Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Contents |
[edit] Evidence presented by Konstable
[edit] AltUser not disruptive
AltUser (talk · contribs) was created due to my curiosity of how new users are treated (long story and I don't see how the explanation is relavent so I will omit it - but this is very clearly permitted under WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of multiple accounts, in fact it is the very first example of legitimate sockpuppets that is stated). I was not intending to leave wikipedia at that time as others have claimed. I temporarily gave up adminship at that time without actually removing the tools (if you don't believe me you can ask Guinnog (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) to verify that I emailed him at the time of that edit and told him that I am just temporarily taking off my admin hat and not leaving the project).
With AltUser I started off by closing 3 obvious AfDs as delete and marked them with a {{db}} explaining that the AfDs were closed (they were soon deleted). Closing obvious AfDs as delete not prohibited to non-admins, though there is a process description page that says that this "generally should not be done" - this is not a community approved guideline, nor policy, nor is it even proposed as a guideline or policy, the page looks like nothing more but an overview of the process. There are other users who admit to doing this.
As AltUser I removed unreferenced original research (which was already marked as unreferenced) from the Power Rangers article. I (unintentionally) left out an edit summary, but this was an honest mistake and I doubt that leaving out edit summaries is disruption (espcially since I later clarfied this and Ryulong agreed with some of its removal). I then checked the history and gave Ryulong (talk · contribs) a standard {{3RR}} warning for the following reverts: [2], [3], [4] with another editor, not me. I was not in conflict with Ryulong before this and the {{3RR}} was issued with genuine intentions for the said reverts.
Ryulong then reported me to AIV where I argued with Ryulong that I was not a vandal. The admin who reviewed this was JoshuaZ (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), who did not block me for it, but gave me a stern warning (on User talk:AltUser in deleted edits) about closing non-obvious AfDs (though I was closing obvious ones). By this stage all my edits were reverted and I was genuinely upset (and I was not expecting anything like this from the "experiment"). I tried to resolve the situation by posting to AN to which I had an intention of giving a link to Patstuart (talk · contribs), Ryulong (talk · contribs) and JoshuaZ (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), but this was reverted by JoshuaZ who then blocked me (for... trying to complain...) My AN post was not uncivil (though it was a bad choice to use capitals for the heading) and it was factually correct (Ryulong had by that time made 5 non-vandalism reverts within 24 hours to Power Rangers without attempts to communicate with the editors whom he was reverting).
I made a polite and calmly worded unblock request (deleted), this prompted Centrx (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) to delete without explanation my user page and my user talk page.
[edit] AfD closure as delete by non-admins not prohibited
WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions mentions that Non-administrators generally should not close "delete" decisions even if they are unanimous - however it proceeds to say that this is because of the technological limit that it "generally should not" be done. Not only does this not prohibit closing as delete, but the page is neither a policy, nor a guideline, nor is it even proposed as one! It is merely a description of the process which says that non-admins generally do not close discussions as delete due to lack of technical capability. And judging from the lack of discussion on non-admin deletes on the talk page, the issue has not even been discussed by the community. Furthermore this is being done - I have witnessed such closures before and here is someone else admiting that he has been doing this on a regular basis in the past, without me actually having to ask or to dig back and try to provide some diffs of these! Frankly I was going on my past experience and was not aware of this page, but I find the reasons why this "generally should not" be done quite inaplicable as I have easily worked around this "lack of technical ability" and have managed to get all 3 of the pages that I closed deleted without any (technical) problems!
[edit] AlternativeAccountK not disruptive
AlternativeAccountK was created after I had undeleted the pages of AltUser (talk · contribs) and tagged the account as my own sock and after the lengthy explanation on my user page. I was talking to Patstuart (talk · contribs) with my proper Konstable (talk · contribs) account at the time, and it appeared that he had some mis-conceptions about what has happened. So, with no intention for anonymity but rather an intention to keep the issue down by keeping it low profile (see WP:SOCK#Keeping heated issues in one small area), I first created KonstSock (talk · contribs), which was immediately blocked by Glen S who did not know it was me, futher attempts to create a similar-named account failed due to some new automatic registration thing that prohibits it. I could not be bothered explaining the whole long story to Glen, so 8 minutes later I created AlternativeAccountK (talk · contribs) which I used to talk to some of the people involved, Ryulong and Patstuart both knew clearly that I was Konstable (I can't be bothered looking for diffs, but ask them if you don't believe me), I was assuming JoshuaZ knew as well, though I am not so certain now due to the rudeness in his responses to me, but at least he knew that I was AltUser (talk · contribs).
I was (mistakingly) blocked by Wangi (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) while in the middle of a conversation with Ryulong, who did not find it disruptive. As I was called a "banned user" it was clear that Wangi made a mistake, I had no intention sticking around Wikipedia for much longer and wait for him to unblock me (or at least lift the damn autoblock which meant that I couldn't even edit from my main account) so I just unblocked me, and left Ryulong one more message. Which apparently was not ok with Wangi who again blocked me with another clearly mistaken block with a message "sock account" - legitimate socks are allowed, I informed him of that in the second unblock.
[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}
[edit] {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.
[edit] {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.
[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}
[edit] {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.
[edit] {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.
