Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172 2

Case Opened on 14:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:51, 22 Apr 2005 (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 a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

• 172
• Netoholic
• Alai
• Tony Sidaway

Statement by Netoholic

172 was the subject of a previous arbitration, which was closed on January 25, 2005.

Aggressive reverts

In the previous case, 172 was placed on a "one month parole to (a) revert only once per 24 hour period (b) give edit summaries when reverting any established user". I have found evidence that during the one month period, he has broken this parole requirement multiple times, and so is still be subject to that parole requirement by extension.

He has shown in the one month since this case closed, that he is still unable to avoid revert wars. He has also failed to consistently leave meaningful edit summaries (typically only section header or rollback "default" summaries).

• History of Russia
• 1992 L.A. Riots
• Communism

Misuse of admin functions

• Repeated use of the admin-only "rollback" (anti-vandalism) function in furtherence of edit disputes.
• Repeatedly unblocking himself after being blocked for a 3RR violation (an action expressly disallowed under the Wikipedia:Blocking policy, even if he believes it was in error).
• Unblocking of User:Gzornenplatz, against consensus gained prior to the final ArbCom confirmation of this person as being User:Wik.
• Blocking/unblocking war over User:195.70.48.242
• Deletion of pages out of process (Guerilla, Beaurocrat, Wikipedia:Historical disputes between users, Image:Frau.jpg).

Notice of this request has been given. -- Netoholic @ 17:42, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Statement by Alai

User:172 stepped in to page-protect Global warming, citing "edit war" on the page protection log. (More accurately, User:Stirling Newberry seeking to unilaterally re-impose an earlier edit of his own, without any discussion at all; other editors had been having such discussions in the meantime.) However:

• No explicit request for page protection was made;
• User:172 protected the page less than five minutes after a Stirling Newberry revert;
• No 'protected' tag was added to the page;
• The page wasn't added to the list of protected pages.

And: all of the above has happened twice now, most recently while still himself apparently blocked. Regardless of 172's blocked status, this smacks of collusion with a party to a dispute, disregard for all procedure, and over-ready use of page-protection. There's further discussion of this at this page, as well as on the talk page of the article concerned. Alai 05:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley

I too believe that 172 has probably abused his admin powers (and has ceratinly caused a great deal of unnecessary trouble) by his protects to the global warming page (William M. Connolley 12:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)).

(William M. Connolley 21:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I don't know if this makes any difference, but 172 declares on his page that he has left wiki.

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Rule 5 of Arbitration policy: jurisdiction says The Arbitrators will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus. I wish to add my voice to those urging the arbitrators to take on this case. I am satisfied that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to bring into question the extent to which the community can trust 172 to exercise his administrator powers in the interests of Wikipedia. With all due respect to arbitrator Ambi, 172 does not need his administrator powers to produce featured articles. Those powers are not prizes offered to good editors, as a reward for good editing, but as a sign that we trust the editor to perform day-to-day janitorial work without disrupting Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:08, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statement by 172

So I should be punished for bringing history of Russia up to featured article status, right? Figures. All of these complaints are bogus, vindictive, and petty. 1) The disputes on history of Russia, the LA riots, and Communism have already been resolved, and involved no violations of the 3RR. 2) I was unblocking Gz when there was some ambiguity as to whether or not he was hard-banned. Since the most recent arbitration ruling, there has been no ambiguity, and I have not attempted to unblock Gz since that point. 3) The dispute over 195.70.48.242 was a two-way conflict between Fred Bauder and me that was resolved (after I gave up and let Fred win). 4) This is the first time anyone has complained about the deletion of a page like "beaurocrat." Netoholic is just hunting for resolved disputes in order to get rid of me. 172 17:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/1/5/0)

• Recuse. I note that 172 has left and therefore there is no point in opening this case at the moment. I recommend acceptance conditional on the return of 172 - that is, create a case that will remain closed until, and if, 172 returns. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:52, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
• Recuse. Fred Bauder 17:55, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. There are some minor issues, but I can't see anything overly serious, particularly considering that 172 has had two massive articles (relating to these topics, too) featured in this period, which suggests to me that he is making an effort to reform. Ambi 04:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept, 172 has been accused of abusing admin powers. I'm pretty certain that the wikicommunity views abuse of admin powers as a serious matter. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 04:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. ➥the Epopt 15:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  Enhanced opinion: accept and judge now, with any penalties to commence upon his return (if he has indeed left) ➥the Epopt 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Accept. sannse (talk) 18:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse. Neutrality^talk 01:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept, though we may then put it on hold until 172 returns - David Gerard 18:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse. Delirium 18:12, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse. mav 20:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

1.1) 172 has indicated on his user page and on the mailing list that he will not be returning to Wikipedia as an editor. [1] However, he has continued to edit [2] and has withdrawn a request to have his admin abilities removed. These actions suggest that his intention is to remain a participant in Wikipedia.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2) As the complaints centre on the use of admin abilities, if 172 wishes to remain an admin, then the issues resulting in this arbitration must be addressed.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3) 172 is requested to clarify this issue by stating whether he wishes to continue as an admin of Wikipedia. If he does, then this case will be reopened and the evidence on both sides fully assessed. If he does not, then - as he previously requested - his admin abilities will be removed until such a time as he decides to return in that capacity. If 172 does not wish to reply to this question, then it will be assumed that he has chosen to leave the project and does not wish to keep his admin abilities.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)