Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Konstable

Statement by gadfium

I don't have additional evidence to put forward, but I've done much the same investigation as have Wangi and Moe Epsilon above (although I don't have access to checkUser tools), and I am concerned for the safety of Wikipedia. I add my voice to the request for an emergency desysopping of Konstable.-gadfium 02:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konstable has requested voluntary desysopping. Since he has announced his intention of leaving Wikipedia, I no longer see any need for this case.-gadfium 01:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DarthVader

Even though Konstable has requested voluntary desysopping, I feel that it would be helpful if this case still went ahead. It would be good if the arbitration committee could decide if Konstable needs to reapply through WP:RfA if he decides to return and wants to be resysopped. DarthVad e r 02:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Miltopia

Arbitration on Konstable's part is obviously pointless at this point, since he's relinquished sysop, but it should still be accepted to look at the behavior of the others. The question of whether or not "troll" will be an allowable Wikipedia-sanctioned personal attack is one that needs answered, and the passive-aggressive "just so you know, I'm gonna revert you if you try to talk to me" (that's not ignoring a pest, that's antagonizing one) comments are uselessly hostile. Not involved or anything, just thought I'd chime in, since those comments made me actually frown. Miltopia 03:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryulong

Frankly, I do not see the purpose of this. Konstable has voluntarily been desysopped and he has left the project, and no longer has an intent to return due to the libel and attacks bandied about at the Administrators' noticeboard and this arbitration case. He admitted that he was both User:AltUser and User:AlternativeAccountK. I was solely suspicious about AltUser when he warned me about 3RR on my unprotected user talk subpage, because newbies usually aren't that versed in 3RR. The "FUCK SHIT FUCK" or whatever it was was on a talk page of an article that was deleted based off of an AFD that was a WP:SNOW delete (used to notify some RC patroller about the existance of the article and its need for deletion). AlternativeAccountK was not an abusive sockpuppet. He certainly wasn't bothering me, at all. If anything, it was a sockpuppet to evade a block placed on a sockpuppet, but that is the worst it did. Konstable did wheel war, and unblock himself, which lead to Chacor (or whoever it was) starting up this RfArb.

The checkuser that came up positive that User:Ryushort and User:AltUser are one in the same is certainly the most circumstantial evidence anyone could ever find, especially if it's a TOR IP. I've made a few "friends" over the course of my tenure at Wikipedia. And I know of at least three users who have impersonated me. The following is a list of some that I did not even know about:

And that's not limitted to the English Wikipedia. There is another friend I made who has forced me to register as ja:利用者:Ryulong-en at the Japanese Wikipedia. I have since been renamed to ja:利用者:Ryulong there after conversing with Suisui, one of their few Bureaucrats. This impostor was later renamed ja:利用者:削除されたユーザー名 14. ko:사용자:Ryulong has also been usurped to me. Below is a list of the other accounts created:

See Special:Listusers for a full list of other imposters

Ryushort is not to be unheard of with this giant list. I see nothing coming about from this RfArb other than a ban on someone who doesn't really plan on coming back yet from his departure, and that's nothing but a punitive block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may venture a guess. the arbitrators may want to put some final closure on the case, and to clarify further from what was said in the Giano case regarding resysopping of admins who voluntarily de-sysop themselves. Also, I suspect the example of HOTR is in their minds. The case against him was dropped when he "left", leaving his status in doubt. Thatcher131 23:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even with emphatic statements that he's gone for good? Regardless of the outcome, I still feel that Ryushort's connection to Konstable is circumstantial at best, which is why I've struck him out on the main page twice.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about Ryushort; leaving it struck won't prevent the arbitrators from taking it up as an issue if they want to. Regarding leaving, well, I could name a number of people who have emphatically "left" but are still hanging around. I specifically asked Dmcdevit about this and he wanted to proceed; from Fred's comments in the Jean-Thierry Boisseau case he would seem to be of the same mind. I wouldn't think of it as punative so much as setting the record straight. Thatcher131 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded comments in the acceptance column

- I hardly see why you're not recused Dmc, you blocked me, filed the latest inaccurate accusation against me and actually you were the one to suggest this aribtration in the first place.--203.109.209.49 04:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - A while ago, I did a standard checkuser and blocked the abusive sockpuppet I found, and never knew until today that it was you, Konstable (since it was on open proxies). Today I repeated the results of that check on ANI and clarified that arbitration is the way you get someone desysopped, not "emergency" requests to stewards. I hardly see the conflict of interest or bias. Dmcdevit·t 04:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - At least the fact that you called AltUser "abusive" is one good reason why you should be recused. It was no such thing actually. And as you have just repeated the satement you're obviously not coming into this with a cle*ar head and falling into the mistake the 4 who are bringing up the RfAr are making. If I'm going to be judged in absentee (as it seems was the intention in the first place - 3 out of 4 of the accusers above have already explicitly told me to leave and called me disruptive for commenting here, thanks guys) I would apreciate if at least the arbitrators weren't already involved in these inaccuracies.--203.109.209.49 12:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't a good place for discussion, but I didn't say that. Ryushort was clearly an abusive sockpuppet, discuovered through a checkuser of AltUser. Dmcdevit·t 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick query

Am I allowed to propose a temporary injunction, or is the workshop for arbs only? I figure it's for all since there's "Proposed decision" for the arbs, but just making sure. Miltopia 06:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only arbitrators may edit the /Proposed decision page. Injunctions or proposals however, can be proposed by anyone on the /Workshop page. These proposals will be evaluated and discussed by arbs and other parties and if found appropriate, the injunction will be added to the /Proposed decision page for voting and will be later passed if accepted by a majority of arbitrators. --Srikeit 06:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Glen S

Per this comment by Konstable (as Konstable II) I strongly suggest we close this and walk away. Since its opening he has had his +sysop status removed and we've established that he cannot simply reapply due to the controversial nature of his departure. I believe there is no more to gain by this Glen 12:36, November 27, 2006 (UTC)

agreed. I've sort of been watching this from a distance the whole time, but I was involved from the beginning. He'll need to reapply; at the moment, we're just throwing salt on the wound, and making sure Konstable will never return, admin or other type of editor. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my view too at this stage, for reasons expressed above and on the /Workshop. Unless someone posts a strong counterargument in the next day or two, I will offer a motion to discontinue the case. Newyorkbrad 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also support discontinuation of the case.-gadfium 23:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie, I am pleased to see that no one has any further ongoing concerns with me. Also Wangi agrees with this and Moe Epsilon says he does not see any value in the arbitration. No one has made an attempt to address my concerns that Glen S links to (my first post there was 3 days ago and the second post was 2 days ago). So I conclude that there is nothing left to discuss really and hence I am out of here - I've wasted enough of my time as it is here and I'm not about to sit here waiting for the arbitrators to react. As I declare the case to be over, I no longer have access to User:Konstable II (I cannot remember the password - it was in the automatic password fill-in for my browser, which is now erased) and, right after I press "save page" here, I will also change the password of this account to something I cannot remember. My ability to edit Wikipedia has been very thoroughly destroyed - any comment from me on any unrelated matter makes people who haven't even participated in this mess to jump out call me a troll, quote a few thing out of context and tell me that they're glad that I'm being banned; so that rules out any possibility of ever using this account again. The ArbCom (aka Fred Bauder) might decide to continue this case for some reason (maybe to facilitate my return by means of banning me?), but really it is over already whether they do or not. I will also change my IP just in case someone trigger-happy wants to do something to it. I just want to say that after such a thing here it is very utopian of some people to assume that I will be back as soon as month, I really doubt that I will be back at all.--Konst.able^Talk 23:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a motion at /Workshop to let the arbitrators think about this. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

"Premature return 1) Should Konstable return before one month without permission to do so, the block shall be extended for an appropriate period from the date of his unauthorized return. Passed 5 to 1 at 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)"

Does this mean that Konstable's main account was blocked? I see no evidence of this or de-sysop-ing in the logs. Please let me know if I'm missing something here. – Lantoka (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. With regard to the main account not being blocked, see under "Implementation Notes" on the Proposed Decision page. As I understand it and confirmed there, because the proposed remedy of a block did not pass, the proposed enforcement is vitiated because there is nothing to enforce. With regard to desysopping, Konstable was voluntarily desysopped on November 14. Desysopping is done by a Steward so the log entry would be on Meta. Newyorkbrad 11:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]