This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

1) This case was filed as an emergency request to desysop Konstable based on assertedly inappropriate activity conducted through his alternative accounts. I believe anyone reading here is familiar with the general background. If not, a scan of the proposed findings below outlines a chronology that I believe is generally (though not quite 100%) accepted as accurate. In the interests of time I have not compiled diffs supporting the assertions in the following paragraphs, but will support any statement made at the request of any editor or arbitrator.

Within 24 hours after this case was accepted, Konstable voluntarily gave up his sysop status. The question was then raised informally whether the case should continue. At least one of the arbitrators opined that it should proceed. In general, by the time things get to the level of requiring ArbCom intervention, accepted cases should probably proceed to conclusion. But this is not an invariable rule and should be subject to the arbitrators' discretion in the best interests of the community and taking into account all relevant factors, including the time commitment involved in resolving other cases raising more immediate and active concerns. It is 100% clear to me that if Konstable had resigned one day earlier, the case would not be here.

I posted proposed findings to this Workshop, trying to set forth the basic chronology of events and proposing remedies that I believed were appropriate but would be constructive rather than exacerbate the harm that has already occurred. I did so because I believed this to be a sad situation ever since it was first mentioned on ANI three weeks ago. Some good has come out of the case, in that Konstable has apologized for a few of his actions while explaining the reasons for the rest, but the case also continues to result in hurt feelings and a great deal of unhappiness.

It is submitted that Konstable's voluntary desysopping two weeks ago rendered moot the only issue the case was really accepted to decide, which was whether Konstable should be desysopped. There is broad consensus and Konstable has acknowledged that his resignation was under circumstances precluding his being resysopped without a new RfA (under the so-called Giano precedent), which is the other issue ArbCom might have wanted to resolve. Meanwhile, Fred Bauder has presented a technical argument that Konstable's main account should be deemed indef-blocked because the user has an alternate account blocked. This is a colorable argument but seems not to have occurred to anyone else, even the blocking admins who were most ticked off at Konstable at the time, so I don't think the case needs to continue just to address it. Konstable's record as an editor and administrator prior to the events underlying this arbitration was superior and any threat from his potential return as an editor is nonexistent.

The two arbitrators who have posted to /Proposed Decision seem to be in fundamental disagreement on exactly what this user might be sanctioned for. Dmcdevit's biggest concerns are that Konstable unblocked his own alternative account and created an alleged attack account; Fred Bauder opines these things, if true, are irrelevant. Based on his "aggressive" behavior through the alternative accounts, Fred initially proposed a one-year ban for Konstable, a proposal that to be candid nearly made me fall out of my chair when I read it, so extraordinary was the level of disproportionality to the harm caused by this user. Fred has now reduced his proposal to a one-month ban, which is certainly more reasonable but still in my view unnecessary especially since no participant in the case has advocated for any ban at this stage. Thus, the theoretical issues in the case are whether to desysop someone who is no longer a sysop and whether to ban someone whom no party has urged be banned.

As an added bonus, the case also raises issues relating to a checkuser result involving open proxies as well as a dispute over whether a particular arbitrator should be recused. In rejecting a case last week a plurality of arbitrators decided that ArbCom will not second-guess checkuser results. User:Ryulong has contented that proxy comparisons are less reliable than other checkuser results, and I who have no relevant technical knowledge at all have raised this as a theoretical possibility, but it does not seem like the type of issue ArbCom will address. With regard to recusal, the question has been raised whether a suggestion that a particular arbitrator will be recused is to be resolved solely in the discretion of the arbitrator concerned or is subject to a vote of the committee. Various real-world legal systems resolve this issue differently (see recusal), and it's a fascinating question (to me at least), but I would not suggest that it's worth keeping a case open just to resolve.

None of the editors who filed the case have posted evidence (even after a Clerk urged that evidence be posted). Because much of the evidence is in deleted edits, complete evidence would have to be compiled by a user with administrator access, and no such person seems to remain interested in the case. Given the seeming irrelevancy of any reasonable decision that might be rendered and the fact that all the users in question have moved on to other things, it seems unlikely that evidence will ever be posted.

Over the past several days, most if not all of the editors who filed this case have all indicated they do not believe it needs to proceed further. I agree.

I request that the Clerk join me as a nominal party to this arbitration for the purpose of moving to dismiss the proceedings. Newyorkbrad 00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think the only productive thing that can come out of this case is to rule that Konstable cannot be voluntarily resysopped, as is curent practice, since his actions did constite a misuse of admin tools. I would be happy closing the case with that one remedy. Dmcdevit·t 16:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Konstable has already acknowledged that he could not be resysopped without an RfA. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if my comment is appropriate here, but it seems everyone is in agreement (including Konstable) that this is the case. Certainly even if it werent formally acknowledged no crat would automatically repromote per the "controversial departure" condition established per the Giano arbitration. Fred's one month ban seems to be the only other point and Kobstable has also said that doesnt bother him as he doesnt expect to be back over said time. So, lets pack up and ship out?  Glen  01:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Damn. I was in the process of about to post a notepad-drafted motion with the exact same intent (although only half the size), but when I come here to post it, NYB has already beaten me :) I ditto this motion with the strongest support possible, as this is becoming farcical, and I'm sure ArbCom has cases where the results aren't redundant to deal with. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Konstable resigned his sysop flag due to circumstances being addressed by this Arbitration case. During this case, he must regain his sysop priveleges through normal means.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by me, Miltopia, uninvolved but watching with interest. Reword if necessary. Probably unnecessary if he's gone, but if he comes back he probably shouldn't be able to just ask for them back until this is decided. Miltopia 10:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need a formal temporary injunction on this. There is zero chance that a bureaucrat is going to reissue Konstable's buttons while this is pending, even in the unlikely event he were to ask for them. Newyorkbrad 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. When I was looking at this Konstable stuff I saw a link to a previous case where something like this popped up in the decision and thought it might be useful, but if it's superfluous don't bother. Miltopia 21:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point discourages experiments in disruptive behavior designed to illustrate a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) A user is responsible for all accounts the user creates.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) A block or ban of any account of a user with multiple accounts applies to all the user's accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I understand the principle aimed for here but I don't think this is quite right. For example, if a user has a main account and a bot account and someone blocks the latter because the bot is malfunctioning, that doesn't mean the main account is blocked, does it? Or to bring it closer to home, if Konstable had decided to forget about AltUser when AltUser was indef-blocked, does that mean Konstable couldn't edit ever again? Newyorkbrad 21:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A malfunctioning bot is a different matter. When one of your accounts is blocked it applies to all of them. Konstable, could, if he wishes, apply for relief as could any user blocked indefinitely. Fred Bauder 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Konstable (talk · contribs) was an experienced and respected editor, with a total of more than 7000 edits beginning in November 2005.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. In a user conduct case it is appropriate to have some general background about the person whom one is talking about - not to exculpate any misbehavior that may have taken place, but as relevant to assessing good faith, mitigating factors, etc. Newyorkbrad 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) On September 6, 2006, Konstable submitted a request for adminship. On September 13, 2006, Konstable was promoted to administrator after his RFA closed with a result of 47/0/0.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, again, just as background on whom the Committee is dealing with, if it's deemed necessary to proceed with the case. Newyorkbrad 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) In the two months between the close of his RfA and the events underlying this case, Konstable (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was active as an administrator, logged more than 2000 administrator actions, and performed his responsibilities in a satisfactory manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Again, for context. Newyorkbrad 15:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4) On November 5, 2006, Konstable created a new account with the username of "AltUser." Konstable later explained on this version of his userpage that he had recently become concerned that Wikipedia had become an unwelcoming place for new users, and wanted to experience how an unknown user might be treated in certain areas of the project such as deletion pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5) Use of an alternate account for the stated purpose of experiencing how a new user might be treated is expressly declared to be one of the legitimate uses of multiple accounts under the sockpuppet policy, an official policy, which states: "Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account in order to experience how the community functions for new users. In particular, some have suggested that Jimbo should get, and edit from, a sock puppet account. Perhaps he does." Newyorkbrad 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6) Konstable created AltUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an alternate account. Presumably to avoid any accusation that his alternate account was being used as a concealed sockpuppet in violation of policy, Konstable chose the username "AltUser" for his alternate "testing" account and mentioned on AltUser's userpage, AltUser's talk page, and in certain discussions that it was the alternate account of an established user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Haven't found the "certain discussions" yet. Fred Bauder 19:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed it was for "certain discussions" as far as I remember. But, as I mentioned on the evidence page, experimental accounts like these are very clearly permitted: "prominent users might create a new account in order to experience how the community functions for new users. In particular, some have suggested that Jimbo should get, and edit from, a sock puppet account. Perhaps he does."--Konstable II 03:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Note that Konstable appears to claim (on his own talkpage linked above) he also tagged the AltUser account as a sock on its userpage. Because the userpage has been deleted, I cannot check this, but the arbitrators can. Newyorkbrad 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that AltUser's first two edits (unless there were others to pages since deleted) were to his talk and user pages proclaiming that he was a sockpuppet. The first edit had the edit summary "Im a sock and Im proud".-gadfium 22:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal slightly revised per gadfium's comment. Newyorkbrad 03:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7) Predictably, the overt nature of Konstable's alternate account caused his attempt to experience Wikipedia from the point of view of a new user to fail, because it was readily apparent from the username, userpage, contribution history, and acknowledged in some of his statements that this was an alternate account of an established user and not actually a new user. Newyorkbrad 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think it was more the aggressive testing behavior and cynical attitude. Fred Bauder 19:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8) AltUser's edits included closing deletion discussions with what Konstable believed were obvious consensus for deletion. This drew attention as non-administrators generally do not close XfD discussions with a delete result. AltUser's editing also included removal of certain information from an article; there was a good-faith basis for the edits but an edit summary was omitted (Konstable says this was inadvertent) and an experienced user found the edits problematic. As a result of the account's overall history, reasonable concerns were raised about AltUser's conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

He was quite aggressive. Fred Bauder 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 16:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised slightly per Konstable's evidence. Newyorkbrad 12:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9) AltUser then made a post to the Administrators' Noticeboard that some readers considered uncivil. The post, coming from an acknowledged alternate or "sockpuppet" account, was not well-received and AltUser was blocked, initially for 24 hours for "trolling" and then indefinitely as an "abusive sockpuppet." The blocking admins and at least some others did not yet know the identity of the primary accountholder and believed he might be a user with a disruptive past or a troll.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How is that post uncivil?--Konstable II 12:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provocative and cynical would be a better description:

:There is no policy prohibiting it, so Wikipedians like to put porn everywhere they can. They have far worse things than this.--AltUser 12:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[1] Fred Bauder 20:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by that comment. The picture in question was in fact a porn picture (undesputably, it was an article on a kind of bondage fetish), there are far worse things on Wikipedia than a topless woman in a fake dungeon, and nudity is quite often used excessively. If you disagree with that, it does not make it disruptive.--Konstable II 03:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 05:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be speculative with regard to who knew what, and how early on. —freak() 09:37, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

Revised slightly per Konstable's evidence and Freak's comment. Newyorkbrad 12:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10) Konstable created a second alternate account, which he named "AlternativeAccountK", to continue his discussions with administrators with whom "AltUser" had interacted. This account was also prominently labelled as an alternate account. Although this account did not engage in disruptive activity, its first edits made it clear that the account was being operated by the same user as AltUser, which had been blocked. Therefore, AlternativeAccountK was tagged as a disruptive sockpuppet and blocked as well.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 16:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11) Konstable then unblocked AlternativeAccountK. He has contended that he did not violate the blocking policy, which forbids an administrator from unblocking his or her own account, because his primary account was not blocked. Other editors have opined that this action did violate the policy because Konstable unblocked an account belonging to himself and/or because Konstable had another account, AltUser, that was blocked. At a minimum, the self-unblock was unwise, although not done with malicious intent.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 05:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12) By this point, several administrators had become very concerned about these accounts' activities and had a legitimate and reasonable basis for their concerns. During this process, Konstable identified himself as the operator of AltUser and AlternativeAccountK, although not everyone involved realized this at the same time. He did not acknowledge the legitimacy of the concerns that were being expressed about his actions under those accounts. Instead, Konstable vented his frustration at the negative reactions to his experiment, at some comments that he perceived as assuming bad faith rather than asking him why he was doing what he was doing, and at the state of Wikipedia in general as he perceived it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Actually I had announced that AltUser was mine about one hour after its block, futher I even undeleted AltUser's pages (CentrX (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had deleted them instead of reviewing the unblock request, for unexplained reasons [2] [3]) and tagged AltUser as a sock of mine. AlternativeAccountK was created long after that and Ryulong (talk · contribs), to whom I was talking, knew very well that it was me. --Konstable II 11:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 16:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revised on the timing issue per Konstable's evidence. Newyorkbrad 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13) Konstable has repeatedly stated that he is leaving the project. He has redirected his userpage to his talkpage, placed a goodbye message on his talkpage, requested desysopping and was voluntarily desysopped. His last contribution under the Konstable account, which was his request for desysopping, was on November 14. Konstable initially stated he would not participate in this case, but has subsequently created Konstable II (talk · contribs), an account which he used solely for the purpose of editing pages related to this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Newyorkbrad 20:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14) During his last days of activity, Konstable made a series of sharply negative and unnecessarily harsh comments about the project and some other editors. Certain unnecessarily harsh and hurtful comments were directed at Konstable as well.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Forgive and forget when and if he wishes to return. Fred Bauder 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't believe it would be useful to parse the individual comments that were made as none of them warrant ArbCom action, though there were certainly things that should not have been said. Newyorkbrad 05:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that "forgive and forget" and "one year ban" are somewhat opposite concepts. Newyorkbrad 17:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Per User talk:Konstable (this edit [4]), Konstable has left the project. Per this [5] he has been voluntarily desysopped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noted. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe re-worded... Miltopia 10:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least spelt properly :-D (Bulding -> Building) Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems evident that he has not left the project, see Special:Contributions/Konstable II. —freak() 10:33, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

1) It is asserted in the complaint that the existence of alternate accounts is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing. Alternate accounts are explicitly permitted provided that they are not used for block evasion, astroturfing or other disruption, (see WP:SOCK) and there is no requirement to identify the main account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Important principle. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reword - alternate accounts are permitted for legit reasons, after all. Miltopia 10:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Apparently I misread, disregard this haha Miltopia 15:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the complaint and I cannot see this assertion, any chance someone can highlight which part they believe is saying that? The only assertions I can see are that the accounts were created as sockpuppets with no declaration of who they were, there doesn't appear to be an assertion this is wrongdoing on its own, merely a statement of fact setting the scene. The subsequent acttivity is the problem being reported. Although I of course agree with the basic principle (though I'd characterise the general feeling to be that sockpuppets are not be used without pretty good reason), I'm not sure of the relevance here if no one is making and assertion contrary to this. --pgk 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Konstable unblocked his own alternate account AlternativeAccountK [6]. Self-unblocking is strongly discouraged. This applies even though the stated reason for blocking (sockpuppet of banned user) was factually incorrect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is where it gets difficult. In my understanding blocks are per person, not per account. The fact that one of his alternate accounts User:AltUser was blocked. Theoretically the person was blocked, so an outright statement that the reason for blocking was factually incorrect seems questionable. In fact since the new accounts first edit was to respond to the blocking of the original account, it would indeed seem evidenced that the block reason was factually correct. (As noted not that it makes a difference to the action of unblock one self anyway...) --pgk 14:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. That's why block/ban evading socks are indeffed, and sometimes the main account's block is reset because of the block/ban evasion. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified part of the item above. It seems that he technically unblocked what was seen as his sockpuppet's sockpuppet, and though he himself wasn't evading anything, the second account was evading the block of the first account, so the block (though being indisputably valid in any case) would have been "factually correct" as well, if the word "blocked" had been used rather than "banned". Trifling difference at this point. —freak() 09:50, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

1) As determined by CheckUser [7] It was proven that whoever ran the account User:AltUser created the attack account User:Ryushort, imposter account of established editor User:Ryulong. It was later determined that User:AltUser was created by User:Konstable, which implies that he created the account User:Ryushort.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. semper fi — Moe 23:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not proven. Your own "evidence" that you presented of this you had to cross out yourself because it made no sense, and Dmcdevit claims that they were created at the same time, which they weren't - check the logs. If I make 11 edits (actually more, some to deleted pages), and each one is from a different open proxy, the chances that one of them is a vandal is quite high no matter who I am. See also Ryulong's comment. If you really need this, maybe you could say that AltUser edited from the same proxy as Ryushort, but it was most definitely not proven that they are the same simply because it is not true.--Konstable II 11:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As Konstable points out, I disagree with this completely. He was using TOR, which is available to everyone, and I've been doing RC patrol long enough to have a nice sized list of people who are pissed off at me to go through such a process. With TOR, the connection is circumstantial at best.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) As an experienced editor Konstable would have been well aware that closing of deletion debates as delete by non-admins is contrary to established practice. As an admin Konstable was more than able to fully close the debates, doing so using his sockpuppet contrary to that practice, rather than an open discussion on the merits is directly contrary to do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I was considering proposing something to this effect. I think it should be noted, but don't think there's a need to do anything punitive in relation to this. – Chacor 02:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to see someone provide some diffs with this and show where I have ever been disruptive. Regarding closing AfDs see my comment above. It is being done right now and it is not discouraged anywhere in writing. And in fact before I was blocked I was told not to close non-obvious AfDs, nothing about closing AfDs as delete. (I was not blocked for closing AfDs anyway, I was blocked for trying to bring this matter up on WP:AN)--Konstable II 10:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment striken to it being duplicated above) There we go, without me even having to name anyone Alphax (talk · contribs) has just stumbled upon this case and commented that he regularly does this as a non-admin. Now as I have claimed many times earlier, this is being done by multipe users regularly and there is no policy nor guideline against this, what Daniel Bryant quotes there is a description of the process (not a guideline) that says that this is not generally done - and the only reason why it says that is because of the technical capabilities, but my {{db}} with link to AfD managed to get the pages deleted well enough. So I can hardly see any disruption where I clearly did not violate any guideline, nor did anything extremely unusual (as people claim, but I have seen other people apart from Alphax who do the same), and only improved Wikipedia! (now the reaction to that has shown the huge ugly side of Wikipedia, but people's lack of understanding of deletion is hardly my fault)--Konstable II 05:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed --pgk 14:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konstable: WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Non-administrators should not close a discussion as "delete" (unless the item in question has already been deleted) due to their technical inability to perform said deletion. Such closures should generally be considered invalid, and reverted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I know at least 2 non-admins who do this regularly (though 1 has since been promoted to adminship as far as I know). The general thing to do here is exactly what I did with AltUser - put a {{db}} with a link to the AfD and explanation that it has been closed as delete. Nowhere is this forbidden or even discouraged. If you want to forbid this, why not take this to the community rather than have ArbCom, a small group of people, decide this matter?--Konstable II 10:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I was not aware of that WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions. But this looks like a very vague statement "generally should not", and even that on a page that is not even a guideline. I hardly see how violating that little footnote that says that this "generally should not happen" created disruption. I am apparently a danger to Wikipedia now so I do not have the ability to go back and check, but I remember one of them was actually a vandal hoax article, and the rest were also obvious and had unanimous consensus. What benefit does wikipedia get by prohibiting non-admins from helping out with backlogs even in such obvious situations? It has being done already by others anyway.--Konstable II 10:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Feel free to reword/obliviate. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not needed, but let's try a less-wordy version. —freak() 09:29, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The community did, at WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is crap. I have often closed AfD discussions as "delete" while not an administrator. [ælfəks] 00:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a policy issue (as opposed to my wording above that AltUser's closing AfD's as delete drew attention because it's not generally done, which is more of a historical finding of fact). There are exceptions, but generally the Arbitration Committee has stayed away from making policy decisions. Newyorkbrad 00:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was explicitly told not to by "a concensus of administrators", and that if I continued to do it I would be blocked for disruption. Only going on my experiences... Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Konstable II (talk · contribs), claims to be Konstable, and has edited this arbitration case on behalf of Konstable, and for the purpose of attacking participants in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We generally permit users to participate in arbitrations which concern them. Fred Bauder 17:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems self-evident, might be expanded depending on behavior. —freak() 10:16, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

Whom am I attacking, and why the hell can't I comment on my own arbitration page?--Konstable II 10:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you make all further edits to this case using your original account, if only so you won't be able to come back a month from now saying "whoa there, that wasn't me!". —freak() 10:53, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

Not going to happen for reasons I would rather not explain, but feel free to run a CheckUser. So where did I ever attack anyone?--Konstable II 10:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree (beyond updating the earlier comment that he wasn't participating). He's certainly entitled and even encouraged to participate fully in his own arbitration case, and to argue for findings and remedies based on his view of what occurred. While there have been cases of adverse findings based on comments in an arbitration case itself, that only occurs in cases of really gross misbehavior on the case pages (such as the St. Christopher or Gundagai Editor cases), and there's nothing like that here nor any reason to believe there would be. Newyorkbrad 17:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) November 5, 2006 Konstable (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) created AltUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and engaged in a number of aggressive actions which resulted in an indefinite block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) The Arbitration Committee takes note that Konstable was desysopped, at his own request, on November 14, 2006. Therefore, it is unnecessary to rule on whether his actions would have warranted action against his administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 18:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems entirely reasonable to me. Since Konstable is no longer an administrator, there seems no point in pursuing any such findings.-gadfium 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) In the event that Konstable were to request resysopping at some future time, the situation would be governed by the principles set forth in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, including Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Return_of_access_levels, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Administrator_conduct, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Second_chances.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is possibly premature given that Konstable has left the project, but at least one arbitrator has suggested the case should continue precisely to address this issue. Note that in the Giano case, the committee ruled that "determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion." In this case, it seems pretty clear that Konstable left in the midst of a controversy, but I do not know whether the Committee wishes to rule on such an issue in the abstract or leave it to the bureaucrats to deal with if and when it might ever become relevant. Newyorkbrad 18:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this requires an ArbCom ruling. It seems clear that he left under controversial circumstances, and that therefore if he returns he will need to apply for adminship through RfA.-gadfium 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrators agreed to hear the case even though Konstable was voluntarily deadminned. Presumably they are looking for some sort of formal closure. Thatcher131 03:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer 2.1, more to the point. —freak() 09:56, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

2.1) The Arbitration Committee finds that Konstable gave up his sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get them back through normal channels.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sure, that account is dead anyway so there is no other way if I do decide to return eventually. Though if I do I don't think I'll want to be admin again.--Konstable II 10:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Also based on Giano case material[8]. —freak() 09:56, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

In Giano the committee said generally bureaucrats make these calls but then made this finding itself, so I agree they might want to decide themselves again here. If so, I agree this is a correct formulation. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) Konstable's user account is in good standing, no further action is taken against him, and he is free to resume editing Wikipedia at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I will do no such thing.--Konstable II 10:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then go already. – Chacor 10:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me alone Chacor. Such nastiness from you only inspires me to stay longer.--Konstable II 10:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, stop wasting all our time. – Chacor 10:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I mean about Chacor's will to discuss and civility.--Konstable II 10:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal.-gadfium 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4) Upon consideration of Konstable's complaint against User:Moe Epsilon and User:Chacor, no action is taken against them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad 18:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal.-gadfium 22:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5) Should the principle noting that Konstable violated WP:POINT be approved, Konstable is to be reminded that disruption is unacceptable. However, no further action will be taken against him with regards to this incident.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. – Chacor 03:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

6) In light of his disruptive use of sockpuppets, if Konstable (talk · contribs) should decide to return to Wikipedia under any name, he shall edit from only one account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No disruption has ever been pointed out to me. A bunch of general statements, etc. If I ever edit again (highly unlikely within the next half a year at least) I will create a new account (such as this one) thank you.--Konstable II 10:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if you choose to edit under a new identity, even a less transparent one, you should be limited to that account only. —freak() 10:20, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

If for some reason I will want to create new accounts, I will do so as anyone else per WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts (which is in fact official policy) thank you. I have caused no disruption and no one has been able to point out any disruption on my part apart from empty accusations that cannot be backed up with evidence. Now this does not mean that I'm saying I intend to go out and create a huge sock farm if I return, but I will not be discriminated against just because some people decided to throw some empty accusations at me.--Konstable II 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. —freak() 10:03, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

7) Chacor (talk · contribs) and Moe Epsilon (talk · contribs) have refused discussion, and have labelled Konstable (talk · contribs) a "troll" on multiple occasions for his attempts to discuss the matter with them. As experienced editors (and Chacor is a former admin), they are well aware of civility policies, the implications of refusing discussion, saying that any futher comments will be reverted, and calling an established editor a "troll".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed.--Konstable II 10:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite on the contrary, you have indeed "discussed" it with me, and I have at no point said that further comments would be reverted. – Chacor 10:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telling me to go away is not discussion. Maybe I should split you and Moe up - Moe was the one who told me that any futher attempts for me to contact him will be ignored and reverted (and this after just 2 comments on his talk page to which he did not reply).--Konstable II 10:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) The indefinite block of AltUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) applies to all the accounts of the same user including Konstable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Let me say, as a party to this case, that similarly I am very strongly against any such motion to indefinitely block Konstable. – Chacor 01:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Very strongly oppose. Please see under next paragraph. Newyorkbrad 22:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly oppose.-gadfium 23:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, very strongly oppose Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) After one month should Konstable wish to return to editing, he may do so by creating a new account. No notification to the blocking administrator or the Arbitration Committee is required unless he wishes to reactivate a blocked account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced to one month Fred Bauder 19:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Why exactly "one year" in the wording? Still, while I don't believe that what he did was acceptable, and imo was disruptive, such a remedy is punitive and not preventative... if Konstable has something good to offer us, we shouldn't be preventing him from doing so. I fully agree with NYBrad's assessment below. – Chacor 01:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"One year" is arbitrary, but considerably less than indefinite. We all need to cool off anyway. Fred Bauder 17:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A year is a long time for "cooling off." Make a list in your mind of people you've banned for a year and then think about whether the behavior at issue in this case is comparable. Note that if Konstable had requested his voluntary desysopping one day earlier, there wouldn't even be a case. Newyorkbrad 17:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one month is certainly more reasonable than one year, but it is submitted that the entire idea of banning this user is unnecessary. Newyorkbrad 19:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A month to "cool off"? It's been 21 days since my last mainspace edit, all my other edits since then are solely related to attempts to resolve this thing here. By the time this arbitation closes it would have been much longer than a month since my actual edits relating to other issues. Also, does anyone honestly think that I will be back in just one month after such a fuss here? Or maybe somsomeone wants to present some evidence implicating that I want to destroy all my work here and harm Wikipedia instead?.--Konstable II 03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Most strongly oppose the preceding proposal and this one. Konstable was a good editor for a full year. He became an administrator with unanimous support and did a fine job. He created AltUser with the intention of exploring a serious concern that had developed in his mind, whether rightly or wrongly I do not know, in a manner expressly permitted (perhaps it should not be) under the sockpuppet policy. From my proposals above I think it is clear that I did not agree with how he handled himself earlier this month, far from it. But this proposal of a one-year ban (or any ban) is something no one in the case had even remotely suggested (in fact, Konstable's main account was never blocked even for an hour). I consider it extreme and unwarranted. I think what has already happened will dissuade other users from doing what Konstable did. The possibility that he, if he decided to come back to Wikipedia, would re-offend is remote. The only thing a ban now would accomplish would be to turn our having lost a good editor from a likelihood to a certainty. Newyorkbrad 22:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked indefinitely. Fred Bauder 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. With respect, I also frankly don't quite understand the value of posting proposals to the Workshop if you're then going to post to Proposed Decision 15 minutes later. The parties to the case have had no opportunity to react to your proposals of this afternoon. If it weren't for the fortuity that I was editing at the moment you posted these proposals, you would have had no comments at all. Newyorkbrad 22:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did provide feedback; which I appreciate. Remember, another arbitrator, Dmcdevit, is the blocking administrator and is busy making proposals himself over on /proposed decision. Fred Bauder 22:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. A one year ban is overkill for the relatively minor offence of creating a problematic sockpuppet. A one day block and ban on using future sockpuppets would seem to be a more typical remedy.-gadfium 23:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block is currently in effect. Fred Bauder 23:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's remarkable that no one ever realized it before, even the admins who were most ticked off at him and blocked his other accounts. Newyorkbrad 23:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, we tend to see accounts, not users. Fred Bauder 23:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. He wouldn't have been blocked indefinitely, I don't think, if the blocking admin thought he was also indef-blocking the main account of someone with 7000 good edits. Newyorkbrad 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I blocked I understood it was one account (which was blocked) and one sock, which I blocked indef as it was being used to get round the block in the other account. Of course it turns out the other account was a sock too. Regardless, a request on the main user account to unblock would have probably just got a shortish block for dicking around with sock puppets (to prove a point in the first place), not an indef one. /wangi 18:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I apologise for the following actions:

• Causing controversy by closing obvious AfDs, I had no idea people would have a problem with it as I have seen others do it and there is no policy against it (see above).
• Putting some watchlisted phrases in an attempt to attract faster admin attention to have a vandal article deleted (I closed the AfD of that article).
• Being harsh on Ryulong in a couple of situations, even if he was harsh on me by reporting me as a vandal.
• Lifting a block that seemed like an obvious mistake without discussing it with Wangi (talk · contribs)
• Any offence caused by my posts on the WP:AN/I thread.
• Being overly harsh on Chacor on his talk page after he called me a troll. One abuse does not warrant another.

--Konstable II 05:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

See discussion on the talk page. Newyorkbrad 17:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]