Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Stevertigo

Acknowledgment of misconduct
Everyone makes mistakes and no one should be raked over the coals forever for their past transgressions. However, Stevertigo's latest edits to his talk page strongly imply that he does not acknowledge any misconduct on his part. This is especially worrying given the unanimous condemnation of his abuse of admin powers on this RfC. At a minimum, there should be some sort of apology and/or acknowledgment of abuse instead of rants against the system. Carbonite | Talk 19:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Cut from RFArb
I cut the following section from WP:RFArb because the 48 hour RFC period hasn't ended yet. It doesn't make sense to jump stages in the dispute resolution process. Besides a Request for mediation should be at least considered unless there is an emergency. No one has told me that there's an emergency.

With a dozen admins scrutinizing Steve's every move, armed with undo power, I hardly think the matter is so urgent as to require skipping steps, let alone taking any simultaneously. (This is without prejudice to the issue itself, on which I have weighed in and will continue to way in. This is just about community process.) Uncle Ed 14:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam War
This thing degenerated into a wheel war as follows: All this blocking and unblocking reflects poorly on the Administrators involved.
 * 00:52, August 7, 2005 Mackensen blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (You are not above the law)
 * 00:50, August 7, 2005 Stevertigo unblocked User:Stevertigo (Mailing list does not work (refresh problem), and the block is unreasonable, given that there are discussions involving my perrson, and that I dont qualify as a vandal)
 * 00:46, August 7, 2005 Mackensen blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Re-instating block, and I WILL enforce this thing)
 * 00:40, August 7, 2005 Stevertigo unblocked User:Stevertigo (saving comment)
 * 00:35, August 7, 2005 Carbonite blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Vietnam War; Warning: Do NOT unblock yourself, use your talk page, email another admin or the mailing)
 * 17:41, August 6, 2005 Stevertigo unblocked User:Stevertigo (for WP:RFAr)
 * 17:25, August 6, 2005 Thryduulf blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 60 hours (24 hours for 3RR violation + 48 hours for breaking protection policy by reverting a protected page. All comments to your user page, I don't have regular email access atm)
 * 17:06, August 6, 2005 Stevertigo unblocked User:Stevertigo (havent saved edit yet)
 * 17:03, August 6, 2005 Geni blocked "User:Stevertigo" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3 revert rule (WP:3RR) on Vietnam War)

This should have been brought to Mediation first, or at least some previous step in dispute resolution. I request admonishment for all involved. Uncle Ed 01:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ed, you've got be joking. Please tell us why, after he was blocked, Stevertigo couldn't use his talk page to present his case for unblocking. Carbonite | Talk 01:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * He could have, and should have. But you could have relented a bit. What good does it do to lock the doors on a man who carries a spare key? How does this look to the non-admins? One big goofy party. I've about had it with you lot! Uncle Ed 01:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks like one rogue admin defying consensus and four other admins trying to bring him to account. Why are you defending the indefensible? Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Ed, I'm sure it looks a lot better to the non-admins to unblock yourself whenever you feel like it. Admins are trusted not to use the spare key. He used it four times while also editing a protected page. Pick your battles, Ed, I'm getting a little sick of this, too. Carbonite | Talk 02:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I feel insulted by this. He unblocked himself repeatedly, after being blocked for the clearest-cut three revert rule violation I've ever seen. No less than four administrators attempted to keep this block in place, without luck. I've nothing to mediate with him. I blocked him on exceptionally clear policy grounds and he abused his powers. Mackensen (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't take it personally. As acting head of the Mediation Committee, must tell you I'm surprised that you overlooked Mediation as a possible step here. Not only that, but you might have realized that I know Steve and that on the whole people who know me tend to take my advice. We need to pull together more. Uncle Ed 03:15, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * he was blocked for a 3RR violation. While there are other issues the 3 revert rule violation is not within your duristiction. I am not going to take 3RR violationts through mediation since 3RR blocks are not part of the disspute resolution process.Geni 09:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

See also Requests for comment/Stevertigo. --Michael Snow 05:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking
It seems that Stevertigo took it upon himself to make a further "block" of himself and then unblock. Does the time expiration automatically unblock him or does someone have to manually do so? Also, he was previously blocked for 60 hours and when this was undone he was blocked for 24. Rather than compounding his infractions he managed to get himself less time simply by violating policy. Can somebody comment on this? --TJive 04:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why he did that, but I don't believe he gained anything inappropriate from it. Mackensen's block had already expired and so he would be free to edit. Yes, the block did get shortened to 24 hours, but I think the 60 hours was over the top and that's why that number wasn't used again. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, his IP address might still have been autoblocked and that's why he blocked/unblocked himself. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Anon
Is anyone going to take off the egregious block of the anon who reverted the Vietnam War page? For all we know this is a regular contributor who didn't want to directly insert himself into the dispute and has now been locked from editing on his main account. In any case it is cut and dry abuse and needs corrected. --TJive 04:22, August 12, 2005 (UTC)