Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo 3/Notes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Final (9/15/6/23) ending 00:16 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The above final tally is incorrect. -SV

Stevertigo (talk · contribs) – Per the Stevertigo arbitration case, I am listing Stevertigo here to have his adminship reaffirmed. →Raul654 23:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above listing by an Arbcom member has been criticized as being 'out of process.' -SV

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

The candidate (myself) had not seen this page, nor accepted the nomination. The delisting of the RFA was thus nonconclusive –not prescriptive of a de-adminship, as a POV interpretation of the delisting claims. -SV

Support

  1. Continued support. Andre (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I am convinced on Raul's judgement. Molotov (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    changed to neutral
  2. Support. Seriously, Stevertigo has done a great deal of good work at Wikipedia and deserves some support. If the Arbcom wanted to remove the administrator status, why not just do it? What is the point of this kind of public humiliation? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support it will never happen again, and he is a good admin (despite this incident). I say: give him another chance! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support- 3RR should not be used to punish genuine editors. Astrotrain 12:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I do not approve of readmin voting, and will always vote support on those grounds. Snowspinner 15:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 16:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Snowspinner. Arbcom, do the dirty work yourself. --Maru (talk) Contributions 19:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, as I believe this is not a fair request. This was a rather poor desicision the ArbCom made. --Sn0wflake 19:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. KHM03 22:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. The Arbitration Commitee has found that the user engaged in several 3RR violations, was subsequently blocked, unblocked himself, and blocked the admin who had blocked the user. I am sorry, but this is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to No Vote. I stand by what I said about the Arbitration Committee's findings, but if the Arbitration Committee has the power to remove adminship, they should use it, instead of this. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the above is not an "oppose" vote. -SV
  2. Oppose per Evilphoenix. --Idont Havaname 00:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Inconclusive -SV
  3. Oppose, surely you cannot have an admin who abuses his powers. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Inconclusive -SV
  4. Oppose. I normally stay away from RFA's where I don't have much interaction with the user but I'm going to make an exception in this case, I don't care about the fact that his arbcom case was recent, however after reviewing his arbcom case I feel that it would be highly innapropriate and a very bad idea for him to continue to have the mop and bucket seeing as he has proven that he readily abuses them. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the above vote relies entirely on the recent case, and assumes the Arbcom's findings of fact were correct. -SV
  5. Oppose per above. freestylefrappe 01:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose clear abuse of powers. Plaudits to the arbcom for a job well done. Borisblue 01:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Simplistic/reflexive -SV
  7. Oppose. The ArbCom has found that he abused his admin powers. Admins shouldn't abuse their powers, period, and they shouldn't abuse them so severely and unrepentantly (see his denial in the RfAr) that the ArbCom has to step in. Anecdotally, I've noticed a number of particularly spiky comments from Stevertigo during the RfAr; comments I wouldn't expect from someone who should have been on their best behaviour. No, I can't find the diffs, because I noticed them at the time and didn't write them down, so that part of my comment is subjective. -Splashtalk 01:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the above vote relies entirely on the recent case, and assumes the Arbcom's findings of fact were correct. -SV
  8. Oppose. Abused his admin powers. Rhobite 01:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Inconclusive -SV
  9. Oppose for the faults arbcom found. In particular, I very strongly feel that admins should never use their administrative powers to push a page version. Additionally, they should never unblock themselves except in very extreme circumstances (rouge admins going crazy, etc). And violating 3RR. And he insisted that he did nothing wrong. I also hate sarcasm. *SIGH* --Phroziac(talk) 02:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Assumes pov-pushing. 'Violating 3RR' is not an abuse of admin powers, 'sarcasm' is not a crime. -SV
  10. Oppose given his past actions, I cannot support. I do disagree with ArbCom using RfA as a proccess to de-sysop users, that's your job to do so, don't make us vote again! -Greg Asche (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thoughful, but debatable as an oppose vote, as this voter finds fault with the process itself. -SV
  11. Oppose, clear abuse of administrative powers. Also, this is very minor compared to other things, but Stevertigo never quite learned to put edit summaries even after being asked by multiple users to do that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes irrelevant/nonconsequential pov claim. -SV
  12. Oppose. Independant of any abuse of admin powers, looking through his logged actions since the events leading to arbitration shows a number of questionable actions. In particular, the deletion of five images without giving a reason, blocking User:71.36.37.70 for a month for what appears to be mild vandalism, with no discussion on the user's talk page, and an indefinite block of User:134.76.10.66. --Carnildo 04:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Lacks depth. Makes irrelevant/nonconsequential and assumptive claims of improper behaviour. -SV
  13. Oppose. Give him some months and I might reconsider if he behaves himself, but his abuse of admin powers and his unwillingness to take responsibility for his actions puts him in the negative column for me: he doesn't have my trust. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasonable, but negative view rests on an assumption I had not "taken responsibility." No direct interaction with user to base "trust" upon. -SV
  14. Oppose. Adminstrative power abuse. Refusal to take responsibility or respond to strong community concerns. No indication of an intent to change his ways. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Negative view rests on assumptions that I had not "taken responsibility" or was non-responsive. Makes pov judgement based on perceptions of behavioural indications. -SV
  15. Oppose Clear abuse of power, especially the blocking out of spite. However, I also strongly disagree with the way the ArbCom handled this (see below). Turnstep 13:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thoughful, but debatable as an oppose vote, as this voter finds fault with the process itself. -SV
  16. Oppose. We have enough admins who abuse power and ignore community. Make a decision, people. Don't just say it should be referred back to committee. CDThieme 17:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    User decides unique case on a broad claim of general admins who "abuse power ignore community." Seeks proactive reaction in spite of problems with process. -SV

Neutral

  1. Not a fan of a FELLOW MEDIATOR saying that the medcom was going slowly at RfM, he expected us to start mediating when Reddi didn't even accept. In fact Reddi rejected at his talk page. However this is no reason to oppose, so I'm neutral. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Appropriately neutral. Off topic re minor criticism of Medcom issues. -SV
  2. It's too soon after this to make a fair judgement one way or another. Give it a few months. Karmafist 00:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Appropriately neutral, though its doubtful that any Arbcom remedy would have a delay imposed. -SV
  3. I must hear Stevertigo's case for being an admin before I vote either way. silsor 00:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Principled call for reciprocity and rational communication. Observant. -SV
  4. Support (with conditions). Steve, can you talk with medcom at #wikipedia-mediation on freenode? Uncle Ed 00:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Conditional support, tied to off-topical Medcom issues. -SV
  5. Neutral After viewing some of the opponents' comments. Molotov (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unclear as to support/oppose leanings. -SV
    V: Raul654 did NOT nominate him, he was reposting it per an arbcom decision. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of place/undefinitive comment. How is a listing here different than a "nomination," if according to Raul 'the normal rules apply?' -SV
  6. Although Stevertigo did use his administrative status to overreach in one instance I have not followed his actions enough to express an informed opinion regarding his work as a whole. Fred Bauder 16:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Appropriately neutral, but bothersome that after a month of Arbcom deliberations senior Arbcom member Fred could not formulate a clearer view of my "work as a whole." -SV


No vote--remit to arbitration committee

  1. Tony SidawayTalk 02:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC) I've never been a fan of mob justice. The Committee should have de-adminned Stevertigo. This is not a case where community decision-making serves any purpose.[reply]
    Unclear. Appropriately neutral with respect to the decision, though appears to assume the correctness of Arbcom case findings and ruling. -SV
  2. Agree with Tony. Guettarda 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unclear, per above. -SV
  3. Unusually, I do too. :-) — Dan | Talk 04:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unclear, per above. -SV
  4. I completely oppose the decision made by ArbCom to hold this RFA. Like Tony, I agree that the committee should have de-adminned Stevertigo since they have the power to do so instead of dumping this "dirty work" to the community as a whole. Instead, oppose votes are coming in droves and thus it feels like a mob mentality to hang Stevertigo.Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Principled call for improvements in process. -SV
  5. Adminship is for trusted users. Did Steve's RFC really leave the ArbCom with the impression that he might still be a trusted user? There's nor reason to waste time with this. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Appropriately neutral. Assumes "waste" of time. -SV
  6. Tony has a fair point. I think the arbitrators are perhaps a little hesitant to make de-adminship calls. The last one went through by default because the user didn't respond to the evidence, rather than because the arbitrators ruled on the evidence. This time they've simply punted the issue. Hopefully this will leave the community's perspective clearer for the future, so that the arbitrators can make decisions accordingly. Hopefully also we can stop piling on now. --Michael Snow 05:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Appropriately neutral. Observant. Verbose. -SV
  7. Poor indeed. This was pointless, and even though I would have supported a simple dead-minning, this is tantamount to putting Steve in the stocks. The ArbCom needs to grow a spine. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Observant. Verbose. -SV
  8. The Arbcom washes its hands, eh? Well, we can wash our hands too :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 06:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Principled view. Unclear as to specifics. -SV
  9. Not like this Lectonar 07:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is an invitation for a lynch mob. What were ArbCom thinking? If you're going to be on a committee that has the power to make de-admining decisions, make a decision. "The community" is not a lower court that you can remit it to. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Observant. Verbose. -SV
  11. This should be resolved by the ArbCom and not through a process of public humiliation. - ulayiti (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Appropriately neutral. Principled. -SV
  12. Per Tony, Khaos, and Michael Snow. Fuerthermore, I think resubmitting his RfA without answers to the questions, and any type of endorsement or even defence by himself (see Lectonar's bythought below), is kind of strange. The Minister of War 12:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Principled. Concise. -SV
  13. Agree that this is a cop-out by the ArbCom. They should just de-admin him rather than forcing this mess. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Appropriately neutral, though assumptive. -SV
  14. The Arbcom should make the decision, that is why it was created, to make the final choice, not to hand it down to the people just for embarassment.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 12:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Principled. Persuasive. -SV
  15. Agree in general with above comments on remitting back to ArbCom. This should never have been brought here. This is akin to taking a walk in the rain and being surprised you got wet. Bad move ArbCom. --Durin 13:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Principled. Assumptive or unclear. -SV
  16. This sets a poor precendent for the ArbCom. However, it is probably also wrong to complain and ask the ArbCom to change their final decision, no matter how much we disagree with it. Thus, I am going to vote oppose above, with a strong objection to the way the ArbCom handled this. Turnstep 13:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Rational, though assumptive. -SV
  17. Just de-admin him and spare him the humiliation, please.--Scimitar parley 14:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Appropriately neutral. Assumptive and prescriptive. -SV
  18. Comments below. encephalon 15:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Snowspinner 15:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No Vote. The ArbCom should have already made this decision. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. -SV
  21. Agree with and echo encephalon's comments below. I don't believe we have the power to do this. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 19:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Appropriately neutral. -SV
  22. I cannot see any justification for putting someone through this public humiliation. He could at least have been given the choice to submit himself again or to be desysopped. But for someone to be listed here without his knowledge or consent (he last edited on 21 October) and subjected to this piling on of oppose votes from people who can surely see that it will fail anyway is one of the most painful things I've seen on Wikipedia. Ann Heneghan (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Appropriately neutral. Observant. -SV
  23. This is precisely the reason why Quickpolls were abandoned. Tar and feathers, anyone? Since nominations regularly fail for far lesser infractions, the ArbCom should have realized that this nomination had no chance from the start. Radiant_>|< 21:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Appropriately neutral. Principled. -SV

Comments

  • Note: Please don't oppose with a comment like 'Recent Arbcom Case'. Afterall, this was posted because of that arbcom case. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? The only reason this RfA exists is because of the Arbcom case. To tell us that we shouldn't consider that fact, and even oppose on the grounds of it, is very strange. -Splashtalk 01:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redwolf's point is that you shouldn't oppose just because Stevertigo went to arbitration. If you don't think he should be an administrator, say why. Myself, I would prefer nobody voted here at all until Stevertigo has a chance to say anything. silsor 05:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision to refer the matter to RfA strikes me as a poor one on the part of the Arbitrators. We frequently tell furious complainants at AN/I etc that they should take "the matter" to RfAr because ArbCom is pretty much the only way to de-admin someone. That they have opted instead to offer the community a pretty obvious route of taking up pitchforks and torches against someone seems to remove the need for us to refer such matters to the them in future. It also establishes the precedent that RfA can be used to determine if someone should be de-adminned or not (or, as they phrase it should be 'reaffirmed'). Oops. -Splashtalk 01:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The community does not have the power to require an admin to stand for reaffirmation. Only the ArbCom (or Jimbo) has that authority, and only when we are convinced that the admin in question has breached trust with the community. We most explicitly do not want forced confirmation votes to become a way for vandals and other disgruntled persons to disrupt Wikipedia. This instance emphatically does NOT create a right for the community to require an admin to stand for reconfirmation. Kelly Martin 02:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The community does not have the power to require an admin to stand for reaffirmation. Only the ArbCom (or Jimbo) has that authority Since ArbCom has by their decision delegated that power to users as a whole, then that statement is entirely moot, bordering on asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. --Calton | Talk 04:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Calton, your conclusion is incorrect. ArbCom has not delegated its authority to decide when an admin should be required to stand for confirmation. We exercised our authority. The community previously decided to make Stevertigo an admin. ArbCom has reason to doubt that the community made the correct decision, and has therefore asked it to verify that it still wants him to be one. The community, and not ArbCom, remains the arbiter of who may and may not be an admin. For us to deadmin him ourself would be to seize the authority to decide who is and is not an admin from the community. Now, it appears that the community wants us to do so. I have to wonder why. Kelly Martin 16:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you have it slightly muddled. Steve was made an admin. Right or wrong, consensus was assessed, and the RfA closed to appoint him as one. So that decision is not in question. Now there is doubt about his fitness to stand as an admin, and whether his admin status should be removed, and surely that is something that is within ArbCom's power - and indeed remit - to do so. Are you saying that ArbCom no longer wishes to de-admin anybody but that any de-admining decisions should go to what amounts to creating a process for Requests for De-Adminship? If so, consider if that's a can of worms ArbCom really wants to open. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find it hard to believe that, with the insight the Arbitrators acting collectively should have that they did not plainly forsee how this RfA would proceed. Anybody could have told them what would happen. The community wants the ArbCom not to exercise a power to decide who should and should not be admins, but to exercise a power to determine when someone already an admin should no longer be. That's quite different. -Splashtalk 20:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, it's alright to say 'the arbcom case found fault with this person' but I don't think JUST saying a case has been opened against him... is good grounds for opposing, as the thought behind saying that is that the user is too controversial, but this is a mandatory RfA. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize he abused his powers, but is it really necessary to increase his humiliation by piling on the oppose votes before he has even accepted his nomination? Who knows, maybe he'll refuse the nomination, making all the oppose votes unnecessary. Isn't this a bit like kicking a dog when he's down? Ann Heneghan (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, I think it was a terrible mistake for the Arbcom to close this case in this way. They could have just desysoped without prejudice and let the community readmin when we thought it was ready. But whats done is done. After seeing his arguments here and his lack of remorse or acknowledgement for mistakes, I can't imagine anything he'd say here would convince me to support, but I can't see opposing until he's had a chance to comment. --Gmaxwell 02:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough statement, if he opposes though he resigns himself to the fact that he'll be desysopped per order of the Arbitration Committee Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
His RFA it to be treated like any other - less than 70% and he loses his sysophood, between 70 and 80% is the bureacrat's call, and greater than 80% is approval. →Raul654 01:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Just as a bythought: if I read the ArbCom decision correctly, wasn't Stevertigo supposed to self-nominate for this reassessment? Lectonar 11:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand the ArbCom's decision. It affirmed 2 principles, made 2 findings of fact, and provided one remedy.
    1. It affirmed the principle that "Wikipedia:Administrators are trusted members of the community who... are held to high standards. If [their admin powers] are abused an administrator may be removed from that status, or a lesser penalty may be imposed..."
    2. It then found that Steve had committed the following serious violations: he "violated the Wikipedia:Three revert rule", he "edited a protected page to conform to his version", he used administrative power "to unblock himself a number of times", and he "blocked one of the administrators who was blocking him".
    3. However, despite finding these facts, it did not seem to apply the principle it itself affirmed as applicable:"...If use of those commands are abused an administrator may be removed from that status, or a lesser penalty may be imposed..." Here, admin status was not removed, nor was any lesser penalty imposed. What was done, on the contrary, was to require the community to determine the soundness of one possible penalty, desysoping.

      We have an ArbCom to help the community

      • make determinations of fact,
      • determine applicable principles, and
      • provide a remedy by applying principles to findings of fact.

        I think it has done a good job on the first two, but not the last. I am also slightly puzzled by this because it seems to me that the facts in this case were not particularly difficult to determine; the problems were restricted to one article at one particular time period and involved a handful of users—a look at the diffs and block log should have clarified what had happened reasonably quickly. The true value of the ArbCom, and the reason why we require its members to be users with excellent judgement and experience, lies in its ability to use the facts available to it to provide a just and constructive remedy. The final step is important, and should not be (essentially) turfed.

    4. The turf itself appears problematic. Steve is currently sysoped—the current RfA was set up to determine if he should be de-sysoped. But the community does not have the prerogative to do this: we can ask for privileges to be bestowed, we do not remove them. That can only be done "either at the decree of Jimbo Wales or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee", to quote the document the ArbCom found to be applicable in this case. The ArbCom should decide if Steve should retain his sysop status, or lose it. Not us. encephalon 15:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last comment. While I believe this case should be remitted to the ArbCom, I repectfully ask that editors who oppose not be labeled the "lynch mob". They are nothing of the sort. This odd decision was trust unto them unasked by the ArbCom; they're being asked to decide if a User who clearly abused his sysop status should simply be allowed to retain it and continue as is. It is perfectly reasonable to stand up and voice one's opinion to the contrary, especially when faced with the fact that the august body entrusted with this responsibility uncharacteristically appears not to have adequately fulfilled it. The editors here are all good folks. encephalon 15:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Is it really necessary to keep piling the oppose votes? I think we have it down that he won't pass the RfA, stop kicking him please. If he gets about 40 supports out of nowhere, than by all means resume opposing, but right now this isn't getting us anywhere, and I fear if it keeps up he may just leave the project, and lose a valuable contributor. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can unlist this one per the regular "snowball in hell" clause. Radiant_>|< 21:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from votes section. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Stevertigo_3/Notes&oldid=1148785458"