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