Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC).

Please note: This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:

  • protecting and unprotecting pages
  • deleting and undeleting pages
  • blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

User:Stevertigo has unblocked himself four times, threatened to block users who disagree with him, reverted a protected page, blocked a user for reverting him, and blocked another user for blocking him. Also blocked an admin who corrected his revert on a locked page.

Description[edit]

After being blocked, initially for a 3RR violation, Stevertigo unblocked himself four times. [1]. He also reverted a protected page. [2] Has also resorted to personal attacks on his talk page: [3] "The like-to-block-people-but-dont-know-shit-about-the-context-or- related-process-crew gets involved. See above: Carbonite and Mackensen"

Powers misused[edit]

  • Protection (log):
  1. Vietnam War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Blocking (log):
  1. Stevertigo threatened to block two users at Talk:Vietnam War, Trey Stone and TJive.
  2. Stevertigo blocked an anonymous IP, 67.188.49.1 (talk · contribs) for a month for reverting his changes to Vietnam War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See block log. [4]
  3. Stevertigo unblocked himself four times. See block log. [5]
  4. Stevertigo blocked Mackensen (talk · contribs) in retaliation. See block log [6]
  5. Stevertigo blocked Ta bu shi da yu for rolling back his revert on Vietnam War. See block log. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Applicable policies[edit]

  1. "Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice, a link to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article, unless there is widespread agreement that the page was protected in violation of these policies."
  1. "Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves by following this procedure but should absolutely not do so."
  2. "The list above is widely considered to be an exhaustive list of the situations that warrant blocking. Blocking should not be used in any other circumstances, unless there is exceptional widespread community support....Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute, and self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited, although the latter was somewhat common earlier in our history. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict."

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Stevertigo's talk page.
  2. Administrator noticeboard.
  3. Talk:Vietnam War.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Carbonite | Talk 00:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TJive 01:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Mackensen (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Crystal-clear abuse, regardless of the content dispute. Aside from the misuse of admin powers, Steve has also engaged in personal attacks on this issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:09, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
  5. Thryduulf 06:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ta bu shi da yu 03:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC) I got blocked for undoing his revert. Nothing personal, but I feel that this admin has gone rogue.[reply]
  7. J. Parker Stone 08:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC) I would comment also on his POV pushing on a certain article but that's another issue.[reply]
  8. CJK 00:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this statement[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Absolutely unacceptable. In previous cases, this has been grounds for de-adminship. Incidentally, I have blocked User:CJK, Stevertigo's original opponent in the edit war, for 24 hours as well. Somehow that was overlooked, which may have contributed to Stevertigo's frustration. --Michael Snow 03:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. One would have to do some pretty fancy talking to even begin to try to justify once, but four times? There is clear cut, multiple occurances, abuse of the tools of adminship here. Func( t, c ) 05:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Since revert warring is bad (especially when crossing the 3RR), how can block/unblock warring not be at least equally bad (especially when crossing the hypothetical 3BUB)? Radiant_>|< 07:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  4. He has managed to achieve the most disruptive editor conduct (revert warring) with the most disruptive admin conduct (abuse of blocking powers) possible Cynical 08:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WAY over the line for admin conduct. --Calton | Talk 15:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  6. This can't be allowed. --131.111.193.120 21:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. While I am not involved in the dispute, these actions of alleged admin abuse worry me. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  8. With the WP:POINT block of Ta bu shi da yu, this has gone way over the top. --cesarb 03:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I was going to not say anything and assume he deserves the benefit of the doubt, but I see from the ANI page that he has blocked another admin for rolling back a change he made to an article after it was protected. He has clearly gone way past acceptable behavior and is still doing so even though he had time to back away and cool off. DreamGuy 03:46, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  10. This sort of behavior from an administrator is horrifying. The initial offenses were worrisome, and his retaliatory block of Mackensen was highly disturbing—yet I hoped Steve would calm down and realize his error. But the new edit of a protected page is unbelievable and the block of Ta bu shi da yu (who only reverted and left a polite comment) is apalling. I am not sure what Steve is trying to achieve, but I would favor immediate removal of administrator privileges. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  11. I haven't been involved here, but I get the strong impression that Stevertigo is doing some pretty extreme abuse of admin privileges. Everyking 04:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Blocking Ta bu shi da yu was a very clearcut abuse. -- Curps 04:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Continuing this behavior in the midst of an RFC shows extreme bad faith and lack of restraint. Any trust the community placed in him is gone. I have no faith that if he is not de-adminned, this won't continue indefinitely. We don't make people admins to be in fear of what they'll do next with the privileges, but so they can help us with the special janitorial tasks involved in making an encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 04:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  14. The conduct described here is unacceptable; removal of admin privileges seems the appropriate response, as this editor has amply demonstrated that he lacks the discipline to use them responsibly. Kelly Martin 05:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  15. He's lost my confidence in him as an admin. I would support him being de-adminned: this is the sort of thing that the various aborted RfDa policies were made for. --Carnildo 05:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Disruptive user. --malathion talk 06:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. His conduct is inexcusable and it would seem appropriate that his admin privilages should be revoked immediately and he should possibly be sanctioned for such blatant and unapologetic abuse of our trust. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Ehm, can't help but comment on this one—remove his admin privileges and sanction him? What other sanctions would you be thinking of? Blocking? Banning? Posting embarrassing pictures of him in the facebook? Are you just using vaguely threatening language or do you have something specific in mind? No need to mince words here. JRM · Talk 07:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. admins unblocking themselves are shooting their own foot. some sort of sanction is necessary here (such as, re-apply on rfa). dab (ᛏ) 08:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Extraordinary behavior. Consummately, utterly, unacceptable.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 13:43:17, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
  20. Robert McClenon 11:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Tony SidawayTalk 16:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC). Seems to have let a content dispute get to him. Not impressed by response.[reply]
  22. This is the most clear-cut and blatant case of admin abuse I have ever seen. jni 17:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Crazy. Dan100 (Talk) 20:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  24. Would support de-adminship. — Dan | Talk 00:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I have no idea how such a blatantly rogue user ever got to be an admin in the first place. It seems to me that his antics at Criticism of the Iraq War, unilaterally declaring that the VfD on the article he created was "in violation of VfD policy" and removing it, instead of letting the community decide, was enough to show that he couldn't even be trusted with the powers of a normal user, let alone those of an admin. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

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 absolutishly. With sincerity and little chutzpah, -St|eve 04:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by McClenon[edit]

I have not researched this dispute in detail. I see that the subject, Stevertigo, has filed a Request for Arbitration against at least one other user. There is a comment in the RfAr saying that the situation has degenerated into a wheel war between admins. That is correct. This is clearly an abuse of admin privileges.

It appears that Stevertigo unblocked himself after being blocked. This is technically possible but is never permitted.

If I am not mistaken, administrators should use their special powers with great caution.

I do not see a basis for Stevertigo going directly to arbitration without trying an RfC. I do see a basis for posting the RfC against the conduct of Stevertigo

Maybe I have misunderstood something. However, this looks like a case of administrative abuse by Stevertigo. Robert McClenon 02:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 02:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. TJive 02:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Thryduulf 07:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. khaosworks 02:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Gentgeen 05:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BlankVerse ∅ 15:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Gkhan[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

First off, I am not in any way involved in the dispute. But this is a request for comments, so here are mine:

I'm all for dispute resolution. Hell, I aplaud it, it is a great tool! However, in this instance I think this should go to the ArbCom, if not right now, very soon. Svertigos response show no regret whatsoever, indeed he is being quite arrogant. His actions were, as many many users have said, totally unacceptable. One of the worst kinds of adminstrator abuse. Barring he does something exceptional during the course of this RfC (for instance block himself for a long period of time, say 1 week) someone should start an WP:RfAr quite soon. Insist on de-admining.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. gkhan 20:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Carnildo 21:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC) With the exception that I don't think there's much of anything he can do that would redeem his behavior.[reply]
  3. Nandesuka 17:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC). (I'm not an admin, but I hope I can still comment). This goes beyond isolated abuses into what I would consider a pattern of behavior. I see no indication that this individual appreciates the responsibility that goes along with his status.[reply]
  4. Robert McClenon 11:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@ BlankVerse ∅ 15:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Steve seems to see the flurry of supporting votes as some sort of witch-hunt. I would like to point out that my vote does not endorse his being blocked, I have not researched the context; rather, the rfc concerns his repeated unblocking of himself, rather than seeking another admin's attention via email or rfc. this is not acceptable even if the original block should have been improper. It would have been reasonable to unblock himself once, to put a note an AN/I and ask for assistance. Anything beyond that is simply abuse of adminship, sorry. dab (ᛏ) 08:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe we should simply ask the ArbCom opinion on the matter; there's no point in piling up more endorsements here. Radiant_>|< 09:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've asked Steve on his talk page to consider de-admining himself. I believe this would be the route that would cause the fewest problems and hard feelings for everyone involved. Of course, there would always be the option to reapply for adminship in the future. Carbonite | Talk 12:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's asked to be de-sysoped. He asked me to do so as I thought I could as a bureaucrat. We need a steward to do so. Secretlondon 17:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concern is that he asked for a "temp" de-admin. From my understanding, being temporarily de-admined allows any bureaucrat to return admin rights at any time. It's my opinion that he should have to go through an RfA to regain adminship. If Stevertigo agrees to go through RfA to regain adminship, I think this matter would essentially be settled. Otherwise, the ArbCom should handle the case. Carbonite | Talk 18:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Stevertigo&oldid=1080113721"