Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
 * Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 3 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on the discussion page.

Proposed temporary injunctions
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Scope of remedies with respect to administrators
1) 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.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 03:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin 00:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin 00:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC) I think the wording needs to be modified to something like "gain undue advantage with respect to a dispute etc." If an administrator were to block a (non-vandal, non-disruptive) editor with whom they were involved in a dispute, or protect a page on their version, that's one thing, but if they were simply to use the revert button (one keystroke instead of three), I don't see that as a significantly inappropriate use of powers.
 * I absolutely, vehemently disagree. The use of the rollback button must always be used only for reverting pure vandalism, or when you've already got the agreement of the editor to rollback and are doing it as a means to expedite the process. James F. (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is about using rollback for a revert. It is about unblocking yourself after a 3RR block then editing a protected page. Fred Bauder 12:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, yes. I was objection to Jayjg's example as "acceptable" behaviour when it is certainly not. James F. (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Administrative probation
3) Wikipedia administrator's powers may be limited or suspended through the mechanism of Administrative probation in cases of infractions or disruptions which result from their activities.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I'm not too sure about this; at least, not yet. James F. (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Abuses by Stevertigo
1) while in the course of an edit war at  during which he violated the Three revert rule (Reverts are in history at August 5 and 6, see ) and edited a protected page to conform to his version, was blocked . He used his power as an administrator to unblock himself a number of times , blocked one of the administrators who was blocking him.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 19:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 03:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin 00:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 02:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 04:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin 00:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Stevertigo
3) Requests_for_adminship/Stevertigo required by the first decision in this matter was rejected by the community as an appropriate solution, most votes being protests of the referral of the matter to a RfA vote. It was closed October 30, 2005 by Theresa Knott with the agreement of Raul654 and referred back to arbitration.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 20:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Proposed 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.

Stevertigo to be confirmed as an administrator
1) shall submit himself as a candidate for administrator at 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 Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo.


 * Support:
 * This seems best. James F. (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 14:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Second choice - I still prefer 1.1 &rarr;Raul654 04:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * First choice &#10149;the Epopt 04:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Preferred to automatic reinstatement, which I oppose. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This seems the most reasonable option. Kelly Martin 00:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * So do I Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Alternate proposal - SV temporarily desysopped
1.1) is warned in the strongest terms not to abuse his sysop powers. He is to be desysopped for two months. At the end of the two months, his sysop powers are to be restored.


 * Support:
 * &rarr;Raul654 03:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Second choice &#10149;the Epopt 04:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * We shouldn't try to say that actively taking away his powers, instead of asking the community's opinion, is in any way a less strong remedy. James F. (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it a stronger/less stong remedy. I think it's a fairer one. It is our responsibility to impose remedies on admins who abuse their powers. Asking the community to reaffirm adminship is shirking that responsibility IMO. Also asking the community to do it is too black and white. 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. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 19:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we massively prejudice a community vote by suspending his priviledges. James F. (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But this remedy doesn't call for a community vote.Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which is one of the problems with it. It's trying to punish Stevertigo rather than resolve the situation. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am not that familiar with Stevertigo's work viewed as a whole. It should be up to those in the community who can give input regarding whether what he did is symptomatic of more general tendencies or not. Fred Bauder 14:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A pattern of behavior that warrants desysopping must be followed by a change in behavior to regain community trust, and a fixed time period for loss of sysop rights does not resolve that. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Arbitration Committee's function is to resolve problems, not to punish them. We impose penalties only to the extent that they will resolve problems.  I do not think that a suspension of two months, or indeed any fixed number of months, will serve to restore community trust in Stevertigo, if it has indeed been lost (which seems likely given the response to his RFC).  We have clear evidence of abuse of that trust, and enough evidence to doubt that he still has the trust of the community.  We should let the community decide whether to continue to extend trust to him.  Kelly Martin 21:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Little community support for him continuing as an administrator Fred Bauder 20:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC). If remedy 4 "Administrative probation" does not pass. Fred Bauder 15:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing left to do, given that the community are so set in their opinion. James F. (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * too harsh Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If remedy 4 "Administrative probation" passes. Fred Bauder 15:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As per Theresa. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Raul654 19:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo to temporarily lose administrator powers
3) Stevertigo will have his admin powers removed for a period of two months. At the end of the time period they will returned to him upon request. He will not have to go through WP:RFA.


 * Support:
 * I know this is a punishment. But i think punishment in cases like this is for the good of Wikipedia. it sends out a clear message that abuse of admin powers will not be tolerated. Plus it teaches the erring admin what it is like to not have those powers, which is a good thing to be reminded of. Finally it deters the admin from ever repeating the same mistake - which is good for Wikipedia. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 15:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC) if remedy 4 Administrative probation is accepted.
 * This makes more sense, and there is precedent. Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Fred Bauder 20:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC) if remedy 4 Administrative probation is not accepted. Fred Bauder 15:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Same reasoning as before. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Same reasoning as before. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Punishment. Pointless. See my previous comments. James F. (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Stevertigo to be warned
3) Stevertigo is warned that if he ever abuses admin powers again he will have those powers removed.


 * Support:


 * Oppose:
 * Too lenient Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Too meek, yes. James F. (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Stevertigo placed on administrative probation
4) Stevertigo is placed on Administrative probation, for one year. Following restoration to the status of administrator following any suspension, he may be subject to removal as an administrator upon repetition of the sort of infraction shown in this case. A prima facie showing of such repetition of inappropriate administrative action shall be by Requests for arbitration. Acceptance of the case shall result in termination of Stevertigo's administrative status unless a determination by the whole Arbitration Committee is made that the termination was unfounded.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * As said, not sure. James F. (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm voting abstain because i don't understand the proposal. Firstly the Administrative probation page is too legalistic sounding. (Down with jargon!) But also, I'm not sure what you mean by "following any suspension". Do you mean that if we remove the admin powers and then the community votes to give them back then he is still under probation? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No a suspension that we give him in this case. Fred Bauder 23:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

Old Motion to close
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.


 * Close Fred Bauder 23:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 15:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 21:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin 21:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 22:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Closed. James F. (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

New motion to close
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.


 * Since we have a remedy that has passed now. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 05:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 23:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Close Fred Bauder 01:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)