381:
reassembled to show an abuse for reasons of POV. IOW, that (claim) is not what it (my statement) says. On the second point, if sysops are simply janitorial in function, it might be a good idea to distunguish functions regarding articles and those dealing with people. Curps' analogy would seem to imply that sysops may at times be required to treat other people like
333:) was not a valid application of 3RR (until second party was blocked, a day later) my repeated self-unblocking was not a violation of blocking policy —as if I had blocked myself, for example. Likewise repeat blocking was enforced without due and necessary responsiveness, and with a degree of undue incivility.
361:
PS: I have made this statement in good faith, in direct response to the issue as submitted by Party 1. I will consider any substantial modifications of the submitted case (ie. crafted against my above defense rather than on original issues) to be a violation of the spirit of proper case
Arbitration.
311:
issue: I reverted a protected page. I justified this at the time as"undoing" a POV oriented revert by a minor anon of few edits. As I had requested protection a day earlier, by chance it happened to be after the POV revert. (This was not a basis for specific disciplinary action, but was often cited
266:
as well (rel. Ta bu). However Party 1's claim that such were all motivated by my POV and (/or) POINT does not have a significant degree of merit —as the record shows. In fact, my motives were the direct challenging of status POV in both the article and talk page (of a controversial topic), and the
380:
It was suggested on the evidence page that my above statement demonstrated a "unrepentant but actually oblivious" tone, and a lack of understanding of the "janitorial nature" of sysops. On the first point, I think the statment reads fairly clearly that my violations were minor, though it may be
388:
In his first entry, Curps repeated TJive's claim that I "made direct or implied threats to block those who oppose his point of view, or even those who merely criticize him." Its interesting that he should lead with that charge, and yet fail to give the same attention to detail as in his other
492:
are trusted members of the community who have access to certain commands not available to an ordinary
Knowledge (XXG) 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
58:
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to
Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the
389:
entries, by simply providing history links to the (rather short) exchange in question. Needless to say, his interpretation of those comments is a complete and utter mischaracterization at best. After reading his first entry Im reluctant to bother with the rest. -
168:
is relevant also to this request. I am happy to be considered a party to this request if the arbcom or any of the other parties wish it. Feel free to reproduce my statement there on this case if desired (like most of my edits, it is in the public
228:
on grounds at best spurious. I felt the need to enforce the block because if sysops are to retain the respect of the community, and sysophood as an institution is to retain its legitimacy, administrators cannot act in such a high-handed fashion.
223:
I acted to enforce a block previously administered by no less than three other sysops. I found out about the unblocking from the noticeboard; not IRC as some have insinuated. I did drop into the channel later, but only after
Stevertigo blocked
192:
I stand by my initial block under the 3RR. Yes I should have blocked the other party but it wasn't reported and due to time restriants I only cheak reported violations. I was contacterble by email for as long as the block lasted.
286:. Taken together, and without concern for specifics, they can naturally appear to be a indicative of a greater tendency. Taken separately, I feel each are rather minor offenses, and for each issue I claim the following:
336:
Failure of policy issues: Policies regarding 3RR, protection, blocks, as well as enforcement of the above, all have known ambiguities. Such ambiguities present problems in the understanding and enforcement of technical
137:
Please limit your statement to 500 words This case concerns the abuse of multiple administrative powers for the purpose of gaining an advantage in a dispute. Stevertigo violated the blocking policy four times
75:
344:) had not been implemented, and the Wikien mailing list was not functioning. I am not a user of IRC, and consider reliance on third party communications as improper for encyclopedia-related matters.
682:. 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
330:
71:
64:
60:
267:
representation of NPOV where NPOV as a concept has been abused or ignored. Though I do regret the incidental technical violations, I nevertheless did so in the interest of the
713:
654:
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.
145:
462:
453:
441:
429:
340:
Intervening issues: At the time (and still, AIUI) standard template messages for blocked users (explaining basic info and channels of recourse - see
329:
Repeat self-unblocking issue: Repeat blocking was done only on the premise that the original block was valid. As the original block (by Geni? - see
798:
148:
was posted and over 20 editors found
Stevertigo's actions to be unacceptable. Stevertigo's brief response was mostly sarcastic and dismissive.
17:
781:
679:
510:
2) It is inappropriate to use your powers as a
Knowledge (XXG) administrator with respect to a dispute you are personally involved in.
675:
545:
753:
1) Stevertigo will have his admin powers removed. If he wishes to reapply for admin powers at any time, he is free to do so via
282:
However it is not valid to claim that such were motivated by any particular POV other than one with the highest fidelity to the
567:
562:
274:
All that said, it may indeed be legitimate to hold a concern that I have (to some perceptual degree) used my trusted powers to
571:
594:
602:
305:. Given the above, 3RR policy was not properly enforced and my blocking was improper, and a violation of blocking policy.
736:
The community has made it pretty clear that they wish us to deal with the matter. Therefore this case will be reopened.
554:
489:
494:
271:
and can claim to have been catalytic in changing the POV approach of a number of users involved in the dispute.
740:
632:
2) As a result of their edit warring, both
Stevertigo and CJK were blocked, in a correct application of the
450:
743:
725:
703:
397:
370:
356:
236:
211:
197:
176:
438:
778:
669:
539:
394:
367:
353:
278:
in a particular article conflict, by engineering a mechanical equity between myself and an apparent
233:
737:
447:
315:
385:
which would not appear to be consistent with more elevated guidelines, codes and principles.
558:
435:
417:
754:
633:
290:
774:
665:
535:
427:
390:
363:
349:
104:
699:
Confirmation having failed, per request on meta today, I removed sysop status for Steve.
308:
63:, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at
459:
341:
230:
218:
173:
157:
126:
121:
92:
792:
205:
720:
700:
588:
550:
204:
Stevertigo was informed of his block on his talk page with my standard template
424:
293:
issue: Second party was equal in guilt, yet not reprimanded. Blocking sysops '
141:
by unblocking himself and the protection policy by reverting a protected page
610:. He used his power as an administrator to unblock himself a number of times
70:
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at
208:
194:
185:
172:
I am not certain why these requests are separate, and suggest merging them.
116:
506:
Use of administrator powers with respect to a dispute you are engaged in
252:
It's indisputable that I did in fact violate a technical reading of the
717:
322:
enforced, therefore my self-unblocking was neither a violation of
318:
issue: As 3RR reprimand was not equitably enforced it was not
636:. Stevertigo was blocked by Geni, and CJK by Michael Snow.
678:) shall submit himself as a candidate for administrator at
613:, blocked one of the administrators who was blocking him
162:
The statement I made on the arbitration request entitled
604:) and edited a protected page to conform to his version
410:
614:
611:
608:
605:
598:
584:
580:
576:
166:
142:
139:
411:
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)
312:
as a compounding factor in the claim of my "abuse.")
684:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo
484:Scope of remedies with respect to administrators
768:
660:Stevertigo to be confirmed as an administrator
163:
8:
152:Statements by other involved administrators
67:. Evidence is more useful than comments.
326:policy, nor an "abuse" of trusted powers.
249:Please limit your statement to 500 words
769:Subject's acknowledgement and acceptance
599:Reverts are in history at August 5 and 6
548:) while in the course of an edit war at
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration
749:Stevertigo to lose administrator powers
773:I accept the decision of the Arbcom. -
680:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
74:and voting on proposed decisions at
7:
628:Application of the Three Revert Rule
732:Update 19:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
24:
799:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration cases
595:Knowledge (XXG):Three revert rule
54:on 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
99:Party 2: Subject of Arbitration
38:on 20:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
30:on 21:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
716:; ending Nov 3, 18:36 (UTC).
490:Knowledge (XXG):Administrators
303:proper (equitable) enforcement
1:
782:20:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
593:during which he violated the
761:Passed 5-3 with 1 abstention
744:19:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
726:08:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
704:21:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
420:13:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
144:to his preferred version. A
46:20:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
469:Temporary injunction (none)
463:22:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
454:09:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
442:11:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
430:20:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
398:22:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
371:04:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
357:04:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
237:20:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
212:19:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
198:10:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
177:18:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
815:
164:User:CJK, User:Stevertigo
260:"self-unblocking policy"
295:expressed no awareness
257:protected page policy,
406:Preliminary decisions
276:counter systemic bias
111:Other Involved Admins
695:Sysop status removed
530:Abuses by Stevertigo
245:Statement by party 2
133:Statement by party 1
495:administrator abuse
280:majorité décentrée.
254:three revert rule,
87:Party 1: Initiator
76:/Proposed decision
712:: confirming RfA
656:
634:Three Revert Rule
331:WP:RFAR/SV/E#Geni
806:
741:(a tenth stroke)
723:
652:
592:
574:
525:Findings of fact
451:(a tenth stroke)
269:prime directive,
82:Involved parties
814:
813:
809:
808:
807:
805:
804:
803:
789:
788:
771:
751:
734:
721:
697:
662:
650:
630:
565:
549:
532:
527:
508:
486:
481:
476:
471:
413:
408:
378:
316:Self-unblocking
299:issue of debate
284:prime directive
264:blocking policy
247:
154:
135:
84:
55:
47:
39:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
812:
810:
802:
801:
791:
790:
786:
770:
767:
765:
763:
762:
750:
747:
733:
730:
729:
728:
696:
693:
692:
691:
661:
658:
649:
646:
644:
642:
641:
629:
626:
624:
622:
621:
607:, was blocked
531:
528:
526:
523:
521:
519:
518:
513:
507:
504:
503:
502:
485:
482:
480:
477:
475:
474:Final decision
472:
470:
467:
466:
465:
456:
444:
432:
421:
412:
409:
407:
404:
402:
377:
374:
346:
345:
342:Template:Block
338:
334:
327:
313:
306:
297:of either the
262:, and perhaps
246:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
215:
214:
201:
200:
189:
188:
182:
181:
180:
179:
170:
153:
150:
134:
131:
130:
129:
124:
119:
108:
107:
96:
95:
83:
80:
52:Case Re-closed
50:
44:Case Re-opened
42:
34:
26:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
811:
800:
797:
796:
794:
787:
784:
783:
780:
776:
766:
760:
759:
758:
756:
748:
746:
745:
742:
739:
738:Theresa Knott
731:
727:
724:
719:
715:
711:
708:
707:
706:
705:
702:
694:
689:
688:
687:
685:
681:
677:
674:
671:
667:
659:
657:
655:
647:
645:
639:
638:
637:
635:
627:
625:
619:
618:
617:
615:
612:
609:
606:
603:
600:
596:
590:
586:
582:
578:
573:
569:
564:
560:
556:
552:
547:
544:
541:
537:
529:
524:
522:
516:
515:
514:
511:
505:
500:
499:
498:
496:
491:
483:
478:
473:
468:
464:
461:
457:
455:
452:
449:
448:Theresa Knott
445:
443:
440:
437:
433:
431:
428:
426:
422:
419:
415:
414:
405:
403:
400:
399:
396:
392:
386:
384:
375:
373:
372:
369:
365:
359:
358:
355:
351:
343:
339:
335:
332:
328:
325:
321:
317:
314:
310:
307:
304:
300:
296:
292:
289:
288:
287:
285:
281:
277:
272:
270:
265:
261:
258:
255:
250:
244:
238:
235:
232:
227:
222:
221:
220:
217:
216:
213:
210:
207:
206:User:Geni/3RR
203:
202:
199:
196:
191:
190:
187:
184:
183:
178:
175:
171:
167:
165:
161:
160:
159:
156:
155:
151:
149:
147:
143:
140:
132:
128:
125:
123:
120:
118:
115:
114:
113:
112:
106:
103:
102:
101:
100:
94:
91:
90:
89:
88:
81:
79:
77:
73:
68:
66:
62:
56:
53:
48:
45:
40:
37:
32:
29:
19:
785:
772:
764:
752:
735:
709:
698:
690:Passed 6-0-2
683:
672:
663:
653:
651:
643:
631:
623:
542:
533:
520:
517:Passed 6-0-1
512:
509:
487:
401:
387:
382:
379:
360:
348:Sincerely, -
347:
323:
319:
302:
298:
294:
283:
279:
275:
273:
268:
263:
259:
256:
253:
251:
248:
225:
136:
110:
109:
98:
97:
86:
85:
69:
57:
51:
49:
43:
41:
35:
33:
27:
25:
551:Vietnam War
418:Fred Bauder
36:Case Closed
28:Case Opened
666:Stevertigo
640:Passed 7-0
620:Passed 8-0
536:Stevertigo
501:Passed 8-0
479:Principles
460:➥the Epopt
105:Stevertigo
231:Mackensen
219:Mackensen
186:User:Geni
174:Thryduulf
158:Thryduulf
127:Thryduulf
122:Mackensen
93:Carbonite
72:/Workshop
65:/Evidence
61:Talk page
793:Category
714:relisted
676:contribs
648:Remedies
546:contribs
436:James F.
434:Accept.
423:Accept.
376:Addendum
320:properly
169:domain).
701:Anthere
568:protect
563:history
458:Accept
446:Accept
416:Accept
337:policy.
755:WP:RFA
710:Update
601:, see
572:delete
439:(talk)
425:Jayjg
324:proper
291:WP:3RR
234:(talk)
589:views
581:watch
577:links
383:shit,
309:WP:PP
16:<
718:+sj
670:talk
585:logs
559:talk
555:edit
540:talk
209:Geni
195:Geni
117:Geni
779:eve
664:1)
534:1)
488:1)
395:eve
368:eve
354:eve
301:or
146:RfC
795::
775:St
757:.
686:.
616:.
587:|
583:|
579:|
575:|
570:|
566:|
561:|
557:|
497:.
391:St
364:St
350:St
226:me
78:.
777:|
722:+
673:·
668:(
597:(
591:)
553:(
543:·
538:(
393:|
366:|
362:-
352:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.