Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed decision/Archive

Frankly, I'm surprised that a temporary de-sysopping is on the table in the first place. Given that the issue present is community confidence, I can't see how that remedy would solve anything. Either an administrator has community confidence, or he doesn't. A temporary desysopping would be a purely punitive measure. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Consider that we have lots of other good admins and lots more editors willing to be promoted who would do well. When a bad admin is identified, warned, and continues to unapologetically misuse those abilities, those abilities should be removed straight-away. A "re-affirmation" is just a waste of time. Obviously, he will not be re-affirmed - who are we fooling? ArbCom needs to show that they have the will to remove admin powers straight-away. Anything else makes this body unnecessary for dealing with problem admins - we could just develop a community process of re-evaluating admins. That idea fails, for whatever reasons, but largely because people want problem admins to come through ArbCom. Short version: remove his admin status directly and set a specific minimum time period during which he cannot re-apply based on the severity of his transgressions. Do this for every problem admin that reaches this stage. -- Netoholic @ 17:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate all the compliments, I dont think either of you knows much of anything about the specific case. IAC, Im looking for some direct AC treatment of my first point: an improper application of WP:3RR means that all blocks were improper, and my self-unblocks were not improper. Though my self-unblockings were certainly a hasty reaction, and certainly may have pissed some people off, is it in interest of WP to shaft an eloquent, npov-devoted, third-year contributor with somewhere around 20K edits merely on the basis of inflated claims kind of "abuse"? Anyone who's read T:VW it knows theres no basis in there for any sanction, and the seminal impropriety issue was the original and improper block on me, as well as the lack of Assume good faith in the manner in which it was reflexively re-applied. There are also outstanding and related philosophy/bias issues (T:VW, ethnocentrism WP:"IAR", basic fairness - even WP:TFD) that are contentious enough that one can be reasonably suspicious of "rules-lawyering" for sake of personal sentiment. Certainly the system of ruling-by-vote (with only limited discussion of the actual findings and how each AC views them) only encourages such lack of openness, and effectively means that individual points by the case parties will go unattended in any direct way. Ideally, the AC would respond with findings for each separate claim, and this would expose the thinking process of the AC. Not doing so gives an appearance of unity, but also hides any internal disagreements. This is just my point of view, and others are free too see things differently. Sincerely, -St|eve 22:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It should hardly be necessary to rehash Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence, but you reverted 12 times, and three separate admins saw fit to block you for this 3RR violation, yet you continue to state that these blocks were "improper". It appears that if you had to do it all over again, you would.


 * In its findings of fact, could the Arbitration Committee address the issue of whether the 3RR blocks were properly or improperly applied? I don't think it would suit either side to leave this important point unresolved. -- Curps 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

1
I believe that it's essential that admin misconduct is taken very seriously by the ArbCom because this is an issue that affects the entire community. It's nearly two months after the incident that lead to arbitration and Stevertigo begins his statement with "While I appreciate all the compliments, I dont think either of you knows much of anything about the specific case." This is almost identical to the sarcastic and dismissive response Stevertigo gave in his RfC. In this entire process, there has never been any acknowledgement of misconduct other than perhaps the unblocking was a "hasty reaction" or such. I have no reason to believe that such behavior wouldn't occur again.

In my opinion, the proper remedy would be to de-sysop Stevertigo and allow him to apply for adminship through RfA at any time. Thus, he'll regain adminship when/if the community decides that it's regained trust. Carbonite | Talk 03:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Stevevertigo says While I appreciate all the compliments, I dont think either of you knows much of anything about the specific case. One of the two people he is addressing is the very admin (User:Mackensen) that he placed a retaliatory block on (!) and the other (User:Netoholic) provided evidence at Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence, as did Mackensen.  Unbelievable. -- Curps 03:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Im sorry, but was the case filed on the basis of my smarty-pants attitude or on my actual actions in the context when they were made? Mackensen was in the process of reflexively re-blocking me (based on an assumption that the original block was properly imposed), and Netholic is someone whom Ive crossed horns with in the past regarding his deletion tendencies toward certain templates. They do indeed come out of the woodwork. Feels like Im in the Thriller video. "It's an issue that effects the entire community" is a bit of a lark, considering how big WP has gotten. -St|eve 16:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Admin misconduct is an issue that affects the entire community. We have serious problems if admins aren't trusted by the community as a whole (I'm not talking about a few trolls here or there). The case was filed because you violated numerous policies and misused admin powers in order to gain an advantage in a dispute. The fact that you're not taking it seriously and would prefer to blame everyone but yourself makes it even worse. I would not expect "an eloquent, npov-devoted, third-year contributor with somewhere around 20K edits" to act in this manner. Carbonite | Talk 16:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've already requested above that the Arbitration Committee issue a finding of fact regarding whether or not the 3RR blocks against Stevertigo were proper or improper. I hope you will agree this is a key point to be resolved. -- Curps 16:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In case the Arbitration Committee isn't following this talk page discussion, I've now left a message at User talk:Fred Bauder asking for a finding of fact to be issued to resolve this important point. -- Curps 16:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In the interest of fairness (since Fred Bauder is only one member of the Arb Committee, and possibly more "hawkish" than some of the others), I'm now leaving the same message at the talk pages of the other Arb Committee members who have edited the proposed decision page so far. -- Curps 17:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The finding of fact was that Stevertigo was edit warring and got blocked for a 3RR violation. I don't think it matters whether there was an actual 3RR violation; even if there wasn't it was likely a close question (and for others to decide) Fred Bauder 17:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, see the discussion above. Stevertigo stands by his action (unblocking himself) on the grounds that the initial 3RR blocks against him were improper, so unblocking himself was not improper. I think it speaks to the heart of the case, and based on his message to my talk page I think Stevertigo himself would like it resolved one way or the other. -- Curps 17:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is wrong to use admin powers to unblock yourself. It doesn't matter if the block was fair or not, valid or not, appropriate or not. Admins must not use powers to their own advantage. Non admins have to go to the mailing list if they believe they are blocked unfairly. Admins must do the same. I am sure that I have the community behind me on that one, and the overwhelming majority or admins. If we rule on whether the 3RR block was right or wrong in the first place we will be sending a message that it's ok to unblock yourself if you feel justified in doing so, and that is not a message I want to send. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it morally wrong, procedurally wrong, an ethical violation, or a technical matter? "Wrong" can refer to anything from war crimes (part of the seminal issue discussion) to 2+3=4. Apologies if I havent read any recent fine print regarding self-unblocking, but I can think of at least one case where self-unblocking is not a case for blocking, banning, etc., namely if I block and then unblock myself. That fact at the very least shows that the issue is not one that can be decided by simplistic absolutes, but requires some degree of care for the detail of particular cases. Im sorry if this means that you might have to spend more time, read more material, and write more expositively about your views on matters. That said I nevertheless greatly appreciate your writing more expositively now, although I dislike the prospect of being made an example of simply because a due care for facts and detail "is not a message you want to send." -St|eve 19:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. "Non admins have to go to the mailing list" - the mailing list was out that day, coincidentally enough. Sincerely -St|eve 20:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's morally wrong. It states "I am better than non admins" which leads the community to believe that admins set themselves above others. Admin powers are there to serve the community. Yeah if you block yourself then unblock yourself that would probably be OK - it depends (it has been argued that admins blocking themselves is itself an abuse of admin powers, but it's not the sort of abuse that get's the community in a tizz). But that's not what happened here so it's irrelevent. Let's stick to the facts of this case. You were blocked by another admin. You undid that block and that was wrong and you know it. You are not being made an example of because I don't want to take due care for facts and detail. You are being made an example of because you abused your admin powers by using them in such a way that you have no authority to use them. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 21:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I... certainly have been holding to an entirely different notion of "morality." The closest thing to a wiki-applicable principle I could even come up with was "civility", and I was self-absorbed enough to sort of quote myself in what has been (for about two years now) pgph 2 of that policy ("We cannot expect..." etc.) But I digress. I will eagerly await for your treatment for this principle of wikimorality at... well Morality. IAC, WATS, I certainly dont want to tell you how to do your job. Peace,-St|eve 22:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. "you are being made an example of" is a common faux pas of corrective institutions, which tend to rely on the notion that it can enforce some kind of justice (more principles!) via a slippery slope of increasingly authoritarian measures. Maybe it can actually work in the virtual/wiki world, who knows?

(losing indent) Actually I'm not trying to enforce "Justice". I'm trying to make you see that your actions were wrong. I've always argued that admins are human and should be allowed to make mistakes. That is why I voted for a temp de-admining rather than throwing you to the wolves at RFA (which is what i think it would be). But the thing is - instead of making sarcastic comments, you'd really be much better off admitting that you did make a mistake, apologise for it, and look big. You do not have community support in this. The RFC has made that very clear don't you think. You need to rethink your approach. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah I see -- this is an educational process. I appreciate your attempt to find a compromise. I have already apologised BTW, so Im a bit unclear on how much that will have a positive bearing. Should I be more profuse? Where? IRC?? To whom should I apologise? Those who's blocks I undid? (That would seem a bit odd, as an unblock doesnt seem to be quite as much a personal offense as the block itself, which IMHO is exacerbated by the fact that the original block had some... problems.) Is there a penalty for an improperly placed block?
 * As for the RFC, AIUI, much of bad energy apparently came from people quickly and one-sidedly complaining on IRC, which, as Catherine put it (on my talk) "has always been toxic." "Wolves" as you say. I dont generally fear the buzz, but I do think officers in positions such as yours should be reasonable, though those who are willing to be direct and responsive (and not merely dictatorial) are much less vulnerable to this criticism. Thanks.-St|eve 23:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For reference, here is the link to the archived 3RR report. Carbonite | Talk 17:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this better? Fred Bauder 18:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC):

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 )
 * Abuses by Stevertigo

Its certianly short. -St|eve 19:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

2
I am quite disappointed to see that temporary desysopping with automatic reinstatement of powers is even being considered. This is the by far the worst case of abuse of administrative powers I've seen in my short time on Wikipedia. Under other circumstances I might favor leniency, but the chronic nature of this abuse (little things before; I remember being surpised by his protection of the mathematical constant "articles" and his lack of apology when this was pointed out) suggests that these problems are not an isolated incident. Far more worrisome, however, is the lack of contrition and the lack of understanding over why these issues are problematic. To date, I don't believe I've seen a true apology from Steve, such as that he realizes he was over the line and will not do it again. In his RfC, he suggests that the problems are with the policies and not with him ("It would seem that there are problems with certain policies and how they are enforced...") and in his statement he suggests that he only technically violated policies for more important purposes. The only process for removing adminship from someone is through an Arbitration Committee case. From time to time people propose processes for de-adminship, but in general people feel that the Arbitration Committee can handle any problematic administrators. People's standard for adminship already seems to be tightening; I know that I would be even more hesitant to support a candidate and more likely to oppose if I realize that even administrators who abuse their powers to this degree can remain administrators. It is hard to imagine a more clear-cut case: extensive abuse of administrative powers despite being warned many times by different editors, blocking out of spite (TBSDY, Mackensen), refusal to accept blame, and no indication that he will act any differently in the future. Requests for comment/Stevertigo shows a very strong, united community consensus; rarely have I seen so many in agreement with no one disagreeing or suggesting that we are overreacting. The Arbitration Committee cannot have failed to notice the impressive number of editors supporting the RfC, including very many longtime and well-respected Wikipedians. If, in the face of such clear-cut evidence and such community support, the Arbitration Committee is not willing to desysop Stevertigo or at least let a community discussion decide, how can it be effective in dealing with problematic administrators? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, the purpose of the Arbcom isnt merely to issue punitives -- it's primary duty is to enforce corrective measures, which include a review of lesser policies as they reflect or conflict with our core principles. This can be done in the "findings of fact" process. Second, Im a bit skeptical about anyone with a "short time on Wikipedia" claiming that someone such as myself has been a "worst abuser". For one, I was among the first to support the 3RR idea, and actually remember the context in which it came about --relative to other policies/practices in use. In an original interpretation of its meaning, 1) it was never intended as a punitive measuse, but rather as a protection of pages 2) it was never intended to be enforced in a manner which shows favoritism to a party or majority - simply to enforce a protection 3) Blocking is a last resort wheras temporary page protection is preferred, because it forces discussion.


 * Noone chose to intevene with mediation or arbitration on the dispute at Talk:Vietnam War. Ed came in briefly, but I had to call him on what I percieved to be a POV interpretation of a statement. I admit being sarcastic, but he apparently couldnt take it and he left. ( Of course, as a last resort, after losing much of the argument, my varied opposition typically claimed "this is the not the place for discussion on the rights or wrongs." This despite holding to writing the article in accord with plainly US-centrist/localist interpretations of that history. Like an old edit war at IPF, this was largely a struggle between writing styles which either elevated the human element and favored the term "independence" and one which was deferential to detached, US-centered realpolitik-based words and concepts. Fie.


 * You can say "Stevertigo is the worst ever" all you want to. That doesnt make it the least bit true, and it doesnt change the fact that there is an extreme disparity between the usefulness of someone intervening helpfully in a dispute (which did not happen) and voting in favor of a complaint on RFC in support of a one-sided interpretation of 3RR! ((CJK has for some reason even "archived" *all the discussion at T:VW. Tjive, though reasonable, chose not to correct any misstatements by others, and all of my opponents in the dispute showed clues as to a right-wing ideological bias, and often resorted to pejoratives, calling me "Stalinist" etc. All of this was ignored in the original block, which again was unilateral and was suspect of a bias. Wikien was down.))


 * ATS, Im quite happy to offer an apology, and In fact I have already apologised to TBSDY, for one. But this works both ways: an improper block is a violation of the rules, is it not? The tendency to claim situational-infallibility is quite universal, and Ive only continued this to get the facts out, so that others, by coming to admit *their culpability, would allow me to admit mine, and not simply tuck tail and run. Arbcom cases are not decided as popularity contests, or at least they shouldnt be. Of course, Im "a troll" for even arguing the point. -St|eve 21:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This case isn't about your 3RR violation. I repeat: This case isn't about your 3RR violation. You've spent paragraph after paragraph, here, there and everywhere proclaiming the evils of the 3RR rule and its misapplication, but this is NOT what this case is about. This case is about what happened after you were blocked by Geni for violating the 3RR. Even if the original block was 100% wrong, you don't unblock yourself. Even assuming that particular part of the blocking policy was unfamiliar, you certainly don't unblock yourself after being re-blocked and warned by multiple admins. I don't want to say "Stevertigo is the worst ever", but you do need to say "I really messed up on that one." Carbonite | Talk 21:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

When Stevertigo applies for confirmation as an administrator he can take that opportunity to apologize and explain. I probably will not vote one way or the other as I haven't followed his work closely. Those who do edit in the same areas or who have closely watched his behavior as a general matter (as opposed to one incident) can offer input regarding administrative status. We have demonstrated one incident, not a general pattern of abuse. POV editing is not a measure of general worth, in fact, I don't see much value in anyone who does not have strong points of view about vital issues. Fred Bauder 21:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your responsiveness, and want to make it clear that I dont hold a preference for either of the proposed punitive measures. I also want to make it clear that my comments here have been directed only at questions of process. Since this process is now applied to me personally, im naturally a bit interested in the subject. So, while I understand the Arbcom's limited capacity for treating matters with perfect depth, I also share Theresa Knott's concerns that one of the two proposed remedies appears to contradict the rather valid observation above that reviewers have "closely watch[] [my] behaviour in a general manner." The other, though limited, is at least more definitive. IAC, I have tried to be brief in limiting my concerns to understanding the process used here, and I do apologise if some of my comments have appeared to be disrespectful. Sincerely, -St|eve 22:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)