Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Piling on the oppose votes

I have copied Encephalon's comment from the project page:

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)

I don't know that I'd go as far as calling the opposing editors "the lynch mob", but I cannot see why they have to keep piling on the oppose votes once it's clear that a nomination will fail. I've come up with three possible reasons:

  • They feel convinced that for the good of Wikipedia, Stevertigo should not be an admin. They know that it looks as if this nomination will fail, but they can't be sure, as it's possible that fifty support votes will unexpectedly come in tomorrow. They are all going away for a week tomorrow, and won't have internet access. So they reluctantly place their oppose vote now, regretting the further pain and humiliation that it may cause, but feeling that they cannot in good conscience take the risk that he might his adminship might still be confirmed.
  • They know that he's going to fail. But they are not satisfied that he should fail – he has to fail ignominiously; he has to be annihilated. Pile on the "no" votes. Keep kicking him – he deserves it.
  • They know he abused his powers, so they vote "no" without any reflection on whether or not this is really necessary.

I've been guilty of this myself once, but I realized the next day that it was stupid and callous. And on that occasion there was at least the small excuse that when someone nominates himself or accepts a nomination, he voluntarily submits to the possibility of being put through a mini RfC. Stevertigo hasn't agreed to submit himself for this. He hasn't accepted the nomination; he hasn't answered the questions. He may come back and see this page. And if he does, he'll probably leave Wikipedia as an editor. I wouldn't blame him. If ArbCom had informed him of the options and let him decide whether to be desysopped or to submit to an RfC, he could have chosen, with much less loss of dignity, to be desysopped. He might even have gained enough respect by doing that and remaining as an editor that someone else might have nominated him six months later. He hasn't edited since 21 October – which was before this decision was taken. He hasn't had a chance either to bow out gracefully or to assure potential voters that he'll never again unblock himself.

Others may disagree, but I feel that oppose votes should be placed with the motive of preventing a bad candidate from being elected, for the good of Wikipedia, rather than that of increasing the humiliation of someone who hasn't got a chance of getting in. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If that's the road we're going down, I'd just like to state quitr clearly that my oppose vote has nothing to do with humiliation. I find the suggestion more than a little distasteful. People are entitle to vote or not as they choose on this as on all RfAs. It is the ArbCom's fault for making a royal mess of this case, not the community's for doing as bid. -Splashtalk 23:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I still can't figure out why this is here though. Even if we disregard the pile-on, this should not have been listed. All of this discussion, bringing up the old wrongdoings again, seems rather backhanded cosidering it has started without Stevertigo's acceptance and his answer of the questions (surely if he accepted he would have had some kind of answer to his critics). Why does he get worse treatment than any other candidate, if, as Raul stated, this is to be treated like any other RFA? I removed it from the main page once, and so did a bureaucrat; it was restored both times. What is the point of this? Dmcdevit·t 23:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I must take issue with Ann Heneghan's assessment. First, the vote now stands at 10–15—while it would be difficult for his nomination to pass, it certainly isn't "piling on" at this point. Secondly, even were there no support votes, there are still several reasons one might wish to oppose. I have neither the time nor the inclination to watch the places I am considering voting, to throw my vote in if it looks like my side might "lose". Also, one of the reasons that I voted oppose was to express my displeasure at Stevertigo's actions. During his RfC and subsequent RfA, comments he made seemed to indicate he thought the large number of people expressing displeasure were a group recruited through IRC, that they were perhaps a bunch of friends sticking together. Through all these proceedings, I have been very disappointed at his failure to admit any blame or take any responsibility or to acknowledge that a great deal of people thought his actions were wrong. Further, Stevertigo has had plenty of chances to find a more graceful option. It's been almost three months. He continues to maintain that his self-unblocks were justified. When this first began, he was encouraged to be voluntarily de-sysopped and to later resubmit to RfA if he so chose, but he declined to follow this option (but instead continued to engage in some questionable actions). And he's been following along the proposed decision page; it would be no surprise to him that this RfA would take place. If he had voluntarily been de-sysopped and apologized for the inappropriate actions, and promised not to engage in that behavior again, I would gladly reconsider (and no groveling necessary—just acknowledgement that he made a mistake). Even now it wouldn't be too late for me, but I haven't seen any sign of this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean my remarks to refer to any of the opponents in particular. First of all, I have no way of judging the motives of anyone, and secondly, as acknowledged above, I "piled on" an oppose vote myself a few months ago. And I appreciate that some people wouldn't have time to come back and check the tally, in order to decide whether or not to oppose at a later stage. I very much doubt if anyone opposed out of a wish to humiliate, but I think that the likelihood that it would humiliate should have been given a little more thought. And yes, I would have liked him to admit wrongdoing – it would have been so much better if he had been voluntarily desysopped and had later resubmitted to RfA at a later stage when he felt had had won back some of the community's trust. I feel he should have admitted wrongdoing and resigned as admin voluntarily because it would have been the right thing to do, but not because it was a better option than this. If the ArbCom thought it was best to let the community decide, they should have informed Stevertigo that he would need to submit to another RfA if he wished to retain his admin status. The choice would have been his.

Once someone selfnominates or accepts a nomination, he lays himself open to the humiliation of oppose votes. Stevertigo had not accepted. He had not edited Wikipedia since 21 October, and he may not have known about the RfA. I think there's a case for saying that the votes shouldn't have started until he accpeted, and that if all that is necessary is that he shouldn't be an admin any more, there's no need to make it an ignominious defeat. Ann Heneghan (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally voted "oppose" from a combination of two reasons. Mainly: the last of Splash's reasons. I think Stevevertigo abused his powers, so I voted "no" without any reflection on whether or not this is really necessary. But, second, I looked at the four voting options, decided that I was not in favor of remitting to ArbCom, and cast my vote to express my own acceptance of the ArbCom's decision-to-let-the-community-decide. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

I have been away from a computer (a healthier lifestyle) for a few days and havent been following the progress on this page or its talk. Looking for some altruisms to draw from all of this, its perhaps unfortunate that, right or wrong, a decision has to be made before enough objective interest is generated in reviewing it. With that in mind, I cannot overstate how much I appreciate everyone who took the time to form a rational and considered opinion and voice it here. While I disagree with certain aspects of the Arbcom case, it does occur to me that perhaps the Arbcom showed some rare and unusual wisdom in deferring the remedy decision to the community. Readers may discern exactly what kind of wisdom that is, but I still sort of wish there was more responsiveness and openness in the Arbcom process to begin with. Humbly yours, -St|eve 03:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closed or not?

Is this RfA closed or not? It has been removed from the main RfA page (more than once) but I cannot find anything to say that it has been closed. Could a beaurocrat either officially close it, or reinstate it on the RfA page (with reasons why so it doesn't lead to edit waring). Or, if there is a reason for the current situation can someone explain it to me as I can't think of one. Thryduulf 08:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just spotted the bold notice at the top of the page. Thryduulf 08:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsysop or not unsysop ?

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-October/031533.html

Anthere 17:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please let it run for the full seven days. We can resubmit appropriate action, if any, to the stewards at that time. --Michael Snow 18:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

We should let the RfA run for its full length and re-admin Stevertigo should it succeed. Personally, I believe that this is the remedy the ArbCom should have implemented in the first place (de-admin and allow reapplication through RfA at any time). Carbonite | Talk 18:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So - what would consensus be here - 80% in favour of de-sysopping him, or a simple majority? The decision here is de-sysopping, so I would think this process would need consensus to de-syop. Almost 50% of people who voted voted against the process. How should that be counted? Guettarda 04:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
My guess would be that if 70% or higher (thus, consensus) voted against the process, it would be sent back to the ArbCom for reconsideration. Acetic'Acid 06:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Stevertigo has already been desysopped. If he fails to acheive at least 70% in favor of sysopping him, I would assume that he would not be re-sysopped. If a large number of people vote the RfA is not valid, then I would imagine that it would be removed, but I doubt that that would cause Stevertigo to be re-sysopped without a consensus to do so. Certainly in other instances when the community has felt that a request for adminship to be inappopriate, the nomination has been removed and the nominee remained a normal user. I don't believe there is any precedent for the community rejecting an Arbitration Committee decision; it is certainly an interesting question but I do not believe the community has the power to override an Arbitration Committee decision (this is my own speculation, of course). — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
But isn't the point of this RFA that the ArbComm decided that the community should decide if he should remain an admin? It seems doubly out of process for him to be de-sysopped before the process ran its course. If they had decided to de-sysop him, fine, but if they say it's up to the community, he shouldn't be de-sysopped before the RFA has run the full week - that makes the whole vote a sham. Guettarda 11:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not take any issue at all with Anthere's action. I think it was appropriate for her to act on the request given the information she had, but I left her a brief note about the 'premature nature' of the early close. She left the email to wikien explaining in full her neutral role, and her understanding that the situation was still in flux. The decision to not undo the desyssopping was a nominal one, and as such does not change the fact that the RFA is a referendum vote to desysop —not a nomination vote to sysop. Regards, -St|eve 14:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Quoting from the arbitration ruling: "If his request is supported by the community he shall continue as an administrator, otherwise he shall be removed." I think that's pretty clear that the community is debating whether to make Stevertigo an administrator, and the usual standards of support for making someone an administrator would apply. Raul654's comments have also been along these lines. --Michael Snow 20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Closed

I've closed this vote early as the outcome is clear. Feel free to fiddle about with the formatting - I don't know how to enclose everything in a blue box. I'd like to thank everyone for voting, it's very useful for gauging community opinions, in this case the dominant opinion is that we should deal with it. So that's what we shall do. The case will be reopened by the AC and we will decide the appropriate remedy. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I have had to go further than that, Theresa. The archive was flawed owing to the unauthorised (although probably accidental) removal of my vote. I have had to edit its content in order to replace that vote. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)