Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, [ edit this template] and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Comment by Stevertigo
I accept the Arbcom's decision.

Note that there have been some idiosyncracies during this case. I understand that Arbcom is pressed for time, and has an unfortunate tendency to deal with old grivances and superficial factors (such as the sheer volume of "evidence" presented by my opposition), or the fact that the case is named "Stevertigo 2" as some kind of substantive evidence (cf. SirFozzie), (though Stevertigo "1" was in 2005, and that Arbs (Newyorkbrad et. al.) and non-Arbs refused my requests to change the name). I also note that Arbcom failed to answer some of my questions at the evidence talk page, and that its decision in this case came quite quickly - without much direct interaction with me and the other parties (having a "hearing" for each case seems to make sense). It also seems as if the case were decided one-sidedly, and with some fixated sense of purpose in exacting a penalty of some severity on me (cf. Kirill Lokshin).

I understand that the times have changed toward a modality of absolute regard for Verifiability and Reliable sources. I understand that on the surface it seems that I have been working at cross purposes to these forces, but this is not correct. I have worked at a great number of articles at which the conflict was between well-sourced writing of poor quality and quality writing without any sources at all. In certain cases, the sourced version simply did not make sense, and all it took was common sense criticism to show that a rewrite was needed (cf. life, perfect crime). "Conceptualization" is a misunderstood concept, but all it means is 'take a step back' and 'write for novices' - include in the lead any and all concepts relevant to the definition. Its not difficult to add sources, accurate and non-random sources, after the text is well written. It sometimes quite difficult to rewrite a sourced lede which contains serious errors (such as undue weight) particularly when the article has a host of dedicated but nevertheless entrenched editors defending it (cf. time, human).

Alas I look at my work at Wikipedia as all-but finished. I have done almost all that I thought needed doing - rewriting ledes, linking high-level article ledes (rights, compassion, love, good and evil) to relevant concepts, and the groundwork is now well-set. I respect Arbcom's decision, and do not consider the good work I've done here wasted, even if Arbcom itself appears to. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Question
Stevertigo has had his userpage deleted, replacing it with, apparently steps in front of being banned by ArbCom. I was under the impression that this sort of thing was frowned upon? → ROUX   ₪  23:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless he starts socking or something, what difference does it make? The block implementing the ban will still be implemented. It is in everyone's interest for an editor in his position to walk away from Wikipedia with as much dignity and mutual respect as possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that one of the major concerns here seemed to be a...hmm...disconnect with reality, I'm not sure that allowing him to claim he is retired--when he isn't, he's merely trying to put his own spin on things--is good precedent. Reminiscent of "you can't fire me, I quit." → ROUX   ₪  00:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't trouble me. Let's see what some of the other arbitrators think. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The only circumstance where I irk when an editor "retires" when facing sanctions is when they do so in an effort (not always prevented) to duck under the sanctions. In this case, nobody is proposing that the editor should not be sanctioned because he retired, so the point is moot.  The ban will apply regardless of what tags may or may not be on the page, and so will the conditions under which a return may be effected.  The rest is mostly cosmetic details not worth having a spat over.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not trying to have a spat, I'm just uncomfortable with actions that are... how do I put this... not designed to accurately reflect the reality of what is going on. Apparently I am alone in this concern. → ROUX   ₪  01:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I dislike that also. It's just not worth the trouble to fight over it.  Besides, in theory, when the ban is applied it is SOP to mark the user page accordingly, so your concern will probably not last.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If I may make and observation: people are generally given a lot of freedom in editing thei user-pages. I have always thought it a great weakness that some Wikipedians take what is written on anyone's user-page at face-value, or that we do not point out to non-Wikipedians (e.g. in the media) that we do not guarantee the veracity of statements on user-pages. Our energies are focused on the encyclopdia, and if people express their own POV on their user page, we do not accuse them of violating NPOV - I do not think we have the time to make sure user-pages comply ith WP:V either. I think my approach is pragmatic and if we consistently agreed that given the degree of freedom pople have with their user pages we should discourage anyone from turning to them as accurate sources of information, we would hav spared ourselves lots of problems over the years.

My point is that many people leave messages on user-pages that they are on wiki-break when in fact they are still editing. Ditto "retired." You might say this is an abuse of th user-page or of the "retired" template, but this kind of abuse - which really dos occur regularly - is so trivial I don't think any editor has ever really thought it worth their while to protest. I understand Roux's feeling, which is admirable. But we are much safer - as a rule - treating user-pages like My Space pages (i.e. with low expectations). User pages are a decorative privilege given to editors. I wish we could alays communicate to readers that Wikipedia is about the articles, not the user-pages. (If this is New York Brad's point, I applaud it)

I do not think ArbCom should give any force to the retired template on Stevertigo's user-page. It's his user page, and the template is neither libel nor pornography so why argue over it? But why take it seriously? All that matters is the ban - this is real and as Coren points out the page gets marked accordingly. The issue here is not what Stevertigo puts on his user page, but what ArbCom puts on his user page. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, the page can still say "retired." The point is that he is not editing, and anyone with the slightest bit of interest can find out why he is not editing. Unlike many other editors sanctioned by committee or community decisions, Stevertigo has walked away in good grace, and I don't see why we can't leave him this particular vestage of dignity. In fact, I'm strongly tempted to reinstate the "retired" template myself and protect the page, and deal with the accusations of administrator/arbitrator abuse (and of preempting the current MfD) later, if at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I more or less agree with Newyorkbrad. I see no reason to heighten the discomfort of Stevertigo when he has stated that he accepts the ruling and left with good grace. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's of importance that this issue is settled ASAP and I support it being done in the way Newyorkbrad has proposed or in the way Slimvirgin has proposed at the mfd or something similar. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the MfD should be allowed to run its course before.. oh fuck it, you know full well you shouldn't be doing this. I can't be arsed. → ROUX   ₪  17:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)