Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators will be working on proposals at /Workshop and voting on them at /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by User:Curps[edit]

Summary[edit]

  • An edit war erupted at Vietnam War. Stevertigo was one of the participants.
  • In talk pages, Stevertigo made direct or implied threats to block those who oppose his point of view, or even those who merely criticize him.
  • Stevertigo was blocked for 3RR violation in Vietnam War (in the end, he would revert a total of 12 times). However, he unblocked himself.
  • Three other admins attempted to enforce the 3RR block anew, but Stevertigo unblocked himself each time, and temporarily blocked one of those admins (Mackensen) in turn. He then applied a humorous (?) block to himself and unblocked himself two minutes later.
  • Stevertigo also edited a protected page (Vietnam War) to restore his preferred version. The page was protected because of an edit war in which he broke 3RR by reverting 12 times; in fact, this edit was the 12th revert.
  • Ta bu shi da yu reverted that and left a polite message on Stevertigo's talk page (don't edit protected pages)
  • Stevertigo promptly blocked Ta bu shi da yu for… editing a protected page.
  • An RFC against Stevertigo was started. Many users sharply criticized his actions.
  • This RfAr was started. Stevertigo issues a statement in which he acknowledges no wrongdoing beyond "Though I do regret the incidental technical violations, I nevertheless…"

8 August[edit]

7 August[edit]

  • 00:57, 7 August 2005 Stevertigo unblocked User:Mackensen (ill be nice if you will)
  • 00:56, 7 August 2005 Stevertigo blocked "User:Mackensen" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Excessive use of blocking powers, enforcer complex)
  • 00:52, 7 August 2005 Mackensen blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (You are not above the law)
  • 00:50, 7 August 2005 Stevertigo unblocked User:Stevertigo (Mailing list does not work (refresh problem), and the block is unreasonable, given that there are discussions involving my perrson, and that I dont qualify as a vandal)
  • 00:46, 7 August 2005 Mackensen blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Re-instating block, and I WILL enforce this thing)
  • 00:40, 7 August 2005 Stevertigo unblocked User:Stevertigo (saving comment)
  • 00:35, 7 August 2005 Carbonite blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Vietnam War; Warning: Do NOT unblock yourself, use your talk page, email another admin or the mailing)

6 August[edit]

  • 17:41, 6 August 2005 Stevertigo unblocked User:Stevertigo (for WP:RFAr)
  • 17:25, 6 August 2005 Thryduulf blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 60 hours (24 hours for 3RR violation + 48 hours for breaking protection policy by reverting a protected page. All comments to your user page, I don't have regular email access atm)
  • 17:06, 6 August 2005 Stevertigo unblocked User:Stevertigo (havent saved edit yet)
  • 17:03, 6 August 2005 Geni blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3 revert rule (WP:3RR) on Vietnam War)
  • 16:47, 6 August 2005 CJK reports that Stevertigo has reverted for the 12th time in 24 hours ([4])
  • 15:58, 6 August 2005 Stevertigo edits Vietnam War despite page protection ([5])
    • (restore version reverted by dubious anon - 70.118.68.216)
  • 08:02, 6 August 2005 Thryduulf edits Vietnam War([6])
    • (protected)
  • 08:01, 6 August 2005 Thryduulf protected Vietnam War (edit war. talk page consists basically of users accusing each other of not responding to each other on talk)

5 August[edit]

  • August 5 and August 6: CJK and TJive and Calton report a total of 12 (twelve) 3RR violations by Stevertigo. ([7]

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13])

  • 23:49, 5 August 2005 Stevertigo makes an implied threat to block TJive ([14])
    • No, of course not. Did I? But IAC, temp removing unhelpful third party commentors can be useful though. -St|eve 23:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23:39, 5 August 2005 TJive admonishes Stevertigo for threatening to block users ([15])
    • Stevertigo, quit threatening users. This isn't your soapbox or playground and you don't have the ability to ban users for disagreeing with you. --TJive 23:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • 22:35, 5 August 2005 Stevertigo replies, threatening to block Trey Stone ([16])
    • POV-based nonsense. Ive a good mind to block you for good measure. -St|eve 22:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22:26, 5 August 2005 Trey Stone accuses Stevertigo of making POV changes ([17])
    • Your edits are thinly-veiled editorializing on the side of the North and the Viet Cong. i'm not interesting in arguing this much longer; i assume CJK will remove your POV changes. J. Parker Stone 22:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 5: an edit war erupts at Vietnam War. Stevertigo is one of the participants: he makes some initial edits to which CJK reacts ([18] [19] [20] [21] etc etc)

Other evidence[edit]

  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo ([22])
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Statement ([23])
It is highly unusual to introduce a party's own statement as evidence against him, but here it is necessary and appropriate. His statement shows that he is not only unrepentant but actually oblivious. He shows no understanding of the essentially janitorial role of adminship; rather, he truly believes he has been entrusted to use admin powers for editing purposes (for the greater good, as he perceives it). Someone who doesn't understand the nature of admin powers is in no way qualified to wield them. A final truly disturbing point is his willingness to lash out against and even block third parties uninvolved in his edit wars — an attitude of "if you're not with me then you're against me".
-- Curps 22:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC) / Curps 02:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Michael Snow[edit]

7 August[edit]

  • 03:11, 7 August 2005 Michael Snow blocked "User:CJK" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of 3RR on Vietnam War; Wikipedia:Three-revert rule enforcement policy specifies that both sides are to be treated equally)
    • CJK was Stevertigo's primary opponent in the revert war, and the only other participant to violate the three-revert rule. I blocked to comply with the rule, which specifies: "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." This appears to have been overlooked because nobody explicitly reported CJK on WP:AN/3RR, although TJive, who is not an admin, did mention CJK's violation during discussion of the report on Stevertigo.

Evidence presented by Mackensen[edit]

6 August[edit]

  • 20:35, 6 August 2005 Carbonite blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Vietnam War; Warning: Do NOT unblock yourself, use your talk page, email another admin or the mailing)
  • 20:40, 6 August 2005 Carbonite reports on WP:AN/I that he has reblocked Stevertigo and asked him not to unblock himself [24]
    • This is when I became aware of the dispute; I began checking the relevant logs and pages to see what was up.
  • 20:40, 6 August 2005 Stevertigo unblocked User:Stevertigo (saving comment)
  • 20:46, 6 August 2005 Mackensen blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Re-instating block, and I WILL enforce this thing)
    • Finding that Stevertigo unblocked himself (again), and having already decided that the block for the 3RR violation was more than justified, I re-blocked with a somewhat stern note, and left an explanatory comment on Stevertigo's talk page: [25].
  • 20:50, 6 August 2005 Stevertigo unblocked User:Stevertigo (Mailing list does not work (refresh problem), and the block is unreasonable, given that there are discussions involving my perrson, and that I dont qualify as a vandal)
  • 20:52, 6 August 2005 Mackensen blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (You are not above the law)
  • 20:56, 6 August 2005 Stevertigo blocked "User:Mackensen" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Excessive use of blocking powers, enforcer complex)
  • 20:57, 6 August 2005 Stevertigo unblocked User:Mackensen (ill be nice if you will)

The above constitutes the bulk of my involvement in the matter; not even twenty minutes, all things considered. I enforced the block because it's my firm belief that admins are bound to follow the rules and conventions which govern the encyclopedia and the community. Stevertigo, near as I could tell, was taking the line that he was free to act as he pleased–I do not know what justification he claims. No objective observer of the Vietnam War could argue that Stevertigo was reverting simple vandalism. We've all seen, dealt with, and probably participated in POV revert-wars, but that doesn't excuse making close to a dozen reverts, including one of a protected page, unblocking yourself, and blocking those who sought to uphold community consensus and community norms.

The legitimacy of the system of administrators rests on the idea that adminship is bestowed by the community as a trust. Admins are expected to play constructive roles within the community–first and foremost, I should think, as the writers of articles. When a user--any user, regardless of status--commits such major transgressions, the duty of every sysop seems clear to me. The main thought in my head was that if Stevertigo's unblocking himself was allowed to stand it would become impossible to justify blocking any user for revert-warring ever again without placing ourselves in a morally dubious position. After the whole fiasco several admins acted as though what Stevertigo did was no big deal, and that somehow the four of us who attempted to make him abide by community standards had acted improperly. That way cabalism lies.

I beg forgiveness from the Arbitration Committee for such a long summary (much of which repeats Curps' excellent statement), but I felt it necessary to explain my own actions and why I feel that the present situation is one of extreme importance for the future of the project. Mackensen (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Carbonite[edit]

8 August[edit]

  • Stevertigo only made one major edit to the RfC on his actions. See page history. Stevertigo's only response was [26]

"I appreciate all the support. Thank you for everyone who took time to read through all the various talk pages to figure out what was what. It would seem that there are problems with certain policies and how they are enforced, and I know Im not alone in this. I do request that people keep things in proportion and perspective, and not make adjudications hastily or absolutistly."

  • Stevertigo stated that he was unblocking in order to file an RfAr against the user (CJK) who reported Stevertigo's 3RR violation [27]:

"I unblocked for the purpose of filing a case at WP:RFAR against the accuser, whose only standing ATP was that he complained about 3RR before I did."

  • I agree with the comments made above by the other admins, especially those made by Mackensen. Administrative abuse is a very serious matter and should concern the entire community. I've seen no sign that Stevertigo wishes to accept blame or acknowledge his misconduct. Carbonite | Talk 01:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by User:Geni[edit]

<6> <August>[edit]

  • <17:03>
    • I blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3 revert rule (WP:3RR) on Vietnam War)

I don't know how many times exaclt he reverted all I know was that it was at least 4. i left my standard warning on his user page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevertigo&diff=20418173&oldid=20374306

I keep this warning in my user space User:Geni/3RR and subst it into talk pages as needed.

I did not block the other peson to break the 3 revert rule becuase it was not reported. 3rr violations can take up to 15 mins to cheack and as a result I don't really have time to go looking for them.11:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Netoholic[edit]

(Please note, this is a record I was keeping some time ago. Some links, especially to deleted pages, don't work but I've left them in so that the numbered edit IDs are visible. -- Netoholic @ 19:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Stevertigo has taken a number of worrysome actions, using his admin abilities inappropriately - especially by using those abilities to prevent non-admins from editing certain pages he created.

  • Template:Delete - This has been protected since 2005 Feb 1, but on 17:00, 2005 May 17, SV edited it, blanking it completely and replacing it with the {{tfd}} notice. Being that {{delete}} is a mainstay used commonly, TFDing it is inappropriate, blanking it is even more so, and doing this all while it is protected is unacceptable.
  • On Apr 27, Stevertigo created a number of pages related to mathematical constants containing only external links (speedy deletion candidates) and then protected them all with the message "saving from (hasty) deletion till I can populate". Even if other editors wanted to assist with these, they would be prevented due to the protection.
  • Template:Rewrite - On Apr 30, he restored this template, providing no justification (log. This was previously deleted per TFD.
  • Has used profanity when issuing blocks (log).


Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

<day1> <month>[edit]

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.


<day2> <month>[edit]

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence&oldid=431111609"