Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Konstable

message: I don't have additional evidence to put forward, but I've done much the same investigation as have Wangi and Moe Epsilon above (although I don't have access to checkUser tools), and I am concerned for the safety of Wikipedia. I add my voice to the request for an emergency desysopping of Konstable.-gadfium 02:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Konstable has requested voluntary desysopping. Since he has announced his intention of leaving Wikipedia, I no longer see any need for this case.-gadfium 01:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:gadfium|gadfium]] 

message: Even though Konstable has requested voluntary desysopping, I feel that it would be helpful if this case still went ahead. It would be good if the arbitration committee could decide if Konstable needs to reapply through WP:RfA if he decides to return and wants to be resysopped. DarthVader 02:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by DarthVader

message: Arbitration on Konstable's part is obviously pointless at this point, since he's relinquished sysop, but it should still be accepted to look at the behavior of the others.  The question of whether or not "troll" will be an allowable Wikipedia-sanctioned personal attack is one that needs answered, and the passive-aggressive "just so you know, I'm gonna revert you if you try to talk to me" (that's not ignoring a pest, that's antagonizing one) comments are uselessly hostile.  Not involved or anything, just thought I'd chime in, since those comments made me actually frown.  Miltopia 03:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Miltopia|Miltopia]]

message: Frankly, I do not see the purpose of this. Konstable has voluntarily been desysopped and he has left the project, and no longer has an intent to return due to the libel and attacks bandied about at the Administrators' noticeboard and this arbitration case. He admitted that he was both User:AltUser and User:AlternativeAccountK. I was solely suspicious about AltUser when he warned me about 3RR on my unprotected user talk subpage, because newbies usually aren't that versed in 3RR. The "FUCK SHIT FUCK" or whatever it was was on a talk page of an article that was deleted based off of an AFD that was a WP:SNOW delete (used to notify some RC patroller about the existance of the article and its need for deletion). AlternativeAccountK was not an abusive sockpuppet. He certainly wasn't bothering me, at all. If anything, it was a sockpuppet to evade a block placed on a sockpuppet, but that is the worst it did. Konstable did wheel war, and unblock himself, which lead to Chacor (or whoever it was) starting up this RfArb.
The checkuser that came up positive that User:Ryushort and User:AltUser are one in the same is certainly the most circumstantial evidence anyone could ever find, especially if it's a TOR IP. I've made a few "friends" over the course of my tenure at Wikipedia. And I know of at least three users who have impersonated me. The following is a list of some that I did not even know about:
Ryushort is not to be unheard of with this giant list. I see nothing coming about from this RfArb other than a ban on someone who doesn't really plan on coming back yet from his departure, and that's nothing but a punitive block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may venture a guess. the arbitrators may want to put some final closure on the case, and to clarify further from what was said in the Giano case regarding resysopping of admins who voluntarily de-sysop themselves.  Also, I suspect the example of HOTR is in their minds.  The case against him was dropped when he "left", leaving his status in doubt. Thatcher131 23:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even with emphatic statements that he's gone for good? Regardless of the outcome, I still feel that Ryushort's connection to Konstable is circumstantial at best, which is why I've struck him out on the main page twice.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right about Ryushort; leaving it struck won't prevent the arbitrators from taking it up as an issue if they want to.  Regarding leaving, well, I could name a number of people who have emphatically "left" but are still hanging around.  I specifically asked Dmcdevit about this and he wanted to proceed; from Fred's comments in the Jean-Thierry Boisseau case he would seem to be of the same mind.  I wouldn't think of it as punative so much as setting the record straight. Thatcher131 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Ryulong|Ryulong]]

message: **I hardly see why you're not recused Dmc, you blocked me, filed the latest inaccurate accusation against me and actually you were the one to suggest this aribtration in the first place.--203.109.209.49 04:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threaded comments in the acceptance column 

message: Am I allowed to propose a temporary injunction, or is the workshop for arbs only?  I figure it's for all since there's "Proposed decision" for the arbs, but just making sure.  Miltopia 06:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only arbitrators may edit the /Proposed decision page. Injunctions or proposals however, can be proposed by anyone on the /Workshop page. These proposals will be evaluated and discussed by arbs and other parties and if found appropriate, the injunction will be added to the /Proposed decision page for voting and will be later passed if accepted by a majority of arbitrators. --Srikeit 06:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick query 

message: Per this comment by Konstable (as Konstable II) I strongly suggest we close this and walk away. Since its opening he has had his +sysop status removed and we've established that he cannot simply reapply due to the controversial nature of his departure. I believe there is no more to gain by this Glen 12:36, November 27, 2006 (UTC)
:agreed. I've sort of been watching this from a distance the whole time, but I was involved from the beginning. He'll need to reapply; at the moment, we're just throwing salt on the wound, and making sure Konstable will never return, admin or other type of editor. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my view too at this stage, for reasons expressed above and on the /Workshop. Unless someone posts a strong counterargument in the next day or two, I will offer a motion to discontinue the case. Newyorkbrad 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've posted a motion at /Workshop to let the arbitrators think about this. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Glen S|Glen S]] 

message: "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. Passed 5 to 1 at 05:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. With regard to the main account not being blocked, see under "Implementation Notes" on the Proposed Decision page. As I understand it and confirmed there, because the proposed remedy of a block did not pass, the proposed enforcement is vitiated because there is nothing to enforce. With regard to desysopping, Konstable was voluntarily desysopped on November 14. Desysopping is done by a Steward so the log entry would be on Meta. Newyorkbrad 11:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question