Jtkiefer wrote:
Anthere wrote:
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFA/SV, I have restored Stevertigo sysop status.
...
Ant
Anthere wrote:
Dear fellow wikipedians,
Yesterday, stewards received a request to unsysop Stevertigo, after a failed reconfirmation of sysophood, following an arbcom decision.
Jtkiefer also asked me privately by irc to carry on the request.
I consequently unsyoped Stevertigo.
Today, Steve post on my talk page, this comment : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthere#Request_for_permissions
As a reminder, stewards are not here to judge, but to carry on the decision of the community. I have no idea why Steve was brought in front of the arbcom (well, right, it is a 3RR issue, but I do not know the details, and I do not want to get in this).
Now, I think in this case, the "judges" are
- the arbcom
- the voting community
And the steward is just to carry on the decision the "judges" made.
If there is something unclear in the final decision, it should not be my job to go reading all the discussions around this case, so as to figure out myself the "correct" conclusion. I think Stevertigo is a honest editor, and he would not try to cheat on the decision, so if he feels the outcome has not been fair/clear, it is probable that there is a little something unclear somewhere.
So, what I would like you to do, is to clarify the current situation, so that the correct decision, to desysop or not to desysop, is taken.
I give it 48 hours without doing anything, and if there is no clarification by then, I will revert to the previous stable situation (ie, Steve sysop) till an agreement is reached between yourselves.
Ant
Not that I'm arguing with this or anything and I think that this is probably is fine (at least until arbcom makes a decision) I figured that was going to stay desysopped until either RFA and then I guess now arbcom decided in favor of him. I also don't see the justification of as per WP:RFA/SV since the vast consensus of all who didn't vote to put back to arbcom were to keep him desysopped.
-Jtkiefer
I understand your point of view Jtkiefer.
Now, I went back to the voting page, and saw this comment from Theresa.
This vote has been closed early by Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke). The case will go back to the Arbitration committee.
For me, that means the case is back to the situation BEFORE the arbcom took a decision. So, it should logically be the same for Steve status, ie, sysop.
Now, to be fair, it seems many people now do not really trust Steve any more to be a sysop. However, Steve has also been a contributor for a long time, is a mediator and certainly do not qualify as a vandal. So, I think we should trust him with sysop power until the arbcom has taken a new decision. If Steve was acting as a wildman, I would not have restored the status to its original situation. I just think there is no urgency. I would feel embarassed to let the status removed, because that would mean I take the decision instead of the arbcom somehow.
Incidently, all this suggest to me that once in a while, you should consider having a "confirmation" round for sysops... even though admittedly, the sysop number is terribly huge...
Ant