User talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive Recall Petition

This is an archive of a failed recall petition. Please do not modify it. (It is a copy/paste archive from User talk:Bunchofgrapes, which is where you will have to go to see editing histories.)

Recall petition for Bunchofgrapes

See Also

I (Lar) will add any see also links here (to ANI, or whatever) if they turn up. None so far I think.

Bunchofgrapes recall tally

Bunchofgrapes has asked me (Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)) to clerk more formally. He has decided that if he gets 6 valid requests to be recalled (using his metric of what a valid request is) that he will stand down from adminship (ask to have his sysop bit turned off by a steward) at this time, and submit himself to an RfA immediately to get reconformed

The following section is a tally of those who have asked for recall and who Bunchograpes (not me) acknowledges as qualified to so ask. Only submissions are counted, and then only if Bunchofgrapes does not say "I don't accept this one" or words to that effect. Those voicing support or opposing recall, etc. are not counted here. I base my putting people on this list on the discussion immediately below. I copied the bare user link and put it in an informational template, and the date, from the posting.

Certified Recall requests (count: 1)

MSTCrow (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) - 22:05, 20 August 2006

Uncertified Recall requests (these do not count toward the tally)

Clerk notes

As I've been asked to clerk, I'd appreciate others not modifying this sub section. If anyone spots errors please let me know. (If you think this should be a subpage that's transcluded, drop me a shout on my talk page... ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The end date/time of this recall petition will be 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC), one week from the start of the clerking process, per request of Bunchofgrapes (several earlier date/times could have been chosen as the start of the one week period, such as the date/time of the initial request, or the date/time of bunchofgrapes acceptance of my offer to clerk but he has selected the most lenient date reasonably citable as the start point. This clearly avoids any suggestion of impropriety about the end. ++Lar: t/c 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submissions and discussion

(please add submissions (requests and justifications, as well as discussions) here. I will refactor as necessary... ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BunchofGrapes protects user pages to prevent other users from criticizing administrator actions, stifling dissent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MSTCrow/Archive_3#Re:_Bishonen.27s_Talk_Page_Thread_on_Myself. He also removes content from his talk page without archiving it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bunchofgrapes&diff=71308647&oldid=71290830. He is not mature or wise enough to be an administrator, as he has repeatedly abused his powers, and does not care for the consequences of his actions or apologize to others. - MSTCrow 22:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request by MSTCrow

Per administrator is open to recall, please add your name below if you are in agreement:

MSTCrow 02:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(dont' add names below this one, start another subsection similar to this one)

Very well; any particular incident you'd like to focus on here, or is this more of an open-format effort? Either is OK, but I'm probably going to have to establish some sort of time limit if it's the latter. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on here? A drive-by recall? FloNight ^talk 03:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speculate so far, but I have carried out at least one action that MSTCrow said was abusive. People of good will are free to disagree. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the revive the ANI discussion, since archived [1], about a community ban on our nominator. Bishonen asked my inpur earlier today and I hesitated, but now I am sure. - CrazyRussiantalk/email 16:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really, Crz; I just gave you a link that I thought might interest you, is all. But I agree with reopening the community ban discussion now I see this trolling. (oh, oh, I came >this< close to saying "egregious" there, I think that may be grounds for a block in itself). Bishonen | talk 18:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

On what basis? I'd consider him on a short leash, but has he done anything really intolerable since he was unblocked? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would change my mind, too. Whether BoG wants to change his opinion or not, this is pulling beyond the leash. If we define "trolling" as "paralyzing a website by getting its participants to focus on their own well functioning processes instead of their objectives," then this is trolling. Essentially, by provoking this unmotivated and warrantless request, he is trolling. He has not specified any action that would prompt recall, and yet we're spending time on it. Not only should there be the equivalent of a "speedy close" (meaning that BoG can step down if he wants to, but no basis for anyone else agreeing has been established, and so there is therefore no community to make the request) in this case, but this should reawaken the dormant discussion of MSTCrow's actions and desire to contribute. Geogre 19:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else but I haven't devoted THAT much time to this, and am fine with the time I've spent so far... I just cribbed a lot of the structure from the last one, after all. Further, speaking less as a clerk and more as a promoter of the recall process, I'm keen to see how this plays out. If it ends up unsupported and we all (except me perhaps) can manage not to dump a lot of time into it, I color it a win, regardless of whatever else transpires, because we're learning every time we go through this. Certainly I see where Tony was coming from though... ++Lar: t/c 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to clerk

I stand ready to clerk if desired. BoG let me know this was in progress via my talk so I assume that's what he wants but I'd like to see a formal acceptance here and I'll start. ++Lar: t/c 07:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formal acceptance here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions:

Do you, Bunchograpes, consider MSTCrow a "user in good standing" per your definition?
Have you, Bunchofgrapes, chosen which option you intend to pursue if the recall petition is successful? Note that I don't think you necessarily have to choose YET, I am just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs)

Yes, I'm requesting your clerking, Lar, though I'll admit to some cautious optimism that it won't ential much work. MSTCrow's request is valid by my definition. If the recall petition succeeds I will get my bit turned off and submit an RfA request ASAP. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lar. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NP. I'll do my best to keep things organised, time permitting (I'm in an internal IBM class this week on our nifty product (shameless plug) II Classic Federation, so may have some calls on my time), feel free to msg or email me with concerns. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more question... what time limit did you want to set on this? I see it as your call. And a procedureal note, someone perhaps(?) probably ought to put this up at WP:AN I think. I can if no one else does. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One week sounds about right. I'm not sure this belongs at AN; or if it does, it seems to me that it would be the petitioner's burdon to place it there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - One week it is then. As for putting it up on AN... I'm a big fan of full disclosure (I get dinged for putting stuff on AN all the time as not being needed or being too trivial etc...) but this is your call. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request this case be discussed in Law French or not at all

You're giving bureaucracy a bad name here, Bunch and Lar. Just say after me: "Bad faith nomination, ignore". Clinch it by linking to MSTCrow's talkpage and the ANI community ban discussion. Sheesh, don't you have some articles to write, guys? Bishonen | talk 18:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I herbyuntoyou solemly declare and announce I'll vote for you BoG. Just tell me where do I have to put my name? Giano | talk 18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's bad-faithed: MSTCrow genuinely feels, I'm sure, that I am a, you know, ZOMG ABUSIVE ADMIN!!11!. Do I think he's right, or particulary sane? No. It doesn't matter. He's free to try this. It doesn't take up much of my time :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will indeeed be counted amongst the blessed BoG! Giano | talk 18:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit it. -Bunchofgrapes

Counted among the timewasters, you mean. I have such a good mind to sign the recall petition myself. Admit it, Bunch, you're after the cookies and muffins, aren't you? Bishonen | talk 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'll say it if Bunch will not, "Bad faith nomination, ignore". Seriously folks, do we want to set a precedent of grudge-provoked recalls?FloNight ^talk 18:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BoG has the control of what his criteria of a "user in good standing" is. He chose to call MSTCrow's request as that of one from a user in good standing... You may not agree... I may not agree (but as clerk, I won't comment one way or the other till this is over...) but it's his call. If no one else says they support this recall within the time limit BoG set, (or, more accurately, if 5 others don't), it's over. Please let this process work. And please don't sign the recall petition unless you really think there is good reason to recall him. Even for humor value. Yes Bishie i am talking to you. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be an interesting litmus test of frivolous recall votes. We know what happens if an admin open to recall gets recalled, but is there any clause for what happens to a bad faith admin recall nominator? Syrthiss 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. and if there was ever to be such a clause and subsequent action, one would immediatly have charges of cliqueism, ganging up, bullying by admins sticking together etc. This is clearly a bad faith nom, but BoG has to let it go ahead to avoid such charges - I am very surprised to see admins using roll back already - not a good sign. This looks like the way things are going to be! Giano | talk 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are hitting several nails on the head here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the way BoG is handling this. If we all just ignore this for a week, it will all go away, no muss no fuss, and no time wasted. Paul August ☎ 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I just rolled back Tony's removal of this section. it is Bunchofgrapes call on whether he views this as bad faith or not, not Tony's. If BoG wants to treat this as real, his perogative. on the other hand if the many people urging him to treat this as bad faith convince him, great, I'll remove it myself. ++Lar: t/c 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that the most damning way to handle spurious requests is to treat them seriously. The lone endorsement speaks volumes. - Aaron Brenneman 00:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treating it with contempt would obviously be more appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. What a joke. --kingboyk 12:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in a more general case, what actions are required to treat someing with contempt? As opposed to my prefered course, which is treat it as a normal no-fuss occurance and remove it when it goes stale with one lonely user. This is a form of "deny recognition." - brenneman ^{L} 14:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to see here, move along

Everybody, please. Deep breaths. This thing is going to waste exactly as much time as we allow it to. I'd really rather not get into the business of judging good-faith/bad-faith here; after all, it is likely to be someone you are in conflict with who initiates a recall petition, and if you are in conflict with someone, you are unlikely to be able to judge that question accurately. I would much rather sit back and, hopefully, watch the additional petitioners fail to roll in. We should let the petition quietly die its natural death rather than speedying it for reasons of time-wasting or having it make us look bad. Of course, that means we should all try our hardest to not have it waste time, or make us look bad. The best way I can think of doing that is to not give it another thought. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final result

It is more than 7 days after the start date of this recall petition, 17:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Less than 6 users in good standing have been certified as calling for recall

Therefore as clerk, I find that this petition is unsuccessful, Bunchofgrapes has not been recalled, and the petition process is concluded. Thank you, everyone, for your participation. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.