husnock's statement. With regard to the question of reapplication, I believe anyone desysopped can reapply at RfA unless otherwise explicitly provided in the final decision. Newyorkbrad 13:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand "ratified and confirmed". How about just "endorsed"? 67.117.130.181 09:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically the same thing. "Ratified" has a specific meaning of taking responsibility or ownership of something done by another in an emergency, but the precise wording doesn't matter. In any event, given that this took place two weeks ago now, it's probably a little late for endorsement to come in the form of a temporary injunction, though I think it would have been good form. Newyorkbrad 12:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] User pages are not for denouncing other users

1) Displaying negative comments about other Wikipedia contributors on your user page is contrary to Wikipedia's civility policies, creates an unnecessarily hostile environment, may constitute harassment, and is therefore strongly discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 13:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Edit warring on user pages is discouraged

2) Users are generally allowed to control the content of their user page and thus edit warring over such is strongly discouraged. If potentially improper or objectionable material is displayed there should be a community discussion of the issues with protection of the page if necessary to prevent edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 13:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A potentially dangerous proposal- it should be phrased in such a way that removing a fair-use image from a user page is not discouraged, and users in violation of this and other policies cannot try to hide behind this. Ral315 (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone repeatedly reverts removal of such an image, the obvious response is ask an admin to remove the image and protect the page and/or block the reverter, as necessary. No edit war. 67.117.130.181 02:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin passwords should be kept secure

3) Admins should not share their Wikipedia passwords with others. Doing so risks exposing Wikipedia to considerable disruption and thus may result in emergency de-sysoping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Per the steward comment [1], emergency desysopping only occurs if the sysop bits are actually abused. I'd remove "and thus may result in emergency de-sysoping" or add "if the admin powers are abused" since that reflects the actual situation. Wikipedia has an entrenched tradition that "adminship is no big deal", and if that's really true, then the risks aren't so great (the logic for "it's not a big deal" is that most sysop actions are reversable; it's not like a server password). 67.117.130.181 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admins should not unblock themselves

4) Administrators who have been blocked for purported violations must not remove the block themselves even if they believe it was clearly improper. See Wikipedia:Unblocking#Unblocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 15:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Have added link to policy. Suggest we do this for all these principles. Morwen - Talk 15:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Disputed unsourced material can and should be removed

5) If (a) material in an article is disputed, and (b) it is also unsourced, then it can and should be removed, and should not be restored without adequate sourcing. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence, which states that the burden of evidence is on the users adding or restoring information

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Based in policy. This must have been a principle established before, perhaps we could use a stock wording instead? Morwen - Talk 15:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nearly every policy has been cited in some case somewhere before. Some old language is cataloged at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions but it is not kept up to date. Thatcher131 04:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honey and vinegar

6) Other users, including naval officers and Wikipedia administrators, may be more sensitive than expected. When such situations are encountered it may be more useful to the project to soothe their feelings, than to make demands. It you make a mistake and an unexpected reaction results, it may be helpful to apologize. If another makes a mistake, forgiveness may reduce the tension.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Upset

7) It may be more appropriate sometimes to express hurt feelings or apprehensions at a Wikipedia project such as Wikipedia:Reach out than to contest issues with other users, complain to other users or on public forums, or insist on enforcement of rules.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Wikistress

8) The community recognizes that due to conditions on and off the wiki, even good editors can sometimes experience temporary episodes of impaired judgement. Writings on the subject frequently recommend voluntary wikibreaks as a way to regain personal equilibrium, ease tensions with other users, and later return to productive and harmonious editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, or maybe can be in remedy section as a gentle recommendation, or rephrased somehow or whatever. Note I don't like the perjorative terminology in the linked article as the phenomenon it describes is already hard enough on people affected by it (which can be anyone who edits enough). 67.117.130.181 10:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] A content dispute escalated

1) The underlying problem has its roots in a series of content disputes in respect of Star Trek subjects (e.g. Starfleet Security (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) , [2], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (2nd nomination)). The disputes escalated for various reasons. The fact of Husnock being on active service is cited as a factor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 11:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock made regrettable comments

2) During this dispute, Husnock made comments which are regrettable, at least one of which could justly be interpreted as a credible threat of harm [3]. Morwen clearly felt threatened [4]. After a lengthy and often terse series of exchanges on the admin noticeboard, Husnock made this series of comments [5] which several admins considered to be an acceptance that the comments were inappropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Guy (Help!) 11:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock has added back disputed material without sourcing it

3) In edits such as [6] and [7], Husnock adds back material which had been removed by other editors as unsourced and/or untrue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Morwen - Talk 15:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Could we make that unsourced and/or untrue please? Guy (Help!)

Done. Intent was to imply that this was't us going around deleting information we believe to be true just because it wasn't sourced, but that we believe the information to be actually false. Morwen - Talk 13:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But we need to be fair and accurate; removal does not depend on being untrue, it could be true, disputed and uncited, it can still be removed. As to what constitutes "truth", it's a fictional concept, and the edit warring over it strikes me as utterly absurd, but there you go :-) Guy (Help!) 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock unblocked himself

4) At 04:56, 18 December 2006, Thebainer (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) blocked Husnock for one month for disruption. Husnock unblocked himself 6 minutes later, citing pure abuse of admin powers by User:Thebainer. Some of the subsequent discussion questioned the appropriateness and/or length of the block but more of the discussion was critical of the self-unblocking.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

For clarity, suggest changing "validity" to "appropriateness and/or length". Newyorkbrad 13:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten. I think the "subsequent discussion" is probably unnecessary and irrelevant. There never was a serious discussion of Thebainer's block since Husnock had already unblocked himself. The fact that he might/probably/could have been unblocked much earlier ceased to matter when he unblocked himself. Thatcher131 05:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock shared his password

5) According to Husnock, he shared his password with 'Dan Rappaport' so that the latter could write a message in support of Husnock.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Husnock claims to have helped Dan Rappaport evade a block

6) Both Husnock and Dan Rappaport have stated that Husnock shared his password so that Rappaport could get around a block on an IP address for their location. However, that block was placed specifically because of personal attacks made by Dan Rappaport.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We might also note that the "PS I'm using Husnock's password" bit was added only after the original statement, which would also be consistent with Husnock adding the comment himself, but having forgotten to log off, then realising his error and posting an explanation (and incidentally continuing to dig a hole). If the IP for Dan-posting-as-Husnock is different to Husnock this would corroborate the story (it it is the same, it proves nothing, though). Morwen - Talk 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure we have any proof that the two are truly different individuals. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have to presume they are and have that disproved rather than presume they are the same and find proof they aren't. --Durin 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure if this should be written as 'true' or not... but it isn't like he'd look better if this didn't really happen. If there is no 'Dan Rappaport' then Husnock himself was making personal attacks on Morwen, sockpuppeting around a block, et cetera. I've reworded the title as a 'claim', but I don't think it makes much difference whether it is true. --CBD 16:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't want to get involved in this arbitration (which is why I didn't log in) but the ip situation in Dubai and Abu Dhabi needs to be looked at since there are several permanent blocks for anonymous ip address vandalism preventing anyone editing on those ip addresses, even registered users, as well as the creation of new accounts. It is very possible that the person mentioned above really couldn't create an account if he was in one of the ip ranges that is not working due to the auto-blocks. Perhaps this is something to consider and also to be corrected not only for this case but the broader issue for other wikipedia users in the region. I read a bit more about the case and also suggest far less publicity about ip address traces. From what I gather, it has been published now several times where the parties in this dispute are writing from, to include actual e-mail addresses and city locations. That is just not a good idea. Thank you for your time. -213.42.21.79 07:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, um, you mention the cities there yourself. I don't see any email addresses anywhere. Morwen - Talk 10:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the whole 'Dan Rappaport evaded the block because the whole city was sealed off' argument is that 'Dan Rappaport' was the reason the whole city was blocked. It might work as some form of mitigation for an innocent third party, but not for the actual target of the block. As to release of info, yes that should generally be avoided but given that there were edits made from the IP address and/or identifying their location the 'cat was out of the bag' well before anyone tried to sort out how many of these people were sockpuppets. --CBD 11:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock is a long-standing, valued contributor

7) Husnock (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). Husnock's first edit was in April 2004. In the two and a half years since, he has made nearly 13,000 edits covering nearly 4,000 articles, of which over 8,000 are in mainspace, and 1,500 in Image space ([8]). He was sysopped in January 2006. His main areas of contribution have been military ranks and insignia (US, but other nationalities as well, present day and historical) and science-fiction subjects, often also focusing on ranks and insignia. Most of these edits are entirely uncontroversial. In real life Husnock is a Lieutenant in the US Naval Reserve, stated to be currently on active service in the Gulf.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'll edit this a bit, but Accepted Fred Bauder 13:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This gets my non-vote. Morwen - Talk 15:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this potentially opens the doors to a flood of debate. Husnock has been involved in a number of disputes. It is possible that a number of people might object to this finding, and create something of a witch hunt against Husnock. I think this ArbCom case needs to be restricted to Husnock's actions in regards to his release of the password to his account, being blocked, his unblocking of himself, and closely related actions alone. I don't think we need to rehash a large number of past events to gain an equitable solution that benefits the project. This arbitration should not be treated as a full review of Husnock, unless we open the door to all of the past disputes and air out every piece of dirty laundry there is. I don't think anyone wants that, least of all Husnock. This finding is counterproductive. --Durin 16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My view is that Husnock-on-duty is subject to stresses not felt by Husnock-at-home, and this has impacted his interactions with other Wikipedians and his style of editing. I believe there is a crucial difference between this and irredeemable POV warriors. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is reasonable. I'd just prefer that the arb finding state it in more or less that language, instead of going off ~~about Star Trek insignia~~ into editcountitis about Husnock's specific contribution areas. 67.117.130.181 04:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In fairness, we should note this as a finding of fact. I don't think anybody wants to hound Husnock out of the project. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with an acknowledgement of the valuable aspects of his on-wiki contributions; I have made similar proposals in other cases (Giano, Konstable). The fact of his on-duty status also is relevant to the case to an extent and can reasonably be included; his branch of service and military rank are not relevant. Newyorkbrad 16:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Newyorkbrad; I also can't see how his main areas of contribution are relevant to this case (or even to his status as a valued contributor- 13,000 edits in military/science-fiction is the exact same as 13,000 edits in Pokemon). Ral315 (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is different, only stating the facts. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the areas of contribution are of some relevance (we shouldn't compare 13,000 Pokemon edits to 13,000 of Ghirla's edits) and that these particular named areas are probably better off de-emphasized or omitted from a general statement of Husnock's being a mostly-well-behaved editor of long standing.

I'm fine with extending some understanding towards the personal stress Husnock must be under in the Gulf and extending some forgiveness based on that understanding. I'll even thank him for having been willing to take on the burden of military service and I'm ok with having arbcom recognize his self-sacrifice and volunteerism in signing up for that. I'd just rather not have an Arbcom ruling lauding someone's contributions of Pokemon or Star Trek trivia, in any way that suggests equivalence between the encyclopedic importance of real-world historical or scientific topics and that of--forgive me for saying this--fannish enshrinement of corporate merchandising spew. 67.117.130.181 04:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Durin above. I have the feeling that this proposal might open up all of Husnock's contributions, disputes, discussion, etc. to scrutiny by ArbCom, contributors, and especially those who may have a vendetta against Husnock, which goes beyond the scope of this case. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer at minimum to tone down the language about how valuable these contributions are, which is at best a subjective editorial judgement. I personally take the view that while edits about real-world and about Star Trek military ranks are both permissible under Wikipedia policy, the real-world ones are of some encyclopedic significance while the Star Trek ones are basically fancruft. One reason (of many) why I'm bothered by fancruft in the encyclopedia is that disputes over it (like this one) burn wiki-energy (e.g. from arbcom) that could be better used for more important things. 67.117.130.181 03:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock has misused sockpuppets

8) There is strong evidence that CamelCommodore [9], 'Dan Rappaport' [10] [11], and/or unsigned IP edits were sockpuppets of Husnock. As these multiple accounts have acted in support of each other and continued to edit when one or more of them were blocked this would constitute abuse of multiple accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Added link showing slipup with CamelCommodore Fred Bauder 16:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 12:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Can evidence be added from this edit? I quote: "All the CamelCommodore stuff is exactly what people thought it was. An intentional sockpuppet created not actually to thwart the process here but rather as a stress reliever. It apparently backfired when Husnock posted with the wrong account and his new baby got blocked. I guess he wanted his new account back pretty badly and fought to have it turned back on but that apparently isn’t going to happen." - this is either someone interfering in the situation and making things up, someone speaking on Husnock's behalf, or Husnock himself. Having said that, I see Newyorkbrad has mentioned elsewhere on this page "the suspicion (and I believe Husnock's recent tacit admission) that Lt Rapaport is not really a different person." - can a diff be provided for this tacit admission about Rappaport? (The above seems to be an admission about CamelCommodore - along with the earlier "let C-C die" edit summary). Even better, couldn't Husnock admit to sockpuppetry (giving full details), be admonished for it, and then be allowed to start again with a clean slate? (Even a new, undisclosed account, if the mud sticking to Husnock would be too much). In my view, if this is sockpuppetry, this abusive use of sockpuppets is the most disgraceful bit of the whole affair - a blatent attempt to confuse and deceive people. Carcharoth 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, note my proposal here to possibly distinguish between Husnock and the other two accounts/people, unless there is already a tacit admission by Husock that Rappaport is not real. Carcharoth 01:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock

1) Husnock (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), now desyopped, Husnock (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), is a Star Trek buff who occasionally lapses into original research [12] [13] [14], see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General. This tendency was aggravated by his deployment to a war theater away from his sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This could be read to suggest that Husnock contributed only to Star Trek related articles, which is not correct (he also worked on military history, for example). Newyorkbrad 13:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that stating "A" and leaving "B" unstated negates "B". Clearly the dispute here arose from Husnock's Trek articles and images (or rather, his reaction to criticism of them). Thatcher131 13:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That much is certainly true. Newyorkbrad 13:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll also include the finding above about his extensive useful contributions. Fred Bauder 14:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morwen

1) Morwen (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) was concerned about the lack of reliable sources for some of the information Husnock was adding and was, at times, sharply critical [15] [16] good faith attempt, expressing her opinion that he should not try to work from memory [17].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The comment linked by anon-ip below is one I made only on this Wednesday. Is this in scope? It is a perfectly serious and valid question and I don't even mention User:Husnock by name. In the spirit of assuming good faith, I am inclined to believe that some source, somewhere, must have said something about silver pips, so I have been attempting, on Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia to work with other users to find an underlying grain of truth. But there is a lot of cleanup work to do, on this and other articles. Today, for example, I have looking at the accuracy of Hollywood Pins : you can see my conclusions at Talk:Hollywood Pins, which show that either the dates on the article cannot possibly be correct, or other claims made were wrong. I have no idea how much of this stuff is lurking out there, but it needs finding. Morwen - Talk 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Some second lieutenant off the Stargazer is not going to sue us if you get it wrong. I would save strict enforcement for articles regarding living persons and ongoing enterprises. They can, and will, sue us. Fred Bauder 14:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To be sure, they deserve special weight. But that doesn't excuse adding nonsense to Wikipedia without checking facts, which is what user:Husnock has a consistent record of in Star Trek. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable in his other areas of "expertise" to see whether he had added nonsense to those as well. Morwen - Talk 14:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It is disturbing that Morwen appears to be trying to find dirt on this guy. This edit [18] references some post Husnock made two years ago and seems to imply that he was untruthful when he made it. Morwen has no business bringing up things from that long ago to discredit this Husnock. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.42.2.22 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 January 2007. (A United Arab Emirates proxy, by the way) Thatcher131 14:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frustration

1) Confronted with the unyielding attitude of Morwen regarding sources, Husnock expressed his frustration, adding a parenthetical remark which could, if liberally interpreted, be considered a threat, "Not to go into a very toucy subject, but I would be careful telling a deployed member of the kilitary they shouldn't edit on Wikipedia for whatever reason. I am certianly not going to curtail my editing Wikipedia because I'm in the Gulf, P.S. I'm not thinking you meant it badly, it just sounded like that." [19]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A link to the comment in question should be sufficient. I don't think that further publicity needs to be given to the comments that were perceived as threatening. Newyorkbrad 17:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the quote, restoring the 'kilitary' and 'certianly' typos. For the record, this edit by Husnock, 1 minute later, corrected 'kilitary' to 'military'. The other typos remained uncorrected. This has also been discussed here. Carcharoth 03:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the typos when I added my comment; I'm sorry I missed the careful attention to preserving the authentic typos. :) If the words are quoted in the final decision, which I still don't think they should be, "[sic]" should probably be inserted or some other officious type like me will probably hypercorrect them again. Newyorkbrad 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Officious types? <looks round> Can't see any of those around here. :-) As for quoting the wording, I think it is important. There is worse later on. Like the last line of this quote that got that IP blocked. Carcharoth 04:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If the "kilitary" typo is included in this, the fix to it 1 minute later should certainly be mentioned. Ouch! 67.117.130.181 04:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fear of my life

1) Morwen was upset by Husnock's remark. A week later she posted, "And frankly, your comment on Talk:Law in Star Trek that I should be careful telling you what to do because you are a "deployed member of the military", put me in fear of my life. I'm not prepared to edit articles under these conditions." [20].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I believe that quoting these remarks in the decision is unnecessary and there is no reason to give further publicity to them. Newyorkbrad 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the section header really should be changed, there shouldn't be an ArbCom decision with a section called "fear of my life" - for one thing, who is "my"? Newyorkbrad 20:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Brad. 67.117.130.181 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN

1) Husnock then complained about Morwen's exaggerated response at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [21]. Morwen had perviously consulted others on IRC and, in response, expressed a less alarmist attitude, but continued to maintain that such a comment was unacceptable, "Do I think that User:Husnock is actually threatening to kill me? No. Did I say so. Did this comment scare me? You bet. Is this comment intimidating? Yes. It's intimidating in the "well, you wouldn't want this house to accidentally burn down, now would you?" type way. Was the comment intended to be intimidating? I don't know. Is it the type of comment we should be allowing users to go around making? Nope." [22]. The entire exchange on WP:AN is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive66#Death_Threat_Accusation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Slight error in order of events here. I'd been calmed down by people on IRC the day he made the "you should be careful" statement. It was some days later that this exchange took place. Would maintain my immediate response is entirely consistent with what I'd said before, although yes, less dramatic-sounding. Note wording "death threat" is his, not mine. Morwen - Talk 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Same comment as above. Newyorkbrad 17:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

1) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive156#Questionable_blocks_and_WP:NPA [23] [24] NEVER Lt. Col

Comment by Arbitrators:

Note Fred Bauder 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In general, I found that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Husnock/Evidence lays out some of the incidents very clearly. I hope all the evidence will be considered, and appropriate findings of fact derived from them (probably don't have time to help out with that at the moment, I'm afraid). Carcharoth 04:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussion also took place at the talk pages: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Husnock/Evidence, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Husnock, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Workshop, and stuff from there should probably be incorporated somehow. I'm mentioning them in case arbitrators reading through the case miss the talk pages, and because activity there died down a few weeks ago now. Carcharoth 04:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kicked when Down

1) Husnock was "kicked when he was down". Two people went to his talk page and tried to provoke him after his first block. One called him stupid [25] and the other person called him a liar [26]. Then one person put up an image for deletion that Husnock had uploaded [27]. They knew he was blocked and wanted to rub his face into it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by a concerned user. This page is all about how bad Husnock has been and noone has raised a finger in his defense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.42.2.24 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Morwen uncivil towards Husnock

It should be noted that Morwen's first edit ever addressed to Husnock was to accuse of him of purposefully trying to harm an article [28]
Morwen also responded to Husnock's Iraq deployment by saying "um, right" [29] and saying she would hold her sarcasim clearly showing little understanding to Husnock's deployment to a very dangerous region of the world and then making a snide remark about it. -213.42.2.22 06:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I had a little trouble like this when I first started editing too. Not good to be sharp like this with newbies, but just having this exchange is lesson enough. I'm not going to make some finding out of it. Fred Bauder 15:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I misread this as Morwen responding to Husnock's first edit. It was, in fact, her first edit commenting on his editing. At the time of her comment, despite being an experienced user, and an administrator, he was continuing to make the newbie mistake of engaging in what amounts to original research. This is hardly earthshaking, see, for example BatMUD, regarding which there is essentially no published information outside the MUD's own website. Yet, there is an article, much of which I wrote. Fred Bauder 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Note it was his defence of this original research, including reverting the article back to include it, that provoked my comment, not adding it in the first place. Morwen - Talk 15:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It should also be noted that less than two minutes after that, I realised I misspoke, and corrected myself to assume good faith. Morwen - Talk 15:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Newbies? Morwen - Talk 15:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[30] We're all newbies to Fred. Thatcher131 16:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We all make newbie mistakes at times. Fred Bauder 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Husnock has a record as a compsulsive liar and sockpuppeteer, as demonstrated elsewhere. My skepticism that he has been suddenly posted to Iraq for Christmas, barely minutes after I posted draft evidence, is entirely justified. Morwen - Talk 09:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Morwen, I don't think calling Husnock names helps (like compulsive liar) helps anything. Forgive me, but you really seem to hate this guy. If he were to come back tomorrow, embrace Wikipedia with open arms, would you edit articles with him? I don't think you would. The campaign of dirt digging, name calling, and general hate needs to stop somewhere. You are very quick to point out his many faults, but speak little about what he must be going through dealing with all of this plus living in Iraq serving in his country's war. I also think I saw he was about to become a father. What would you like to see this ArbCom achieve? Do you want Husnock thrown off this site forever? Do you hate him that much? I'm very curious about the motives here, I've followed this affair and any defense of this man is instantly attacked by you. Maybe its time to put away the hate. What do you say?

If I may, you do have a point, and I suggest, Morwen, that just laying out the facts dispassionately will be more helpful (I know it is difficult, I've been sorely tested during this case as well), but I would like to make the point here that the main thing needed is for Husnock to clear the air. He needs to come clean and provide full and frank explanations about what happened, and to repair the bridges he has burnt around here. Also, editing on this page won't help that much, as the Proposed Decision page is now open and being edited, and that is where the end result of this case is more likely to be shaped. Carcharoth 20:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are of course correct. I will try to not let this goading get to me. Morwen - Talk 21:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by a concerned person -213.42.2.22 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thebainer

1) Thebainer (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) blocked Husnock (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) December 18, 2006 for one month "for disruption" an edit by Thebainer removing accusations from Husnock's user page complaint regarding user page block warning block message.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Facts may not be complete or in sequence Fred Bauder 20:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Departure

1) Husnock announced on December 14, 2006 that he was leaving Wikipedia user page notice. A bit later he added complaints about two incidents which had upset him departure statement. This material was removed on December 18 by Thebainer [31] [32] who also posted regarding his concerns on Husnock's user talk page. Husnock reverted [33], Thebainer again removed and warned of block on talk page [34]. Husnock reverted again [35] then moved the offending material to his user talk page [36]. Material about the first "stalking" incident is at User talk:Husnock/Durinconcerns.

Comment by Arbitrators:

MIght not be in the correct sequence Fred Bauder 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

We might want to note that he did not, in fact, leave (until 20 minutes after I posted draft evidence, several days later, of course) Morwen - Talk 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

See this link for Husnock's eventual signoff on December 20th, saying that he was being re-deployed to Iraq the next day. --CBD 01:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And note that IPs from this range have been editing on his behalf continually since then : editing his talk page, posting a confession (note, this IP claims to be a Wikipedian, logged out because they won't sign their name to that statement. also note here the vague threats to reveal my real life identity. this is i note, a crap threat. my real name is Abigail Brady, as you can discover from clicking the links on my userpage. it also goes on a bit about how this case is causing a threat from terrorists. most bizarre) The interesting thing then is that another IP, in same range, turned up on talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia, claiming not to know who Husnock is. Whether or not either of these is the same "concerned person" editing on this page here, I do not know.

I'd hesitate to actually accuse these of being User:Husnock, because that would make that re-deploying message a whole new level of cynical lie, but since this IP has decided to start posting on this page, then it seems relevant to note that IPs in Husnock's range have been posting in Husnock's defence continually since he left. Morwen - Talk 15:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Morwen, I posted that message and never said I didnt know Husnock. In fact, those words are not even part of that statement. I said I didn't understand what need there was to dig up an edit from 2 years ago and say Husnock was untruthful. If you look at what the Starfleet rank article looked like at that time, it was full of bad info and incorrect pictures and Husnock was just trying to help out and fix it. As for all this other material about ip addresses out of the UAE being some kind of Husnock club, even though he now lives in Iraq, that is a topic addressed on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Husnock. I also must add that this case started 17 days ago and there have been perhaps no more five or six edits posted by the 200 series addresses over a two week period, and judging by the style and form of the editing, it looks like these have been from 2-3 people. There has also not been a peep out of Husnock. That is not what I would call "IPs in Husnock's range have been posting in Husnock's defence continually since he left". In my case, at least, I'm almost afraid to log on for fear that my account will be traced, branded a sockpuppet, and blocked because I said a nice word about this man. That does seem to be the direction that we are going here.

When taking into consideration the edits to this arbitration, those at Talk:Fleet captain (Star Trek) [37], and those at Talk:Starfleet ranks and insignia [38] there have been considerably more than "five or six edits" from the 212/213. IP addresses recently. As these all seem to have occured on pages frequented by Husnock, to propound views held by Husnock, and to show a knowledge of surprising things like Wikipedia diff linking and Arbitration procedures the figure of 2 or 3 different people also seems somewhat questionable. Theoretically these could be 'meatpuppets' rather than 'sockpuppets', but I really don't care. It's 'people' showing up to anonymously continue Husnock's arguments after he has supposedly left and it stinks. --CBD 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Morwen's response to Husnock's departure is a great eye opener as to how she feels about this man. When Husnock stated he was deploying to Iraq, Morwen responded by posting a section called "um, right" [39]. She then proceeded to state that she would hold her sarcasm. Morwen could have gone a long way by saying something like "Husnock, I'm sorry you are going to such a dangerous area and that we had our differences. Be safe and we can work things out when you get back". Instead, we have seen how she responded. I for one do not find anything funny about someone going to Iraq, a place where over 3000 U.S. soldiers have been killed, nor would I ever respond to a statement like Husnock's by saying "um, right". -213.42.2.24 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How many blatant lies does Husnock get before it becomes reasonable to question his veracity? Personally, I think Morwen can be forgiven for finding it 'convenient' that when an ArbCom case was filed against him Husnock announced, 'sorry can't stick around, being sent to Iraq tomorrow'. Normally 'assumption of good faith' is automatic, but after all the lies and deception... no. At this point, if I hadn't previously seen a picture of him in uniform I might go so far as to wonder if he is really in the military at all. This is what happens when you deceive and manipulate people... they stop trusting you. If he really is in Iraq and not still in the UAE sending out these little missives then that's too bad and I'm sure everyone hopes he'll be alright. But don't get all huffy because people have stopped trusting the word of the boy who cried wolf. He burned his own bridges. --CBD 08:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm wondering if the chopping and changing of Husnock's positions has really been made clear. When I re-discovered the "on the honor of everything I hold dear" comment about Rappaport (see my comments on this here), I realised that though I would normally respect that kind of appeal to honour, the previous actions had eroded my trust in him and I was no longer sure if I could believe anything he said. And that made me really sad. On his own head it is though, as you say. Carcharoth 08:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I provided the wrong diff above. this edit by an IP address is claiming not to know who Husnock was. Number one rule in lying is : "keep your lies consistent", which User:Husnock has manifestly failed to do. Morwen - Talk 09:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Husnock is desysopped

1) Husnock's sysop status was removed as an emergency measure and will not be returned by the ArbCom. Husnock may submit a Request for adminship at any time.

1a) The emergency desysopping of Husnock is ratified, without prejudice to his re-applying for adminship via a Request for adminship

1b) The emergency desysopping of Husnock is ratified. Because the security of Husnock's account is in question, he cannot apply for adminship under his current account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm still trying to figure out why he was blocked in the first place. Fred Bauder 19:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation is here. As I said above, the block was not popular and probably would have been shortened or overturned if he had not unblocked himself first. However, the immediate cause of the desysopping was sharing his password with someone else, see generally Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Husnock/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_CBDunkerson. Thatcher131 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was discussed extensively on ANI at the time, let me know if you can't quickly find the link and I will dig it out. I suppose any further explanation would have to come from the blocking admin, but it hardly seems worth reopening the issue at this stage. Newyorkbrad 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I'm usually against desysoping without clear warnings, but in this case it seems the only option following a profound loss of trust. --CBD 15:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(1a) works for me. Husnock's agreed to it as well, so it seems a moot point. --Durin 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think he had agreed to it as his original statement indicated that he wanted the sysop access back. However, now that I look around I see that on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Evidence he changed his mind about that. As such, I think we can probably wrap this up quickly. --CBD 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Slightly different wording 1a proposed; ArbCom would not, I think, normally unilaterally reinstate adminship, and actually what we're asking is that they endorse the action, as well as not ruling out future re-application. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is somewhat in flux. In the pedo userbox wars Arbcom chose the timetable for restoration of various editors' adminships. More recently they have followed the principle that ex-admins have to go through a new RFA. Both 1 and 1A are in line with recent decisions; it's just a matter of which language you prefer. Thatcher131 04:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've proposed 1b. Given that the account may or may not be compromised, and may still be compromised, or possibly taken over by another user other than Husnock, I feel that the situation is the same, and he should not be able to regain adminship. Ral315 (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

1b doesn't make any sense. Just make him change his password. I prefer 1 to 1a. I'm not sure what it means for enwiki arbcom to ratify the actions of stewards. 67.117.130.181 17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-unblocking

2) Developers are encouraged to amend mediawiki so that it is no longer possible for administrators to unblock themselves after a block imposed by a different administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No Fred Bauder 19:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. If you shouldn't do this, makes it a great deal easier to comply if you can't. Would save a lot of good editors from getting into trouble. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How about just making it you read the policy about self-unblocking and then click "yes, unblock myself anyway"? Morwen - Talk 19:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's just stick to aversion therapy, David. This is a slippery slope, and an existential brainfuck. If we make adminship idiot-proof, the number of idiots per capita will approach one. If better idiots are built, triggering the closure of newly identified "avenues for abuse", the actual meaning of adminship will approach zero. If an RFA candidate no longer needs to be trustworthy (or even able to find his own ass), what's left to evaluate? Edit count, I guess. —freak(talk) 21:02, Dec. 21, 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea but I doubt if the arbitrators will act on it. Thatcher131 04:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd been unmistakably clear that this proposed remedy sucks. —freak(talk) 22:48, Dec. 22, 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, if we can't trust admins to act sensibly with their tools, then then shouldn't be admins in the first place. The unblock page already says immediately above the edit box/buttons "If you have been blocked, you must not unblock yourself even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error. Instead, contact another administrator through e-mail, IRC, the mailing list, or by leaving a note on your talk page. " --pgk 19:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a potential security risk involved in eliminating the technical ability of an admin to unblock himself or herself. If an admin account were ever to be compromised and a bot run to en masse block admin accounts, cleanup would be substantially more difficult without that technical ability being there. At any rate, it's probably a bad idea for ArbCom to be making technical recomendations. BigDT 05:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the case (which happens relatively often) of an administrator caught by an autoblock. If we can trust them to block or unblock any other user, we should be able to trust them to block themselves. Ral315 (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all the above. If an admin wants to unblock themselves without good reason, they know what will happen. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is it happens even when there is good reason. Even when the block is blatantly out of process. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As a developer, I don't think this is an arbcom matter. This discussion should be on bugzilla where it belongs. For the record, I am averse to this proposal, and fairly sceptical of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction to tell the MediaWiki developers what to implement. For those unaware of this, English Wikipedia is not actually the only wiki that uses the MediaWiki software. FYI, there are actually over seven hundred wikis on Wikimedia alone. — Werdna talk 11:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It could be done as an extension I suppose, but I would not be supportive of it. We should trust out sysops with their tools, or they shouldn't have them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 15:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There is precedent from the Giano case that ArbCom can't direct developers to do anything (recognized in the wording of the proposal here, "developers are encouraged"). I don't believe this would have a high developer priority given everything else they are working on and the general good sense of admins. Newyorkbrad 16:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And the "encouragement" was summarily ignored, on the grounds that it was essentially useless tampering-with of logs for the benefit of ego. Developers are not under the jurisdiction of English Wikipedia's arbitration committee, nor is English Wikipedia the only place where MediaWiki is used. We've had the discussion on forbidding self-unblocking for a while, now, and it's an explicit exception in the software (that is, we've specifically not included block checks in block/unblock operations). — Werdna talk 22:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, the encouragement concerned two distinct aspects: (1) changing a block log (which I disagreed with) and (2) trying to restore the password to the Giano account. I noticed at the time that the developers seemed to reject both but only specifically argue against one of them (the block log). FWIW, I still think that restoring access to the Giano account (he randomised his password) would have been a good-will gesture if feasible. I know developers have a lot to do, but it is essential to keep good relationships between the developers and the editors. There is an impression I get that sometimes getting a good idea implemented (and this is now a general comment) is difficult because developers are harassed and short of time. More communication would help that, rather than it ending up with "why can't you do this?" - "we don't have time/it isn't feasible/we don't have time to explain". A good example is the BRION feature in the Signpost. Now that is back, and we are being told what is being done, there is a lot more of a feeling on the part of the editors that things are not only being done, but are being seen to be done. Sorry for dragging this off into a general rant about developers and stuff! :-) Carcharoth 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to digress further, but Giano decided not to push to get his old account back when it was clear it would still have that block in it. Most probably moot now anyway, alas. Newyorkbrad 14:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock is limited to one account

3) Husnock must identify a single account which he will edit from. Any additional accounts which are uncovered will be indefinitely blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It doesn't matter if he uses several accounts, the problem is misusing them in aggressive ways. Fred Bauder 16:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --CBD 12:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Inline with this proposal, it would seem appropriate to identify all sockpuppets of Husnock to block these accounts, restricting Husnock to User:Husnock unless he actively decides to abandon that account and switch to another. With that in mind, it should be noted that User:Pahuskahey appears to be another sock of Husnock. Arbitrators requesting evidence of this may approach me privately on the matter. I do not wish to discuss this evidence in an open forum. --Durin 19:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Durin, please bring your accusations to my face. I am an English lit professor, have two daughters and a grandchild and don't appreciate being labeled in some pronograhic manner that I am someone's happy sock. Please get your facts straight. If you want to talk about this man to man, post a phone number and I will be happy to call you and we can clear it up. This is the second time someone put on this website that I was someone else and quite frankly it's pissed me off. Thanks. -Pahuskahey 15:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Pornographic? Regardless, as I noted above, any ArbCom member requesting this evidence may contact me privately. If they choose to publicly post this information, that's up to them. --Durin 16:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Can this be toned down to "don't use sockpuppets"? I can understand if Husnock wants to start afresh with a new account sometime. 67.117.130.181 06:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. A 'fresh account' is still a 'single account'... there was no intent above to imply that he had to stick with the 'Husnock' account specifically. --CBD 01:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My concern was with "must identify". Wikipedia tradition generally allows people to abandon an old account and start a new one without announcing it, if no abuse is involved (ban evasion, concealing COI, etc). That lets the person leave behind lingering tensions that might remain from a rough patch of editing. Given that there's also been sock abuse in this case, I'd be ok with a no-sockpuppet directive. 67.117.130.181 08:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock cautioned

1) Husnock, who has been desyopped due to unblocking himself and apparently sharing the password to an administrative account with another user, is cautioned to strictly conform to Wikipedia policies should he again be entrusted with administrative responsibility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If this is used, suggest changing "sharing" to "stating he had shared", due to the suspicion (and I believe Husnock's recent tacit admission) that Lt Rapaport is not really a different person. Newyorkbrad 14:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock encouraged

1) Husnock is encouraged to be more sensitive to the feeling of other users, to consider how his actions affect others and to ameliorate misunderstandings should they occur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is too similar to the Morwen proposed remedy below. I think the Husnock one should be worded more strongly - ie. "Husnock is strongly encouraged to be more sensitive to the feeling of other users, to consider how his actions affect others and to ameliorate misunderstandings should they occur." Carcharoth 01:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Strongly encouraged" sounds bureaucratic in this context. It comes across as a passive-aggressive way to say "cautioned", so you should use "cautioned" if that's what you mean. If you just want a more emphatic level of encouragement, I suggest "urged". (/nitpick) 67.117.130.181 06:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morwen

1) Morwen is encouraged to be more sensitive to the feelings of other users, to offer helpful assistance to other users who may be in error, and to extend forgiveness to users who may have inadvertently offended or upset her.

1a) Morwen is encouraged to maintain a relaxed perspective towards editing even when subjected to errors and affronts from other users (WP:COOL), and to extend forgiveness when those other users commit errors or slip in maintaining their own composure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

For the record, I had apologised my harsh words, on 6 December, see here. Husnock had accused me at this time of placing copyright violation tag on Starfleet Security in bad faith. Despite my apology for harsh words, and indicating I would forgive him for making this accusation of editing Wikipedia in bad faith, he did not do apologise or even withdraw the accusation, claiming he did not have sufficient time and was going to bed. He continued to edit. Morwen - Talk 14:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This might be appropriate as friendly advice, but I don't believe Morwen should be the subject of an ArbCom remedy in this case. Newyorkbrad 14:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There may have been one or two times where Morwen could have been less determined to make her point, but I don't believe she ever deliberately escalated the situation. Husnock, on the other hand, did deliberately escalate, both here and in his eariler dispute with Durin, which I mentioned in my statement here, but which is not otherwise a part of this case. Thatcher131 15:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then. Maybe we need to provide diffs to show how Husnock escalated the situation. I think this proposed remedy is too similar to the Husnock one immediately above. The Husnock one should, in my opinion, be reworded to show that Husnock did more to inflame the situation than Morwen did. I'll suggest that. Carcharoth 01:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

1a proposed. 67.117.130.181 07:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helping out

1) Several of the users who contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive66#Death_Threat_Accusation added comments which served to inflame the situation rather than resolve it on mutually acceptable terms. They are encouraged to be more insightful and helpful in the future, as is this sockpuppet [40].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

What do you think "mutually acceptable terms" could plausibly have been? User:Husnock was angry and was after my scalp, and was very much surprised when WP:AN wouldn't give it to him. Speaking for myself, I am quite attached to my scalp. I may well have apologised for my wording if he hadn't have decided to escalate the situation seeking to have me reprimanded by admins, but hey, I'd apologised to him before, and not got an apology back then, either. I don't like continually apologising to people who are constitutionally incapable of admitting error. Morwen - Talk 14:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He should have apologized right off, and never made that complaint. Fred Bauder 15:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, but by the time other admins saw it, it was past that stage. Um, is the language in the last clause of this remedy really appropriate? I'm unfamiliar with the term. Morwen - Talk 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The term, historically used to refer to the English aristocracy, has apparently fallen out of use in the old country. Fred Bauder 16:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The term is an Americanism and means pretty much what you'd expect it to mean. I assume Fred is venting and that phrase would not appear in the actual decision. Newyorkbrad 16:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: