Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo/Proposed decision

message: ::::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A lack of responsivenessness 

message: "reaffirmed" is misused here; does not agree with the text. Wbfl 05:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see Fred Bauder 12:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Stevertigo to be reaffirmed as an administrator" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Later date? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Case Closed?