Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Workshop

Two issues
It looks to me like there are two overall issues in this case. Misuse of adminship and disruptive editing. You've probably got the adminship thing covered with the unblocking and password sharing. Regarding the other matters (article ownership, copyvios, incivil remarks), they all fall under the general umbrella of disruptive editing, and would support probation or a ban (probably probation) if the arbitrators want to go that way. If you want to pursue this, I would break the proposed findings down into specifics; "Husnock has edit warred," "Husnock has knowingly uploaded copyright violation and used incorrect tags," "Husnock has been uncivil," etc. If I was a betting man, I would say the odds are 3:2 in favor of the arbitrators ratifying the desysopping and passing on the disruptive editing, putting if off until he returns (if he does) and resumes the behavior (if he does). It certainly won't hurt anything to prepare proposals in that direction, though. Thatcher131 13:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good summary of the case and nice to see some predictions as to how it might turn out. I didn't find this page straightaway though. If no-one else responds, you might want to drop notes off on the talk pages of those involved.
 * Each case subpage has its own talk page and it is sometimes hard to know where the discussions should go. If the participants have the page on their watchlist, the talk page will show up too. Thatcher131 21:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But is it really only two issues? Personally, I find a third issue, the strong evidence of sockpuppetry to be the most disturbing aspect of the case. Because of the shared IP situation, and the possibility of meatpuppetry, I don't know if anything conclusive can be determined, but Ral315's laying out of the evidence (by looking at the timing of the edits) was an eyeopener for me. I also pointed out Husnock's participation in a thread that CamelCommodore was involved in, where Husnock tried to get CamelCommodore unblocked. Is it likely the ArbCom will address this third issue, and what is the best way to turn those evidence sections (by Ral and me) into Findings of Fact, and thence into Remedies? Carcharoth 21:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would consider those allegations under the general heading of "disruptive editing." Arbcom's remedies are pretty much limited to probation or banning (for editors) and desysopping (for admins), so all the various allegations add up under one or the other. Thatcher131 21:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also found Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Husnock - another thread where Husnock defends CamelCommodore, and where he also claims support from User:Coolcat, and asks for CoolCat to be added as a party. What happened to that? Carcharoth 21:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When the case was opened, the discussion now at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Husnock was in the clerks notes section, and was left behind when the case pages were composed. I thought it was important so I put it here.  If Eagle101 accidentally dropped another bit of discussion, you might look for it in the WP:RFAR version just before the case was opened.  If you can find it, go ahead and post it to the main case talk page (with a diff so a clerk can verify it).  I can look around later tonight but not right now. Thatcher131 21:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean that anything got dropped when the stuf was transferred over (as far as I can tell, it is all there). What I was asking was whether anything is likely to be done about the Coolcat connection where Husnock claimed that Coolcat knows CamelCommodore? I'm asking because from what I remember of what I read, Husnock has not presented things in his statement the most objective way.
 * In general, I hope arbitrators don't take statements without diffs at face-value. Morwen has already noted her concern with Husnock's statement. I'm going to post diffs to the three 'Rapapport' posts I can remember, and point out that 'Rapapport' was blocked for a personal attack on Morwen. Carcharoth 22:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If Husnock wants to list Cool Cat, I will probably not stand in the way, but such a listing would be meaningless without some kind of evidence. If Husnock wants Cool Cat to present evidence in his defense (to the issue of CamelCommodore being a distinct individual), Husnock should probably contact Cool Cat himself.  Anyone can present evidence even without being listed as a party. Thatcher131 01:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not WANT to be involved aside from the statement I made. -- Cat chi? 08:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lieutenant Colonel Dan Rappaport
What happens about the posts signed by 'Lieutenant Colonel Dan Rappaport'? Will those be examined by the ArbCom? What can be usefully said about them? Rappaport has been 'listed' as a party to the case, which caused me to raise my eyebrows in surprise. Should this really have been done if there is no reliable way (or even any need) to contact this person? It was said somewhere that Husnock would be able to represent him. That never struck me as workable, and is even less so now that Husnock has left. So what now? Carcharoth 21:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If Rappaport wants to participate further, the best way would be to email his evidence to a clerk or the arbcom mailing list arbcom-L at wikipedia dot org. I'm not sure who listed him as a party; you have to check the diffs on RFAR. As for the statement by Rappaport on the main page, I expect the arbitrators will give it whatever consideration they feel it deserves. Thatcher131 22:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rappaport was listed as a party from the beggining when CBD initially filed the case. Carcharoth 22:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Users without accounts are often listed as involved parties, though most often "user" is a bit metaphorical, as traffic from a given IP address at any given time may or may not correspond to the person whose participation in the case is actually sought. So there's a definite noise ratio to be resolved when dealing with anonymous participants originating from something other than residential broadband. Of course these difficulties pale in comparison to the burden of proof that Lt. Col. Rappaport:
 * A. Is a real, distinct person rather than a demographic fnord, and:
 * B. Has ever (using any IP address or username) edited Wikipedia of his own volition, rather than on Husnock's behalf/behest/whatever.
 * The way I see it, if B is false, than A is irrelevant, and vice versa, and "Rappaport" should be disregarded. However, on the off-chance that these two conditions can be reasonably established, by all means, get his e-mail address, and set Mr. Rappaport up with his own account, in hopes that he has something useful to contribute to this discussion and/or to the project as a whole. — freak([ talk]) 23:16, Dec. 22, 2006 (UTC)

I've gathered together what evidence there is here. Carcharoth 00:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser to distinguish Rappaport, Husnock and CamelCommodore?
From what I can make out, Rappaport and CamelCommodore post from different IPs. I'm not sure how the IPs work in Dubai, but would it be possible to run checks on the IPs Husnock was editing from and see how the times and locations match up with the edits made by Rappaport and CamelCommodore? The evidence section I linked to above might help.

What I am thinking is that Dan Rappaport posted from this IP, and CamelCommodore posted from this IP. I think a Checkuser has already been performed for Husnock and CamelCommodore, but can the same be done for Husnock and Rappaport for the sequence of edits where Husnock says he gave Rappaport his password? ie. look at these 4 edits on 18 December and see if they were done by different IP addresses (the first one should be Husnock, the middle two should be Rappaport, and the last one should be Husnock). If they are different IPs, then that would seem to confirm Husnock's statement that he gave his password out over the phone to Rappaport. If they are the same IP, then we have to compare it with the IP that Rappaport used to make his initial posts on 13 December (this IP is openly recorded as the edit was not made with a registered account), and possibly compare this with the IPs that Husnock was editing from at around that time. Though the IP records are only kept a short time, aren't they? Is it 4 or 10 days, I can't remember? I think it would be best to clear up all sockpuppetry suspicions if possible. Carcharoth 00:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's longer than 10 days. All the arbitrators have checkuser, so if they feel it is necessary they can do it. Thatcher131 01:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Carcharoth 01:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)