Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Evidence

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/w/index.php?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.

Husnock and sourcing

• Starfleet Security, on December 5
  • EEMeltonIV removes some stuff claiming it to be speculation or OR
  • Husnock reverts without adding a single source to the article
  • EEMeltonIV explains exactly why he was disputing this text
  • Husnock responds to this, citing "common knowledge", "I think it was in Star Trek IV actually. Don't know", drawing a conclusion from an episode, and furthermore an outright falsehood (there is an unexplained Colonel in Star Trek VI the movie. he is not identified as a marine.)

• Starfleet Security on December 13
  • I challenge the statement that there is "apparently an entirely separate career path" for Starfleet Security
  • Husnock justifies this statement on the basis that of the colour of a costume in an episode of Deep Space Nine, which he cannot remember the name of
  • I remove this piece of text from the article, which is patently speculation
  • Husnock reverts my removal of this disputed information, with the edit summary "Cleanup to show Deep Space Nine esidoe which featured a Starfleet Security Admiral (in gold shirt) showing this as a separate career path"
  • Husnock falsely claims this was not a revert, despite the fact that it for example reintroduced spelling errors

• Star Trek Expanded Universe on December 5
  • EEMeltonIV proposed a merge on November 11
  • I did this merge on November 15
  • Husnock reverting my redirect of this article, claiming "None of the material was merged into the other article" in edit summary
  • actually, I had added merged in several paragraphs
  • I do not redirect the article again
  • I remove some particularly dodgy information here and and then I immediately explain why
  • basically the claim was the Fontana coined this term "Star Trek Expanded Universe" (with capitals?) in 1966. 1973, sure. 1966: patent nonsense. i would have to go into more details to explain why exactly.
  • here says that "The name of the article is from a direct quote from D.C. Fontana when she was asked about McCoy's daughter. It is referenced in either a magazine or a book". he is asking us to accept that the article will remain in a dubious unsourced state until such time that he arrives home and has access to this book or magazine.
  • here I note the wrongness of this argument - "Please check your dates. Does it really make sense to have this being said in 1966? Not at all. Saying "ah, but I don't have my books with me at the moment" is not an excuse for adding misinformation."
  • I then explain the verifiability policy - "Challenged information should stay out until it is sourced properly."
  • I remove this nonsense claim again
  • he reinstates the claim, but not including the year 1966, with the edit summary "she said it at least once becuase I was standing there when she did so in 1994". he explicitly cites his memory of a convention as a source, in the edit summary.

• Talk:Law in Star Trek - December 7
  • after having had run-ins of the sort documented above, where User:Husnock has made excuses for not citing sources because he is away from home, and yet refuses to allow the disputed material to be removed
  • I suggest maybe he shouldn't be doing that sort of thing - "If you don't have access to sources, then you simply should not be adding this type of stuff from your memory, please leave it to those of us who do. "
  • he adds a source!
  • note here
  • but how has he managed to get hold of it so quickly? here, he admits he doesn't have it yet how can it be a source, then? it's not. i've got hold of a copy of this since, and it actually presents a very different picture of Star Trek law to that being presented by the article. this is nothing less than academic fraud. in a "further reading" section, yes. in "references" or "source" without it actually having been used as a source? no.

Husnock and WP:OWN

As noted above, Husnock is precious about his writing, and refuses to allow it to be removed, even when it is disputed.

• Star Trek Expanded Universe
  • see above
• Starfleet Security
  • see above
• Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia
  • he reverted the text dealing with the rank of "warrant officer", despite supposedly having left Wikipedia. this article is deleted at the moment so cannot provide diffs. I refer specifically to the edits of User:Charlesknight to remove improperly sourced content, which were reverted.

Husnock and copyright

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.

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

And, okay, sure you were acting in good faith when you tagged it as a copyvio (I cant even remember that far back)

So why was this so hard to do on December 7, when it would have stopped a lot of bad blood?

CamelCommodore is a blatant sockpuppet of Husnock

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

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.

• It has been pointed out that CC's name is as a play on "naval officer in the middle east", which describes User:Husnock
• CC's third edit is to a pretty obscure AFD about Star Trek
• CC lists as favourite articles several articles which Husnock has worked on, including non-Star Trek things such as Schutzstaffel
• User:CamelCommodore is using the same IP address that User:Husnock was (see checkuser evidence).
  • User:Husnock edited from that IP that day from 03:31 to 06:52
  • User:CamelCommodore edited from that IP that day from 07:00 to 07:30
  • User:Husnock edited from that IP from 07:35 to 07:51
  • User:CamelCommodore edits again at 10:55
  • User:Husnock edits from 11:35 to 12:34
  • User:CamelCommodore edited again from 12:38 onwards
• note the edit times. they show that when User:CamelCommodore was editing, User:Husnock was not editing.
• CC gives a weak attempt at explaining
• Husnock is unconcerned that CamelCommodore might be stalking him

Husnock's threat

• as above, I note that he doesn't have an exemption from WP:V because he is away from home
• he replies

"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."

• he then fixes his typo, at 15:11

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.

And frankly, your comment on Talk:Law in Star Trek that I should be careful advising you what to do because you are a "deployed member of the military", put me in fear of my life (and this comment from somebody who deplores bullies on his userpage!). I'm not prepared to edit articles under these conditions.

• he challenges me to report so at once to the proper Wiki authorities

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

"Fear of your life"? Hmm. Intent was to demonstrate you shouldnt tell someone who is deployed away from home that it is wrong that they be allowed to edit Wikipedia. To infer a death threat from that is a bit out there. No threat was ever made against you, if you feel it was, you should report so at once to the proper Wiki authorities."

Ten minutes later, he was worked himself up into a lather, and said

"Someone needs to have a chat with User:Morwen. The user has just accussed me of making a death threat against her. [...] However, this user was never threatened and even stating such an accusation is very serious."

"Death threat" is his words, not mine, let us remember.

At 10:55, I clarify my position

Do I think that User:Husnock is actually threatening to kill me? No. Did I say so. Did this comment scare me? You bet. Is this comment intimidating? Yes. It's intimidating in the "well, you wouldn't want this house to accidentally burn down, now would you?" type way. Was the comment intended to be intimidating? I don't know. Is it the type of comment we should be allowing users to go around making? Nope.

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

Husnock, it was nearly six hours ago that I posted that I accepted you did not actually intend to kill me. I was scared by your comment, and while it gratifying that you are apologising for me getting scared by your comment, I still note you have not expressed the slightest bit of regret for your misadvised wording. I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that you did not have malicious intent, but where is your acknowledgement that your wording was infelicitous? Morwen - Talk 16:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He replies

If it defuses the situation, then fine, you have a full apology and I am so sorry for all that was said, all ill-chosen wording, all bad faith suggestions, and any other action or statement which I made which was in any way offensive. I will not be editing Wikpedia for the rest of the year as a self imposed cool-down period and will no lnger post any information to this site which does not have a source. Fair well until 2007. -Husnock 16:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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 will apologize to to the Wiki community, and plan to do so after getting more comments on the matter, but to Morwen personally- NEVER. To say why I won't would violate WP:NPA, so I will simply state its due to personal feelings about that editor

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.

User:Morwen accussed me of making a death threat against her. After my years on this site, and my general integrity as a person, to have someone post that I wished to harm them and they were in fear of thier life was greatly upsetting to me.

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.

Husnock's password story is inconsistent

• in this edit, User:Husnock says "The account isnt compromised since I can change the password and I am leaving anyway".
• he is then blocked for this
• he changed his story, saying "The password was canged five seconds after he posted and this account is not compromised"

Husnock unblocked himself

• [2] - Husnock placed comments about Morwen on his user page
• [3] - Thebainer reverted these
• [4] - Thebainer left a message explaining his revert
• [5] - Husnock reverted this talk page message as a "veiled threat"
• Husnock then restored the disputed user page content and Thebainer subsequently removed it again
• [6] - Thebainer blocked Husnock for one month for "disruption" and Husnock then unblocked himself
• [7] - Husnock subsequently acknowledged his error and apologized for unblocking himself. He also did not unblock when he was subsequently blocked by Phil Boswell

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).

Husnock may have given out his admin password

• [8] - 'Dan Rappaport', using Husnock's account, claimed that Husnock had given him his password to get around an earlier block
• [9] - Husnock asserted that this was true
• [10] - Husnock suggested that he did not know there 'was a rule' against sharing his password

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.

Husnock has been dishonest

• [11] [12] - Husnock claimed to have never heard of Dan Rappaport
• [13] - 'Dan Rappaport', using Husnock's account, claimed to be a friend who knew Husnock well
• [14] - Husnock described Dan Rappaport as a close friend (see edit summary)
• [15] - Husnock claimed to have lied about knowing Dan Rappaport to protect him by not confirming that the name was real

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)[reply]

This probably belongs on the talk page (maybe a Clerk can move it there?), but from what I can see, Husnock's statement and his argument bring up these earlier events. I feel they are close enough in time to warrant being dealt with as a whole. You have been named as an involved party (CBD who initiated the case did not name you as a party - that was done by Thatcher131 here), so the ArbCom may chose to take a closer look at your conduct as well, so unless they agree to your removal as a party, then you should probbaly present evidence defending your conduct. I will also note that Husnock persistently conflates all his disputes into one, which is reasonable enough as the common thread running through all of them is his conduct. Which is what it seems this case will focus on. Carcharoth 12:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I decline to present evidence unless ArbCom requests such. Further, I have no interest in defending my actions. --Durin 14:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that ArbCom may examine the behavior of all involved parties is true in principle, but in this case I don't think Durin has anything to worry about. Newyorkbrad 14:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is an extension of recent deletion discussions

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).

Husnock is CamelCommodore

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:

• 6:39-6:52 — Husnock makes 5 edits.
• 6:57 — Husnock unblocks 213.42.2.22, with the summary "block affects half of Dubai and all of Fujairah...noone can create an account while block is active" [18]
• 6:59 — The CamelCommodore account is created (just two minutes after 213.42.2.22 is unblocked). It can be easily deduced that this is one of the IPs that Husnock/CamelCommodore was operating from.
• 7:00-7:04 — CamelCommodore makes 2 edits, including the AFD edit cited above.
• 7:17 — Husnock unblocks 213.42.2.21, citing "e-mails that this account is being auto-blocked".
• 7:24-7:30 — CamelCommodore makes 2 edits.
• 7:37-7:51 — Husnock makes 4 edits.
• 10:55 — CamelCommodore makes 1 edit.
• 11:35-12:34 — Husnock makes 13 edits.
• 12:38-17:34— CamelCommodore makes 22 edits.

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.

• 19:35 — Husnock makes 1 edit.
• 19:41 — CamelCommodore makes 1 edit (this likely should have been Husnock).
• 19:44 — Husnock removes CamelCommodore's post, with the edit summary "WTF?!?"
• 19:46 — Husnock posts to CamelCommodore's talk page, asking him about the post.
• 19:48 — CamelCommodore replies, apologizing. This is CamelCommodore's last edit, apart from an unblock request. (For the record, I declined this unblock request later).

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)[reply]

Husnock attempts to get CamelCommodore unblocked at WP:AN

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)[reply]

Involvement of named party 'Lieutenant Colonel Dan Rappaport'

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).

• As far as I can tell, the first appearance of 'Lieutenant Colonel Dan Rappaport' was at the talk page of User:Morwen, where he posted the following: [25] (15:19, 13 December 2006)
• This was followed a few minutes later by a post at the Administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN): [26] (15:24, 13 December 2006)

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."

• Proto then blocked the shared IP address (block log; talk page) used to make those two posts and left a warning message on the IP's talk page naming 'Lt Col Dan Rappaport, CENTCOM' as having made threats against a Wikipedia user: [27] (15:25, 13 December 2006)
• The WP:AN post was removed as "trolling" 8 minutes after it had been posted: [28] (15:32, 13 December 2006)

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:

• A letter from this Dan Rappaport was posted in that thread: [29] (11:35, 18 December 2006)
• Followed 4 minutes later by an added note, saying that the letter was posted using Husnock's password to access Husnock's account with Husnock's permission: [30] (11:39, 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)[reply]

My complements to the Colonel, and if he wishes to support Husnock, he should contact me directly at his earliest convenience. If he uses the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/The_Epopt to send his .mil e-mail address to me, I will reply from mine, we can authenticate each other's certificates, and clarify this situation. ➥the Epopt 21:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Husnock has made high quality contribution to important subjects

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)[reply]

{Write your assertion here}

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.

{Write your assertion here}

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.

{Write your assertion here}

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.

{Write your assertion here}

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.

{Write your assertion here}

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.