Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Arbitrators 2 Comment on proposed decision 3 Contradictions in the proposed decision 4 Now I'm confused... 5 Dan Rappaport

[edit] Arbitrators

The newly appointed arbitrators are assumed by default to be inactive on 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.

• Fred Bauder active
• Jdforrester active
• Morven active
• Charles Matthews active
• Dmcdevit inactive
• Raul654 active
• SimonP active
• Kirill Lokshin active
• FloNight active
• Flcelloguy inactive
• Paul August inactive
• UninvitedCompany inactive
• Jpgordon inactive
• Blnguyen inactive

[edit] 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)

I think it is the right thing to do even if the proposal does not pass. It's just a little feedback. I realize this sort of thing often backfires, but it is not intended to be more than encouragement to be a bit more patient. Fred Bauder 19:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Few people act in a saintly fashion at all times (basically, just me :] ) and there is a natural impulse to jump in with, 'but she DID apologize' and 'but she WAS patient' and 'but she DIDN'T call for RFCU because she wanted to avoid getting him banned'... however we can all use an occaisional encouragement to be nicer. I think Morwen has done a pretty good job at it, but there is always room for improvement. --CBD 20:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a friendly suggestion on a user's talk page or on the Workshop or in an e-mail, and proposing an official remedy as part of an Arbitration Committee decision that, if enacted, gets disseminated throughout the project in the Signpost and becomes a bigger deal than I think some people realize sometimes. I don't think a proposed remedy should be listed in the Proposed Decision unless it is clearly warranted as a remedy to be formally imposed by the Arbitration Committee in its official capacity. Nothing Morwen has done calls for that. Newyorkbrad 21:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's finally happened - I disagree with something Newyorkbrad wrote. The admonition is warranted. Yes, an admin should be both more careful of others and thicker skinned himself than most users. However, if Morwen had taken a badly phrased remark less seriously, none of this would have been necessary, and someone who had contributed productively to the Wikipedia would likely still be doing so. The admonition is thoroughly warranted. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts; it's always good to be squeaked with. I guess my broader view here, speaking generically, is that there is a certain element of randomness when ArbCom sanctions (even via a simple caution or admonition) user who may not have handled a situation perfectly, but the user's conduct would have remotely reached the threshold of warranting an arbitration case, simply because through happenstance the conduct of another editor in the same or a related matter has risen to that level. That concern is applicable here, where the case clearly was taken to review Husnock's administrator actions and his (then) refusal to consent to desysopping. In this instance, however, I think the most important thing may be just to get the decision voted on and the case closed. I am seriously concerned about this overall situation including an observation that I would prefer not to share on-Wiki but e-mailed a couple of weeks ago to the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions in the proposed decision

The Husnock has misused sockpuppets proposed finding of fact, and four other references ([1]; [2]; [3]; [4]) 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 [5]: "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)

I think there has been a lot of foolishness on Husnock's part. I think our message should be that playing games like this is unacceptable, but that he's welcome back when he wants to get down to editing. Fred Bauder 18:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, you can't demand that someone apologise (it usually doesn't help), but you can make clear that a set of actions from Husnock (explanation and apology) would help clear the air, though thinking on this, that is what happened once before. Husnock did apologise, but a few days later posted his user page message showing he hadn't moved on, and got blocked for it. <sigh> I suppose things like this are also part of the territory of Wikipedia, and I shouldn't get so worked up about it, but admins and those wanting to be taken seriously should never engage in such antics. Allow him to edit, yes, but trust him more than that without a proper apology? Not from where I'm standing. But this isn't about me, so I think I should wind down my involvement here. I think I've made my position clear, and any more anguished posts from me won't help that much. Thanks for responding. Carcharoth 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. Sorry, this section got side-tracked. I think the "contradictions" bit is important and needs to be made clear. Having bits of the Final Decision contradicting themselves would look bad. Carcharoth 20:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the findings themselves are contradictory... they cite Husnock as having 'claimed' that he shared the password / helped Dan R evade a block and that there is 'evidence' that Husnock and Dan R. could be the same person. Maybe just changing the title of '3.2.6' to something like 'Husnock MAY HAVE shared his password'... the actual text of the section states that this isn't a certainty, but the title could be 'vagued up'. Without knowing for certain which set of stories is true I think describing them as alleged issues like this is viable... people can figure out for themselves that he either 'did bad thing A and lied on issue B' or 'lied on issue A and did bad thing B'. --CBD 21:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now I'm confused...

Under "Being part of the solution", the last sentence says that "[Peripherally involved users] are encouraged to be more insightful and helpful in the future, as is this sockpuppet [20]", where "sockpuppet" and "[20]" link to difference links by this "Dan Rappaport". While I didn't read through the second link, the first one contained what looked like highly patronizing language of questionable "helpful[ness]". Also "Husnock claims to have helped Dan Rappaport evade a block" says that Rappaport was blocked for personal attacks. Is this intentional? 68.39.174.238 08:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence structure. The intended meaning is "[Peripherally involved users] are encouraged to be more insightful and helpful in the future, and this sockpuppet [20] is also encouraged to be insightful and helpful," not "[Peripherally involved users] are encouraged to be more insightful and helpful in the future, and this sockpuppet [20] is a good example of being insightful and helpful." FreplySpang 08:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that in Fred's original proposal on the Workshop, what is now "this sockpuppet" originally read "this horse's ass" (see here and here), it's pretty clear that FreplySpang is correct. Newyorkbrad 02:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Reworded. Thatcher131 03:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanx. I also echo User:Morwen's comment about the original language. 68.39.174.238 20:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this case still active?

This entire case should truly be shut down and finished. Husnock is gone from this site, has done no further editing, and no further harm. This case has stayed open though, and has drawn way too much publicly, got bookmarked in a public computer lab, and has now appeared on discussion threads of at least two newsgroups. Husnock doesn’t deserve this kind of heat, no matter what he’s done, and it could be harmful to his career if he’s identified with this. Looking at the tone of the other editors, there seems to be a handful of people who want this person’s hide with investigations underway to find out his identity and expose him. All of that should stop. Let us also not forget that Husnock is serving in a combat zone for his country; to anyone who’s been over here that should explain a lot. It’s also true that we kind of stick together over here so its no surprise that support messages were posted when word of this whole thing got out; while Husnock does indeed appear to have multiple accounts, he couldn't possibly have made all of these posts himself, since the messages were posted from both Abu Dhabi and Dubai at the same time with Husnock apparently posting from outside the country in the middle of it all. He's either very agile, has a lot of friends, or has legitimate support from other vets in the Mid-East who saw this as going on. So, from someone who supports anyone in this part of the world, please end this case, it would be better for everyone. Thanks.

[edit] Dan Rappaport

FOF #6 makes him seem like a separate user, while Remedy 7 makes him seem like a sockpuppet. Can the ArbCom clarify this, or at least make it clear that there's no way to say if he's a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet? Ral315 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)