Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed decision

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

It should hardly be necessary to rehash Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence, as did Mackensen. Unbelievable. -- Curps 03:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In case the Arbitration Committee isn't following this talk page discussion, I've now left a message at User talk:Fred Bauder#Stevertigo arbitration: one key finding of fact is not resolved asking for a finding of fact to be issued to resolve this important point. -- Curps 16:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Morality. IAC, WATS, I certainly dont want to tell you how to do your job. Peace,-St|eve 22:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Abuses by Stevertigo

1) Stevertigo (talk · contribs) while in the course of an edit war at Vietnam War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) during which he violated the Wikipedia:Three revert rule (Reverts are in history at August 5 and 6, see [1])

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

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. Wikipedia: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? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:RFAR/SV#FoF>3RR is incorrect when it states that 3RR was "correctly applied." The block of CJK by Michael Snow was 24 hours after Geni's block on me. -St|eve 19:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally." - he was blocked for 24 hours, and so were you. Even if what you say is true, I fail to see how your treatment was anything but equitable. →Raul654 19:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They were not applied at the same time. That is not equitable, and blocking admins gave no impression of concern or knowledge of a proper application of the block. After blocking me, Geni could have easily pressed the 'back' button and blocked party 2. Though he should have, he did not. Now, putting aside my case for a moment, what duties does the Arbcom have in changing policy to correct the above oversight? With appreciation for your responsiveness, -St|eve 01:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Geni and Michael Snow addressed that issue at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence#Evidence presented by Michael Snow and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Evidence#Evidence presented by User:Geni. If more clarifications are needed, you could ask them directly. -- Curps 01:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they both said "they didnt know" because it "wasnt reported at WP:AN/3RR." Their statements actually confirm the nature of my complaint, that they did not act in accord with WP:3RR. Personally, I think that if an admin takes it upon themselves to answer a complaint, they should follow the correct steps. This means that Geni should have actually gauged the situation at the dispute page in question. And, had he known proper policy, he would have listed all parties that were in violation of 3RR and blocked them equally. Instead, he respond in what appears to be a reflexive manner to the complaint at WP:AN/I-3RR, and did so outside of the rules in 3RR.

Did he take the position of the complainees (CJK, Tjive) without even looking at the history? Did he simply forget how 3RR is properly applied? Did he assume that I would make a counter-complaint? Did he assume another admin would come and rectify the situation? Did he assume I would email the list? (The list was out). All of that may not matter to some here, but they matter to a party (me) who had been 1) improperly blocked, and 2) has long held the priviledge of adminship (WP:AGF?) and 3) understands the nature of 3RR, how it came to be, and how its properly applied. ATS I'll admit to making the mistake of assuming that the admins in question would act properly, and not merely 'as best as they could.' The "I didnt have time" excuse doesnt cut it. Maybe the Arbcom disagrees--maybe not. Nuf Said. -St|eve 03:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its been several days since I posted the last message above, and there is still no response. I would like some arbitrator to bring these notes to the attention of all the other active arbitrators, as Im not certain if any discussion of the above points is taking place, or if some arbitrators have chosen to dispense with the formality and burden of being dutifully responsive to this discussion. I do indeed AGF, but this goes all ways, and responsiveness does indeed go a long way toward establishing that F. -St|eve 21:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing your case on the Arbcom mailing list, but not with respect to the subject you raise. Fred Bauder 00:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I was not aware of that, nor of how much discussion is going on —I could imagine it as either minimal or massive amounts of discussion. Naturally some questions come to mind regarding how issues specific to the "subject [I] raise" are raised on a closed list, but I will save those for a more appropriate time.-St|eve 00:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the deadlock and the delay I am forgoing my automatic recusal from this case (as it began before my appointment) to help it along. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"reaffirmed" is misused here; does not agree with the text. Wbfl 05:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see Fred Bauder 12:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, still wrong, but i guess that's to be expected when a bunch of wikipedia "admins" get together and play town council w/o the dais. he is to be axed and immediately renominated, apparently. or you can call it the confirmation process, in which he might be unsuccessful. the unknown result is the whole point; he might be confirmed/affirmed, he might not be. regardless, is wikipedia so desperate for power-hungry cretins that a man year must be spent on this traveshamockery? sad. edit counts! bleh. admins will be the death of wikipedia. yeah, that's a personal attack. break out the whips and chains and parking tickets, ye desperate hall-monitor types. the thin clueless line. anybody who clamors to be an admin should be barred for life, starting with the totally out of control, disconnected subject of all this wasted debate. Wbfl 14:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the first new proposed remedy:

Steververtigo will have his admin powers removed. if he wishes to reapply for admin powers at a later date...

Why not simply 'at any time'? Or if the ArbCom wants things to "cool off", specify a particular interval. Intent isn't 100% clear here, and could be 'cast up about' in any subsequent RfA. ("This isn't 'later' enough", etc.) All moot if you don't pass it, of course. Alai 05:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He can reapply the day the ac case closes as far as I am concerned. The "later" meant any time after that. I'll change the wording to your version. Thanks. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be two ways of reading this. 1 the person is liekly to lose thier adminship if there is a serious problem. If that is the case all admins should automaticaly be on probabtion. 2 the person is more likely to be a problem and needs watching I don't want to be in a position where there is a formal reason for me not to trust my fellow admins.Geni 16:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be an array of remedies for administrators short of desysopping. Taking the position that we either ignore indiscretions or permanently desysop administrators gives little flexibility. Probation means that if they continue doing whatever got them in trouble we have a quick procedure which allows a re-examination of the case. It is also limited and after the probation period they go back to the usual status. Fred Bauder 16:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You want to give admins the extra task of watching someone with admin powers who you have basicaly announced can't be trusted. I don't recall that being on the list of admin tasks.

In reality you pretty much have a binary choice:

You do not remove Stevertigo's adminship. This strengthens acuastions of a cabal and suggests you've pretty much removed the one method by which admins can be held accountable.

You de admin Stevertigo. This establishes the presedent that the actions of one night can lose you your adminship regardless of years of otherwise good work(you could have avoided this by makeing some form of finding of fact based on netaholics claims but you chose not to).

your only other options are tempory suspension of adminship powers. This makes you look indescisive (A case with a very short evidence page takeing over two months doesn't help with this impression) further more it is still not going to look good to those who want more admin acounterbility it also makes very little sense on the front of decideing if someone should be an admin or not. Fianaly you could suspened him from wikipedia completely for a period but since Stevertigo appears to have few problems as an editor this can make no sense.Geni 01:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have every option except treating the matter as one that is black or white. That is not an option. Fred Bauder 02:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is an option. You may not want it to be but with the communities blunt rejection of your last attempt to find a grey option it may be one you have to take. In the end you will either remove Stevertigos adminship or you will not. You can suround the choice with whatever you like but in the end that is the choice you must make. I don't enevy you that descission since a way you are right. It isn't a black and white descission. It is a black and black one.Geni 02:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo is not where he is (a cliff) because of "the actions of one night"; he denied and continues to deny that what he did was an abomination. that is why he's where he is, and that's obvious when reading the history of this joke with the following question foremost in mind: is Stevertigo fit to wield admin power at wikipedia? of course not. read his pounds of reactions to this. this process has stalled because of the asinine premise that being an admin is a birthright. "no big deal" to elevate somebody to admin power? then it shouldn't be a big deal to zap 'em when they demonstrate the remarkable lack of respect/awareness Stevertigo did/does, even when he was passed wake-up clues under the table by his admin cronies. the evidence essentially guarantees that he will misfire in the same way again. this whole process is club members worrying about their precious futures in a world where admins are clobbered over the head for naturally acquired, intrinsic nasty behavior (e.g., threats, big talk, database button-pushing, atty-tude). clobber him and be done with it. may the rest of you follow. this joint needs admin term limits, not hand wringing and policy stabbing at the beheading of an obviously loutish admincentric. edit counts! wooohoooo! that's what you get. spectacle. Wbfl 10:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason I added my evidence section, which seems to have been largely ignored, was to show this wasn't just "the actions of one night". Stevertigo has used his adminstrator access improperly for a long time. -- Netoholic @ 15:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this case closed now? There are six votes to close (no oppose votes), with the first vote made over two days ago. Didn't know whether it's just lag time or if something was still being discussed privately. Carbonite | Talk 13:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]