I think we should discuss the blocking war, and how it ended. Recall
that 172 was blocked and unblocked repeatedly (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 ''[[Spiderman]]'' :-)
If he does, he ought to be curbed in some way. Ordinary users could be
blocked for, say 3 to 24 hours. Admins could be de-sysopped for a day or
so. (We still need the technical means to permit blocked users to edit
TALK pages - at least in the non-article namespace.)
While thus curbed, (a) the community will be temporarily free of the
nuisance, and (b) the arbcom or others can decide whether to uphold,
extend, or remove the curb.
Uncle Ed