Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo 2

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Redwolf24 (talk | contribs) at 01:34, 25 October 2005 (Response to Splash). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Stevertigo

Requests_for_adminship/Stevertigo|action=edit}} Vote here (2/6/3) ending 23:40 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo (talk · contribs) – Per the Stevertigo arbitration case, I am listing Stevertigo here to have his adminship reaffirmed. →Raul654 23:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

  1. Support (with conditions). Steve, can you talk with medcom at #wikipedia-mediation on freenode? Uncle Ed 00:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Continued support. Andre (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. The Arbitration Commitee has found that the user engaged in several 3RR violations, was subsequently blocked, unblocked himself, and blocked the admin who had blocked the user. I am sorry, but this is conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 23:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Evilphoenix. --Idont Havaname 00:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, surely you cannot have an admin who abuses his powers. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I normally stay away from RFA's where I don't have much interaction with the user but I'm going to make an exception in this case, I don't care about the fact that his arbcom case was recent, however after reviewing his arbcom case I feel that it would be highly innapropriate and a very bad idea for him to continue to have the mop and bucket seeing as he has proven that he readily abuses them. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per above. freestylefrappe 01:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose clear abuse of powers. Plaudits to the arbcom for a job well done. Borisblue 01:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. The ArbCom has found that he abused his admin powers. Admins shouldn't abuse their powers, period, and they shouldn't abuse them so severely and unrepentantly (see his denial in the RfAr) that the ArbCom has to step in. Anecdotally, I've noticed a number of particularly spiky comments from Stevertigo during the RfAr; comments I wouldn't expect from someone who should have been on their best behaviour. No, I can't find the diffs, because I noticed them at the time and didn't write them down, so that part of my comment is subjective. -Splashtalk 01:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Not a fan of a FELLOW MEDIATOR saying that the medcom was going slowly at RfM, he expected us to start mediating when Reddi didn't even accept. In fact Reddi rejected at his talk page. However this is no reason to oppose, so I'm neutral. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's too soon after this to make a fair judgement one way or another. Give it a few months. Karmafist 00:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I must hear Stevertigo's case for being an admin before I vote either way. silsor 00:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Note: Please don't oppose with a comment like 'Recent Arbcom Case'. Afterall, this was posted because of that arbcom case. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? The only reason this RfA exists is because of the Arbcom case. To tell us that we shouldn't consider that fact, and even oppose on the grounds of it, is very strange. -Splashtalk 01:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision to refer the matter to RfA strikes me as a poor one on the part of the Arbitrators. We frequently tell furious complainants at AN/I etc that they should take "the matter" to RfAr because ArbCom is pretty much the only way to de-admin someone. That they have opted instead to offer the community a pretty obvious route of taking up pitchforks and torches against someone seems to remove the need for us to refer such matters to the them in future. It also establishes the precedent that RfA can be used to determine if someone should be de-adminned or not (or, as they phrase it should be 'reaffirmed'). Oops. -Splashtalk 01:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, it's alright to say 'the arbcom case found fault with this person' but I don't think JUST saying a case has been opened against him... is good grounds for opposing, as the thought behind saying that is that the user is too controversial, but this is a mandatory RfA. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Stevertigo_2&oldid=26402667"