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)