User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Recall petition (October 2009)

For those of us not privy to what led to this, could Ottava run down the situation and/or post relevant diffs, so that people have grounds on which to base their decision to support this recall or not? Forgive me if this request goes against the recall process, as I've never been involved in one before (at least not outside of arbcom). Equazcion (talk) 20:59, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)

The request isn't inappropriate, but it will be covered later. At this stage of the game, we're just looking for 6 editors in good standing to verify that they think I've misused the tools. If that happens, we'll go either to a modified RFC or a reconfirmation RFA, and everything will be hashed out there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is tricky from my point of view. I have some sympathy with triggering the recall process, however, as I have had limited interaction with Sarek, i would actually at present be a 'neutral' in an RfA-type 'vote'. I feel the issues should be fully discussed, and would be willing to be one of the six editors signing up to initiate this procedure, however I do not wish to "verify that they think I've misused the tools". I thought i had read Lars criteria and had not formed the impression that the six editors were "verifying misuse of the tools", but were indicating they thought that a recall process was warranted. For me those two things are not the same at all. Comments? hamiltonstone (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Lar/Accountability, whose criteria you seem to abide by in the recall process, do not mention the word "tools" a single time. They mention "admin powers", which you have been vested and include not only the tools, but also a conduct. By being an admin, you are empowered to enforce your judgments in a vast array of areas without having to use the tools at all. It is this power you are being questioned about. For simple tool misuse we have the Arbcom and no recalls are needed, really. The recall serves to assess how the community feels about your adminship as a whole. Please clarify if this is what you intend. Thank you. Húsönd 22:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Both judgment, use, and overall approach as an admin are being challenged. This could easily have been taken up with ArbCom, and discussing with a few Arbitrators showed that they believed there was enough of a disturbance and misuse of ops to warrant such. The matter at hand is over a direct misinterpretation of WP:AGF, with him and others using it as a weapon and directly contradicting what the page states. He also claimed that my language was incivil when there were no such incivilities. Both of these claims were in direct violation of restrictions under WP:NPA, and when these were pointed out, he blocked me, which is a violation of the blocking policy. His understanding of policy was directly challenged and his defense was to put forth a block. Chillum has been the only one so far to say it was a decent block, and he proved during it that his understanding of AGF was 100% against what the page actually says. It is under these grounds that Recall has been put forth, especially since Sarek made it explicit on my talk page that they have not learned from community response that their misinterpretation of our standards was completely inappropriate, especially when they would force such blatantly contradictory views upon others via blocking them in direct contradiction of what they allow. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Good job

Section moved from main page. Master of Puppets 02:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think you are doing a great job and should not stop being an admin. You were enforcing both the spirit and the letter of policy and those that seem to resent it are those who commonly violate the same policies. In my opinion de-sysoping should involve evidence applied to policy and community expectations, not simply a vote or petition. Chillum 23:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The petition isn't the final step. This is just to determine whether or not to start an RFC, as is my understanding. Equazcion (talk) 23:29, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)
  • I see. In that case I will try to withhold further comments to when(if) this is goes to an RFC. Chillum 23:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sure your comment is appreciated, but this section is only for the usage described in Lar's subpage. Master of Puppets 02:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Not to be a smartass, but Lar's subpage says, under the petition instructions, "Additional sections may be added as the community desires for comments of whatever sort." Not that I personally have any strong feelings about this. Equazcion (talk) 02:29, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)
        • I know, but then this runs the risk of devolving into a huge RFA-style s/he's-great-no-they're-not-rabble-rabble fiasco. I'm all for people providing Sarek with moral support, but this is just the recall process leading into an RFC/whatever-have-you. Master of Puppets 03:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree. But pointing out technicalities makes me feel smart. Equazcion (talk) 03:54, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Moved. Master of Puppets 05:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I have interacted with Sarek of Vulcan on very few occasions. I did disagree with his handling of the recent block of O.R. I thought given the nature of the allegation of bias he should have stepped aside and let a uninvovled admin make their respective choice and discuss as to avoid wheel wars. I also believe he should limit himself from furthur blocks of O.R. That being said if he can restrain himself and allow another admin do a block if nec. we avoidclaims of bias and the ugliness it involves. That being said I DO NOT support a recall, just a great use of caution in situations involving O.R. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

   This petition is only for those who want a recall, though. If you don't want one, this is probably not the right place to post. Equazcion (talk) 05:00, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)

On one hand the rules of the debate were not clearly posted at the time(unless I missed them), on the other I really dislike when there is a page asking for only negative opinions with no place for positive opinions. I don't think there is much risk of this devolving further than it is already going to, which is pretty far. I agree the talk page is a good place for general discussion. Chillum 05:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think what Lar meant by the additional sections being allowed is that they can be present (and should be allowed) but they have absolutely no bearing on anything other than swaying public opinion... only the certified and uncertified sections "count" as to whether the petition succeeds. (certified counts to, well, certify the petition... and uncertified records an attempt to be counted that didn't work for whatever qualification reason. Sarek (and only Sarek) could choose to waive whatever qualification was being failed to cause an uncertified to move to certified, without implication that the same qualification is waived for anyone else... however new qualifications cannot be imposed, once the clerk certifies one, it's certified and cannot be changed unless the clerk agrees he/she erred). ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Recall proceedings

For the record, I have no clue how this is supposed to go. Just assume I won't wikilawyer any particular interpretation of Lar's criteria, and you'll probably be able to figure out what I intended. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no binding, nor anything at all. Lar set up 6 individuals to represent a concern. Some proceed to an informal RFC, others offer to relist themselves. Most, as Malleus was originally cynical to point out, merely say they are open to recall but don't have any process or care for any. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But Sarek is using Lar's criteria, which do have some pretty specific process steps and criteria outlined in advance. The idea when I created these was to remove as much potential ambiguity as possible, so that the process would go as smoothly as possible. ++Lar: t/c 05:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am now aware of this and if anyone has any questions about what I meant I am happy to try to answer. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I was blocked by Sarek for "missing the point"

I was blocked by Sarek for "missing the point" and for copying discussions from my talk page onto an ANI although I stated I did not know how to link properly. I constested and was unblocked. Then he tried to get me blocked as a sock puppet. That also did not work out for him. He does not seem to be some-one that should be an admin. PennySeven (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I support a recall process.

PennySeven (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note PennySeven's sockpuppet case may be found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nicolaas Smith/Archive tedder (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

PennySeven is almost certainly User:Nicolaas Smith, blocked indef for "Disruptive editing" and is thus not a valid certifier. Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the answer: [1]

PennySeven (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever edit as Nicolaas Smith? "Yes" or "No" will do fine. Hipocrite (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No

PennySeven (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Bull. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See [2]PennySeven (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

How long do we wait for the six?

Maybe it's a kind of stupid question, but I think it is a reasonable one. I wouldn't want to keep the petition out there for a few months, because I think just about every admin honks off enough editors over a period of several months that they would meet the six requirement. But I don't think it makes sense to hold it open that long in any event. Is there a set time period for the individuals to sign the petition? John Carter (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

5 days, according to User:Lar/Accountability. Equazcion (talk) 22:28, 29 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved user comment: Only 5 days? The way to make it less of a sham is to advertise it in the boards that people read, such as ANI, AN, etc. Don't worry, Sarek. If it's 5 days, you'll survive. Live long and prosper. Spock 01:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC) (ok, I'm not Mr. Spock) Oops, there is actually a Wikipedia user named Spock. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a question as to whether or not such "advertising" would draw trolls who would probably in at least some cases say Mother Teresa was the incarnation of evil. Maybe adding a prominent link to it on your user page and/or this page might be acceptable, but I really wouldn't go any futher than that. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, advertising an admin recall would be like advertising a traffic cop recall. By the very nature of doing the job correctly, many consider them enemies. Equazcion (talk) 21:04, 30 Oct 2009 (UTC)

I have no real interest in advertising this -- if there are 6 people annoyed enough with me to want me recalled, they're probably already keeping track of my contributions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

While I stick by what I said above, it appears nobody cares or there is insufficient demand to have Sarek step down. Maybe leave it up til Sunday and then shut down shop. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's now been well over 5 days since the initial petitioner made the request, the clerk arranged for, and the page was set up, has it not? ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Sarek said he was using Lar's criteria, and since they specified five days, I think he has kept his previous commitment by allowing it to run for that period of time. I think we are done and the clerk should close the Recall petition. The petition was opened at 20:45 UTC on 28 October. Five days would be 20:45 on 2 November. The time is now 19:16 on 5 November. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is well over with now. It appears the original complainant is busy making/defending drama elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So, what do we do? Move it delete, maybe? I really don't think that there is any particularly good reason to keep this page, and an uninvolved admin could always recreate it later if necessary. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I vote (!vote?) for saving. It doesn't really say anything bad about Sarek, and if a non-admin editor comes along and requests such a recall, it is here for reading. Of course, if Sarek does feel it's purely an attack page, that's a reason to at least discuss deletion. tedder (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I !vote for archiving rather than deletion as well. Lar, what's your opinion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there are so few examples of voluntary recall discussions, this one deserves keeping. Sarek could create a Category:Voluntary recall discussions and relevant policy pages would have a chance to link to it! The other recall discussion I'm aware of is at User talk:MBisanz/Recall. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for a new category I don't think, although I suppose maybe. Just link the final version of the page from Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests after we're clear on the final outcome. (the clerk could do the "it's been 5 days and the petition fails for lack of sufficient certified editors" wording). The pages could be courtesy blanked if you really feel the need, but I'd rather they were not deleted if possible, so that non admins can see the outcomes as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need for courtesy blanking, thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nod. Have now updated Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests#SarekOfVulcan to reflect the close. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed. Had mid-terms until now, so wasn't very active. Apologies, Sarek. Master of Puppets 17:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No apologies necessary: nothing was hurt by keeping it open the extra days, and if 4 more names had come in after the 5 days, I would still have considered it valid. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is one of the reasons why, IMHO, the recall failed to get enough support. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Total

At what point do you start experiencing dreams about exploring the planet Mars with a brunette? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Do androids dream of electric sheep? Pedro :  Chat  21:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Do admins dream of electric trolls? Dayewalker (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the WP:DICK reference is subtle but not helpful, and I suggest Scjessey considers what value he is giving here. Pedro :  Chat  22:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeez. I was just trying to lighten the mood. I know that Sarek is a science fiction fan so I thought I'd make a harmless joke revolving around the word "recall". No "value" was intended. -- Stranger in a Strange Land (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I thought the dick bit was clearly obvious as a reference (particularly if you are a sci-fi fan) and my apologies for over burdening your comment with a deeper level of meaning. Heinlein now brings another dimension of course, but to be honest if you wish to comapre great SF people to this recall maybe E.E. "Doc" Smith would be the best comparitive here..... Pedro :  Chat  22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm reminded of something Michael Moorcock once said, to the effect that Philip K. Dick might be less popular than he deserves because many fans would say "I like Asimov", "I like Heinlein", or similar much faster than they would, ... well... that author's name. Not sure if that is even remotely relevant to anything, though. John Carter (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Timestamped version of criteria

This is to MoP, the recall clerk. Would you consider please using a timestamped version of User:Lar/Accountability?? I suggest this version: (the 22 Oct version, latest before the process here started) because if you peruse User_talk:Lar/Accountability you'll see I've gotten 2 requests/suggestions for possible changes/elaborations, both of which are ones I think seriously ought to be taken on board in some form or another, but I've held off because I don't want to affect anything about Sarek's process while it's underway. I suppose I could just wait a bit longer (til the 5 days are up, because right now it looks like the petition won't succeed, for lack of sufficient certified users) but it might be a good approach to do the timestamping anyway if only as an example for future readers. In fact I think I will suggest it in the criteria themselves. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My criteria point to a timestamped version of yours, so go ahead and make your changes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see... it's this page that doesn't point to the timestamped version, I think. I'll go ahead and make that change here (pointing to the same version you did, ... the Aug 20 09 version, and if MoP thinks that's wrong he can revert me. Thanks for the clarification! ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed, and no, that's OK lar. :) Master of Puppets 17:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)