Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) at 17:46, 20 December 2006 (→Statement by []: sp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive65#Possible_bad_faith_copy-vio_notice and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive63#Unfair_and_biased_deletion_notice.

The most recent situation began Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive66#Death_Threat_Accusation, 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. — Werdna talk 16:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by blocking admin Phil Boswell

I blocked Husnock (talk · contribs) indefinitely because of Template:Wp-diff. 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 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:

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. .
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.

5. 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.
6. 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)

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)

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. --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

1. People should not go berserk about the password sharing incident (ZOMG, a sysop password got compromised!!!). Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. If you do something unfair to one of them then probably quite a few more will be upset with you and/or with Misplaced Pages 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.

67.117.130.181 04:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by 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 out 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 out 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 CamelCommodore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)