Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Evidence

Real world calling[edit]

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 Wikipedia).

I also intend to completely leave Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

"Iraq" is polysyllabic. --EEMeltonIV 14:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um, right[edit]

So, um, yes. I'm going to leave the sarcasm out, because I'm sure the same thoughts will have occurred 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

Husnock's having stated above that he "formally and hereby states that I give up all rights as an admin" obviously reduces the urgency of the case. The arbitrators generally allow at least a week for evidence to be submitted before dealing with the merits of the case, and in this case it will probably be longer because of the holidays plus the changeover in the ArbCom membership. So there is some time to see what happens next, if anything. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually suggest not bothering ArbCom with this. It's clear to me that Husnock has been engaged in sockpuppetry and CamelCommodore was his sockpuppet, and that Morwen found his behaviour intimidating and inappropriate (with the spelling of kilitary) so permanent block for those, he's given up his sysop powers so there's no need to drag this through ArbCom for a desysopping, I believe the necessary check-user has been performed so just block and be done with it. I'd rather see ArbCom used for content disputes instead of this farce. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this case is winding down, but I wish to expess distaste at the title of this section. Husnock has stated he is going to a very dangerous region of the world and the response is "um, right". Morwen then proceeds to say "So, um, yes. I'm going to leave the sarcasm out, because I'm sure the same thoughts will have occurred to anyone monitoring this case." Why would anyone be sarcastic about someone going to Iraq or make a snide joke about it? The more and more I read about this case, the more this looks like a slam effort against Husnock. Not that he is blameless and pure, but he deserves better than the comment made above about news that he is deploying to Iraq. -213.42.2.27 06:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sarcasm was directed to his statements about his case, not the fact he's going to Iraq. Time to get off the flag. -- Lima Golf ^Talk^|^{Contributions} 10:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend desysopping[edit]

I do not think Husnock can be trusted with the admin tools and they should not be reinstated as such. I have no other opinions on any additional sanctions he might face as a result of his other alleged abuses. --Cyde Weys 04:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add, I know this will most likely be the case, but should Husnock return and request his admin tools back, I'd just like ArbCom to confirm a new RfA would be required. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 10:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's quite clear already, though it can't do any harm to get it confirmed. The rule followed by the bureaucrats and also established as an ArbCom precedent in recent cases (the so-called "Giano" case and reaffirmed in "Konstable") is that a user who voluntarily gives up adminship in the midst of a controversy can become an admin again only through a new RfA. I think it follows that an admin who agrees to give up the tools after he's already been emergency desysopped and has an ArbCom case pending against him was involved in controversial circumstances at the time; there's no way a 'crat is going to just hand him his buttons back. Newyorkbrad 10:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Starfleet_alternate_ranks_and_insignia[edit]

Just deleted this talk page as a talk page of a deleted article, however it may have useful evidence for this case (ie I noticed husnock's signature). So anyone with sysop can have a look at it and act appropriately. Viridae ^Talk 08:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo thing[edit]

Just a brief point - the typo kilitary for military is fairly easy to make on a standard keyboard. The fact that the typo was fixed quickly is a point in favour. I would assume good faith here and ignore that typo. The other typo was missed, and is less obvious (toucy -> touchy). Carcharoth 12:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, to be sure. I had no memory of this until pulling out the diff, and 'k'm' and 'm' are right next to each other. Morwen - Talk 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]