Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Somebody might want to put some evidence on the Evidence page to support all these findings of fact. Thatcher131 23:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but much of the relevant evidence is already cited in the request for arbitration and on the workshop page. A more detailed presentation of the evidence, if needed, should be assembled by an editor with administrator access as I believe many of the relevant diffs and pages have been deleted. To a certain extent, my proposals rely on characterizations of the deleted materials' contents (by Konstable and other parties to the case) on ANI.

My proposed findings do not address the checkuser result on the "Ryushort" account as reported by Dmcdevit as again, I am obviously not able to access and comment on the support for that finding. In the last couple of days before his departure, Konstable presented himself as making a full disclosure of the activities of his alternate accounts, and strongly denied that he was the creator of "Ryushort." By itself, I would find this denial quite credible. However, I trust Dmcdevit and a checkuser finding that he reports implicitly. My only question is whether the nature of this checkuser run - a comparison of two Tor proxy accounts - is in any way potentially less reliable than checkuser results on other types of accounts. It is understood that only the arbitrators and checkusers have access to the evidence on this issue. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings

Someone on IRC had suggested to me to actually participate in this arbitration if I want to keep the facts straight about my past, though I sort of fail to see the point now. I don't care if Moe and/or Chacor have a problem with me commenting, in fact I am more inspired to comment because of their abuse.--Konstable II 10:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I wish there were some facts in evidence. Or at least that the proposed findings of fact were supported by diffs. I did not witness the story as it unfolded, but the situation so far seems to call for a proposed principle, "don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point", except that there are no diffs in evidence to indicate that AltUser was disruptive. The reaction to AltUser might also have been over the top but there are no diffs in evidence on this either. Thatcher131 14:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As noted above, a comprehensive set of diffs would need to be compiled by an admin because some important material is said to be in deleted edits. Moreover, when I prepared my proposed findings, I did not know that Konstable would be participating, even to a limited extent. I would be more than happy to add diffs to the extent they are available to me and I will certainly revise my proposals if the record, including party comments, suggests they need changing.

Bigger picture, I hope this case can be managed in a way that mitigates the damage already done rather than worsens it. It seems clear to me that Konstable's use of the other accounts started out from good-faith concern about the future of the project but that his attempt to test the situation was poorly designed for the reasons I have indicated (so that ironically, his attempt to respect the sockpuppet policy made things worse rather than better). The other editors involved thought they had legitimate concerns and things spun rather too quickly out of control with some mutual examples of failure to AGF. Things were said by several people that should not have been, at least not in the way they were, and it is unfortunate if those involved don't accept that, but it wasn't at the level that ArbCom typically gets involved. The voluntary desysopping moots the issue of whether Konstable should be desysopped, which is really the only reason the case was accepted to begin with (my own vote if I had one would be to dismiss the case as moot and unlikely to serve a useful purpose, but the committee seems not to want to do that). Konstable, or Konstable II, is most welcome to resume as an editor (of pages in addition to this one), at least as far as I'm concerned, but he's also entitled to go in peace or to take a wiki-break if he wants. That is about all this case amounts to whether we stop now or whether the workshop swells to Giano-like proportions. Newyorkbrad 15:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is this arbitration case supposed to be about?

I am not so sure what I am meant to be even defending myself against any more. I have long given up +sysop over unblocking myself already, and so what is left is nothing but some stale issues on AltUser. People keep repeating the same things over and over again without any evidence being presented, nor is my evidence being refuted or even referred to. What is even being debated here in the first place? Is there someone who thinks I have harmed Wikipedia in some way, or that I am a continuous threat to Wikipedia for some reason (though no mainspace edits in 3 whole weeks seems to refute that theory)? What is it? It is very nice to propose "remedies" but against what? If it is closing AfDs, I have addressed that in my evidence, if it my usage of socks, I have also addressed that in my evidence. So what is it then?

The only legitimate un-refuted statement that I see now is some technicality of AltUser still being blocked. I still disagree with that block, but I have no intention to argue to have it unblocked, as it is completely pointless - I do not want AltUser back, and I do not think that it would even be appropriate for me to have any more socks around in light of this controversy! I don't think I even remember the password for my other accounts even if I did want them back! So what, I am meant to be banned on a technicality now? So then what is the arbitration case about?--Konstable II 04:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Further, my only supposed victim, User:Ryulong has only opposed Wangi's blocks, shown opposition to holding this arbitration, said he does not care about User:Ryushort, and has only given me words of support on IRC. See his full statement here, I am actually not sure why it has been moved to the talk page, he is the most involved party apart from me. He is the one whom I'm allegedly in a feud with (according to Dmcdevit, though this isn't true), he is the one whom I have been allegedly harassing with both AltUser and AlternativeAccountK (according to Moe's statement, though Ryulong doesn't feel too harassed), he is the one whom I have allegedly impersonated (though even he does not believe that), and he is the one towards which my overboard AN post was directed at (for which I am blocked in the first place)! If he does not care, if he is supporting me, and if no one who has brought this case forward can argue to the contrary, and no evidence can be presented, why is this arbitration going on in the first place and what are these remedies of banning me meant to be achieving or protecting against?

I have given up my +sysop, I have declared that I am leaving and I am only here for the arbitration, I have not edited anything apart from discussions about this issue in over 3 weeks and though I may return (if where I am editing now does not work well for me), I guarantee you I won't be back as soon as a month (believe me, this is a very negative experience for me), I guarantee you that I will run for WP:RfA if I return (I see no other way... no bureaucrat in his sane mind would give me back adminship after this without community support), though in fact I state that I have no intention to run for adminship, in fact I was thinking of giving it up before the whole incident (check one of the last deleted edits on my user page, this happened before this all). Yesterday I apologized for (though not intentionally) causing this incident and for causing any offense. Even the parties who have brought this to arbitration are not arguing against me and have not presented any evidence. So what is the standing issue here that needs to be resolved? Or what am I meant to be "punished" for? What is the point of continuing anything here?--Konstable II 12:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See here for my $0.02 Glen 12:37, November 27, 2006 (UTC)

What I am proposing is that after one month you may start over. You did good in the past and can again. Fred Bauder 13:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I am not sure how banning me for 1 month will help me start again. I am not sure that carrying on with this arbitration will solve any problems, in fact I don't even see any current problems. --Konstable II 13:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)