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
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
This decision is very unpopular with the community. A couple of things: Stevertigo's request should stay up for the usual time and receive consideration based on him, not on what folks think of the arbitration decision. The arbitration decision can be appealed to Jimmy Wales by Stevertigo.
Fred
On Oct 27, 2005, at 3:53 AM, 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
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This decision is very unpopular with the community. A couple of things: Stevertigo's request should stay up for the usual time and receive consideration based on him, not on what folks think of the arbitration decision. The arbitration decision can be appealed to Jimmy Wales by Stevertigo.
Fred
I asked for WP:RFA/SV to be reinstated for the simple reason that I be allowed to comment directly on the RFA. The expressed popular dislike of the Arbcom "decision" is a direct consequence of the Arbcom decision, not of my RFA. So your criticising the criticism seems rather "unwiki" and only opens the door for further criticism of the Arbcom process --of which I now have some uncommon perspective.
All of this could have been solved long ago if the Arbcom had taken the time to actually consider my point by point statement and talk page questions with regard to the original 3RR question, and the self-unblocking question. The "finding of fact" that the block was "equitably applied" was so simplistic as to be false, considering the block on the second party was not applied until 24 hours later.
This curious lack of attention to detail is something that a larger community is supposed to make easier to deal with, and hence make arbitration decisions more complete and well-founded. Take a look at any well-regarded court opinion for example, and you will find that the strength of the opinion itself rests on the strength of its understanding and representation of the arguments and the explanation in depth of the decision and its rationale. The Arbcom doesnt seem staffed to do this, and as a consequence, its decision in my case (for one) was poorly thought out.
While I am continuing the RFA process as directed by the Arbcom, there is in my mind no convenient separation between the problems with the Arbcom process in general, its apparent lack of responsiveness, or the "final" remedy in my case. And while I am considering making an appeal to Jimbo, he is now a rather busy man in charge of running an international foundation. I can't imagine how his dealing with conduct disputes on en.wikipedia could be considered an advance of his mission. Further, I cant imagine how such a busy person, regardless of his proven judgement and temperment, can be expected to properly investigate the case findings of fact which I maintain are incorrect.
In otherwords, if a committee with several active members cannot properly do the job, ask all the questions, and respond to all the criticism and issues, how can I expect Jimbo, busy as he is, to do it? Even on appeal to Jimbo, I still would have legitimate worries that he would feel compelled to simply trust the findings of the Arbcom, even though its decision was "very unpopular" and its process and findings were (as I maintain) 'not without flaw.'
In short, such a last resort for fixing a remedy so "unpopular with the community," must be seen as a complete and total failure of the Arbcom to act properly, meaning 'to make a fair decision or otherwise do no harm.' I can't imagine how I could have argued against a ruling which simply desysopped me for a month, provided it dealt point by point with the issues I raised in an open fashion.
Sincerely, SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
You should have a real appeal, not a fig leaf. If Jimbo is too busy then someone else, or a small group, should consider appeals. I think we made good findings regarding an isolated set of incidents, but those incidents do not define your whole body of work as an administrator nor do they purport to.
Fred
On Oct 27, 2005, at 7:20 PM, steve v wrote:
And while I am considering making an appeal to Jimbo, he is now a rather busy man in charge of running an international foundation. I can't imagine how his dealing with conduct disputes on en.wikipedia could be considered an advance of his mission. Further, I cant imagine how such a busy person, regardless of his proven judgement and temperment, can be expected to properly investigate the case findings of fact which I maintain are incorrect.
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
You should have a real appeal, not a fig leaf. If Jimbo is too busy then someone else, or a small group, should consider appeals. I think we made good findings regarding an isolated set of incidents, but those incidents do not define your whole body of work as an administrator nor do they purport to.
Fred
I understand and I'm considering making one, but the RFA process (as the Arbcom directed) is continuing --despite the apparent problems of using a 70 percent threshold nomination scheme for a referendum vote, in a case that (as Mindspillage let spill out) was "deadlocked" --is continuing. (Indeed the different uses--promotion and demotion--suggest very different ways of reading the votes.)
But as Ive said, it should be regarded as a total failure of the Arbcom to make a proper case--not merely a failure with respect to its remedy. I dont have access to private Arbcom discussions, and the Arbcom has chosen to be rather tight-lipped about its own internal "deadlock" re. the case. In addition, as Ive said many times now, the Arbcom appears to have assumped a rather tight-lipped posture even during the period in which the case was heard. Hence its overall level of responsiveness--before, during, and after the case--appears to be substandard for an "open" project that likes to claim to be fully in the public view.
I appreciate your distinction between using the case as a referendum on my conduct, from using it as a referendum on my character. But in fact that's what it was, and thats indeed what the "remedy" appears designed to be--looking at votes which refer directly to the fresh and lacking-in-explanatory-detail RFAR FOF. I would suggest that the Arbcom take it upon itself to review its own "remedy" and make appropriate changes to it in light of recent criticism, rather than obliquely defer to the esteemed Founder, who no doubt has better things to do.
Sincerely, SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
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
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
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
On 11/6/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
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
Not really. It would not have prevented the current situation. Untill the issue that triggered the case there wasn't much that Stevertigo had done that could be objected to. I doubt netaholics stament would have been enough to have any real effect.
-- geni
I wish SV hadn't acted the way he did, and that he would apologise for it. IMO he should be de-sysopped, but I would also vote to have his status restored after a couple of months, if he made it clear he wouldn't behave similarly in the future. He's a good member of the community, even if he acted rather badly in this particular.
No one should be above the rules, but the most important thing is the message that is sent to lay users regarding admin misconduct, and how he plans to conduct himself in the future.
Jack
On 11/6/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
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
"revert to the previous stable situation" seems exactly right in this case, until another decision is passed. Thanks for your care about this, Anthere.
++SJ
SJ wrote:
On 11/6/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
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
"revert to the previous stable situation" seems exactly right in this case, until another decision is passed. Thanks for your care about this, Anthere.
++SJ
Thanks Sj.