Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
 * Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority (8 are active).

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop.

Motion for Dmcdevit to recuse
1) As the blocking administrator should recuse. Submitted by 203.109.209.49 with respect to the block of AltUser at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Konstable.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 16:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Recusal as Arbitrator should be an entirely personal decision, in my view. Charles Matthews 19:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No grounds for recusal, and Charles is right. Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ++ | This user trusts Dmcdevit |➥the Epopt 01:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)| ++


 * Abstain:
 * Count this as a recusal from this section, obviously, but AltUser was blocked as an alternate account of a vandal on open proxies as determined by a routine CheckUser. In what way is my judgment colored with respect to Konstable, other than by the actual facts of the case like everyone else? I am very amenable to recusing at the suggestion of other arbitrators, since I respect them all (though this proposal is a bit insulting since it seems you didn't feel you could simply ask me, but instead chose to use the intentionally coercive means of an arbcom ruling), but I still don't understand why there is a conflict of interest. Dmcdevit·t 05:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The motion was from the party. Fred Bauder 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Motion to Dismiss
2) As this matter is not productive in terms of advancing Wikipedia's mission, it is dismissed, see Requests_for_arbitration/Konstable/Workshop, original motion by Newyorkbrad.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per my response on the Workshop. Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 01:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Responsibility of a user for secondary accounts
2) A user is responsible for all of their accounts.
 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I read this as esentially a restatement of the principle that it is the users behind an account, not the actual account, that has responsibilities. - SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Vague to the point of meaninglessness. Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * where are you going with this, counselor? ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocks or bans of users with multiple accounts
3) A block or ban of any account of a user with multiple accounts applies to all the user's accounts, WP:SOCK.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Only within reason. Clearly an indefinite block on a single purpose account should not result in an incidental banning on an established user because of adherence to rules. This isn't related to what seems to be the point of the case: the user's adminship. I don't like that this case is pointed in the direction of punitive blocks against a good faith user who simply showed errors of judgment. Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No. We may want to block a user's bot without blocking the user. ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not going to have this as binding. Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Technically I would say that it does, but there are sometimes exceptional circumstances. - SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally true, but not always. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 8 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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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. Konstable was in conflict with at the time.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Might be true but irrelevant Fred Bauder 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If true, how could creation of an attack account be irrelevant?


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * True but irrelevant Fred Bauder 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the main point of the case. Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

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


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 17:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Most admiistrators we sanction for poor judgment do as well, and it is taken into consideration. Why a finding? Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Proposed 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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Konstable blocked indefinitely
1) The indefinite block of applies to all the accounts of the same user including Konstable.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Way too strong. Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Too hot. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Return of Konstable
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.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Doesn't address the issue. Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Too cold. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Restoration of administrative status
3) Konstable may apply to Requests for Adminship.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Prefer the more explicit explanation in 4. Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Prefer 4. SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just right. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A one month cooling off period is a good idea. - SimonP 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 17:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)\
 * Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews 11:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Dmcdevit·t 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Implementation notes
''Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.''

Question from a clerk: Remedy 1 Konstable blocked and remedy 2, Return of Konstable can not pass, even if every other active arbitrator votes in favor. However, the enforcement provision states Konstable's block may be extended if he returns sooner than a month. Isn't the enforcement voided by the failure of the remedies? Thatcher131 12:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is. As it stands now Konstable is desysopped, but free to edit anytime he choses, except using the indefinitely blocked socks. The effect is that he is required to edit in a responsible way using an account that is not blocked. Fred Bauder 13:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Fred. In that case, everything that can pass has passed, except for Responsibility of a user for secondary accounts (which could pass with one more vote) and Blocks or bans of users with multiple accounts which could pass if the remaining three arbitrators voted in favor. Thatcher131 14:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.


 * Close. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Charles Matthews 11:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Close Fred Bauder 12:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. - SimonP 14:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)