Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/text
Involved parties
[edit]Party 1: Initiator
Party 2: Subject of Arbitration
Other Involved Admins
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo
Statement by party 1
[edit]This case concerns the abuse of multiple administrative powers for the purpose of gaining an advantage in a dispute. Stevertigo violated the blocking policy four times [1] by unblocking himself and the protection policy by reverting a protected page [2] to his preferred version. A RfC was posted and over 20 editors found Stevertigo's actions to be unacceptable. Stevertigo's brief response was mostly sarcastic and dismissive.
Statement by party 2
[edit]Statements by other involved administrators
[edit]- Thryduulf
- The statement I made on the arbitration request entitled User:CJK, User:Stevertigo [3] is relevant also to this request. I am happy to be considered a party to this request if the arbcom or any of the other parties wish it. Feel free to reproduce my statement there on this case if desired (like most of my edits, it is in the public domain).
- I am not certain why these requests are separate, and suggest merging them. Thryduulf 18:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- I stand by my initial block under the 3RR. Yes I should have blocked the other party but it wasn't reported and due to time restriants I only cheak reported violations. I was contacterble by email for as long as the block lasted. Geni 10:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Stevertigo was informed of his block on his talk page with my standard template User:Geni/3rrGeni 19:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Mackensen
- I acted to enforce a block previously administered by no less than three other sysops. I found out about the unblocking from the noticeboard; not IRC as some have insinuated. I did drop into the channel later, but only after Stevertigo blocked me on grounds at best spurious. I felt the need to enforce the block because if sysops are to retain the respect of the community, and sysophood as an institution is to retain its legitimacy, administrators cannot act in such a high-handed fashion. Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)
[edit]- Accept Fred Bauder 13:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. James F. (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Accept ➥the Epopt 22:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)