Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172 2/Evidence

FYI, on wikien-l, 172 states he has relinquished his admin status
Here is the actual quote:


 * BTW, I have asked that my adminship be revoked in unrelated correspondences. I have no intention of returning, regardless of this message.

Since part of the charges against him are abuse of sysadmin privileges, for which the most appropriate punishment is probably revokation of same, this part may be moot, although perhaps the community should be protected for a period of time by a ban on reapplying for adminship, or a requirement that his past abuses of the privilege by disclosed in any future nomination. Recall that he was also temporarily desysoped a couple years ago. Should that previous discipline for admin powers abuse be entered into the formal evidence?--Silverback 16:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know where he requested removal of his status, because Special:Listadmins still lists him. -- 19:33, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)


 * Yes, he didn't say where he requested removal. My quote from from this email on wikien-l: From: "Abe Sokolov", To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org, Subject: [WikiEN-l] Strange fetishes,Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 04:45:21 +0000 --Silverback 21:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner's evidence against Netoholic
There is a major problem with this, and Snowspinner knows it. He was the one that originally opened Requests for arbitration/Netoholic, yet failed to ever add evidence, and that case was closed. Snowspinner is adding evidence of a spurious nature which does not bear at all on the issue of 172. This case was not opened to investigate my actions. I ask that the Arbitrators either directly instruct Snowspinner to ask for a separate Arbitration (or re-open the old one) or remove it themselves - so that we can keep this one on topic. The major problem is that the set of recused Arbitrators in the 172 case is different from the set that would have to recuse in a case against me. If I were to ask those to recuse as well, this case against 172 could not proceed. I very much suspect that that is the agenda behind adding unrelated evidence against me here.

Snowspinner knows that his allegations do not apply to this case, and is attempting an "end-run". He's had his chance, and can have it again, just not here. It's disruptive and I'll not answer any of it. I have never harassed, edit warred, been blocked by, or otherwise significantly interacted with 172. I brought this case after noting the problems I've listed, nothing more. -- Netoholic @ 04:43, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)


 * I would have brought an arbitration request regarding 172 if Netoholic hadn't already done so. I was surprised at how well all the incidents I was aware of (plus additional ones I wasn't aware) were documented.  I know that Netoholic was not involved in the Global warming or History of Russia incidents. It was 172's unblocking of himself, and 2nd protection of Global warming in support of Stirling that convinced me that arbitration was needed.--Silverback 08:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I guess I praised Netholic too much. Evidently he was not aware of the Global warming abuse of sysadmin powers.  It was [User:Alai] that had noted it on the Req for Arb page.  I have tried to document it.  There is more to do.--Silverback 10:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The arbitrators are not obligated to look at evidence from persons outside the conflict, but they are certainly entirely able to. Similar to looking at evidence from email or IRC. You're not obligated to answer the evidence either, but that certainly would not stop an arbitrator looking at and considering it.


 * Note that at least one arbitrator who is on this case initially rejected it as spurious. As such, IMO, that means there's no harm, and possible relevance, in at least considering the evidence from Snowspinner - David Gerard 15:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Then I must ask that Ambi and yourself recuse from this case, since neither of you are impartial in considering evidence against me. That leaves this case with no way to reach a majority decision on any of the counts.  Is that what we want?  Why, if the evidence is good, can't Snowspinner bring a separate case?  Please don't support disruption of the 172 case.  -- Netoholic @ 16:49, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)


 * I see no reason for either Ambi or David to recuse. You can't ask an arbitrator to recuse just because you don't happen to like thier opinion on a matter. Having said that i agree that evidence against you has bugger all to do with the case against 172. He has been accused of abusing his admin powers. Now he either did abuse his admin powers or he did not. We need to decide that question based on the evidence. Was he for example justified in unblocking himself after several other admins blocked him? (And so on) Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 17:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I would ask them to recuse in any case involving evidence against me, and I can demonstrate that they are not impartial. Please believe I do not wish to see them recuse in the case against 172, so long as, as you say, the evidence presented here against me has no bearing.  If I am to be sanctioned in any way though, a separate case should be brought so that Ambi and David can recuse (and so that most of those recused from the 172 case can participate). -- Netoholic @ 17:57, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I note the previous arbitration case brought against you by Snowspinner was closed "No verdict was reached on this case, as the major involved disputants have since worked out their differences", which is not as you characterise it here - David Gerard 15:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Snowspinner opened that previous case, but never added evidence. Another person (TBSDY) began adding evidence, and that is the person that "worked out their differences" with me.  -- Netoholic @ 16:49, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)


 * That case, however, remains unrelated to this one. Note, by the way, that as Snowspinner points out he is involved in this case with 172 - David Gerard 17:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Not that it's of particular relevence, but yes. I did not submit evidence, due largely to a large amount of personal things that kept me from editing Wikipedia much at all during those months. Upon returning, I did not seek to reactivate the case, partially because I thought I had blown the chance, and partially because if TBSDY had resolved his differences, that spoke volumes to me and I was content to let the matter lie. But this is not that case, as David points out, and so this is more a historical footnote than anything else.
 * The issue here is not a general attack on Netoholic. If it were, I would bring up very different evidence that I'm excluding from this because it's immaterial to my point. My point is a two part proposition. 1) The evidence presented against 172 is inaccurate and the accusation is spurious. 2) This is par for the course with Netoholic. I see the situation as not unrelated to the case Lir brought against me. The case was raised about my blocking actions against Lir. The decision hinged on Lir's conduct, however. Similarly, although Netoholic raised the case against 172, I think there is a lot to be said about Netoholic's actions in raising the case and how they fit into a pattern of behavior. Was this what the case was raised over? No. Is it a direction that cases have expanded in previously? Without question. My claim is that this is an arbitration raised not to improve Wikipedia or to resolve a dispute about a problem user, but rather to advance Netoholic's personal agenda against another user. Snowspinner 17:39, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Questioning my reasons for bringing the case is not evidence. It is a logical fallacy (specifically poisoning the well).  I raised the case exactly because I was one who is particularly outside of 172's realm.  I saw the abuse and disputed actions take place, but was never directly affected.  I posted this ArbCom request on behalf of those that were.  Contrary to what you say, you see this as a way to attack me openly without having to bother yourself with any previous resolution steps. -- Netoholic @ 17:57, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)


 * Well, we'll see how it turns out then. Considering your history of jihads against users, and your selective use of policy in pursuing these jihads, I think your claims to an altruistic "concern" regarding to 172 don't hold up, and that the precedent of disputes considering the actions of all parties exists for situations like this. But in the end, what matters is the opinion of the arbcom. I will continue adding evidence to this effect. Snowspinner 18:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * This can go on ad nauseum. Your claims to an altruistic "concern" regarding me is incredibly suspect.  If, as you say, I have "jihads" against other users, then what do you call youractions here, in the old arbcom request, and elsewhere?  Should we now lose all direction in this case as I add evidence of your actions?  Why not include Neutrality, since he's been modifying your evidence section against me also?  And when other people join in to add their evidence against you and him, are you going to reply with more and more?   I choose to let it stop here.  I will complete my section of evidence against 172, and I'll not answer yours.  If I am sanctioned, then so be it.  If you are so zealous as to go to these extremes, you win. -- Netoholic @ 18:22, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Replying to Snowspinner:

 1) The evidence presented against 172 is inaccurate and the accusation is spurious.

Then feel free to defend 172's actions in the way you already have in the first part of your evidence. I've encoraged 172 on the mailing list to come back and offer explanations in order to defend himself (and I very much hope that he does that)but by all means tear Netoholics evidence to shreds if you can

2) This is par for the course with Netoholic.

But Netoholic is not the only person who is adding evidence against 172 to the page. What about the others?

''I see the situation as not unrelated to the case Lir brought against me. The case was raised about my blocking actions against Lir. The decision hinged on Lir's conduct, however. Similarly, although Netoholic raised the case against 172, I think there is a lot to be said about Netoholic's actions in raising the case and how they fit into a pattern of behavior.''

Did 172 block Netoholic? Were they involved in an edit war with one another? Has there been any kind of conflict between Netaholic and 172. These are not rhetorical questions BTW. If the answer to any of them is "yes" please add it to the evidence page. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Rest assured, I will. :) 2) I think there are sour graps going on from other users as well - particularly in the rather unsupported accusation of a sockpuppet, but elsewhere as well. What I don't see is the pattern of behavior that characterizes Netoholic's attack. 3) There are none that I know of, though should I find any I'll post them immediately. Snowspinner 20:26, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Which "other users" might you have in mind? Is it your thesis that every complainant is motivated by some prior grudge against 172, rather than by the stated behaviour?  Alai 01:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It hardly matters - seeing no patterns of behavior, I see no reason to step in and poison the well. Snowspinner 01:34, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Whereas suggesting this in the abstract, and not backing it up, is not poisoning the well? Alai 02:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * 172 has been a polarizing figure, and has gotten into a fair number of fights in the past. He's pissed people off, and some of those people are still upset. I know I still think less of him for an edit war six months ago. I think those are substantially different than what Netoholic is doing. Snowspinner 03:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * 3) During the edit war between Cantus and Gzornenplatz over country infoboxes back in January, Netoholic was actively pushing for Gzornenplatz to be blocked, and 172 opposed this. To find the discussions, the best place to look would be the archives of WP:AN. --Michael Snow 23:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have added evidence to this effect, thus also showing that Netoholic is not the uninvolved party, and thus is subject to rulings regarding this case. Snowspinner 01:16, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * And is there some reason Netholic's behaviour can't be handled separately? Alai 01:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This case is here and relevant? Snowspinner 01:34, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Relevant how? The project page asks for "a maximum 1000 words", and a "concise presentation" "on the issues raised in the complaint":  how is this any of those things?  How would Netoholic's guilt help to exculpate 172, especially as regards to issues in which, as it's been pointed out, Netoholic has no involvement whatsoever?  I hold no brief for Netoholic whatsoever, but I honestly can't see the value of entangling sets of complaints about two different people, simply because there's some overlap between the people involved.  Would the arbitrators be able to comment on how they'd prefer to hear these matters?  If the Netoholic complaints against 172 cannot be (for some reason) separated from anyone and everyone's complaints about Netoholic, would it be preferable to consider the matters not involving Netoholic separately?  That'd strike me as a needless complication, but...  Alai 02:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If the arbcom would find it easier to split the Netoholic matter from the 172 matter, I suppose I'd be ammenable, but I continue to think it is a natural outcropping of this case. Netoholic misleadingly raised a case against an editor on evidence that was spurious at best, in a manner consistant with prior past misbehavior. This is relevent to the case in question. Snowspinner 03:11, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think you have shown adequately that Netoholic's evidence is spurious. So far you have attacked the alleged out-of-process deletions, which indeed look to me the weakest part of Netoholic's evidence. However, the core of the dispute still stands: 1) 172 caused the first ever blocking war among sysops in Wikipedia history 2) 172 is a continuing, recurring, perpetual edit warrior and POV pusher who uses his self-proclaimed status of "expert" to justify his violations of various policies and to support each and every user sharing the same POV, not matter how trollish they are. I also agree with Alai that the alleged wrongdoings by Netoholic in TfD or policy pages are not germane to this case and should be handled separetely. jni 09:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Jni there have been plenty of blocking wars before on wikipedia. This one was certainly not the first in Wikipedia's history. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 13:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with disagreements over blocks, they happen weekly, but not cases were someone repeatedly unblocks themselves and the conflict escalates to emergence de-sysopping. Could you please point me to past blocking wars you consider the most serious, or that could be considered as precedents to this case? Is there a page somewere for archived blocking disputes TOP-10? jni 14:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * the Armenius case springs to mind as far as I know there are no archived blocking disputes page. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 15:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't reviewed the Gzornenplatz vs. Cantus infobox war, but if Netoholic was instrumental in getting the vandal Gzornenplatz (a troll protégé of 172) kicked out of Wikipedia, then he should be commemded for his efforts. jni 09:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Jni please. I welcome what you have to say on this matter but saying that a banned user is a protégé of 172 amounts to a personal attack. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 13:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Part of the evidence so far supplied accuses 172 of misusing his admin powers in favor of Gzornenplatz. The ArbCom can of course decide against such evidence or deem it insufficient, but in view of that background I don't feel my usage of word "protégé" was overly strong. Problem with ArbCom is that it wants to forbid calling obvious trolls as trolls and will bend over backwards to do everything it can to make sure that even the most flagrant agenda pushers are treated with equal or even more respect than the many normal editors who have to deal with them. jni 14:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If 172 were an "obvious troll" he wouldn't be up before the AC, he would have been blocked long ago by the community. (See for example NSM 88 and his various socks). And yes, I do bend over backwards to try and make sure that everyone is treated with respect. I make no apologies for that. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 15:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Laughable. This damning evidence of a connection is from a talk page in which probably dozens of people both supported blocking of Gzornenplatz (both for violating his ArbCom ruling and for being Wik).  Many of the same people actively also objected to the unblock by 172.  I invite the Arbitrators to absolutely take this evidence of my desire to see that the Committee's rulings are upheld.  I hold no particular grudge against anyone I have sought action against.  I note violations and report them, even those where I am not a direct participant.  I'll not offer counter-evidence. Snowspinner, while trying to damn me, has in fact shown that I have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind.
 * All of the rest of Snowspinner/Neutrality's evidence is completely unrelated, since none of them involve 172. I cannot properly defend myself against them on this case's evidence page, so I won't try.  In your rulings (or sooner perhaps), please direct those users to seek earlier steps of dispute resolution.  I am open to them, and have show in the past that I can reach amicable understandings (such as what happened in the previous arbitration raised in my name). -- Netoholic @ 01:48, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

172 desysoped before in 2003
172 was desysopped temporarily in August of 2003 which is one of three links dealing with this occurance at. The issues seem similar. Overly agressive edits, personal use of sysop powers. I favor zero tolerance of personal use/abuse of sysop powers.--Silverback 16:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Blocking War
I think we should take into account the blocking war, and how it ended. Recall that 172 was blocked and unblocked (I gather he even self-unblocked at least once.)

I jumped in and removed 172's sysop rights (along with those of three other admins).

After some talk on various pages, and some mailing list discussion, I reinstated 172's sysop rights (along with the others). Elapsed time, just about 90 minutes.

I'm not saying I was "right" to do this (my ability to do it no longer remains). But let's look at the consequences. Because this could set a precedent.

I suggest that as a general rule if anyone tries to settle an issue that he is involved in, he should not use sysop, bureacrat or steward power to settle it. Especially when his own conduct is the issue. We expect higher standards of those who have more power (as Peter Parker said in Spider-Man :-)

Whenever I've done anything extraordinary, I've always placed myself on report (or even "house arrest") and then abided by the consensus afterwards. This is because I adhere to a higher standard.

It would be better if the 415 or so admins were held to a higher standard, as well. Or elevate a few dozen of them to senior admin (I prefer the title "sheriff"). Just to keep order in the ranks of admins.

I don't think Jimbo envisioned what would happen with this many admins, and I don't think he'd object to a hierarchy, as long as it had community consent. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

172 has left again
Here is the edit summary from a post to his user page:


 * "(I am stopping by Wikipedia today to post a new draft for the article on the late George F. Kennan. Other than uploading some photos and posting that article, I am not returning as an editor)"

--Silverback 00:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)