Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Husnock

Statement by Thatcher131
A number of threads on the administrators' noticeboard have convinced me that Husnock does not have the temperament to be an admin. In addition to the serious charge that he has given his sysop password to another person (or has engaged in sockpuppetry to make it appear so), I also support de-sysopping on the grounds of "conduct unbecoming an admin" for lack of a better term. CBD has not mentioned the extremely contentious argument Husnock had with User:Durin. See here. The conflict began when Durin challenged a number of Husnock's image uploads. Husnock seemed to take this very personally. At one point, Durin pointed out to Husnock that his name was legible on his self-portrait Image:HusnockMidway.jpg and even provided uploaded a free replacement with the name obscured at Image:HusnockMidway1.jpg. Husnock later accused Durin of placing his family in danger. Husnock has maintained an archive of his interactions with Durin at User:Husnock/Durinconcerns. During this situation both Taxman and Mindspillage asked Husnock to back off, although he continued to make complaints and stir the pot.

Husnock has engaged in a highly contentious series of discussions regarding articles which he created or edited heavily which were nominated for deletion, and accused the nominators and AfD participants of acting in bad faith, see Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive65 and Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive63.

The most recent situation began Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive66, with Morwen possibly overreacting to a possible threat. It escalated however with this post to Morwen's talk page from a Dubai IP address, supposedly from LCOL Dan Rappaport of CENTCOM. Just a few days after denying he even knew the alleged LCOL, Husnock has now said Rappaport's is his friend and he has given Rappaport his account password.

Statement by Werdna
Please note that a desysopping has been performed, on the grounds that Husnock's account has been compromised. . I do not intend to become a party to this case. &mdash; Werdna talk 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by blocking admin Phil Boswell
I blocked indefinitely because of. I am not intending to become a party, I just want to make sure the record was straight as to who did what. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
This seems to me to be an isolated case of bad judgement that escalated to truly farcical proportions. Husnock's original comment was crass, and he eventually apologised, but then seemed to go back on that, and then we have the mysterious Lt.-Col., and - well, you know the whole sorry tale.

Husnock is serving in the field (not an excuse, but an explanation). He seems to want to take at least a Wikivacation if not leave outright. He's been desysopped, I don't believe he's contesting that. I absolutely acknowledge Durin's concerns, and I joined the chorus telling Husnock that his comments were problematic, but if Husnock does not intend editing actively then we have no present problem to solve, and given the fact that he was a contributor sufficiently valued to be sysopped I don't think it's representative of his normal behaviour. Would a one-month preventive block help out? We can just do that, if people agree, but I think we're currently engaged in escalating a situation which may, if treated carefully, resolve itself. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved JChap2007
I have only been involved with Husnock to the extent I have disagreed with him at AfDs for a few Star Trek articles. However, I've just looked at the admin's noticeboard and related posts also and would like to offer my thoughts.

In Husnock's statement above, he asks for his admin powers to be reinstated, so there is a case for Arbcom to consider here. Many people (including myself) would question whether an admin who unblocked himself and shared access to his account with another person has the judgment necessary to be an administrator. It seems fairly obvious that these are bad ideas.

As for the other conflicts, let's just say no one has exactly covered themselves with glory here: statements were taken out of context in at most borderline reasonable interpretations and tensions needlessly heightened. Husnock shares some, but not all, of the blame for this. However, these other matters need to be solved with Wikilove and dialogue, not an Arbcom case, and would not be grounds for desysopping.

Accordingly, I would urge Arbcom to accept the case but limit themselves to considering Husnock's self-unblocking and account-sharing. JChap2007 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Bastique
I notified Husnick on today's date that his sysop priveleges were removed. I was not a party then to the events, nor wish to become party to this arbitration. Bastique 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Viridae
The Warrant officer AfD mentioned (for which I was the closing admin) was not undeleted by DRV, but just straight out undeleted by CoolCat within hours of its demise at the hands of a unanimous afd. This is may or may not have a bearing on the case, but I felt that it was best that the complete picture be known. I do not wish to become a party in this case. Viridae Talk 21:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Proto
I think it would be appropriate to note here that I have been involved involved in some way in this case on a number of occasions, and have followed Husnock's behaviour carefully.

My involvements:

I would urge the ArbCom to accept the case, but to only consider Husnock's sysop status. Although he has had sysop status temporarily removed, I believe it would not be appropriate to return sysop status to an administrator who saw no issue with giving his password to someone else, unsupervised (I believe Husnock stated they communicated over the 'phone), ever. Husnock's possible failures to fully understand WP:AGF, WP:NOR, copyright, responsibiltiy, and truth, are separate issues and are ones that could and should be handled by the community, although I believe a strong suggestion to adhere to AGF and copyright in future might be in order. Proto :: ►  22:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Nominated the article, Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia for deletion - Husnock claimed that as the article had references, it was impossible for it to be original research, and my actions were in bad faith. When I expressed the opinion that this was not the case, Husnock complained to WP:AN, claiming bad faith and bullying was taking place.   A sequence of assertions from Husnock then took place about the bad faith of everyone who  suggested 'deklete' in the AFD.   [etc.  Husnock refused to apologise or retract his comments..
 * 2) Blocked the IP address "Lt Col Dan Rappaport" used to post a threatening message to User:Morwen, which was User:195.229.242.88, initially for a month, then reduced to a week following comment on WP:AN/I (it was actually unblocked by me today, after a number of requests in presumed good faith from various people)
 * 3) Noted Husnock had lied (see User_talk:Husnock, ) when he claimed he did not know "Lt Col Rappaport" (as he did here after the IP had vandalised pages involving Husnock and copyright violation disputes with Durin), but subsequently revealed they were friends and colleagues, and gave Rappaport the password to his sysop-enabled account to 'let him have his say'.
 * 4) Posted a summary of some of Husnock's actions on WP:AN/I, which I reproduce verbatim here (and apologise for the use of the term 'hissy fit', which is not particularly kind) in response to a request to User:Elaragirl to explain the "disruption" Husnock was initially blocked for:
 * I will - the 'disruption' was for a threat allegedly made by Husnock, which stated "I would be very careful telling a serving member of the military they cannot edit articles". Husnock didn't mean it, I believe, in the manner of "I have access to guns and could kill you if you stop me editing", he meant it along the line of "I am serving my country in real life and should get special dispensation". Neither sentiment is particularly admirable when expressed by an admin. Morwen took the first meaning to be the one Husnock meant. This was unfortunate, and Husnock was asked to clear this up and apologise for any percieved threat, which would have resolved the whole unfortunate mess.
 * Husnock, instead, threw a hissy fit on this board, trying to get Morwen censured for feeling intimidated (utterly unacceptable). Husnock then refused to apologise until he was asked to by about thirty different people - even if he truly meant it in the second way, an apology would have calmed things down. He then made one of the most evasive apologies I've seen outside of Japanese Prime Ministers, but Morwen accepted the apology, and all was right with the world. Until Husnock decided not just to let things lie, and decided to insist he was right all along . This was disruptive, and once again not good conduct. I think a month's block for this, however, was very excessive. But Husnock then decided to unblock himself, which is wheel-warring, and, unfortunately, I can only see this ending up at WP:RFAr.
 * 1) It was I who nominated an image Husnock had uploaded for deletion. As he had already mentioned that he was aware the image was invalidly tagged (as he had uploaded it well over a year ago), I do not believe this to be any kind of unfair nomination.
 * 2) It was also I who described Husnock giving his password away as a 'stupid' thing to do. I accept that this could be construed as in violation of WP:CIVIL, but stand by the comment, if not the manner in which it was expressed.  Proto ::  ►  22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by almost-uninvolved physicq210
I have not met Husnock before these listed incidents on WP:ANI and similar noticeboards, and I know not of the "threats" that may have been uttered by any parties of the dispute. What I do know and observed was that a trivial issue regarding a misinterpreted statement has exploded into a tangle of suspected incivility, uncovered grudges, copyright violations, and alleged threats, culminating into Husnock's self-unblocking, alleged sockpuppetry/impersonation by (depending on one's point of view) by a "CamelCommodore" and a statement by a "Lieutenant Colonel Dan Rappaport."

I tried (without success) to mitigate the issue of Husnock's self-unblocking (though I do not condone said action) and tried to bring his grievances back to the fore a second time. Unfortunately, my good faith ran thin when Husnock gave his password of his admin account away to an unknown person, resulting in his desysopping. However, I still believe that Husnock does have good intentions to benefit the encyclopedia, and has only acted rashly at the heat of the moment when his minor complaint was turned into a full-fledged battle against him. I therefore urge the ArbCom to consider only Husnock's admin status (or lack of) instead of his other tragic missteps, which I believe he did in ignorance, not malice. --210 physicq  ( c ) 00:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Chacor
Per above, just to clear things up: When "Dan" posted using Husnock's account, I was the one who reverted it initially, and went to the stewards channel on IRC to see if an emergency desysopping could be performed. Otherwise, I am uninvolved and don't wish to become a party. – Chacor 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by 67.117.130.181
67.117.130.181 04:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) People should not go berserk about the password sharing incident (ZOMG, a sysop password got compromised!!!).  Wikipedia tradition (for good or bad) holds that adminship is no big deal and it's given to practically anyone on the basis that most admin actions are reversible, so it should follow that even malicious compromise of an admin account should not cause Wikipedia to collapse.  Yes, temporarily lending a password (admin or non-admin) as described is ill-advised, but the intention and effect (at least as stated) was good.  The remedy for this particular error should be "don't do that again, especially with admin accounts", not crucifixion.   A better approach for the situation would have been to create a new account for the other person, give them that password, and tell them to change it to one of their own choosing.  The Stewards did the right thing by not desysopping on the first request since no actual abuse of admin bits had occurred.
 * 2) I saw the "threat" as neither "I'm going to kill you" or "I'm in the military and am entitled to special treatment" but something more along the lines of "the military is a large, close-knit organization whose members are highly protective of each other and a number of them edit Wikipedia.  If you do something unfair to one of them then probably quite a few more will be upset with you and/or with Wikipedia in general, causing a wider ripple of unnecessary tension than you might have expected".
 * 3) I don't take a view on other parts of the dispute except to say Husnock and several other people seem confused about a number of things that I hope the arbcom will treat judiciously.

Statement by White Cat (then Cool Cat)
I will comment on a number of issues about the case. I am only here because I am asked to comment by two people involved.

About CamelCommodore:
 * In my view CamelCommodore should be unblocked. Even creatures like User:MARMOT are given a second chance. The second he does anything stupid he would be blocked at an instant. He should stay away from trouble should he be unblocked.

About Husnock:
 * Husnocks account may have been compromised. This may have happened a long time ago. Husnock is deployed to the middle east so he may not even be aware of all of this. We should not pass that possibility.
 * I will not comment on the question weather I know User:CamelCommodore posed at me by User:Morwen at my talk page (based on comment by User:Husnock). When people email me privately they expect the email to stay private. If I started revealing contents of my 'private' communication, no one would ever trust me and I'd be out of wikipedia business. Furthermore I do not reveal any personal info about myself aside from stuff on my userpage. I may or may not know him, I may or may not have had an email communication with him, that isnt of anyones concern nor is it relevant.

About issues and people Husnock got involved with:
 * As for Star Trek Afds, they speak for themselves. Lots of trolling and incivility. Lots of meritless votes and it was a vote no matter what certain people may call it. If an article has original research, correcting it does not cross through afd street. Afd is neither a part of dispute resolution, nor is it a part of article improvement drive. I believe this was unecesarily stressfull for Husnock as well as it was for me. In my view AfD supposed to be a last resort.
 * I do not see the death threat to Morwen. Husnocks comment was arrogant (and appearantly full of hot air since we do not observe an overflow of Husnocks supporters). He would have been better of without making it. However I feel Morwen was being a drama queen. Morwen seems to be more interested in discussing articles rather than contributing. I dislike it when people do not contrubute to an article, yet complain the silly out of everything on it (thats just me). sofixit people... but do cure the patient without killing it. I would welcome her to expand articles rather than complaining.
 * I am under the understanding that Durin was pounding Husnock a bit too hard. He is merely enforcing our copyright policy which I support, being a commons admin I am more of a copyright fanatic as well (which isnt a bad thing). But he should have taken matters much slower, there is no reason to rush things since there is no immidiate legal threat. I do not know the details on that particular dispute but I can see why this would over stress Husnock. I feel both sides made serious mistakes in that dispute. Remedies towards either side over this would be counterproductive IMHO.

In sum I find the RfAr pointless. If Husnock can identify himself positively that his account was not compromised (or he regained control), he should be given back admin privileges immediately. Else, effort should be made to recover the account. This entire thing doesn't require arbitration.

I do not wish to get involved with this Arbitration hearing should it get accepted but reserve the right to get involved. It is however likely I wont get involved.

-- Cat chi? 16:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel it necessary to point out that the ANB/I discussion appears to have been initiated by User:Moby Dick, a person arbitration committee is familiar with. -- Cat chi? 16:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion regarding CamelCommodore

 * After posting my statement, User:CamelCommodore posted to my talk page as if he were me. This is now scary.  I am trying not to get banned from the site and this action the occurs as if to confirm a sockpuppet in a discredit effort.  I don't know whats going on anymore. -Husnock 19Dec06 (moved from main statement)
 * I did a CheckUser on CamelCommodore, and it uses the same IP as Husnock. It might be someone else on the shared IP, but, under the circumstances and based on the times, that seems unlikely. Dmcdevit·t 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I blocked as a trolling-only account before I saw Dmcdevit's message. Thatcher131 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for blocking that person. I state for the record very strongly I do not know who that is.  I think it is either a person with a warped sense of helping or a discredit attempt.  The person apparently lives in the same area that I do and knows Coolcat, for whats it worth. -Husnock 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They are now requesting unblock on their user talk page. Just a FYI. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Couple of further requests for the checkuser (if these don't violate privacy): does the IP in question look like a proxy server? In particular are there edits coming from it at any time which aren't User:Husnock or User:CamelCommodore?   Morwen - Talk 07:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The user called CamelCommodore was permanently banned from this site and now is trying to get this overturned. He is meeting name calling as a sockpuppet of me and a meatpuppet of Coolcat.  This really looks like a case of don't bit a newbie.  I've talked to Coolcat via private e-mail and this was someone he knew who also lives in the Middle East.  I am formally stating (again) that this person I did not know and he isn't me.  We might want to let this one go instead of kicking this guy completly off the site.  That really doesn't seem fair. -Husnock 11:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * and the explanation of this edit is? Morwen - Talk 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He posted an admin noticeboard message about it. Something about not understanding how messages were signed.  I would feel bad if someone who didn't know any better was banned from Wikipedia over a misunderstanding about me and I see no harm in giving the person a second chance even though he did pretend to me on my talk page.  After all, that's all he did.  He didn't touch an article or get involved with the discussion here.  Maybe we should go the horse's mouth (or camel's mouth in this case!) and get a statement from him.  What would be the best way to proceed?  I dont want to do anything that could later be misunderstood. -Husnock 12:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please add User:Coolcat as a party to this. He was directly involved with the Star Trek AfDs and also introduced CamelCommodore to this site. I also wish to amend my request for simply no block as a result of this, don't care about admin powers, and ask that CamelCommodore not suffer a permanent block for trying to help me since thats not fair. -Husnock 13:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * More drama about the Camel Commodore situation. I recieved two e-mails from the person behind the account who is swearing this was a misunderstanding.  I've asked the blocking admin to release him .  I've also asked Coolcat to log on and clear this up, he hasn't answered me about that yet.  This really does seem to be a real person and I see no harm in unblocking to at least see what the guy does.  after all, when you get down to it, what exactly did he do to warrant a permanent ban? -Husnock 15:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the apparent real-life stalking incidents you mention above, I am surprised that you are suddenly so willing to give this person, whose edits seem purposed to get you in trouble by acting like a sockpuppet of you, a second chance, based on a very weak justification of what he did. Do you think it is possible this could be the person who did the emails you report above, trying to get you in trouble?  Maybe this is also the person who tipped off NCIS?  Morwen - Talk 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't know. He seems nice enough, but who knows.  NCIS was tipped off by via e-mail by someone in Iceland, they told me, so I don't think its him. :-)  I just feel bad he was banned for something so trival.  And, anyway, I'm sorry for everything.  I've given up all chance of admin rights returning and once this ArbCom is over won't be on the site until at least I get back to the U.S. next year.  Just don't want to see anyone else hurt. -Husnock 15:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this before someone gets hurt
Hello all. Reading above, I’m sure that I will be accused of being Husnock since he has used many different accounts to voice his views. Think what you like, I’m not him but I do know him personally, live in the same city, and have edited with him. I am declining to log on since I do not want my own account identified with this.

This entire affair has drawn a bit of attention by people who know Husnock since some pretty serious charges were made.

To clear some things up, Husnock is gone from this site and won’t be coming back. Right now he is spending Christmas in Iraq, God bless him. This whole thing greatly upset him for a number of reasons and there was talk of contacting the Wikipedia Foundation and having his account completely removed from this site. I don’t know if he really will pursue that. I think he should.

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.

With that said, there are some disturbing things going on and people need to stop this before someone gets hurt. For one thing, it is a very serious deal to post where Husnock lives and where he is writing from. That is revealing where a military unit is in the Middle East, since Husnock is known to be a deployed military member, and can have extreme consequences. A terrorist website could pick up on this and determine where a military unit is, in what country and city, and plan an attack. Husnock himself could be severely reprimanded for allowing his location to be revealed. It has happened before where innocent posts to websites have been read by extremists and then material posted on jihad websites. So, by posting all this information about ip address, where people live, and when they were online, this reveals sensitive information.

Colonel Rapport is a real U.S. Army officer and, again, trying to find out where he is, posting when he was online, and there was also a comment about finding his e-mail, this too is a bad idea. He could also get in very serious trouble for, quite frankly, wasting his time on this website and displaying such a friendship with an O-3 to the extent that he has.

The whole death threat issue people don’t seem to understand how serious that was. It was reported to authorities and picked up by official agencies. Husnock was investigated and had to explain why someone in England thought they were in danger. Morwen, too, was investigated (although not extensively) and I have seen the report on the whole affair. Dragging this out could cause problems for her, too, in that personal information might be exposed. Her real name is already floating around certain areas, I have seen it but will not post it here.

Husnock is also under a great deal of stress. He is away from his family and is about to become a father and finds out he is going to Iraq. That would be hard for anyone to take. Reading through this whole affair, it also seems people have something against him personally. He’s a great guy, if you met him in person you would think so too. The internet is faceless, I work with him and know him well. You would not think these things if you knew him too.

I’m sure that this message will be torn apart from all sides and people will think it’s a Husnock-trick. It’s not a trick, it’s a very real concern. Please stop this before someone gets hurt. End the investigations, stop posting material about Husnock, and move on with better things. This could really get Husnock into some serious trouble, it actually already has. People, please have a heart and in the spirit of this time of year, end this thing before it’s too late. Merry Christmas to everyone, have a wonderful remainder of the year. Thank you for listening –A concerned Wikipedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.76 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment from an outside observer If there is a serious real world threat of a security breach or a professional disciplinary issue or indeed, a diplomatic incident(i.e. the rather disconcerting: "Morwen, too, was investigated (although not extensively) and I have seen the report on the whole affair. Dragging this out could cause problems for her, too, in that personal information might be exposed.  Her real name is already floating around certain areas" - what should she do? contact her local Member of Parliament? What does she have to hide anyway?), then User:Husnock, as a former admin, should know where to turn to - WP:OFFICE. Wikipedia, after all, is not simply an anonymous free-floating online space but has a prominent real world organization behind it. In which case, the real world Lt.Col. Dan Rappaport, the real world Husnock, their concerned anon IP Wikipedian sympathizers and/or perhaps the NCIS investigators should get in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation. They wouldn't even have to deal with this posting on Wikipedia discussion forums business, they could just send a regular email (say,  ideally from an email address which authenticates their identity - something like firstname.lastname@centcom.mil or navy.mil) to info-en-o@wikimedia.org (as listed here), and the matter will be treated as confidential. (However, questions concerning such as whether the Lt. Col. made communications on Wikipedia that would be regarded as a breach of military regulations or etiquette are not the responsibility of Wikimedia) Bwithh 16:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's phone numbers too, of course, for the more direct approach: Bwithh 16:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me second what Bwithh said. If there are legal investigations underway, then this is a matter for the foundation. Until the threats to him, and to other Wikipedians, are resolved he unquestionably should not edit Wikipedia. As for the arbitration, if Husnock has willingly ceded his administrative privileges and has left the site, then I see no reason not to end the proceedings. - SimonP 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this, with the caveat that should Husnock return, the case can (will?) be reopened. Ral315 (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Trying to ascertain the veracity of these comments is, by now, fruitless. We've been told innumerable lies, and at the time of the lies told to believe it...then later an admission comes that it was a lie. This has happened over, and over, and over again. Having served in the USN myself, I find it rather incredulous that an office established for the armed services would knowingly allow it to be connected to the Internet through non-secure comms that allowed open identification of the source location of those comms if they in fact did not want their location to be known. It is no secret that the USN has operations in a number of countries in the Middle East. It is true that specific unit movements are indeed a matter of classified information (confidential level for most units...a low level security). But, what unit our User:Husnock is detailed to is impossible to determine from any information here on Wikipedia. I am not about to take guesses as to all intents and purposes of the thinking of the military regarding this incident, if indeed they are even involved. However, the bare facts as laid out here leave me, once again, doubting the veracity of statements. This, combined with the fact that we know there's been a number of lies and active attempts at deception, leaves me less than willing to believe this latest return.
 * Frankly, I don't care and it does not matter. What does matter is that Husnock has been de-adminned. Unless ArbCom finds reason to ban him from the site, I don't see there be any other purpose to this RfAr. Anything else that might be happening as a result of Husnock's actions needs to be handled by the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * I also find that the above implied threats about Morwen, that her identity might be revealed if this matter continues, are unconscionably aggressive and violating of Morwen. Now she has to worry about a real-life investigation of her across national boundaries and having her identity dragged into the public eye. This is beyond the pale. --Durin 04:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe there is some truth to the above: regardless of who wrote the comments, the parties on Husnock's side have not acquitted themselves in a manner I would expect military officers to do. However, complaining about it now is like trying to stuff the smoke and flame back into the match after it's lit.  We can't help it if Husnock acted in such a way as to reveal his IP address, and short of deleting this whole case, there's nothing we can do about it.  I think at this point all participants should avoid fanning the flame any further.  If the arbitrators want to go farther than simply affirming the de-adminning (such as civility issues in general), they can let us know if the present evidence is insufficient.  Until then, we can "lay low," so to speak. Thatcher131 03:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Husnock returns (Checkuser Request)
Husnock himself returned to this website this morning to make a statement regarding everything that has been going on. As someone who wants to see this case finished and the names of others cleared, I am asking that Checkuser be run on Husnock to see where he is writing from. Husnock said long ago that he left the Dubai area, and if this is true it should clear a number of the sockpuppet charges against him. If it has not true, then he would have lost the support of many, even me. I am also very very concerned that Husnock was openly threatened, with statements made that his job and career would be at risk if he returned to Wikipedia (see my post on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for more information). Regardless, its time to end all of this hate and close this case. Thank you. -A concerned Wikipedian (-195.229.241.187 09:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

I second this request. I watched at least four people from a joint ip at a computer lab get labeled as sockpuppets for expressing an opinion. If Husnock is no longer in our country, that would go a long way to proving that at least some of these people were actually separate parties. It also seems a major point of this case. Yes, run Checkuser, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.2.22 (talk • contribs)



Can someone please tell me what the result was of this? This is part of an ongoing investigation into who was or was not using specific computers so abuse can be tracked and is rather important. Also I would hope that the results of this would be published even if they are inconvenient, as in putting posters on opposite sides of the world and so forth. That would be something worth knowing as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.112.190 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC) My personal interest is whether or not he is even in the UAE anymore. It should be a simple matter to show where he is writing from. If evidence shows he is now in Europe, for instance, and other posts about his case are still being made from the UAE by unknown parties, then there are people who could stir up trouble in the future and should be prevented if possible from posting to this case both for H's protection and the integrity of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.112.190 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 January 2007 Husnock is in Antarctica? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.119.112.190 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the blatant, obvious sockpuppetry that has happened in this case, there isn't any point to performing the checkuser. Arbitrators have plenty enough evidence to conclude that Husnock has abused sockpuppets. Whether or not four people supposedly got labeled as sockpuppets of Husnock incorrectly has no bearing. Regardless, the results of a checkuser request are limited to confirmation or lack thereof, not of any other elements of what was found. --Durin 15:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With due respect, your personal interest is not what checkuser should be used for. Further, checkuser is used to prove a positive, not a negative. Even if Husnock appears to be posting from Scott Base, it proves nothing. The sockpuppetry has happened. That's irrefutable now. That's all the need there is with regards to this RfAr and sockpuppetry abuse. If the various IPs that are supposedly not Husnock make abuses of other kinds to Wikipedia, I'm confident they will be dealt with appropriately. --Durin 14:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 request for clarification
(copied from the WP:RfAr "requests for clarification" section)

In Requests for arbitration/Husnock, the Arbitration Committee made note of Husnock's improper use of other aliases. To me, and others, it is quite obvious that and  are in fact, Husnock, operating under false aliases. I had blocked these IPs (mostly because the latter was abused in the past by other parties and the former was utilized by the user in question), but the user behind them is ruleslawyering to get the IPs unblocked. The primary reason the IPs feel they should be unblocked is that "Husnock was not banned," but under these circumstances, what should be done if the individual utilizing these IPs is in fact, Husnock?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Another page to make note of is User talk:CamelCommodore— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

is also of note to this issue.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 08:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Husnock was not banned by the Arbitration committee and has not been community-banned that I can tell. (A decision that reads "Husnock is cautioned to conscientiously follow Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No original research and image copyright policies when he returns to regular editing " (emphasis added) can hardly be read as a ban.)  The only recent contributions that could remotely be considered disruptive were an attempt to get the Camel Commodore account deleted (which is an odd request coming from an admin, and was easily dealt with) and the IP interjecting himself into an unrelated report on AN/I, which probably happens every day with some IP anyway.   "What should be done if the individual utilizing these IPs is in fact, Husnock?" is to ignore him.  I think blocking these IPs was unjustified and I have unblocked them. Thatcher131 12:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)