Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo 3


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Stevertigo
final (16/37/5) ending 17:50 29 December 2005 (UTC)

- After two months without admin privileges, per the Arbcom decision (RFAR/SV), its gotten a bit annoying to not be able to do all the little things that I've been doing for two years. Ive never been one to use the blockUser function much, but I do often move and retitle pages (for example tags should move to tag) and I montior T:ITN for new stories and prune entries for brevity. T:FA occasionally has problems which I like to fix. Ive done well enough without admin privileges, but its been long enough. Ive been an editor for three years (two+ years as a sysop) and over that time have made over 20,000 edits, and been in a number of conflicts and controversies. I think my edits speak for themselves, and a list of recent diffs of my work. The Arbcom decision was to remand to the community the decision to either take my sysop status away or allow it to continue. This was controversial enough for the community to have loudly rejected. The Arbcom then chose to re-decide the case without actually re-hearing the case and without actually being directly responsive to particular points. Being only as human as anyone else, some Arbcom members even claimed that my type of point-by-point self-defense was "wikilawyering", suggesting that anyone who attempts to make reasoned arguments in their defense is simply lawyering. This is just an example of how unresponsive the volunteer Arbcom feels it can be, given its large caseload. Contrary to what some have claimed, I do regret the violation which got me in trouble, and have said so a number of times. (However if youre looking for sheepish and cowed self-flagellation, you will not find it from me.)


 * Acceptance of the nomination: Self nominated.

 Support 
 * 1) ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I trust he knows his mistakes by now, and I still believe in second chances. Redwolf24  (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. Everyone believes in second chances though; if only for themselves. ;) -Ste|vertigo 19:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I think the desysopping was appropriate, and I note that he has continued to contribute actively to the Wiki since. Resysopping is now appropriate. I feel confident that he'll be a better admin than before.-gadfium 04:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -Ste|vertigo
 * 1) King of All the Franks 05:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, even though I was witness to the whole Vietnam War thing. I believe people learn from their mistakes. Dan100 (Talk) 15:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and JOOC: Aside from the 3RR, was my conduct on that article and its talk improper, of which I was only a third party? -Ste|vertigo 19:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) —Guanaco 21:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) People deserve second chances. To err is human, they say; to forgive, perhaps wikilove. His actions as admin would be watched at least as closely as anyone else's, and he'll be aware that if he is desysopped again there's unlikely to be any return from that (and hence he will be extra careful). Rd232 talk 00:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Like Redwolf24, I believe in second chances. The mistakes that were made were a few months ago and I'm sure that moving on is the best solution. DarthVader 09:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Changed from neutral, same comments as per my neutral vote, but since you do deserve another chance, however worthless this vote of mine is, support. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 09:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. KHM03 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support The bulk of users who have been becoming administrators lately tend to focus more on RC patrol than content editing. More difficult and contested judgment calls go into content editing than into RC patrol. Given that Steve has been a solid and active content editor for many years, indeed one of Wikipedia's pioneers, I believe some more understanding is in order among some of the oppose voters. It is much easier to make a mistake if you are doing the kind of work that Steve has been doing on Wikipedia, as opposed to RC patrol. 172 23:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support While the current numbers make this seem somewhat of an empty gesture I felt it was important to vote support here. Consider Stevertigo in light of the conditions on which admins are generally chosen: Is he sufficiently familiar with wikipedia policies and practices? I'm pretty sure he wrote several of them., Has he made useful contributions to Wikipedia? One or two., Does he pass all possible standards for editcountitis/agecountitis/posting averagitis/stochastic analysis of edit patterns/et cetera? Yes, along with maybe three other people., and the big one here - Does past behaviour indicate that he is likely to use admin powers in a way which will harm Wikipedia... 'No, it doesn't.' Really. Stevertigo certainly 'broke the rules' and did things he shouldn't have... but he didn't go around routinely terrorizing newbies or trashing the site. His abuses of policy were predominantly localized and reversible. Stevertigo abused sysop abilities in a way that mostly destroyed his own credibility (as per the entrenched oppose votes below) rather than damaging Wikipedia itself. Even if we toss 'assume good faith' and suspect that he will do exactly the same again... it would logically only result in his permanent loss of admin powers and minimal damage to the encyclopedia. Ergo, I think we have little to lose by sticking with that old 'assume good faith' chestnut and restoring him. Heck, even those who are sure he hasn't changed should be voting support to achieve his 'inevitable' self-destruction. The only other reason I can see not to support is hurt/anger at what has gone before... and that's not one of the standard criteria. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 04:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) *Speaking as one who has on several occasions cleaned up messes made by Stevertigo, I am not inclined to believe your assertion that he wrote several policy and practice pages, as you seem to base this mostly on the age of his account. Could you please provide evidence? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) **Uh huh. Well, let's see... this one seems apropos. Be nice, have fun, move on. It's all good. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 11:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) ***I stand corrected. However, need I really point out the irony of this? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Give the guy a second chance.  It's enough being demoted, but maybe He's learned.  I'm not surprised to see Him stand up for Himself when it came to the blocking.  Blocking another sysop is counterproductive, since the recipiant can immediatly retract it at will.  -- Eddie 10:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I think he's learned his lesson. -- Jbamb 17:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support desysoping him was stupid to begin with. Plenty of other administrators who have done far worse and not been desysoped. freestylefrappe 21:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Peter McConaughey 17:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC) No amount of punishment will ever be enough for what Stevertigo did, but is that why we are here? Is Wikipedia about inflicting punishment, trying to even the score, and an "eye for an eye" system of fairness? Or have we come to create the world's best encyclopedia!!? Those who have experienced his handiwork realize that Stevertigo is a mammoth workhorse. He is able to empathize with all sides of an issue and create an edit that works for everyone while still making the article strong and informative. His very boldness is what makes him such a valuable asset to Wikipedia. If given administrative powers, Stevertigo will improve Wikipedia substantially more than he could without them. Pettiness and drama aside, that is the only thing that really matters.

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. I'm sorry. There are plenty of administrators who play by the rules, and I'd rather not have administrators who make their own rules or who continue to flout policy or guidelines even in the face of protests and opposition from other editors and administrators. I really don't see any reassurance that you will refrain from the type of behavior that got you blocked and then desysopped earlier. Even if you refrain from blocking other users, like your quickly overturned blocks of Mackensen and TBSDY, there are several other worrisome behaviors. Editing protected pages you're involved in a dispute over is one of the big ones, but the most worrisome one is the self-unblocking. After being blocked for twelve reverts in 24 hours, unblocking oneself (four times) shows to me disrespect for the community and a perception that one is above the law. Keep doing your good work, but do it without the temptation that these auxiliary abilities bring. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 00:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I see, three years and 20,000 contributions are wiped out by a single act. In spite of verbosity, newbie opinion on matters of worth only carry so much weight, in my humble opinion. -Ste|vertigo 18:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. I have been here for over a year; while I may not have as much experience as you, I am hardly a newcomer here. I am not certain what your purpose is in this, but dismissing others' opinion in this matter will neither earn you any good will nor convince others of your suitability as an administrator. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 19:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As I pointed above, blocking another sysop is counterproductive. Even if they break the rules, it's better to settle it with talk.  Why do revert wars -- or even block wars -- happen?  Nobody waits.  In this case Mackensen and Stevertigo could not agree on somthing to the point of both casting block spells on eachother. -- Eddie 10:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Knowledge Seeker. Quite frankly, I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I would ever support readminning a deadminned editor.  Certainly, two months is not at all sufficient, imo, for the editor to have compiled a record worthy of such a step.  Come back in 2007. Xoloz 00:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose until questions are answered --Jaranda wat's sup 00:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What questions? -Ste|vertigo 00:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When one uses Requests for adminship/nominate (linked from the instructions at the top of WP:RFAr) to create a nomination, three standard questions are included in the nomination automatically (they were part of the previous template as well). I'm not certain how this nomination was constructed, but User:Linuxbeak added the questions for you. Traditionally, many editors will oppose nominations if the questions are not answered or until they are answered. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 01:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Those questions are very lame and anyone who opposes a nominee smart to enough to realise that is a robot. Dan100 (Talk) 15:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Lame they may be, I have nevertheless answered them. -Ste|vertigo 18:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly. &mdash; Dan | talk 01:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. No change in my previous opinion. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I would like to see Steve given another chance; but more than that, I'd like to see some evidence he realises he was wrong to behave in the manner that earned him his de-sysopping. From what I can tell, he doesn't even understand the question. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont know how many times one has to admit that they were wrong. Certainly a statement like 'it is clear that I violated the rules' (WP:RFAR/SV) might have qualified. -Ste|vertigo 18:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly oppose.  "I think my edits speak for themselves" -- well, yes, they certainly do.  I'm thinking of Criticism of the Iraq War, where no less than four times Steve removed a properly applied VfD tag, claiming that because in his judgement the article did not merit deletion, opening a discussion on the matter so that judgements other than his would be consulted would be "misapplication of WP:VFD policy" and "misuse of vfd".  Needless to say, that's behavior unacceptable even in a user, much less an admin.  I see no reason to think he has changed his arrogant ways. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It may be important to note that the VFD ended in support of my position. The original criticism of the article was with its title, and I agreed and decided to rename it during the VFD process (VFD/AFD doesnt prohibit making changes, does it? IMHO, tagging a legitimate topic for sake of partisan reasons is not a legitimate use of VFD anyway). The question then became 'is the current title NPOV or not?' Given the growing overall number and size Iraq War articles it was reasonable to isolate this particular element in a single article. Other arguments were either POV and/or unreasonable. 'Nuf said. -Ste|vertigo 18:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not important to note that the VfD ended in "no consensus therefore keep" (just to be precise, since that's not really the same as "in support of [your] position") -- unless of course you also note that not one single vote was "speedy keep"; not one single comment (save yours, of course) agreed with your idea that the nomination was a "misapplication" of VfD policy, which is what you cited as your justification for removing the VfD tag on the article four times. Does the fact that the discussion didn't end with a consensus to delete mean you were justified in trying to unilaterally decide that no discussion would happen?  No, it does not, and the fact that you still don't understand the principle only illustrates why you can't be trusted with the powers of an admin. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Not sure I want to adopt someone else's statement; not sure I want to make my own. Let's simply say that I have no doubts about this. --Michael Snow 04:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Adminship, as always is "no big deal." I was simply annoyed with not being able to move and delete redirects and mistitled articles. -Ste|vertigo
 * It is a big deal when You consider giving someone the right to revoke other users' editing privledges. -- Eddie 04:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No one has such a right, only the ArbCom do. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 04:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. We have plenty of candidates on here at present who I know we can trust with the admin bit. I simply do not know that we can trust Stevertigo with such; indeed he has demonstrated that he will abuse that trust when it suits him for his own ends. Personally, I can't think of many reasons to re-sysop someone who has been found to have abused sysop powers in the past &mdash; it will take a substantially powerful reason to change my mind. -Splash talk 06:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ill repeat myself: Does a drop of ink darken the pond? How does one compare three years of contributions with those of a newbie. -Ste|vertigo 19:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. -- JamesTeterenko 06:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per all of the above. I believe in second chances, but in this case, not yet. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] Nightstallion ✉ 07:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, unfortunately abuse of admin tools is a proven possibility. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ill repeat myself again: Does a drop of ink make the pond turn black? -Ste|vertigo 18:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Honestly, yes, in this case it does. Removing someone's adminship is (as you know) an arduous process that we would like not to deal with. Since we have plenty of candidates, there's no reason to choose someone with a recent black mark on their record. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose --Ghirla | talk 09:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - when I saw this, I actually intended to support. However, the tone of the nomination killed it for me. I'm not looking for 'self-flagellation', a simply 'sorry, and I won't do it again' would have sufficed (perhaps you have said that somewhere else - but why should we have to go looking for it?). But an attack on arbcom, ending with 'I regret it, but not much' is a pretty poor way of asking for redemption. --Doc ask? 10:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Per above comments. Carbonite | Talk 11:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It may be important to note that Carbonite was a partisan in the original content dispute, and not altogether a helpful one. Once or twice, yes, but...-Ste|vertigo 19:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't believe I've edited that article even once, and I've certainly never been involved in a content dispute there. However, I did initiate the RfC and RfArb case. I fully admit that I'm biased against admins who abuse the tools, especially when they place the blame on everyone but themselves. Carbonite | Talk 23:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I just checked the last 1500 edits to Vietnam War, dating back to April 2005. I didn't make a single edit there. Perhaps you're thinking of User:CJK? Whatever the case may be, that content dispute has zero to do with my opposition. Carbonite | Talk 23:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Absolutely not. He has absolutely no understanding of the reasons he was desysopped, and his behaviour since (particularly with regard to his Editor tags proposal) has been poor to say the least. Ambi 11:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good ideas remain good ideas despite their unpopularity (take fuel efficient cars, for example). Indeed I am only as clear on the RFAR and its second remedy (desysop) as their responsiveness allowed me to be --which was minimal. The charge of abuse of power remains ridiculously out of proportion for a one-time incident by editor with three years of contributions.-Ste|vertigo 19:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per the concerns raised by Splash and others. Also, it would have been more appropriate to leave the original RFA where stood and start the new one at "/Stevertigo 2" or "/Stevertigo (re-sysop)" to make the situation clear to voters who don't fully read the document. The latter is a bad thing in itself, by the way &mdash; if they intend to vote on it, they should try to learn as much as possible about the candidate (but still, some don't). Furthermore, the thirteen hours following a self-nomination should be more than adequate time to answer the questions below, which have conspicuously been left blank.  Some may, at this point, feel that the candidate believes himself exempt from answering them. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  11:52, Dec. 23, 2005
 * These issues have been corrected. I moved the old RFA because I judged it to be archival and easy enough to reference at WP:RFA/SV1. Any value judgement given to that move is an unnecessary coloration. And due to geographical constraints, I was sleeping for much of those 13 hours. -Ste|vertigo 19:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I don't care about your previous actions, but this is no place to take potshots at the Arbcom.  That just indicates sour grapes. Mo0 [ talk ] 12:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Points being often arguable from both ways, "sour grapes" (for criticising the Arbcom's process and decision) may likewise be the main reason by which some oppose my nomination. -Ste|vertigo 19:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - When someone comes here to ask for their privileges back ... they better come here groveling, admitting fault, and asking forgiveness. Not more wikilawyering about how they were screwed by procedure or how things are "annoying". Failing to fill out the standard questions on this self-now is, frankly, insulting to this process. -- Netoholic @ 18:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont think I agree with this. Missing the standard questions was an error due to my copying the previous template and removing the material. All apologies for the personal offense such an error may have caused. -Ste|vertigo 19:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Uhm, have you forgotten that he's been an admin for longer then WP:RFA has existed? It's not like he has prior experience here. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, but given the abundance of admin candidates with blemish-free history, it's difficult to support adminship for someone who already lost it once (and doesn't even seem particularly repentant about it, either). Also didn't even fill in standard questions, for some reason. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Gah, what is so special about those silly, silly questions? Dan100 (Talk) 19:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. When I was nominated for admin in September 2004, those questions weren't even given to me. Mike H. That's hot 01:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Too soon after losing the powers (November 2005, according to the list of de-sysopped users). Also, the Wikilawyering in the statement and lack of questions answered below aren't helping. Hedley 18:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, its no big deal. This was prompted by wanting to properly move an article to replace a redirect. -Ste|vertigo 19:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Regardless of the other issues raised, Steve apparently feels the need to post a rebuttal to just about every single point made on this page, which makes me doubt if he's mature enough to be a good admin. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 21:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Arm 21:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. For the above reasons, and the tone of the rebuttals and the nominations. I do not particularly care if you had been here for three years or that you made 20000 edits. All I see is an editor who have abused his power before and might do so again. Your accusations of editors being "newbies" are not helping either. Olorin28 00:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. This edit helped make my mind up. See There is a cabal if you want there to be one. David | Talk 00:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, still stands by his inappropriate behavior, is more interested in arguing with those who vote oppose than with trying to understand why they oppose him. Cannot be trusted.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Still as abrasive and self-important as when I first encountered him when I was a newbie 18 months ago.  User:Noisy | Talk 16:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Still way too soon and Stevertigo still has a bad attitude towards the community and towards the process of adminship as can be seen by him trying to get people to vote for him by wikilawyering in his statement that he deserves adminship so everyone should vote for him. Jtkiefer T  17:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per vote #22 Radiant, and lack of edit summaries. Also, overall the Arbcom decision was a correct one, and the sooner you put that behind you the better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose (but borderline neutral). As per Phroziac's comment in the Neutral section I think this is still a bit too early. I have seen some good contribs since the desysopping, although I've not seen enough to make me comfortable enough to either support or oppose based on this (although I admit I've not been my most active here recently). What makes this an oppose vote rather than a neutral is that I've not seen anything that convinces me you understand why others are treating your actions as seriously as they are and why they resulted in your admin status was removed. I know you have apologised for what you did, and I commend you for that, and you have accepted that you were in the wrong, but I don't get the feeling that you understand why they were wrong. Until I feel that you do understand I don't feel you are ready to have your adminship reinstated. Thryduulf 01:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Knowledge Seeker, Ambi, Radiant and most of the reasons given above. Sarah Ewart 03:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - As above. The thing is, is that he has only been "demoted" for less than 2 months.  I would overlook the arbcom case as a lapse of judgement and would support again, but give it a few more months. - Hahnchen 04:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Stevertigo's recent behavior, comments, and indeed his actions on this very RfA do not reassure the doubts that I have. I echo Radiant and Ambi above. Bratsche talk 04:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Strongly Oppose Per above Previous unsigned comment by 22:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC). -- Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Frankly, I'm stunned by Stevertigo's attitude on this very page.  If he can't even make it through the RfA without downplaying his misconduct and rudely dismissing fellow editors as "newbies," I find it very difficult to believe that he's learned anything from this experience.  &mdash;David Levy 06:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone who buys into the Cabal's line that Stevertigo is somehow a threat to Wikipedia when he has admin powers should at least get something in return. The Cabal works on loyalty and favors, but they also somehow get a few grunts to wear blinders without giving them anything. The Cabal has proclaimed that Stevertigo is out because he dared to question the system. Now all he has to do to get back in is make a public declaration that the Cabal is all benevolent, that their POV control of content makes better articles, and that nobody should ever question their claimed control. When Stevertigo refuses to do so, the Cabal calls him proud and unrepentant, but I see it differently. Stevertigo has human failings just like all of us, but he also has a higher ethic than those who would gladly sell their souls for adminship. In demonstrating strict adherence to this higher ethic, Stevertigo has proven right here that he is the only type of editor to which we should grant administrative powers. --Peter McConaughey 16:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You do realize that for comments such as this, the Cabal will send a ninja to tie your shoelaces together when you least expect it. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Damn ninja--Tznkai 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You may think this is funny, but I take shoelaces very seriously. ;-P --Peter McConaughey 06:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I am not aware of all the pertinent details, but I strongly believe that admins should not be prone to political double speak or getting them selves sanctioned by ArbCom. There is no suggestion that ArbCom went hunting, nor is there reason to believe such suggestions if they existed. Thus, an adminstrator managed to get him/herself into trouble when coolerheads and stepping down could've been better. The arrogant tone in the nomination box suggests, VERY strongly, that whether the particular wrong existed, the wrong lesson was learned from the experiance.--Tznkai 19:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I am aware that I am pilling on at this point &mdash; sorry &mdash; but I wanted to say a few words.  Admins are, at their best, stewards of Wikipedia, and act in the best interests of editors and of readers.  Editors and readers don't always have the same interests, and balancing the needs of the two can be tricky.  That being said, I sometimes see admins who forget that they are working in the service of the encyclopedia, rather than vice-versa.  All editors, including admins and non-admins, should have the right to have their opinions be respected, at least until they have proven they are not deserving of that respect.  In other words, despite the presence of a few extra buttons, admins should not be more equal than others.  Sometimes, we forget this.  In the most egregious cases, we see admins substituting their judgment for the clear consensus of editors.  I think that Stevertigo has had this problem.  Given that track record, I think that giving him the mop back would be a mistake.  I say this without malice, but that's how I feel.  Nandesuka 05:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Two months, and no real sign he's understood what happened. And his annoyance is not our problem. --Calton | Talk 07:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * He should be given another chance, but his behaviour was worrysome. Neutral. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 01:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral The standard questions below should be filled in. Also use of edit summaries seems to be rather weak.  xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  01:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I would like the opportunity to possibly support this, but won't do so if the basic Q's can't be addressed.--MONGO 08:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Undecided. This RfA is already a pile-on failure...but Steve may have actually gotten better. Being argumentative is not so much of a bad thing, although it has gotten me in trouble once at a forum cite by mods who dont like being challenged. Is it over the top a bit? Maybe. I don't know all the circumstances though. He has expressed regrett though... Voice of  All T 22:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral this time - I just think it's too early for this. The RFAr is still fresh in everyone's memory, and we haven't really had the time to see if he's changed. I'm still interested in seeing him be an admin again, and would like to support in the future. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral; Leaning to support After looking at the arbitration case I wouldn't agree that this candidate was entirely to blame. Other admins exhibited similar behaviours. I don't condone this candidates behaviour as admin however I feel he should be given another chance. The only issue I have is when and I feel that he should have admin power in the next three months. However I feel no significant disbenefit the community should this user become an admin as per this request. I would certainly invite this candidate to re-apply in 2 months time should this application fail and he still wishes to be an admin.' . --Chazz88 17:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Discussants may find useful background information at Requests for comment/Stevertigo and Requests for adminship/Stevertigo1, as well as the arbitration case (Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo) that Stevertigo linked above. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 00:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I initally was going to delist this RfA as a pileon, but I will leave that up to Stevertigo to do if he so desires. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that delisting this RfA would have been wrong. In that case Stevertigo may again pick at how the procedures were not properly followed, etc., instead of the actual matter at hand. I think it is good to let it run its course. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
 * Q: Do you stand by the "Statement by party 2" in Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I have yet to see direct argument against it. I broke rules and procedures, but I did not do so to as an abuse of power or to support a partisan POV. I continue to take pride in my criticism of the Arbcom's process and procedures, and hope that after wounded pride subsides, that such criticism is regarded as helpful and not merely made in the self-interest (as people may assume). -Ste|vertigo 18:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A few generic questions

1.What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * ITN, basic page moves. -Ste|vertigo

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Yes, but judging by number of oppose votes, I wont bother with any diffs.

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?
 * Certain topics are controversial, and it is often in these areas that I feel I have been successful in asserting a top-to-bottom sense of neutrality. Excessive localist bias displeases me, and over the years I have made and defended substantial changes which assert a globalist view over an American, English or otherwise localist POV. Stress is not an issue inasmuch as is institutionalised bias and cliquism. -Ste|vertigo


 * 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.