Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172 2/Proposed decision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Has 172 returned to harass and disrupt?[edit]

I am almost ashamed to suspect that the mild mannered 172 has not really left us, but has assumed a harassing and disruptive alter ego. But as coincidental as it may be it is too dangerous a change to let pass without investigating. User:KingOfAllPaperboys was harassing, mocking and haranguing poor User:Netoholic last night, and claiming he wasn't a sockpuppet. Based on the assumption of good faith, I assumed that he wasn't a sockpuppet because he intended to be the new permanent identity of someone who had "left". Looking at his contributions, what aroused my suspicion, was that on Feb 10, he KingOfAllPaperboys, after only 4 edits over two months to his credit sprang to the defense of wikipedia from vandals, on pages he had never edited before, masterfully admonishing anon editors and displaying a facility to be admired. User:172 has a contribution history that neatly brackets this period of activity. Here are 172s bracking edit summaries:

  • 21:08, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) Saddam Hussein (Start with the general in the intro and elaborate on particular details in the rest of the article. The Israeli strike does not warrant inclusi)
  • 18:42, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) Saddam Hussein (This does not belong in the intro.)

Here are KingOfAllPaperboys gap filling contributions:

  • 20:49, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) m Help:Contents (Restored due to vandalism.)
  • 20:48, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) m Kelly Clarkson (Restored due to vandalism.)
  • 20:26, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:201.9.191.59 (top)
  • 20:24, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (New) m User talk:61.131.60.68 (top)
  • 20:23, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) m Iraq (Restored due to vandalism.)
  • 20:17, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) m Iraq (Restored due to vandalism.)
  • 20:06, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (New) User talk:200.241.255.250 (top)
  • 20:01, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) Harry Potter (Restored AGAIN.)
  • 19:57, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) Harry Potter (Restored AGAIN.)
  • 19:55, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) Harry Potter (Restored to Mirv's last version.)


Because 172 just left again yesterday. It should be possible to verify whether these two are one and the same. If they are one and the same, then the IP should probably be blocked because the apparent attempt is to game the arbcom system and not really leave, and KingOfAllPaperboys does not reflect an improvement in his intentions.

However, as convincing as this evidence is, I suspect it may be just a coincidence, because while under this vandal attack the wikipedia may have become less responsive so many users may have very similar gaps bracketing KingOfAllPaperboys edits. It is still worth investigating, because based on this bravado Feb 10 performance I suspect KingOfAllPaperboys is an administrator in an alter ego, and you have an opportunity to discover who it is and perhaps bring an arbcom case. Admin's with sock-puppets are clearly candidates for not just losing admin status, but additional sanctions as well.--Silverback 14:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"poor User:Netoholic"? LOL! RickK 22:11, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

This is pure speculation that mostly reveals ignorance of 172's practices and body of work. Besides the fact that 172 has never been known to use sockpuppets, I can't easily imagine him doing much work on Harry Potter or Kelly Clarkson. Saddam Hussein and Iraq are controversial subjects involving many editors, so doesn't really do anything to show these two are the same. Nor is KingOfAllPaperboys' recent behavior consistent with 172's style. All the timing amounts to is a very mild coincidence of no significance whatsoever. KingOfAllPaperboys may be somebody, but he isn't 172. --Michael Snow 22:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
KingOfAllPaperboys was NOT doing ANY WORK on Harry Potter or any of the pages he visited that day. User:Rdsmith4 was fighting a war against VANDALISM there and KingOfAllPaperboys showed up out of the blue to assist in fighting it and the same is true for all the pages he visited in that gap filling burst of activity. Yes, those are not pages that 172 edits, but they are also not pages KingOfAllPaperboys visited before or since. KingOfAllPaperboys is or was one of our heroic admins. Yes, this recent destructive behavior would be out of character for 172, but 172 does have a short fuse, and has exceeded limits repeatedly in the past. He would probably be loathe to destroy the good part of the reputation he has built up here. But he recently violated his own assurances that he was leaving. How many times is he going to leave? He may have gone a little farther past limits, under the cloak of anonymity. Yes, it is only suspicion, plausible and circumstantial, but in any case, this hero of the Feb 10 vandalism attacks is not a nooby as he claims. He is some other admin at least, presumably on Feb 10, he was in communication with admins and his assistance was enlisted after 4 edits and inactivity for a month.--Silverback 08:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
An additional note On Feb 10, 172 was still on his one month's probation, so may have felt constrained from assisting in the fight against the vandalism attack as himself, although I doubt anyone would have interpretted his assistance as a violation of parole, he may have felt this extra reason to use a sockpuppet.--Silverback 08:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner is also a candidate to be KingOfAllPaperboys, because his contributions also bracket the Nov 10th activity:

  • 06:31, 11 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting (→film-stub, movie-stub, mov-stub)
  • 19:31, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Anthony DiPierro/Archive

And he may be more likely than 172 based on the pages edited, especially the templates where Snowspinner was already involved. I have also documented this on the admin incident report page. Sadly if it is Snowspinner, then he would have been lying when he denied being a sockpuppet when he harassed Netoholic, so I prefer to believe it is not him. --Silverback 20:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do I understand your evidence correctly to be that because I was not editing at the time that KingofAllPaperboys was editing, I must therefore be KingofAllPaperboys? If so, I note that Jimbo Wales was also not editing when KingofAllPaperboys was. Snowspinner 22:10, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

User:Itai also brackets:

  • 14:02, 11 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (→Wikipedia:Third opinion)
  • 17:15, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (Wikipedia:Third opinion)

and was involved in the template reverts visited by KingOfAllPaperboys.--Silverback 20:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Neutrality appears to be unlikely, since he was editing during the latter half of the Feb 10 activity.--Silverback 21:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner possible sockpuppet evidence[edit]

Interleaving Snowspinner contributions with KingOfAllPaperboys contributions, the long sequences are suggestive (conclusive?).

  • User:KingOfAllPaperboys
    • User:Snowspinner
      • User:Itai
      • 03:26, 26 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Third opinion (removing non-operational notice; page now operational)
    • 21:38, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Requests for de-adminship/Old proposal (→Revert to June 2004 version)
  • 21:22, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Netoholic (Revert, I told you to answer my questions.)
  • 21:19, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Netoholic)
  • 21:18, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Netoholic - Signed)
  • 21:17, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Netoholic)
  • 21:14, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Netoholic (Revert. You already got a soft block a few hours ago... pay attention.)
  • 21:11, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:KingOfAllPaperboys (→VANDAL - Young lady, don't even try.)
  • 21:05, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Netoholic (Restored. You have been specifically directed to answer.)
  • 20:58, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Boothy443 (→Vandal? - sp)
  • 20:57, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Boothy443 (→Vandal? - (Don't try to deliberately misunderstand me.()
  • 20:51, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:KingOfAllPaperboys (→VANDAL - (Learn your place))
  • 20:41, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Boothy443
  • 20:38, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:KingOfAllPaperboys (I made a mistake. Don't threaten me for it.)
    • 20:22, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (New) Alarune (Alarune moved to Alraune) (top)
    • 20:19, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (New) Neutrality is a bad administrator (Neutrality is a bad administrator moved to Publix) (top)
    • 20:19, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (New) Talk:Neutrality is a bad administrator (Talk:Neutrality is a bad administrator moved to Talk:Publix) (top)
    • 20:18, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (New) The vandalism is now over (The vandalism is now over moved to Lawrence Middle School) (top)
  • 20:05, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Netoholic (→Sockpuppet?)
  • 19:53, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:UninvitedCompany (→Snowspinner)
    • 19:32, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner2 (→Response)
  • 19:07, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Itai (→RfA : Netoholic - Final warning.)
  • 18:52, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:KingOfAllPaperboys (Signed my post... hey, I'm new.)
      • 18:47, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Itai (→Netoholic/Sister project templates)
  • 18:38, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Itai (→Netoholic/Sister project templates)
      • 18:34, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) m Star Trek (→Star Trek: Enterprise (2001-2005))
      • 18:30, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Itai (→Netoholic/Sister project templates)
  • 18:30, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Netoholic - signed my last comment)
      • 18:22, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) m Smyrna (→The Burning of Smyrna) (top)
  • 18:06, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Netoholic - Why not revert an illegal revert?)
  • 17:46, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Netoholic (signed my comment)
  • 17:45, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Netoholic (→Three revert rule - (it's a scam))
  • 17:36, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Netoholic)
  • 17:29, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Itai - resubmit signature)
  • 17:28, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Itai - Prove your allegation, Netoholic.)
  • 16:39, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Netoholic (Requset for proof of sockpuppetry.)
    • 16:37, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User:Anthony DiPierro (Redirecting user pages is very bad form, and adds unnecessary confusion.)
    • 16:29, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/District Attorney's Office (→Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office (Now moved to Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations))
  • 16:28, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (Ah, the bullies.)
    • 16:24, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Snowspinner (→Suggestion of Range Blocking a Vandal)
    • 16:15, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Anthony DiPierro (Since the page doesn't display a "redirected from" link, you shouldn't redirect to it - otherwise it's very, very difficult to reach the archives of this page.)
    • 16:13, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Association of Member Investigations (→Absolutely Invalid)
    • 16:10, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/District Attorney's Office (→Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office (Now moved to Wikipedia:Office of Investigations))
    • 16:09, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Office of Investigations (Wikipedia talk:Office of Investigations moved to Wikipedia talk:Association of Investigations)
    • 16:08, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Anthony DiPierro/Archive (The archives of this page are something that should not be hidden with a redirect, as no "Redirected From" link appears on the e-mail user page.)
  • 16:04, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Itai)
  • 15:56, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Netoholic (Revert for intellectual honesty. You archived nothing. I explicitly forbid you to revert this page again.)
  • 15:54, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:KingOfAllPaperboys (I may be a noob here, but I've dealt with bullies before.)
  • 15:48, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Netoholic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space)
    • 15:46, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→Wikipedia:Requests for deadminship/Snowspinner)
  • 15:44, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:KingOfAllPaperboys (No bullying, no intellectual dishonesty.)
  • 15:39, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Netoholic (Don't call it "archive" if what you mean is "deleting any and all negative comments." Where is this "archive?")
    • 15:18, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations (→Users for consideration)
  • 15:07, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Netoholic (Revert for purposes of clarity; less than 51 minutes after I put you on notice that bullying would not be tolerated, you deleted every negative comment from your talk page.)
  • 14:51, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Itai (→Netoholic/Sister project templates - (Netoholic=bully))
  • 14:01, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Netoholic ("Policy" v. "Proposed Policy")
  • 13:22, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Wikisource (Revert. Study war no more.)
  • 13:19, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Wikibookspar (Revert. Study war no more.)
  • 13:18, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Wikibooks (Revert. Study war no more.)
  • 13:17, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Wikisourcepar (Revert. Study war no more.)
  • 13:16, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Wikinews (Revert. Study war no more.)
  • 13:15, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Wikispecies (Revert. Study war no more.)
  • 13:14, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Commonscat (Revert. Study war no more.)
  • 13:11, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Wikiquotepar (Revert. Study war no more.)
  • 13:08, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Wikisourcecat (Revert. Study war no more.)
  • 11:31, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner (del - Round 237 in the pissing contest.)
      • 11:15, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (→Easier Transwiki)


    • 11:00, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations (→Organization - We're not really in the harassing crusade business.)
      • 10:56, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Commonscat (revert)
      • 10:55, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Wikisource (revert)
      • many deleted until this next one
      • 01:37, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Commonscat (revert)
      • 01:37, 25 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Wikispecies (revert)
    • 20:25, 24 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/District Attorney's Office (Note major revision at top of page, which is important)
    • 20:14, 24 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations (→Organization - Substantial change to the rules regarding starting cases on your own.)
    • 20:13, 24 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/District Attorney's Office (→Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office (Now moved to Wikipedia:Office of Investigations)
    • 19:59, 24 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations (Heavily rewritten)
    • 19:53, 24 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations (→Organization)
    • 19:45, 24 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/District Attorney's Office (→Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office)
    • 19:43, 24 Mar 2005 (hist) (New) Wikipedia talk:District Attorney's Office (Wikipedia talk:District Attorney's Office moved to Wikipedia talk:Office of Investigations) (top)
    • 19:43, 24 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office (Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office moved to Wikipedia:Office of Investigations)
  • 12:22, 24 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sacred Office of the Inquisition
  • 12:12, 24 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/District Attorney's Office (→Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office)
  • 11:40, 24 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sacred Office of the Inquisition (→Wikipedia:Sacred Office of the Inquisition)
    • 09:44, 24 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations (Reverted edits by Mirv to last version by Snowspinner)
      • 08:36, 24 Mar 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:Wikispecies (revert. Netoholic ignored the majority of opinions at both Template talk:Sisterproject and two WP:TFD polls he initiated)

Whoops, should have signed here.--Silverback 22:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Wait, now it's evidence that we do edit at the same time? Make up your mind.

Also, note that when your method of finding socks identifies "Just about anyone who dislikes Netoholic could be a sock of this user," it's probably a sign that your method of checking socks sucks. Snowspinner 22:19, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it sucks and is too labor intensive. Hopefully the IPs will be checked. I just wondered what this technique would show. BTW, you aren't just editing at the same time, but for long stretches without interleaving except for a couple of instances. Based on the activity on the template pages, I think it is likely you or User:Itai. Do you think it is he? I didn't see the matches with his contribs, but I can check again. I am pretty sure neutrality is ruled out because of hte editing overlap on Feb 10 when the need to disguise ones behavior would not be anticipated.--Silverback 22:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See below for the closest I can come to proof that I am not KingofAllPaperboys without IP checking. Snowspinner 22:40, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I am not KingofAllPaperboys[edit]

[1] shows the time during which KingofAllPaperboys was blocked - 4:30-4:49. [2] would have, were I King of All Paperboys, triggered an autoblock for IP address sharing. It did not. Snowspinner 22:40, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did the interleave for User:Itai and if anything, the fit with him is even better. Unfortunately, I lost the interleave, because my save conflicted with your edit. 8-( I will try again. --Silverback 22:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, this section seems to contradict the gap theory:

What makes this alternation difficult? Couldn't you be logged in as two different users on two different windows, especially if you were try to disguise sockpuppetry?
A further thought, I'm not convinced being able to come in during the block is definitive. Does a user block just block an IP? Because I can come in with a different IP, just by coming in through work, which I can also access via VPN from home.
I think an IP check, should have to check some time back, to see if different IPs were being used.--Silverback 23:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
When a user is blocked, any other users that are using an IP that the user has recently been using are also blocked. As for the different windows, sure, that would be possible. But then I would definitely be on the same IP and would have triggered a block as above. Also, if I had a window for each account, you wouldn't see the gap-filling that most of your record shows - the accounts would be more or less completely interleaved. My point being that you really have basically no evidence on which to base your accusation here. Snowspinner 05:09, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
And that is being extremely charitable. El_C 07:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am (still) not 172[edit]

Ladies & gentlemen of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to call to your attention that this type of groundless accusations are not new to User:Silverback. Note how on 18 Jan, 2005, he went on to accuse myself of being a sockpuppet of 172 merely for having responded on his talk page which is on my watchlist. I answered it with humor, but I was nonetheless deeply troubled as to what this conduct could lead to if left uncheked. Sadly, my suspicions have more than materialized as the above clearly illustrates. Pertinent passages read (note that these are excerpts, but the order of the discussion is consistent; see diff):

BTW, I'm surprised that you are the one responding, as if you are 172, are you his sock puppet?--Silverback 06:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, you found out. Please don't tell anyone. 172 06:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now, I take exception to that, Silverback. I'm –not– writing, as you say, as if I am 172, I am writing as if I am El_C, a sockpuppet of 172. Regardless though, I find (the non-comedic part of) your response to be highly lacking and flawed, but I'm writing in haste, so more on that later. E172_C 12:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was a bit of a mystery to me how you stumbled onto the subject and took the same position as 172 even though you hadn't appeared to edit or follow the page recently. I look forward to flaws being pointed out however. -- thanx in advance, --Silverback 07:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All easily demystifable. 172 is on my watchlist, so I noticed the comment. It took me little time to compare the pertinent edits through the article's revision history El_C 22:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) [3]

Now, I am of the opinion that certain restrictions be placed, or at least a warning issued to User:Silverback against making such charges against other editors without substantive evidence. At the time, this (the above) seemed relatively minor, but now looking back at it, I'm not sure what to think would have happned had the political climate been different. I am very concerned about the precedence this sets (beyond this case). El_C 07:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe in openness, even in investigations. Whenever the arbcom makes decisions, some allegations are upheld, some are not, so unsubstantiated allegations are not unusual. It is obvious that we need better tools to determine when sock puppets, as is amply demonstrated by my analysis above. It is unfortunate that IP data which are more definitive are so perishable, so that mere delay can allow those abusing the community to go undetected. In would be unfair to restrict persons from making charges such as are made to the arbcom and administrators all the time and to define "substantive" evidence as only that evidence which is unavailable. It sounds like wikipedia itself needs its own developer resources, who can be more responsive to our needs. Note also that these allegations have been made on appropriate pages, not in article talk pages, as ad hominem attacks in the give and take of editing or POV warrioring. Note also, that in the above instance that you cite, the allegation did not persist beyond the evidence, in this case your clarification.--Silverback 18:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do believe in open-ness, too, as did 172, which is why (to quote Michael Snow) our body of works (his being much more substantive than my own) was/is displayed on our respective user pages. You could have easily compared between some of the lengthy articles that each of us had written.

Furthermore, with regards to open-ness, some investigations do need discretion. Which is why making such empirically-ungrounded notices in front of 400+ admins in an official page was –far from– the correct method at that point. You should have gauged and tried to fall back on others' expertise much more selectively first. Thus, a talk page comment as per your suspicions (to someone such as Michael Snow or Snowspinner, for example) –would– have been, in fact, the sound thing to do at that point. As an example, yesterday I levied the charge of sockpuppetry against a user in an RFC (an RFC within an RFC, it's complicated) that I am certifying, but I did not do so in the RFC itself nor the Admin notice board (or any official pages) — no, I did what you should have done and more discretly contacted an admin on her talk page (the investigation is ongoing).

Moving to my clarification and your own accusations against myself therein: I note that you have never apologized for this baseless claim. Would it be fair for me to ask User:IFaqeer whether he is a sockpuppet of User:A.Khalil simply because he answered on the latter's talk page to one of my comments first? [4] Of course not, it would have been unfair of me to do so based on such 'evidence.' But you, Silverback, seem to think you have a license to overstep standards that most other editors find imprudent, even outright worng. What is your justification for such a (for lack of a better word) VIP status? Is it because your worldview is well-known as being hostile to the political orientation of 172 and myself?

Your haste (significantly, with impunity and without remorse) in this respect is something I strongly urge the Committee to look into (without regard to ideology), as well as calling for your own introspection (if not remorse, rationality), and none of the valid points you make about the need for better development tools, etc. should cloud this inescapable conclusion, nor the need for an official warning or sanction being imposed, since you obviously persist in thinking you did nothing wrong and can continue to behave in this same manner in the future. My opinion, Silverback, is that such an attitude is conducive neither to love within the community, nor attaining knowledge and npov within the encyclopedia. I am taking you to task for this, and I sincerely hope that members of the Committee will, too. El_C 23:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where do you get off calling the identities "empirically ungrounded"? They were not selected at RANDOM. A proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard begs the question. I admit that I was more impressed by 172s gap on Feb 10 than I should have been, but you have to admit his frequent abuses of power and his return wikipedia on Mar 25 after claiming he had left call his integrity into question. You owe me an apology for having harbored resentment for so long after your responses led me to believe that you took my question with good humor. Keeping your implacable resentment secret, denied me the opportunity to apologize for harm done for a careless statement I made in the wake of my first surprising encounter with you.
I sincerely apologize for any harm that careless question may have caused you. --Silverback 00:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I also intend to apologize for which ever of the suspicions I expressed which turn out to be false. But just because they are false does not mean they were groundless.--Silverback 00:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I do not, as you say, get off, I am citing what seemed obvious to an overwhelming number of editors. I find it unfortunate that you neglect to address this, and it does, sadly, reaffirm to me everything that I said above.

Furthermore, I do not have to admitt anything with respect to your allegations of 172's abuse of administrative powers, nor do I find his insertion of an article he has been working on for quite some time suspicious in any way.

I owe you no apology, Silverback, no apology whatsoever — but I do accept your apology (which, you will notice, I did not say is "owed" to me). Still, I see nothing of substance to retract from my abovestated position.

Finally, I did not keep my implacable resentment secret, as you are once again so quick to conclude. I urge you to exercize more caution on that front. You need to distinguish between "resentment" and "concern." I am speaking here on matters of policy, and my concern was strictly directed towards that end. If you wish to read that as resentment, that is your preogrative (I, however, am happy to qualify it otherwise), but again, I am noting how this is phrased as a conclusion rather than a question. Lastly, intention to apologize is not the same as the actual act, nor can it serve as an exemption for further actions taken with the same measure of carelessness. Thanks for reading. El_C 00:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Closing these cases[edit]

I really wish the arbcom would quit closing cases like this without decisions solely because the User has supposedly left Wikipedia. We keep seeing, time after time, that the problem User returns, and the arbcom has closed the case without decision, and we have to start the process all over again. Why can't the arbcom make a ruling regardless of whether or not the User has supposedly left, so that, when, almost inevitably, they come back, the ruling can be applied? RickK 05:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Have to agree. I have a problem with the proposed solution. How long do we wait for a reply from him? What means of contact will you use? Who's going to decide it's long enough, and who's going to handle unsetting the admin flag? What about the complaints of recurring editorial disputes on political, which have nothing to do with admin access? -- Netoholic @ 18:49, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
Agree also. I hope the other arbs. follow the logic of their own prior votes (esp. that the issues raised in the RFAr should indeed be addressed) and do not simply close the open-ended non-remedy non-measures they have voted for to date. As things stand we seem to have the situation where "precautionary" de-admining is opposed on the grounds that 172 hasn't left the project, but resolving the substantiative issues can't happen because he effectively has? Alai 04:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
RickK - I understand your concerns, but we really can't spend time on cases involving people who have left - and in many cases these people have left. If you have a case where we have closed on the basis of someone leaving, and they have returned to cause problems, then please let us know - I for one will vote to reopen quickly and take all previous statements into account. But I won't waste time on cases that have been solved by someone going away.
In reply to Netoholic's questions - we will email 172, we will decide how long to wait (probably a few days) and then, if necessary, we will ask the appropriate person to remove the admin flag - these things are not problematic. As to the aspects of the case that don't relate to questions of admin abuse - from the evidence I've seen, I'm not convinced that these are a large enough problem to take action on - especially in light of his changed editing pattern. If I had felt that they were, then I would have written in similar conditions to that relating to his admin status.
To Alai - I oppose the "precautionary" de-admining not because 172 hasn't left, but because the community has clearly opposed de-admining people on this basis. There are many admins who have left, clearly stating that they have gone and not editing since. But, whenever the idea that these people should have their admin flag removed has come up, it has been clearly opposed. And the arbitration committee shouldn't go against that community consensus. And, as far as I am concerned, de-admining does resolve the substantive issues in this case.
I hope I didn't miss any of the points there -- sannse (talk) 13:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In particular, I'm talking about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision. Rex has posted to the mailing list that he is not banned, which is true, because the case was closed because he supposedly left, but now he's back and wants to continue editing with no limitations because the case against him was closed with no decision. RickK 17:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sannse, I agree that there are indeed substantive issues to be resolved, I'm just not clear that the proposed (and indeed currently passed) remedies address them as such. (Though your reply to Netoholic is partly reassuring there's at least a procedure for followup in mind.) But wouldn't it be clearer all 'round to contact 172 now, then wait for a reply before formally closing, lest things not actually be resolved thereby? (And as per Snowspinner's comment, perhaps one or two of the inactive admins will show up by then, too.) Alai 05:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see on that case, editing restrictions were passed and are outlined on the case page. I'm not familiar with this case, because it was before my time, but as far as I can see there was an article ban (which has now expired), a reverting ban (which is still active) and he is required to support all disputed edits. If some clarifications or a new case are needed, then that can be done, but I can't see the problem here at the moment (if this needs more talking about, we will probably want to move it to a more appropriate page at some point) -- sannse (talk) 17:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Probably pointing it out to WP:AN/I (that found of considered and reasoned discussion) that Rex has returned and is still subject to certain restrictions should cover it. There'll be about 25 kilobytes of hairsplitting from wikilawyers, but the admins who note this stuff will be aware of the editing restrictions and keep an eye out that Rex is keeping to them - David Gerard 00:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that he appears to have re-returned. [5] I'd suggest he'd be more accurately described as a "sporadic editor who chooses not to respond to this case" than as someone who has in any strict sense "left". Alai 03:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Objection to closing[edit]

I object to closing this case, on the grounds that there are only 5 arbitrators on the case, which I believe leads to all sorts of interesting things happening. Put another way, there are 7 off, as follows.

  • Theresa Knott - Inactive
  • Raul654 - Inactive
  • Delerium - Inactive/Recused
  • Fred Bauder - Recused
  • Mav - Recused
  • Neutrality - Recused
  • Grunt - Recused

A case could be made for treating Theresa as active for this case as she proposed one of the remedies, but that's the remedy that failed, and she hasn't voted on the subsequent remedies. Snowspinner 13:21, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Raul has agreed to return to active to look at this case - I've adjusted my close vote to allow for this -- sannse (talk) 21:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/172_2/Proposed_decision&oldid=55876199"