Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Proposed decision

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment on proposed decision 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Reworded. Thatcher131 03:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thanx. I also echo User:Morwen's comment about the original language. 68.39.174.238 20:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now I'm confused... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dan Rappaport