Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable

Case Opened on 05:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Attempts at prior dispute resolution
See: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive146 and Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Statement by wangi
There's reason to remove the admin bit from, please see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive146.

Konstable has left Wikipedia for the time being, but in the process has used a number of sockpuppets (AltUser, AlternativeAccountK), got them banned (see block logs) and then used admin privileges to unblock one of the accounts. Edits and self admission show Konstable, AltUser & AlternativeAccountK to be the same user; check-user shows AltUser and Ryushort to be created from the same open proxy at the same time.

Statement by User:Konstable
I will not participate in this arbitration, I have left Wikipeida for a good reason and have better things to do rather than explain everything to people over and over again, but sure you can hold it. I did not disrupt Wikipedia with AltUser but I can't even be bothered defending it there, just look at the contributions and you will see that though they were all reverted they were later redone by others (are they trolling too?).

No User:Ryushort was not me. User:AltUser and User:AlternativeAccountK were both mine, and User:KonstableBot and all the unused accounts I created to prevent impersonation. As I remember I used Tor for AltUser (I used to have it permanently set up on my alternative browser, not trying to hide from CheckUser who I am or anything - as I obviously admited it was me straight after), so I would probably have went through quite a lot of different IPs there - you can check, either all of them or most of them would be Tor.

I actually did not unblock User:AltUser as Moe claims. I unblocked the second account which was blocked for being a "sock of a banned user" which is nonsense - I am not banned (see WP:BAN by the way, not the same as WP:BLOCK), and the admin who blocked AltUser was well aware of its existence and did not block the new account. Ryulong, to whom I was talking when I was blocked for my latest "disruption" or whatever (he didn't seem too disrupted and argued against the block by the way), was well aware that it was me. The AlternativeAccountK was not meant to be anonymous, as I by that time had already long revealed that I was AltUser, and I created that account to sort out some accusations against me that were brought up on my user page without having to use my main account.

I am not going to request removal of my sysop bit myself as I do not see anything that I've done wrong by lifting a mistaken block, and requesting de-sysoping would be saying that I have no confidence in myself acting as an admin, which I do - I think I've done just fine in the past with just some minor hickups along the way; I just don't want to do it any more and I am convinced that I will keep out of Wikipedia for a while yet (though I was trying to retain the hope of returning by not requesting its removal, but just one quick pop back for a comment on someone's talk page involved me getting blocked and an arbitration filed against me, I can see that I'm not welcome to return ever again).

I probably did not cover everything here, but meh I don't plan to - I don't really want to waste any more time on this.

I am not defending myself here because I'm trying to hold my evil power on the sysop bit, I am trying to clarify people's mis-understandings. Go ahead do what you want with my account, desysop it, ban it, call it bad names and accuse it of trolling, I am not Konstable - that used to be my username, but not any more.

This is a wonderful illustration of the comment I left on my user talk page regarding what Wikipedia is about by the way. And I do hope more people will leave the project for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere.


 * Addendum, you wish is my command and I am leaving without any futher participation as ordered by Chacor, Moe Epsilon and Gadfium. I would just like to add Moe Epsilon and Chacor to the arbitration.  Moe has made insulting false statements about me in this arbitration (now he has reworked it many times, after I pointed out the mistakes to him, for which he called me a troll, and the statement is still not accurate) and he has proceeded to make blatant personal attack against me, , .  Chacor too called me a troll and threatened to have Ryulong (the supposed "victim" in all this) blocked for him saying that they should leave me alone: .  Also some more personal attacks from Chacor: ,.  And now I'm gone - Chacor and Moe should rejoice.--Konst.ableTalk 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Moe Epsilon
I highly support the removal of Konstable's admin bit following the situation which occured.

Konstable created the account AltUser. He self-proclaimed on his userspace (now deleted) that he was in fact a sockpuppet (didn't mention who of). It is also assumed that in this thread that he was making non-sense edits on his userspace like typing "ZOMG FUCK SEX FUCK SEX" (diffs deleted if it was on his user talk). While he was AltUser, he created controversy by closing multiple AFD's with the result of delete:   Now it's not against policy for non-admins to close AFD's, but closing them, especially in favor of deletion, is highly discouraged. Under the name AltUser, he began bickering with User:Ryulong about a 3RR violation he commited. Ryulong reported him on WP:AIV and he was eventually blocked first for 24 hours for trolling by JoshuaZ and then Indef as a abusive sockpuppet by Dmcdevit.

CheckUser shows that whoever created User:AltUser also created Ryushort (CheckUser done by Dmcdevit). Ryushort framed User:Ryulong by stating that he created that account by saying it was a doppelganger of his It turns out that he was not. Ryushort's IP was apparently autoblocked because of AltUser's block.

AlternativeAccountK was created by AltUser (who is Konstable) and by what AlternativeAccountK said, he said he was using this (AlternativeAccountK's account) to bypass his indefblock of AltUser to respond to JoshuaZ. He began to edit disruptively again with Ryulong, Wangi and JoshuaZ all involved. Wangi blocked him for avoiding a previous block (although he wasn't sure who was his puppetmaster). Konstable under his account with adminship unblocked AlternativeAccountK citing that his main account was not blocked, thereby proving that was his sockpuppet. Wangi reblocked the sockpuppet and Konstable unblocked. A short time later Konstable finally blocked the account indefinantly.

Despite Konstable's original intentions asserted on his userpage (deleted revisions of his userpage saying he was AltUser), it is proven that he created 3 sockpuppets who despite original intention, was used to disrupt the Wikipedia community. Not only did he create two of those accounts in violation of WP:SOCK, he blatently misused his adminship bit to unblock them. I call for an immediate desysopping if possible.


 * The part I struck is a inaccurate statement. It was impossible for User:Ryushort to be autoblocked 24 hours before User:AltUser's block. Whoever Ryushort is, whether it was Konstable or not provided in the diff said he was trying to get his IP unblocked. Since Ryushort's CheckUser came out to be shared with the same one AltUser was on, I still have suspicion that Konstable is Ryushort. semper fi — Moe  05:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Konstable
Konstable has requested that his adminship be removed by Angela, which appears to have been done. semper fi — Moe  01:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Chacor
When this was first sent to ANI I did a little looking around of my own, and agree that it would seem that Konstable has chosen a disruptive way of going out. Blatant abuse of the admin tools. For the interest of the encyclopedia, I would add my voice to those calling for a desysopping. – Chacor 02:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept ➥the Epopt 04:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 15:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept. Charles Matthews 22:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

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


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 at 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Administrators
4) Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses of judgment are tolerated, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators are prohibited from unblocking themselves. This principle extends to unblocking accounts other than their primary one.


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 at 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternate accounts
1) As stated here,, which used open proxies, was an alternate account of . When that account was blocked, he subsequently created . He now edits from , which is not blocked, for the purposes of this case.


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 at 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryushort
2) A CheckUser performed on the account AltUser showed that while it was on open proxies and could not be connected to a main acount through IP evidence, the attack account, created with the same proxies, was probably created by the same person.


 * ''Passed 5 to 1 at 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Konstable unblocked his own account
3) On November 12, 2006, after his account AlternativeAccountK was blocked, Konstable unblocked it himself, and then unblocked it himself again after he was reversed.


 * ''Passed 5 to 1 at 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

AltUser
4) November 5, 2006 created  and engaged in a number of aggressive actions which resulted in an indefinite block.


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 at 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Konstable
5), now desysopped, has a long history of productive editing and responsible administrative work.


 * ''Passed 5 to 0 with one abstention at 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Remedies
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.

Konstable formally desysopped
4) Konstable, now voluntarily desysopped, may not be resysopped without using the normal channels, including a request for adminship and community consensus.


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 at 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement
None applicable

Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.