User talk:Husnock

This user has departed Wikipedia. Talk page messages may remain unanswered for some time

I have chosen to leave this site due to some very negative experiances in the past month. The first was a Wiki-stalking incident where parties unknown attempted to find me in the "real world", resulting in two e-mails to city governments (in an attempt to find my address), an e-mail to my job (in an attempt to get me in some kind of trouble), followed by a semi-threatening e-mail sent to my wife. The full details of this incident can be found here.

The second incident which has inspired me to shut down my account was that, on 13 Dec 2006, User:Morwen accussed me of making a death threat against her [[1]]. 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. Even more upsetting was the response of the Wikipedia community where the accusser was defended from all angles and I was eventually forced to make an apology. Full details of this incident can be found here.

I have therefore chosen to leave this site and wish the best to those who choose to remain. Good-bye. -Husnock 04:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: This user reserves the right to continue to answer questions on the talk page, vote in certain high profile AfDs, and revert vandalism against articles. However, Husnock will no longer actively edit articles due to the reasons stated above. -Husnock 09:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• User talk:Husnock/Archive 1 (April 2004 - April 2005)
• User talk:Husnock/Archive 2 (April 2005 - June 2005)
• User talk:Husnock/Archive 3 (June 2005 - September 2005)
• User talk:Husnock/Archive 4 (September 2005 - January 2006)
• User talk:Husnock/Archive 5 (January 2006 - June 2006)
• User talk:Husnock/Archive 6 (June 2006 - December 2006)

Leaving

If you're going to leave, do so. I wish you luck in your future endeavours. What I don't like is using "leaving" as a free card to exiting any discussion, and injecting it into every conversation. This comes across as attention-seeking. — Werdna talk criticism 11:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am on the way out, have no fear. I was helping a friend post to the site as he's having enourmous problems establishing an account from where he is. -Husnock 11:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You do that by creating him an account and having the system email him a password, not by giving him your own password. A compromised admin account is anathema.

Words fail me, which as anyone who knows will tell you is remarkable. —Phil | Talk 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Husnock (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do not deserve to be banned from this site with a permament block in case I want to one day return. How wrong is that. I helped a friend post a letter since he could not establish an account since all the available ips in Dubai are blocked. The password was changed five seconds after he posted and this account is not compromised.

Decline reason:

Not for now. No. This block is not indefinite; the ArbCom shall consider your case and decide soon. This is a temporary injunction, until the Arb decides, that is. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Can you explain why he could not just email you his contribution and you could then post it? Why did you need to give him access to an admin-level account to accomplish what a simple cut and paste would have achived? --Charlesknight 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you must know, I was on the phone with him and didnt think there was a rule against it if I changed my password right after I gave it to him. In any event...a ban from the site? Why are people hating me so? -Husnock 12:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The truth

So, Husnock, were you lying on December 13th when you said "I have never heard of this person but I do know there are CENTCOM offices in Dubai", or are you lying now, when you say you are best friends and you gave him your password? Both cannot be true. Proto::► 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He posted his real name on Wikipedia so I was trying to protect him. If that counts as a lie, then I was trying for the ends to justify the means (i.e., not openly admitting that I knew who that was and confirming his name on Wikipedia). He since has stated he doesn't care. He really wanted to post that letter so I helped him. Shoot me for that. My only issue is that this block is permament...since when was it discussed banning me from the site? Am I really so evil? Then we get to the letter itself. I thought it was a very nice letter. And, like I said, he was having all kinds of troubling establishing an account from where he is due to the ip blocks. I did not know I was breaking the rules to do this, as long as I changed my password. You can give me some kind of block (that's what a lot of people want), but banning me the site from the is a bit much, I think, for giving my password to someone who was having trouble establishing an account. -Husnock 12:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that does count as a lie. Quite a big lie. The same IP address had vandalised pages involving you before, and you claimed it was nothing to do with you. Proto::► 12:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That single ip address is held by God knows how many computers in the Dubai-Fuairah area. It's why it keeps getting blocked nd he couldn't post. And I don't think it was so terrible to not admit I knew him before talking to him about it, otherwise I'd be confirming his indenity on Wikipedia. What about the original point? Do I deserve a BAN?!? I think not. -Husnock 12:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am frankly amazed that it needs explaining to an admin what is so wrong with such conduct. First of all we have someone from an IP address who interjects into a dispute you have with another user - the type of comments that person makes leads to them being blocked - At the time, you claim not to know the person and query the block stating that they are a netural third-party and that such a block could be seen as trying to shut down discussion of the matter.. Great fine. However it now transpires that you are "good friends" and that you handed over your admin account to this unknown person so that this person could make posts from your account. Whichever way you want to cut it, you lied to the community. According to you, this is due to an IP block - which does not explain why you could not have cut and paste the material from an email or set up an account for the user.

You don't see WHY this type of behaviour is not of the basic standard that we would expect from admin? Honestly? You don't understand why people would be concerned? --Charlesknight 12:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, Husnock. You have a) lied, b) refused to apologise for causing a misunderstanding, and then tried to get the upset user punished for daring to be upset c) failed to understand basic wikipedia policy repeatedly around copyright, d) been stupid enough to give your account password to someone else, e) gave access to a sysopped account to somebody else, f) unblocked yourself after being blocked for disruption and f) refused to take responsibility for any of these actions, blaming someone else for everything that has happened. You're still an administrator. What do you think the appropriate course of action should be? Proto::► 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I also note that since announcing you had left Wikipedia 5 days ago ([2]), you have made almost 100 edits. Proto::► 13:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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. -CamelCommodore 19:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wesley.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wesley.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Proto::► 16:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom case regarding indefinite block

An arbitration case has been opened here to attempt to resolve the situation surrounding your current indefinite block. Since you are blocked you may wish to write any initial statement here and I or another can copy it to the ArbCom page. Dan Rappaport may also wish to comment as an involved party. --CBD 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sysop

I am advising you that because your account has been compromised, your sysop privileges have been suspended, pending further investigation of recent activity in your account. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As this potential account compromise was the reason for your block I have unblocked you. Note that compromised accounts of non-admin users are usually blocked as well. However, as you have indicated that the password has been changed and presumably will not share it again I am taking it on faith that the problem is resolved so that you may respond to various ongoing discussions. --CBD 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)