Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 21:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 20:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Case Re-opened 20:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Case Re-closed on 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

Party 1: Initiator

Party 2: Subject of Arbitration

Other Involved Admins

[edit] Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words 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.

[edit] Statements by other involved administrators

  • 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/3RR Geni 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)

[edit] Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

It's indisputable that I did in fact violate a technical reading of the three revert rule, protected page policy, "self-unblocking policy", and perhaps blocking policy as well (rel. Ta bu). However Party 1's claim that such were all motivated by my POV and (/or) POINT does not have a significant degree of merit —as the record shows. In fact, my motives were the direct challenging of status POV in both the article and talk page (of a controversial topic), and the representation of NPOV where NPOV as a concept has been abused or ignored. Though I do regret the incidental technical violations, I nevertheless did so in the interest of the prime directive, and can claim to have been catalytic in changing the POV approach of a number of users involved in the dispute.

All that said, it may indeed be legitimate to hold a concern that I have (to some perceptual degree) used my trusted powers to counter systemic bias in a particular article conflict, by engineering a mechanical equity between myself and an apparent majorité décentrée. However it is not valid to claim that such were motivated by any particular POV other than one with the highest fidelity to the prime directive. Taken together, and without concern for specifics, they can naturally appear to be a indicative of a greater tendency. Taken separately, I feel each are rather minor offenses, and for each issue I claim the following:

  1. WP:3RR issue: Second party was equal in guilt, yet not reprimanded. Blocking sysops 'expressed no awareness of either the issue of debate or proper (equitable) enforcement. Given the above, 3RR policy was not properly enforced and my blocking was improper, and a violation of blocking policy.
  2. WP:PP issue: I reverted a protected page. I justified this at the time as"undoing" a POV oriented revert by a minor anon of few edits. As I had requested protection a day earlier, by chance it happened to be after the POV revert. (This was not a basis for specific disciplinary action, but was often cited as a compounding factor in the claim of my "abuse.")
  3. Self-unblocking issue: 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.
  4. Repeat self-unblocking issue: Repeat blocking was done only on the premise that the original block was valid. As the original block (by Geni? - see WP:RFAR/SV/E#Geni) was not a valid application of 3RR (until second party was blocked, a day later) my repeated self-unblocking was not a violation of blocking policy —as if I had blocked myself, for example. Likewise repeat blocking was enforced without due and necessary responsiveness, and with a degree of undue incivility.
  5. Failure of policy issues: Policies regarding 3RR, protection, blocks, as well as enforcement of the above, all have known ambiguities. Such ambiguities present problems in the understanding and enforcement of technical policy.
  6. Intervening issues: At the time (and still, AIUI) standard template messages for blocked users (explaining basic info and channels of recourse - see Template:Block ) had not been implemented, and the Wikien mailing list was not functioning. I am not a user of IRC, and consider reliance on third party communications as improper for encyclopedia-related matters.

Sincerely, -St|eve 04:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: I have made this statement in good faith, in direct response to the issue as submitted by Party 1. I will consider any substantial modifications of the submitted case (ie. crafted against my above defense rather than on original issues) to be a violation of the spirit of proper case Arbitration. -St|eve 04:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum

It was suggested on the evidence page that my above statement demonstrated a "unrepentant but actually oblivious" tone, and a lack of understanding of the "janitorial nature" of sysops. On the first point, I think the statment reads fairly clearly that my violations were minor, though it may be reassembled to show an abuse for reasons of POV. IOW, that (claim) is not what it (my statement) says. On the second point, if sysops are simply janitorial in function, it might be a good idea to distunguish functions regarding articles and those dealing with people. Curps' analogy would seem to imply that sysops may at times be required to treat other people like shit, which would not appear to be consistent with more elevated guidelines, codes and principles.

In his first entry, Curps repeated TJive's claim that I "made direct or implied threats to block those who oppose his point of view, or even those who merely criticize him." Its interesting that he should lead with that charge, and yet fail to give the same attention to detail as in his other entries, by simply providing history links to the (rather short) exchange in question. Needless to say, his interpretation of those comments is a complete and utter mischaracterization at best. After reading his first entry Im reluctant to bother with the rest. -St|eve 22:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

[edit] Principles

[edit] Scope of remedies with respect to administrators

1) Wikipedia:Administrators are trusted members of the community who have access to certain commands not available to an ordinary Wikipedia user. They are held to high standards. If use of those commands are abused an administrator may be removed from that status, or a lesser penalty may be imposed, see administrator abuse.

Passed 8-0

[edit] Use of administrator powers with respect to a dispute you are engaged in

2) It is inappropriate to use your powers as a Wikipedia administrator with respect to a dispute you are personally involved in.


Passed 6-0-1


[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Abuses by Stevertigo

1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) while in the course of an edit war at Vietnam War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) during which he violated the Wikipedia:Three revert rule (Reverts are in history at August 5 and 6, see [4]) and edited a protected page to conform to his version [5], was blocked [6]. He used his power as an administrator to unblock himself a number of times [7], blocked one of the administrators who was blocking him [8].

Passed 8-0


[edit] Application of the Three Revert Rule

2) As a result of their edit warring, both Stevertigo and CJK were blocked, in a correct application of the Three Revert Rule. Stevertigo was blocked by Geni, and CJK by Michael Snow.

Passed 7-0


[edit] Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Stevertigo to be confirmed as an administrator

1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) shall submit himself as a candidate for administrator at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. If his request is supported by the community he shall continue as an administrator, otherwise he shall be removed. The request for adminship shall contain a link to the decision in this matter Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo.

Passed 6-0-2

[edit] Sysop status removed

Confirmation having failed, per request on meta today, I removed sysop status for Steve. Anthere 21:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Update: confirming RfA relisted; ending Nov 3, 18:36 (UTC). +sj + 08:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update 19:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The community has made it pretty clear that they wish us to deal with the matter. Therefore this case will be reopened. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stevertigo to lose administrator powers

1) Stevertigo will have his admin powers removed. If he wishes to reapply for admin powers at any time, he is free to do so via WP:RFA.

Passed 5-3 with 1 abstention


[edit] Subject's acknowledgement and acceptance

I accept the decision of the Arbcom. -St|eve 20:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)