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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Has 172 returned to harass and disrupt? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Objection to closing