Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

This vote has been closed early by Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke). The case will go back to the Arbitration committee.

Contents

[edit] Stevertigo

Requests_for_adminship/Stevertigo|action=edit}} Vote here (17/29/7/49 [support, oppose, neutral, remit]) ending 18:36 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

  • Stevertigo has asked for this RfA to be relisted [1]. -- Curps 18:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As I read his comment he wants to start with a fresh slate, a proper good faith nomination and time to answer the standard admin questions as well as the recent criticism directed at him. That seems like a completely reasonable demand. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, it wasn't me that relisted it, but his comments were:
        • "Now that I have some bearings on what has been going on, Im requesting that the delisting be found as inappropriate and premature, and that I be able to comment on my own RFA, per the Arbcom's decision. The claim that the removal 'was just doing me a favor' is flaccid: I could equally claim that the motion to close was designed to minimise criticism of the RFAR decision, and any ensuing embarrassment to the Arbcom." [2]
        • "the delisting was inappropriate [...] I do not think it is appropriate for me to modify the page myself, as it is listed as an "archive," so now I humbly ask that a third party relist me on WP:RFA, modify WP:RFA/SV to show its active status, and removed its listing from WP:UAC." [3]
      • This has now been done. If he had wished to leave this current RfA archived and self-nominate with a new fresh-slate listing, he had (and still has) the option of doing so. As far as I know, there's no restriction on him (or anyone else) self-nominating at any time of his own choosing, so if this was the case there would have been no need for any request on his part, he could have just gone ahead and done so. However he did specifically ask that the archived WP:RFA/Stevertigo be "modif[ied] to show its active status", so I believe the current revival of the existing RfA (which includes critical discussion of the Arbitration Committee's actions) reflects his wishes. -- Curps 21:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I now (three days later) accept Raul's proactive listing here (per the Arbcom ruling) as a "nomination." Though i disagree with the ruling and the remedy and will continue to criticise these, I must for the time being follow the remedy outlined in the ruling. -St|eve 21:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Continued support. Andre (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    Support I am convinced on Raul's judgement. Molotov (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    changed to neutral
  2. Support None of us is perfect. On balance Stevertigo has done far more good than harm to the Wikipedia over the years. I doubt that that will change. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. Support- 3RR should not be used to punish genuine editors. Astrotrain 12:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. I do not approve of readmin voting, and will always vote support on those grounds. Snowspinner 15:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 16:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support per Snowspinner. Arbcom, do the dirty work yourself. --Maru (talk) Contributions 19:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. Support. KHM03 22:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support, I'm sure that the arbcom case has inspired a propersense of humility. SV is otherwsie quite decent. Klonimus 04:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support Excellent editor for over two years, contributed huge amounts for encyclopedic material, despite one mistake on one particular day. 172 | Talk 20:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Could you list the one mistake and the one day on which it was made? Carbonite | Talk 21:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Much thanks for your kind support 172. Carbonite, the "mistake" I believe he's referring to is the technical violation of policy for which I was Arbitrated, and pleaded my guilt to in my original statement. If you have a statement to give, please do so in a more clear and forthright form. -St|eve 00:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    OK, I was mistaken. Wait a second, no, I'm not. I initiated the ArbCom case and the RfC, so I know exactly what happened. You can claim that you're being punished for violating the 3RR, but it's flat-out false. I wouldn't initiate an RfArb for "one mistake on one particular day" and the ArbCom wouldn't accept it even if I did. If this was about one mistake, no one would have even heard about it. Here's my statement: "Accept the blame, let it go, and move on." It's best for you and best for the community. You should have done this months ago, but there's still time to do the right thing. Whatever you do, stop insisting that this is nothing more than a technical violation of policy. Carbonite | Talk 02:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    What would you suggest I claim? I cant support your version of events — which claims that the separate incidents were all part of one grand tendency—either as "to abuse sysop powers" in general, or to "misuse of sysop powers to gain an advantage in a dispute." Forgive me, but I will not change my view to fit yours, nor will I agree to this 'shut up in your's and the community's best interest' claim. Sorry, but thats not how I see it. There are other issues here besides my conduct, (which I have take full responsibility for from the beginning). For example the issue of the Arbcom's use of the RFA as a "remedy" is quite relevant here. You are of course free to misprepresent me, my actions, and the issues surrounding me, in any way you like. -St|eve 04:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. He hasn't a snowball's, but someone has to even this thing up a little. He has been a good editor, he made a mistake, and he admitted it. It's his future that interests me, not his past. Seems to me some opposers are somehow absolutely certain he would automatically offend again. I don't believe so. Moriori 01:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Excellent and consistent editor. Trödel|talk 01:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support I don't see any reason to desysop here. --Irpen 00:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support - coming out of AOL anonymous editing to support a user here who appears to be targetted over a specific weakness that overlooks the totality of his contributions. Abeo Paliurus 20:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
    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. ËvilphoenixBurn! 18:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    Changing back to Oppose. Candidate seems to intend on using this RfA as a vehicle to "embarass" the ArbCom. While I disagree with the ArbCom's decision not to de-sysop Stevertigo itself, I feel that consensus has been reached that creating this nomination was a poor decision on the part of the ArbCom, and that having established that, Stevertigo should accept the community's opposition to his adminship, and move forward from here. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    It is not my intent to "embarass" the Arbcom, as I dont think that will be productive. It is my intent to represent myself and my record as an admin who has held that status for over two years, and has not before been considered "abusive." Of course I have problems with the remedy, and will emphasize those problems rather than just sweep them under the rug. If as a consequence of this discussion the Arbcom wishes to rehear my case, and to self-impose reforms as to its process and responsiveness (the real issue), then that would be just swell, but in no way should my comments be construed as "embarrasing" to the Arbcom. Conversely, IMHO, I should not be a scapegoat for sake of not embarrasing the Arbcom. Sincerely, -St|eve 21:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC),
  2. Oppose per Evilphoenix. --Idont Havaname 00:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, surely you cannot have an admin who abuses his powers. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  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)
    After some discussion about this process, Jtkiefer has expressed some moderation of this above view in direct talk page discussion with me. -St|eve 21:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. freestylefrappe 01:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Strong Oppose clear abuse of powers. Plaudits to the arbcom for a job well done. Borisblue 01:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    I stand by my "simplistic/reflexive" vote and find his "rebuttals" here arrogant and condescending. Nominee should not assume that we have not read his arbitration page. I find the arbcom's findings of fact totally reasonable. Borisblue 22:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Those notes were for my own use, and represent an only cursory look at the listed rationales. Yours (above) was rather curt and thus my estimation of that must be likewise. If you had indeed read the Arbcom case in full and still arrived at the same conclusion, then I must indeed consider your opinion valid. But I cannot assume that anyone had done so, when in fact the Arbcom itself is not on record as being responsive to my statements and questions. Indeed your praise for the Arbcom stands in direct contradiction to those here who have been highly critical of their remedy. Sincerely, -St|eve 00:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Received apology, and diluted oppose vote.
  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)
    My statement was not a "denial" —in fact I stated "clearly I violated a technical reading of 3RR" etc. But I stand by my statement that 1) the violations were separate, minor, and not pov motivated 2) 3RR was not equitably applied, as the second party (to say nothing of third parties) were not blocked until 24 hours later, and only after I complained (which could only be done after unblocking myself). If policy is to be enforced by any old admin, they should follow the rules of the policy, no? The Arcom's "finding of fact" on the 3RR issue was that 3RR was "equitably applied" —a simplistic statement with no attention to detail or mention of the actual events.-St|eve 21:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    I appreciate the fact that you've chosen to engage with the various voters here. The short version of your comment says that I rely on the fact that the ArbCom were correct in their findings: I did, in fact, read the case for myself, although I did so at some speed. Yes, any old admin should enforce the rules equitably. But if there was any inequity, it should have been dealt with in a manner aligned with that which a non-admin would have recourse to. It should, therefore, not have required editing Wikipedia (aside from your talk page, if that feature was available at the time). You had the mailing list (refresh issues?!), and IRC at the least, apart from the option to email your blocking admin or another one. You needn't have summarily unblocked yourself repeatedly, and then retaliatorily blocked the blocking admin. There is also no excuse for editing a protected page to conform to your preferred version. Those things taken together are an abuse of administrative powers. Are they serious enough for action to be taken? ArbCom says yes. They say they are too spineless to work out what action, precisely, they remit it to the community, and so I judge for myself that de-sysopping is appropriate. I have made very plain elsewhere that I think the Committee's decision to refer to RfA was nevertheless a grave mistake. -Splashtalk 13:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    As for proper unblocking policy, I agree that I made a mistake and part of that was due to my unfamiliarity with the new 'blocked users can respond on their talk page' ability. (Incidentally, all or most of the mailing lists were out of service for most of the day due to mail server problems. I dont have any links handy, but the first-self unblock timestamp is 17:41, 6 August 2005. You can check that out. I dont use IRC, and dont agree that users should be expected to use it.) Again, these were mistakes of process due to what I percieved to be a lack of AGF on the part of blocking admins, and a conveniently one-sided application of 3RR. I certainly am not blameless, and by no means do I argue for my complete innocence (never have), but I disagree completely with the "rogue admin" claim. In that context I humbly suggest that a "grave mistake" is no way to correct another "grave mistake" (mine), or even (as many seem to agree) a one-time lapse of judgement. -St|eve 16:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    "Conveniently one-sided application of 3RR". What is this? You were blocked, then I was blocked the following day for the full 24 hours (even though I did not know that I had actually violated 3RR, assuming it applied only to reverts to the same version, and new users are typically just warned the first time they violate 3RR anyway). You are seeing one-sidedness where there is none. CJK 20:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Abused his admin powers. Rhobite 01:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    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)
    I agree with your general philosophy about "pushing a version" but as I explained in my statement to the Arbcom, the last "revert" was performed by an anon who had not been a party to the long-running debate. I had requested protection over 24 hours before, and the timing/version happened to be incidental. Had the last revert been done by one of the major parties in the dispute, I indeed would not have even considered reverting. I do not believe a "hate [for] sarcasm" (in discussion) is a substantive means for judging either character or conduct. -St|eve 18:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Ok. I would still prefer not getting far enough into a revert war that you're near hitting 3RR, however. 3RR should be an electric fence, not an entitlement, but not blatantly violating it makes me think slightly higher of you. I agree with you on the sarcasm, and I did not base my oppose vote on that at all. I just wanted to comment that I do not think sarcasm is ever a good idea, and that I feel it should never be used. If that was the only thing I felt was wrong with your actions, I would have supported you and left the comment though. --Phroziac(talk) 18:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Oh, and i'm changing my vote to remit. But, Steve, to be honest, I think you could be admin material again eventually, if you change your ways, and if the community will forgive you. --Phroziac(talk) 18:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    I greatly appreciate your decision to change your vote, as I understand how much thoughfulness and effort it represents. I assure you the lessons learned from this series of events will be on my mind for some time, and should I remain an admin, I will be unequivocably and explicitly careful in my actions (especially in regard to disputes) and take care to be more versed in changes/updates to operant policies. Sincerely, -St|eve 19:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Just for the record, Stevertigo was "blatantly violating" 3RR because he reverted 12 times, not 4, with the anon only accounting for one or two of the reverts. CJK 20:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. 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)
  11. Oppose. Independent 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)
  12. 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)
  13. 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)
  14. 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)
  15. 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)
  16. Strong Oppose. As the initiator of the ArbCom case, it's not a surprise that I oppose Stevertigo's adminship. His behavior during this entire process has been nothing short of deplorable and he still continues to be unapolagetic and argumentative, nearly there months after the initial incident. This could have been settled with a minimal amount of stress and ill will at countless points in time, but he's chosen to fight until the bitter end. This reflects very poorly on him and only serves to further destroy the trust that was once placed in him. Carbonite | Talk 21:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    I have responded to Carbonite's comments in the #Support section. -St|eve 18:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. An admin who uses his powers to act unilaterally is a good reason why people always mention the cabal. I cannot support such an action. Ral315 (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Good Golly Miss Molly Oppose Reasons already given, I have to oppose, hugely. Private Butcher 20:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Others have already stated reasons; I prefer not to in order to not further inflame things or be repetative. Jonathunder 22:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. I'm sure you're mad about the situation and I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of it before now. I think it seems people think you are a good editor besides the 3RR and blocking issue as detailed in the RFArb. That makes it unfortunate the you violated a number of policies (they're not that hard to follow) and think you're justified in doing it on the grounds that someone else did it too, so blocking you was improper. You could simply have accepted your block, waited it out and then pointed out (or point it out on your talk page if that feature was available at the time) whatever violations anyone else made. Instead you unblocked yourself and blocked another admin. So instead of minimizing the situation your actions escalated it. That is problem enough to cast a shadow of doubt if you would repeat such actions. Add to that your unnecessarily snarky comments in the copy of this nomination and the fact you haven't even troubled yourself to answer the questions below. Sorry to be long winded, but you don't appear to be accepting feedback well, so I've expanded my reasoning. As a side note, I feel the arbcom probably should have made a decision themselves on this, but I stand by their right to enforce any and all reasonable options including sending an admin to RFA again. Arbcom is a thankless job, and expecting them to be omniscient is wrong. All that said, sorry about what's happened, I hope you find something you enjoy editing on and if you edit without conflicts for a few months I'm confident you'll be readminned with much less controversy than this. - Taxman Talk 23:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    I greatly appreciate this kind of depth in a comment, and will respond shortly (got to do stuff in meatspace). I will say that had the Arbcom offered this level of responsiveness, I think they would have also been in a postion to impose a reasonable remedy, such as a desysopping for a certain amount of time. This "remedy" would seem to translate to a long-term judgement, and is highly prejudiced by the "findings" themselves. You have echoed some of the "findings," so when I get back I will do my best to answer them in turn. Sincerely, -St|eve 03:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. In light of his past conduct, I do not trust him to use admin tools responsibly, especially given his generally poor reaction after his conduct was called into question. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    I have actually had some interaction with you recently. I dont know what you mean by "past conduct" youre referring to? Disagreements of opinon? Lost arguments on talk pages? -St|eve 03:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Stong Oppose. I was originally going to stay out of thise RFA because I disagreed with the process. THis should have been an internal affair with the ArbCom, and nothing else. However, my attempts at [4] being reasonable and positive towards Steve resulted in stubornness and argumentiveness. I'm not so much turned off by his inability to realize that he's made a mistake than his unwillingness to move on. Someone like this is a loose cannon on deck, and we don't need that at all. I hereby oppose his reaffirmation to adminship. NOTE: I am now changing my vote to strong oppose. I find the edit summary "172>Carbonite" particularly immature and unbecoming of someone who states "Being argumentative is only superficial aspect of my character and conduct —those who consider it to be a symptom of abusiveness are making a superficial rather than substantive judgement". I am totally against giving this user his mop back. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    I appreciate your sincere desire to give good advice, but I honestly think the above is an emotional overreaction based on |our discussion here, in which you based your criticism largely on an evaluation of my "argumentativeness" —to which you now add "stubborness." Are these valid reasons alone to desysop or revoke ones trust in someone? Your view, which I value (because youve been sincere enough to be responsive) seems to hinge entirely on this quick estimation of my character. I dont recall having any prior interaction with you, so I dont understand how you can base any prior concept of trust, nor how you should come to make such a "strong" judgement based on a one-time conversation. Perhaps you're simply looking for submissiveness to mop authority. Others here keep referring to this abstract entity called "trust," but few if any do I recognize as having had any interaction with at all. I must assume that they base their views on a reflexively trusting opinion of the Arbcom ruling, and likewise base their low opinion of my editorship on a crude and unfounded concept my character. Ive been a wikipedian since 02. I fails me how so many late arrivals can hold such "strong" opinions, but that seems to be the desire of the Arbcom to prejudice this voting with their claimed "findings." Does the fact that the Arbcom ruling is widely disliked have any bearing on this referendum?-St|eve 02:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Steve, the reason why I changed to strong oppose was because of that edit summary that you made (the "172>Carbonite" one). That turned me off big-time. That was totally unnecessary and unneeded. You need to control your emotions more before I can reconsider my vote. I'm sorry, Steve, I really am. I hate voting oppose. I just think you're a bit too loose on deck at the moment. Perhaps after a few months, you can come back and reapply for adminship... if all has gone well, I will support you. .. and no. I'm not looking for submissiveness to mop authority. Linuxbeak | Talk 03:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    I think that should be "mob authority". But this is the actual diff you meant to link to above. I dont see anything immature about it: I thanked 172 (whom Ive worked with a couple times over the last three years) and I asked Carbonite to make a statement, rather than ask a snide question. If that was improper then I apologise. So you think I'm a bit "loose on the deck," and that estimation is what your vote here rests upon. Fine. I'm sorry to lose your support/neutral vote. -St|eve 03:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per above.  Grue  13:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. Strong oppose. He may be a good editor, but the RFAR clearly showed that he should not be a sysop! Since the policy violations were so clear, ArbComm should gone ahead and removed his adminship. To send it back to RFAR for a vote makes it look like they had some doubts and that the case was borderline. Becoming an admin should be no big deal, but violating policy and violating trust is a very big deal IMHO. Stevertigo has shown that he can't be trusted with the magic buttons and should not be a sysop. BlankVerse ∅ 14:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    While I certainly am not blameless, and by no means do I argue for my innocence, I disagree completely with the "rogue admin" claim. I humbly suggest that making a decision that the "Arbcom should have gone ahead and [done]" is no way to correct my mistake, or even (as many seem to agree) a one-time lapse of judgement. In this context I think it reasonable to remit the version back to the Arbcom that they may correct their mistake, and impose a clear and decisive correction upon me, in accord with either time limitations or other conditions normally used. This use of the RFA as a referendum is (as we seem to agree) a misuse of both RFA and failure of the Arbcom. It is not a side issue —it is within the purview of the Arbcom to self-impose a correction of its own ruling, and replace it with a decisive correction of my (admittedly lapsed) conduct. Respectfully, -St|eve 18:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    The only reason that the current system of adminship works on the Wikipedia is that we put our trust in the actions of those who have been chosen as adminstrators to do the right thing in the normal course of using their additional capabilities and to not abuse those powers. You have abused your powers as an admin and have lost my trust. On my talk page I talk about the huge loophole that currently exists in dealing with the problematic actions of some administrators, and I suggest a possible solution. Until such a solution is created, I would rather des-sysop an administrator completely and let him reapply for adminship some time in the future. BlankVerse ∅ 01:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. The behavior described by the ArbCom goes several steps beyond what seems to me to be reasonable for a sysop, even one goaded beyond endurance into reverting a third time and then subjected (accidentally, I think) to mildly inequitable treatment. I'm particularly troubled by his statement that "As 3RR reprimand was not equitably enforced it was not properly enforced, therefore my self-unblocking was neither a violation of proper policy, nor an 'abuse' of trusted powers." The appropriate behavior would have been to explain to a neutral third party why the block was improper and ask them to remove the block, rather than to use one's own administrative powers on one's own behalf. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. I don't know anything about the current dispute, other than a brief skim, but this user sullied my very early experiences with Wikipedia with his overbearing attitude and wielding his adminship like a big stick. I have also seen similar behaviour a couple of times since then. Noisy | Talk 19:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. I hate that the ArbCom "made" us vote, but since they've asked... I really think that admins have to be careful with their power, a desysoping is required. Maybe in another future vote I would support him to be an admin again. Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. I'm not impartial, having participated in the evidence phase of the RfArb, but talk page discussions by Stevertigo suggest that he's sticking to his guns and might not handle future situations in (what I'd consider) a suitable way. I suppose we just don't see eye to eye on the role of an administrator. He's an impassioned and active editor, but sometimes he wears the editor hat in situations when he ought to wear the administrator hat. It's not the original controversy so much as the fact that I can't endorse the vision or philosophy that he would bring to the role. Regarding the ArbCom, I'd like to commend them for their time and effort in a thankless job. -- Curps 21:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. Went way too far. keith 05:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
    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)
    That ArbCom ruling is why this RfA exists. --Blackcap | talk 14:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    And look what's happening. This is a mess, it seems that very few people are judging Stevertigo on anything other than the controversy. Objectivity seems impossible here. Karmafist 23:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Then again, I think Stevertigo's continuing comments towards everyone haven't made this already difficult situation any easier. I'm leaning towards oppose, but if things can begin to stabilize, I won't oppose all the way. Still Neutral for now. Karmafist 02:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. I must hear Stevertigo's case for being an admin before I vote either way. silsor 00:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support (with conditions). Steve, can you talk with medcom at #wikipedia-mediation on freenode? Uncle Ed 00:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutral After viewing some of the opponents' comments. Molotov (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    V: Raul654 did NOT nominate him, he was reposting it per an arbcom decision. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  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)
  7. I don't see how it's possible to vote in an RFA as unusual as this one, since we all try to be consistent in our voting. If Stevertigo must run for re-election, as it were, then OK, but he should be nominated by someone who in good faith thinks he should be an admin (as usual) and he should answer the standard questions (as usual). Chick Bowen 18:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.
  2. Agree with Tony. Guettarda 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    Just to clarify my position since it appears to have been unclear - I agree with Tony's dislike of mob justice. I think that either the ArbComm should have made the decision to de-admin Steve, or they should have decided not to. I would have respected either decision from them. I think Steve is a valuable member of our community and I don't think this process is fair to him. Guettarda 03:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Unusually, I do too. :-) — Dan | Talk 04:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  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)
    My feelings on this RFA can best be expressed by quoting Theresa knott's comment on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed decision:
    "It is our [ArbCom's] responsibility to impose remedies on admins who abuse their powers. Asking the community to reaffirm adminship is shirking that responsibility IMO... The community can either say "yes you can still be an admin" which let's him off scott free and sends a message that it's ok to abuse admin powers, or it can say "no you cannot be an admin" which is too severe for me and may well be too severe for many but they have no other choice if they don't want to let him off without any punishment." [5]
    Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    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)
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. The Arbcom washes its hands, eh? Well, we can wash our hands too :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 06:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Not like this Lectonar 07:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. This should be resolved by the ArbCom and not through a process of public humiliation. - ulayiti (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. 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)
  12. 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)
  13. 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)
  14. 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)
  15. 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)
  16. Just de-admin him and spare him the humiliation, please.--Scimitar parley 14:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Comments below. encephalon 15:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Snowspinner 15:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    No Vote. The ArbCom should have already made this decision. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. 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)
  20. 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)
  21. 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)
  22. Agree strongly with Encephalon and Ann Heneghan. This should go back to the ArbCom. I'd like to mention that this has happened before: Requests for adminship/Guanaco. --Blackcap | talk 14:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  23. I am baffled. Isn't this what we have an Arbitration Committee for? If not, what exactly is it for? --Ashenai (talk) (Galatea!) 20:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  24. This is a great chance for the ArbCom to set a serious precedent on the issue. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  25. Object, he (quite rightly) hasn't got a hope, why should he have to go through this humiliating process? Just desysop him and be done with it! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  26. No vote this is why we HAVE an ArbCom... dont pass the buck off to us because you cant decide.  ALKIVAR™ 20:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  27. ArbCom Job --JAranda | watz sup 21:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  28. "Put him to the mob" is not an appropriate remedy for the Arbcom to send down, not when it comes to de-Adminning, not ever. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  29. Absolutely support the remit. We have an RfA to accept or reject potential admins. We have an ArbCom to make tough decisions on user behaviour. Let's not confuse the two. Marskell 23:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  30. Remit. Desysopping is I think a reasonable course of action in cases of misuse of those functions, especially if the saw about "admins being held to a higher standard" is to have any standing. But the mechanism seems crucially flawed. Had the arbcom simply de-adminned, that would have been a perfectly reasonable procedure -- perhaps with a rider that the respondant may choose to self-re-nominate/be re-nominated, if it were thought necessary to make that explicit. Requiring someone to undergo what's normally a strictly voluntary excerise, with scope as it does for "piling on" of negative comments (at the best of times, much less immediately after such an arbcom ruling) seems to have the general effect of the rubbing on of salt. I'm sure the arbcom didn't intend compounding the effect of its judgement, and I hope it tweaks the wording in any future cases where similiar remedies are applied. (Bit late to have any material effect in this one.) Alai 00:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  31. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 00:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  32. Though considering the way the ArbCom has treated him and his remarkable maturity, I'm leaning towards a support. the wub "?!" 00:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Trödel|talk 01:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    It has been pointed out to me that the choices here are mutually exclusive. If that is truly the case then I'll let my support vote stand. I do think that subjecting an admin who has made some recent mistakes but hasn't continued that behavior to a public flogging is a too much. If the arbcom doesn't feel that desysoping is in their power - they should at least wait for some time for the controversy to die and people to gain some perspective before listing on RfA or it will appear to be a public flogging.
    Perhaps a better solution would be an admin time-out (similar to a 24 hour block) where the offending admin is instructed to show restraint and not perform any admin functions for a day (or week, etc.). This would allow the community to see whether the admin can show self control as well as provide time for perspective on the editor's entire contributions. Trödel|talk 10:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  33. Remit. --hydnjo talk 02:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  34. Remit/No Vote The committee had the power to refer this, but they also had the power to control it themselves. They may have referred from deference, laziness, or fear (the first basis would certainly seem commendable, the other two not.) Whatever their logic, it is clear that the community wishes not resolve this, and asks the ArbCom to do the painful task, as it is appointed to do. Xoloz 03:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  35. Way to put Steve in stocks so the community can abuse him, ArbCom. Please limit such decisions to the arbitrators in the future. It's less embarassing for you and for Steve. Acetic'Acid 04:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  36. I would most likely be voting support strike-out lapse of judgmanet ([6], [7]) had it not been for that whole Amalekite incident. I can't get over that and support even though I think he's up for the task (which may not sound fully rational or in Wikipedia best interests, but I suppose it's a measure of how strongly I feel with regards to that whole affair, one not related to anything mentioned thus far by anyone). The same applies to Haukurth's current RfA (what are the odds, both nominations up at the same time?) who I also find up to the task but cannot support on the same grounds. My vote here to protest against voting here rests with the fault I find in a process whereby an official Wikipedia body (the body) would choose to nominate a candidate for adminship without securing his or her consent for such a nomination in advance. El_C 04:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  37. Remit. This should not be grounds for dirty linen, and the arbcom has sysop removal power themselves. - Mailer Diablo 04:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  38. --Jacqui ★ 04:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)--Jacqui ★ 04:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  39. Extremely strong remit. It is the ArbCom's job to handle cases like this. We're not a parliament. — JIP | Talk 05:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  40. Remit, by all means. SV deserves nuanced consideration by experienced arbiters, and the AC should handle such cases at any rate. +sj + 08:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  41. Remit. This is the ArbCom's responsibility, not RfA's. It's also rather tacky - I, too, dislike mob "justice".--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  42. Remit. WP:NOT a democracy. Alphax τεχ 11:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  43. I think that referral to RfA was a mistake, and I would prefer that the Committee had dealt with this. I would also be happy for them to take the case back for reconsideration. So whilst my oppose vote above stands in the event that they do not reconsider they case, I wish also to register my desire that they should. (I have made my distaste for the decision pretty plain elsewhere, so I don't see any inconsistency in voting both here and above, and I do not intend for myself to be 'counted' twice.) -Splashtalk 13:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  44. Remit as per Acetic Acid. --Phroziac(talk) 18:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  45. Send it back and let the ArbCom take its responsibility. Andreww 21:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  46. Remit. Sorry, but I find extremely distasteful the position in which us, the common users, have been put by the ArbCom. The AC has both the authority and the duty to resolve cases like this. Washing hands and claiming that the final outcome was a result of "consensus" is extremely unappropriate and a most dangerous precedent. We are not a democracy. And above all, it's a person you're dealing with, with feelings and concerns. No one deserves this kind of public humiliation and the consequent destruction of his reputation. Shauri smile! 02:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  47. Remit; the guy might have done some wrong but this is cruel and unusual. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 21:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  48. Remit. The ArbCom is our Supreme Court - holding a referendum on a court case is blatantly inappropriate. Also to the admin concerned - why not just accept the only plausible outcome here (desysopping), and resign, with the intention of being a good and productive editor without admin powers (or responsibilities). One day you might even, as others have said, be in a position to reapply. Rd232 talk 23:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  49. Remit. This should never have been placed here. -Colin Kimbrell 04:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
          • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
    5. 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)


  • 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)
  • I think we can unlist this one per the regular "snowball in hell" clause. Radiant_>|< 21:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved from votes section. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There's something a bit incongruous about some "remit" voters saying "we don't have the authority to decide this" while simultaneously claiming the authority to tell the ArbCom to re-do its decision. In the judicial system of many countries, an appellate court has the power to either make a final decision or to send a case back down to a lower court with instructions to correct certain procedural errors and hear the case again. Here, however, the claim seems to be that we don't have the power to make a final decision (despite being invited to do so) while we simultaneously do have the power to command the Arbcom, so using the judicial metaphor, this would be ranking the Wikipedia community simultaneously above and below the ArbCom. I don't think there's anything improper with, in effect, calling a referendum... governing bodies in the real world occasionally do so. Naturally, in hindsight it would have been best to let Stevertigo choose the time and circumstances of the RfA. -- Curps 22:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
No, putting it back to the ArbCom is not "claiming authority" over the ArbCom. It's simply saying that the community has no power to decide to de-admin someone and the ArbCom got it wrong when they said so. Just because a (hypothetical) Court of Appeal transfers a murder case down to the Family Court doesn't mean the Family Court judges must take the case if they have no jurisdiction to do so, and they are perfectly entitled to say that they can't make that decision. I hesitate to tackle the judicial metaphor in any detail, because this will rapidly spin into a digression (and besides, Wikipedia is not a system of law, but the bottom line is that the ArbCom shouldn't have punted in this fashion when a decision was up to them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFA/SV/N

Note: While this RFA was temporarily closed & delisted, the candidate responded to almost every (non-supportive) comment, on a copy of this RFA; I believe he did this because he did not wish to edit the closed, official RFA. With its reopening, editors may wish to view those responses, discuss them, and/or alter their votes. This is in the interest of enabling as fair and informed a process as possible—one which follows in the usual RFA tradition of allowing candidates the opportunity to respond to editors' comments with the expectation that these responses be taken into consideration. encephalon 21:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

People can take a look at the notes if they like, but they are mostly for my own use as a means to order and categorize the various arguments in opposition. Naturally I think opposers should have some clue about me and my edits and not hold a reflexively negative view due to the Arbcom case. I think I should call unsubstantive potshots for what they are. Again, this isnt about my seeking to embarass the Arbcom, but in the course of this "referendum" it also seems to be in my interests to answer any misconceptions about the Arbcom case itself and their so-called "decision." I greatly appreciate any support those who familiar with my contributions as well as from those who, on a principled and objective basis, find the Arbcom's "decision" somewhat inferior. I will try to incorporate my notes as things move forward. Sincerely, -St|eve 22:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Steve, did you mean for this to be a sort of user subpage? I'm sorry if I misunderstood its purpose. I had assumed you were trying to respond to comments when this RFA was temporarily closed, given its timing, WP namespace, and the nature of the remarks. Still, I suppose noting it here is fair, as it provides an opportunity for users to respond to your remarks if they wish. encephalon 22:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Usersubpage? Yes, I suppose, but you already answered your question. I may include all the notes as comments, but people can read those for themselves if they like, and comment on them there. Integration with the main can happen sooner or later or both. Im still reading through stuff here and there and chiming in where I can, and when I can. Regards, SV.

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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.