Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
As noted above, Husnock is precious about his writing, and refuses to allow it to be removed, even when it is disputed.
Husnock has an improper attitude to copyright.
As an example, see Image_talk:StarfleetSec.jpg, where User:Husnock uploaded a piece of original fan art. After its tag (as a logo) was disputed, he asked the question " What should the tag be?" rather than asking should we have the image at all? I ask whether he thinks it is a piece of real scenic art scanned from somewhere, or a piece of fan art. He moves the conversation in response to this, without answering. I prod again some hours later. He oddly pleads lack of time, despite being plenty active otherwise. He says he has " no idea" of the source of the fair use image he uploaded.
Another example is the text of the article Starfleet Security. The first sentence of our version that User:Husnock reverted to was more-or-less identical to memory-alpha.org's. This is also the version that User:Husnock claimed to have reviewed, as an administrator, and found no resemblance.
Our (old) version | today | Memory-alpha as of May 26, 2004 |
---|---|---|
Starfleet Security is an agency in the fictional Star Trek universe that is responsible for security aboard Starfleet and Federation outposts, vessels, and territories. | The Starfleet Security agency is responsible for security aboard all Starfleet and some Federation outposts, vessels, and facilities. | The Starfleet Security agency is responsible for security aboard all Starfleet and Federation outposts, vessles, and territory |
in this edit he claims that "as a adminsitrator, I review the matter and this article does not all resemble the other one on Memory Alpha", without, apparently, having even looked at the first sentence.
He reports me at WP:AN as "Possible bad faith copy-vio notice". It is eventually decided to remove the offending sentences and not delete the history. Fine.
Apparently, he feels exonerated in the issue. The next day, he he is saying false things about what I did. I challenge this on him, he refuses to withdraw the statements. He pleads lack of time. He then decides, that it is appropriate for him to "give [me] a Wiki cookie if [I] put [his] barnstars in to the neat kind of box you have on [my] page". I don't think this is very appropriate given what just happened, so I tell him so. he removes the note without comment.
Less than a week later, I challenged him again about this, as an example of why he was creating a hostile atmosphere and was WP:OWNing certain articles. he replies, finally
So why was this so hard to do on December 7, when it would have stopped a lot of bad blood?
User:CamelCommodore is patently a sockpuppet of User:Husnock. Now, at first it was just very bizarre, it could easily have been someone trying to cause trouble for Husnock. Until at 19:41, User:Husnock accidentally posted a message using the User:CamelCommodore account instead. Husnock here expresses concern
CC quickly gives a very weak excuse, and Husnock asks for User:CamelCommodore to be unblocked. Given Husnocks's lack of concern that User:CamelCommodore is his crazy RL stalker, I would have to assume that either Husnock is CamelCommodore or, perhaps, here is no crazy RL stalker.
Let's compare the writing styles here
Husnock posting as CamelCommodore | Husnock |
---|---|
"What is the point of posting that lengthy thread? Arew you trying to help me or kick me when I'm down. You call my a liar, call me stupid, and bring up stuff about copyright images which is far far from proven. Take a look at what you're doing. I ask you? Do you have something personal against me? Now, you tell the truth" | However, looking at my talk page, I see two uses who have posted what appear to be baiting messages and “kick you when you’re down” postings. One openly calls me stupid and a liar another starts a deletion discussion of an image I uploaded months ago knowing that I am blocked and will not be able to participate. |
Note the same types of typos, indicating perhaps a rather hastily written notice, and that the same points being made ("kick you when you're down", mentioning "stupid" and "liar"). Now, one of these edits was made at 19:41 to User_talk:Husnock, by User:CamelCommodore. The other was made to WP:RFAr at 19:35.
"Not to go into a very toucy subject, but I would be careful telling a deployed member of the kilitary they shouldn't edit on Wikipedia for whatever reason."
I hadn't actually consciously noticed the "kilitary" typo until I was compiling this evidence. Did it play a part in making me scared? I don't know. I got scared. I was very worried this was a death threat. here are my contribs. I discuss the matter with people on IRC and decide that it probably wasn't an actual death threat, and that it probably didn't in itself warrant a block. Given that User:Husnock and I were not on very good terms at the time, it didn't seem to be a good idea to further inflame the situation.
So, why did I bring it up again? I complained on Talk:Starfleet Security that Husnock was WP:OWNing the article.
Well, no, did I say a threat was made against me? No. I said his comment put me in fear of my life. Which it did. I made my post at 10:32. Husnock made his at 10:36.
At 10:46 he made a report to WP:AN, in an incredibly patronising tone, also rather more alarmist than his 10:36 comment. At 10:36 he had said
Ten minutes later, he was worked himself up into a lather, and said
"Death threat" is his words, not mine, let us remember.
At 10:55, I clarify my position
To this day, User:Husnock has not really acknowledged this, even though I posted it less than ten minutes after he made his complaint against me. You can read the whole sorry mess at here. For example, he said in his first attempt at an apology, that "the suggestion that I would travel to the United Kingdom to harm her is very offensive to me".
Is a death threat a death threat even though the person making it has no intent to carry it out? Yep.
Anyway, after literally noone supported his position, he eventually is persuaded to apologise. The initial apology was "I apologize to Morwen for her getting scared". This is playground apology, of the level of I apologize to Morwen for her bruising [when I punched her]. I did not much like this wording
He replies
This is still an evasive response. I am sorry for anything wrong I did [but I didn't do anything wrong]. But hey, it's probably the best I am going to get, especially as he had earlier said
I didn't really press the issue. I can't think of any legitimate opinion that can't be expressed in non-NPA terms, so I would assume that he is objecting to me on some basis of prejudice. Or maybe he just has a limited vocabulary? I don't know. Anyway, I accept the apology in good grace, and am happy to let the matter lie. End of story as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunate misunderstanding.
So, having his pride dented by making an actual apology, the next day he Leaves Wikipedia Forever.
This away message effectively repudiated the apology. I was quite upset that this falsehood, which I had, as I note above, corrected 10 minutes after he initially claimed this, being repeated again. I have no reason to believe User:Husnock actually wants to harm me, and I have always been clear on that. This does not change the content of his message or the fact that I found it very disturbing.
I think Husnock's user page comments were inappropriate, but Thebainer's reversions were also not the best way of dealing with it. The one month block seems clearly excessive, but self unblocking is virtually always a bad idea (barring hypotheticals like removing a block you accidentally placed on yourself).
I have no idea what to make of this. With Husnock, Dan Rappaport, CamelCommodore, the same anon IP both supporting and opposing Husnock, et cetera it is difficult to guess who is/is not a sock-puppet / account sharer / whatever. In any case, either pretending to be two (or more) people OR actually giving your admin password to someone so they can circumvent a block for personal attacks/threats is terribly improper.
Again, who can tell which story (if any) is the truth. In the end all we can say for certain is that Husnock's statements were self contradictory.
I remain unclear as to what the scope of this RfAr is. ArbCom has not yet stated whether this case is accepted to arbitrate the current dispute involving Husnock or all disputes that have ever involved Husnock. Though there are certainly past disputes that many will have an axe to grind in regards to, these events are in the past. I strongly urge ArbCom to not consider opening this case to the wider scope. Such a decision will result in nothing positive for the project. Until such time as the scope has been made clear, I have nothing further to say. -- Durin 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This case, which deals at least partially with Husnock's actions on Star Trek-related articles, has a direct relationship with the recent deletion of Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia. The first AFD was edited by Husnock 29 times. Delete voters focused on the article's original research, while Keep voters, including Husnock, noted the article's 17 sources as a response to originial research claims. Husnock believes the article is about to be deleted, and takes the deletion hard [16]. Husnock took the matter to the administrators' noticeboard, a place where Husnock should have realized it didn't belong. He uses an absurd comparison of the AFD to a theoretical AFD of Jesus Christ [17]. The DRV was part of a closure-war in its first hours of existence, and after a full 5 days, was closed as no consensus by Glen S. A DRV of the AFD overturned the decision, and the article was deleted in its second AFD. (For the record, I participated in the first AFD, voting "delete", but did not participate in the DRV or the 2nd AFD). Some of the participants in this series of discussions, including Husnock, Elaragirl, and Morwen participated in this DRV, and in some cases were very vocal about their positions. It should also be noted that CamelCommodore's third edit was to the 2nd AFD (a Keep vote).
Checkuser/arbitrator Dmcdevit has already confirmed that Husnock and CamelCommodore operate on the same shared IP. The likelihood of another user with the same interests editing from the same IP is highly unlikely. I have already mentioned that CamelCommodore's third edit was to a deletion discussion important to Husnock; his first and second edits were to his user and user talk pages (highly uncommon for a new user- this indicates that the user is probably a sockpuppet, if not Husnock himself).
I also present evidence that the times of Husnock's and CamelCommodore's edits indicate clearly that Husnock was alternating accounts. All times indicated are UTC, on December 18, 2006:
You'll notice that the above times do not overlap in any way. A two minute delay occurs between an unblocking by Husnock and the creation of CamelCommodore's account. A seven minute delay occurs between another Husnock unblocking and an edit by CamelCommodore. A seven minute delay occurs between CamelCommodore's 7:30 edit and Husnock's 7:37 edit. And a four minute delay occurs between Husnock's 12:34 edit and CamelCommodore's 12:38 edit. After this point, we see interleaving edits. The 19:41 edit by CamelCommodore is written as if Husnock's account was meant to be the poster. I assert that Husnock/CamelCommodore, after tipping his hand that CamelCommodore was his sockpuppet, decided to act shocked, and try to make it appear as if he had no idea what was going on.
It's clear by these edits that Husnock used CamelCommodore as a sockpuppet. This alone should be grounds for affirming Husnock's desysopping; Husnock has already indicated that he does not contest his desysopping. While Husnock has also hinted that he has left Wikipedia, I strongly believe that this case should be closed with remedies; users leaving on the verge of an arbitration case against them tend to come back if the case is dismissed. Ral315 ( talk) 07:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
After the CamelCommodore account was blocked, an IP address posted to the Main Page talk page, and the Administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN) asking to be unblocked. These posts were signed as coming from CamelCommodore. Husnock then participated in the WP:AN thread with the following six replies: [19]; [20]; [21]; [22]; [23]; [24]. If CamelCommodore is considered a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Husnock, then Husnock was, in that thread, persistently trying to deceive the community. Husnock's attitude throughout the thread changes from trying to prove CamelCommodore is a different person, to agreeing that CamelCommodore is irreperably tainted and should be allowed to die (last edit summary linked above is: "let C-C die"). Husnock concludes with: "I also imagine this person has either given up on the site or established a new account." Whether this applies to Husnock or CamelCommodore may not, ultimately, make much difference. Carcharoth 11:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This section provides diffs showing the involvement of the named party 'Lieutenant Colonel Dan Rappaport'. The edits referred to here are assumed to be by this person, though it should be noted that the edits are not associated with a registered account, but are marked as made by a shared IP address and (in one instance, central to this case) by Husnock's account (Husnock says he provided his password to allow this).
There are minor differences between the two posts, with one major difference being that the talk page one calls Morwen "a little girl". Both posts end with the following: "Watch who you pick your fights with and remember who your friends are."
The matter then rested for a few days, until the blocking/unblocking event set off an Administrators' noticeboard incidents (WP:ANI) thread on 18 December 2006:
Lengthy debate followed this, which led eventually to Husnock being desysopped, and ultimately this arbitration case. The letter linked above is also reproduced as the statement for Dan Rappaport in this case, a statement that was posted by Husnock [31] (04:07, 19 December 2006).
I think that is all the posts attributed to Dan Rappaport. There are also several posts by Husnock referring to Dan Rappaport, some of which are inconsistent, as has been noted elsewhere. I hope this recounting of this little thread of the history of this dispute has been helpful. Carcharoth 23:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Husnock has single-handedly changed the article Schutzstaffel from a lousy state to a reasonably good article article before Husnock started editing after some edits by Husnock history of the article
I had given him an award for his contribution on this article. I have the ability to assess the quality of his edits because I have read quite a lot about the SS, among others the standard work by the German historian Heinz Höhne The Order of the Death's Head: The Story of Hitler's SS.
I hope that efforts will be made to keep Husnock as a contributor. Andries 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
As noted above, Husnock is precious about his writing, and refuses to allow it to be removed, even when it is disputed.
Husnock has an improper attitude to copyright.
As an example, see Image_talk:StarfleetSec.jpg, where User:Husnock uploaded a piece of original fan art. After its tag (as a logo) was disputed, he asked the question " What should the tag be?" rather than asking should we have the image at all? I ask whether he thinks it is a piece of real scenic art scanned from somewhere, or a piece of fan art. He moves the conversation in response to this, without answering. I prod again some hours later. He oddly pleads lack of time, despite being plenty active otherwise. He says he has " no idea" of the source of the fair use image he uploaded.
Another example is the text of the article Starfleet Security. The first sentence of our version that User:Husnock reverted to was more-or-less identical to memory-alpha.org's. This is also the version that User:Husnock claimed to have reviewed, as an administrator, and found no resemblance.
Our (old) version | today | Memory-alpha as of May 26, 2004 |
---|---|---|
Starfleet Security is an agency in the fictional Star Trek universe that is responsible for security aboard Starfleet and Federation outposts, vessels, and territories. | The Starfleet Security agency is responsible for security aboard all Starfleet and some Federation outposts, vessels, and facilities. | The Starfleet Security agency is responsible for security aboard all Starfleet and Federation outposts, vessles, and territory |
in this edit he claims that "as a adminsitrator, I review the matter and this article does not all resemble the other one on Memory Alpha", without, apparently, having even looked at the first sentence.
He reports me at WP:AN as "Possible bad faith copy-vio notice". It is eventually decided to remove the offending sentences and not delete the history. Fine.
Apparently, he feels exonerated in the issue. The next day, he he is saying false things about what I did. I challenge this on him, he refuses to withdraw the statements. He pleads lack of time. He then decides, that it is appropriate for him to "give [me] a Wiki cookie if [I] put [his] barnstars in to the neat kind of box you have on [my] page". I don't think this is very appropriate given what just happened, so I tell him so. he removes the note without comment.
Less than a week later, I challenged him again about this, as an example of why he was creating a hostile atmosphere and was WP:OWNing certain articles. he replies, finally
So why was this so hard to do on December 7, when it would have stopped a lot of bad blood?
User:CamelCommodore is patently a sockpuppet of User:Husnock. Now, at first it was just very bizarre, it could easily have been someone trying to cause trouble for Husnock. Until at 19:41, User:Husnock accidentally posted a message using the User:CamelCommodore account instead. Husnock here expresses concern
CC quickly gives a very weak excuse, and Husnock asks for User:CamelCommodore to be unblocked. Given Husnocks's lack of concern that User:CamelCommodore is his crazy RL stalker, I would have to assume that either Husnock is CamelCommodore or, perhaps, here is no crazy RL stalker.
Let's compare the writing styles here
Husnock posting as CamelCommodore | Husnock |
---|---|
"What is the point of posting that lengthy thread? Arew you trying to help me or kick me when I'm down. You call my a liar, call me stupid, and bring up stuff about copyright images which is far far from proven. Take a look at what you're doing. I ask you? Do you have something personal against me? Now, you tell the truth" | However, looking at my talk page, I see two uses who have posted what appear to be baiting messages and “kick you when you’re down” postings. One openly calls me stupid and a liar another starts a deletion discussion of an image I uploaded months ago knowing that I am blocked and will not be able to participate. |
Note the same types of typos, indicating perhaps a rather hastily written notice, and that the same points being made ("kick you when you're down", mentioning "stupid" and "liar"). Now, one of these edits was made at 19:41 to User_talk:Husnock, by User:CamelCommodore. The other was made to WP:RFAr at 19:35.
"Not to go into a very toucy subject, but I would be careful telling a deployed member of the kilitary they shouldn't edit on Wikipedia for whatever reason."
I hadn't actually consciously noticed the "kilitary" typo until I was compiling this evidence. Did it play a part in making me scared? I don't know. I got scared. I was very worried this was a death threat. here are my contribs. I discuss the matter with people on IRC and decide that it probably wasn't an actual death threat, and that it probably didn't in itself warrant a block. Given that User:Husnock and I were not on very good terms at the time, it didn't seem to be a good idea to further inflame the situation.
So, why did I bring it up again? I complained on Talk:Starfleet Security that Husnock was WP:OWNing the article.
Well, no, did I say a threat was made against me? No. I said his comment put me in fear of my life. Which it did. I made my post at 10:32. Husnock made his at 10:36.
At 10:46 he made a report to WP:AN, in an incredibly patronising tone, also rather more alarmist than his 10:36 comment. At 10:36 he had said
Ten minutes later, he was worked himself up into a lather, and said
"Death threat" is his words, not mine, let us remember.
At 10:55, I clarify my position
To this day, User:Husnock has not really acknowledged this, even though I posted it less than ten minutes after he made his complaint against me. You can read the whole sorry mess at here. For example, he said in his first attempt at an apology, that "the suggestion that I would travel to the United Kingdom to harm her is very offensive to me".
Is a death threat a death threat even though the person making it has no intent to carry it out? Yep.
Anyway, after literally noone supported his position, he eventually is persuaded to apologise. The initial apology was "I apologize to Morwen for her getting scared". This is playground apology, of the level of I apologize to Morwen for her bruising [when I punched her]. I did not much like this wording
He replies
This is still an evasive response. I am sorry for anything wrong I did [but I didn't do anything wrong]. But hey, it's probably the best I am going to get, especially as he had earlier said
I didn't really press the issue. I can't think of any legitimate opinion that can't be expressed in non-NPA terms, so I would assume that he is objecting to me on some basis of prejudice. Or maybe he just has a limited vocabulary? I don't know. Anyway, I accept the apology in good grace, and am happy to let the matter lie. End of story as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunate misunderstanding.
So, having his pride dented by making an actual apology, the next day he Leaves Wikipedia Forever.
This away message effectively repudiated the apology. I was quite upset that this falsehood, which I had, as I note above, corrected 10 minutes after he initially claimed this, being repeated again. I have no reason to believe User:Husnock actually wants to harm me, and I have always been clear on that. This does not change the content of his message or the fact that I found it very disturbing.
I think Husnock's user page comments were inappropriate, but Thebainer's reversions were also not the best way of dealing with it. The one month block seems clearly excessive, but self unblocking is virtually always a bad idea (barring hypotheticals like removing a block you accidentally placed on yourself).
I have no idea what to make of this. With Husnock, Dan Rappaport, CamelCommodore, the same anon IP both supporting and opposing Husnock, et cetera it is difficult to guess who is/is not a sock-puppet / account sharer / whatever. In any case, either pretending to be two (or more) people OR actually giving your admin password to someone so they can circumvent a block for personal attacks/threats is terribly improper.
Again, who can tell which story (if any) is the truth. In the end all we can say for certain is that Husnock's statements were self contradictory.
I remain unclear as to what the scope of this RfAr is. ArbCom has not yet stated whether this case is accepted to arbitrate the current dispute involving Husnock or all disputes that have ever involved Husnock. Though there are certainly past disputes that many will have an axe to grind in regards to, these events are in the past. I strongly urge ArbCom to not consider opening this case to the wider scope. Such a decision will result in nothing positive for the project. Until such time as the scope has been made clear, I have nothing further to say. -- Durin 14:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This case, which deals at least partially with Husnock's actions on Star Trek-related articles, has a direct relationship with the recent deletion of Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia. The first AFD was edited by Husnock 29 times. Delete voters focused on the article's original research, while Keep voters, including Husnock, noted the article's 17 sources as a response to originial research claims. Husnock believes the article is about to be deleted, and takes the deletion hard [16]. Husnock took the matter to the administrators' noticeboard, a place where Husnock should have realized it didn't belong. He uses an absurd comparison of the AFD to a theoretical AFD of Jesus Christ [17]. The DRV was part of a closure-war in its first hours of existence, and after a full 5 days, was closed as no consensus by Glen S. A DRV of the AFD overturned the decision, and the article was deleted in its second AFD. (For the record, I participated in the first AFD, voting "delete", but did not participate in the DRV or the 2nd AFD). Some of the participants in this series of discussions, including Husnock, Elaragirl, and Morwen participated in this DRV, and in some cases were very vocal about their positions. It should also be noted that CamelCommodore's third edit was to the 2nd AFD (a Keep vote).
Checkuser/arbitrator Dmcdevit has already confirmed that Husnock and CamelCommodore operate on the same shared IP. The likelihood of another user with the same interests editing from the same IP is highly unlikely. I have already mentioned that CamelCommodore's third edit was to a deletion discussion important to Husnock; his first and second edits were to his user and user talk pages (highly uncommon for a new user- this indicates that the user is probably a sockpuppet, if not Husnock himself).
I also present evidence that the times of Husnock's and CamelCommodore's edits indicate clearly that Husnock was alternating accounts. All times indicated are UTC, on December 18, 2006:
You'll notice that the above times do not overlap in any way. A two minute delay occurs between an unblocking by Husnock and the creation of CamelCommodore's account. A seven minute delay occurs between another Husnock unblocking and an edit by CamelCommodore. A seven minute delay occurs between CamelCommodore's 7:30 edit and Husnock's 7:37 edit. And a four minute delay occurs between Husnock's 12:34 edit and CamelCommodore's 12:38 edit. After this point, we see interleaving edits. The 19:41 edit by CamelCommodore is written as if Husnock's account was meant to be the poster. I assert that Husnock/CamelCommodore, after tipping his hand that CamelCommodore was his sockpuppet, decided to act shocked, and try to make it appear as if he had no idea what was going on.
It's clear by these edits that Husnock used CamelCommodore as a sockpuppet. This alone should be grounds for affirming Husnock's desysopping; Husnock has already indicated that he does not contest his desysopping. While Husnock has also hinted that he has left Wikipedia, I strongly believe that this case should be closed with remedies; users leaving on the verge of an arbitration case against them tend to come back if the case is dismissed. Ral315 ( talk) 07:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
After the CamelCommodore account was blocked, an IP address posted to the Main Page talk page, and the Administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN) asking to be unblocked. These posts were signed as coming from CamelCommodore. Husnock then participated in the WP:AN thread with the following six replies: [19]; [20]; [21]; [22]; [23]; [24]. If CamelCommodore is considered a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Husnock, then Husnock was, in that thread, persistently trying to deceive the community. Husnock's attitude throughout the thread changes from trying to prove CamelCommodore is a different person, to agreeing that CamelCommodore is irreperably tainted and should be allowed to die (last edit summary linked above is: "let C-C die"). Husnock concludes with: "I also imagine this person has either given up on the site or established a new account." Whether this applies to Husnock or CamelCommodore may not, ultimately, make much difference. Carcharoth 11:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This section provides diffs showing the involvement of the named party 'Lieutenant Colonel Dan Rappaport'. The edits referred to here are assumed to be by this person, though it should be noted that the edits are not associated with a registered account, but are marked as made by a shared IP address and (in one instance, central to this case) by Husnock's account (Husnock says he provided his password to allow this).
There are minor differences between the two posts, with one major difference being that the talk page one calls Morwen "a little girl". Both posts end with the following: "Watch who you pick your fights with and remember who your friends are."
The matter then rested for a few days, until the blocking/unblocking event set off an Administrators' noticeboard incidents (WP:ANI) thread on 18 December 2006:
Lengthy debate followed this, which led eventually to Husnock being desysopped, and ultimately this arbitration case. The letter linked above is also reproduced as the statement for Dan Rappaport in this case, a statement that was posted by Husnock [31] (04:07, 19 December 2006).
I think that is all the posts attributed to Dan Rappaport. There are also several posts by Husnock referring to Dan Rappaport, some of which are inconsistent, as has been noted elsewhere. I hope this recounting of this little thread of the history of this dispute has been helpful. Carcharoth 23:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Husnock has single-handedly changed the article Schutzstaffel from a lousy state to a reasonably good article article before Husnock started editing after some edits by Husnock history of the article
I had given him an award for his contribution on this article. I have the ability to assess the quality of his edits because I have read quite a lot about the SS, among others the standard work by the German historian Heinz Höhne The Order of the Death's Head: The Story of Hitler's SS.
I hope that efforts will be made to keep Husnock as a contributor. Andries 20:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.