Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in at proposed decision.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Basis for jurisdiction and proposed remedy Fred Bauder 20:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I think "command" is the wrong term. "Function", perhaps? Also, the term is properly "sysops", or at least, it used to be. James F. (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Computer command comes from the old command line and the notion of permissions Fred Bauder 19:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Nature of infraction Fred Bauder 20:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It's inappropriate to use one's powers to gain advantage is a dispute one is personally involved in. Using the powers in general is OK (e.g., if someone objected to one's deleting a page, undeleting said page - a "use [of] [one's] powers as a Wikipedia administrator with respect to a dispute [one] [is] personally involved in" - would be fine, nay, encouraged). Or am I being overly picky? James F. (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Abuses by Stevertigo
1) while in the course of an edit war at  during which he violated the Three revert rule 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * There are other minor infractions which involve overreaching, but these are enough to support the proposed remedy Fred Bauder 20:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me. James F. (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Stevertigo to be reaffirmed 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Seems sensible. This is becoming our standard course of action. James F. (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Stevertigo to lose powers, with the option to appeal at a later date
2) Stevertigo will have his admin powers removed. After three months or more, he can petition the Arbitration Committee to restore his admin powers without going through WP:RFA.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I submitted this because while I'm not sure that Stevertigo deserves, or does not deserve adminship, any new RFAs will have the same result as prior ones. I trust the Arbitration Committee to make this decision.  This offers a remedy, while still allowing Stevertigo to appeal the "punishment".  Ral315 (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the appropriate remedy for this case, I strongly feel that the power to grant adminship has been delegated to the community at large by Jimbo. Presumably Jimbo still retains the power as well, but I don't consider it to be one of the powers he has delegated to the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators have the power to remove adminship, but not to grant it, in my opinion. No disrespect intended to any attempts to seek a creative or compromise solution here. --Michael Snow 07:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC
 * Part of the problem is that the ArbCom didn't think they necessarily had the power to grant adminship, but a large part of the community said that ArbCom did. I think Jimbo might need to step in and clarify- I don't have a problem giving ArbCom the power to grant adminship, but only in the case of successful de-adminship, and with the understanding that the community and Jimbo both have certain checks on this power.  Ral315 (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what the community was saying; it's certainly not what I was saying when I "voted" to remit the case to the Arbitration Committee. The community was saying that they want the Arbitration Committee to make actual decisions when de-adminship is on the table, and not defer to an imitation RfA-style procedure, due to the undesirable social effects of operating RfA in reverse. I wouldn't read more into the community's reaction than that. Also, if the Arbitration Committee had a power to grant adminship, it would lack the checks and balances you suggest are necessary. Currently there is quite clearly no mechanism for the community to check such a power, because there is no regular community de-adminship process (for good reason). --Michael Snow 23:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I do agree that right now there's not a snowball's chance that he'd be promoted through an RfA. I disagree that any future RfA will have the same result. For example, I'm strongly opposed to Stevertigo retaining his adminship at this point in time. However, in six months, barring the unlikely edit war or other such behavior, I will not oppose (although I may not support either). I'm sure there's many other users who feel less strongly and would support Steve in less time. Michael Snow also makes a good point that only the community has the power to grant adminship. Unless Jimbo decides otherwise, that's the way it should remain. Carbonite | Talk 12:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You and I, maybe, but note the number of people opposing Guanaco. While there are other reasons in play there, I'm sure many are still holding a grudge from the first de-adminship.  Ral315 (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In the case of Guanaco, a lot of the opposition (including mine) is because there isn't enough recent activity to make a judgment. After his last RfA, he basically disappeared until about two weeks ago (there were sporadic edits in between). Had he made good edits for the last six months, I would have supported him. Carbonite &#124; &#91;&#91;User talk:Carbonite&#124;Talk]] 14:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis


 * See Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence.

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: