User:Looie496/Recall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My recall procedure. (Note: This is a copy-paste of User:MBisanz/Recall, with modifications of aspects that do not apply to me.)

Ground rules[edit]

So let's get some ground rules down:

  • Filer = User not under editing restrictions with at least 200 edits.
  • Administrator in good standing = 1,500+ edits, 6+ months experience, no blocks in last 6 months, not under editing restrictions.
  • One recall request per incident.
  • One recall request per editor per year.
  • If you don't like these ground rules, there are WP:AN, WP:ARBCOM, WP:RFC and Jimbo who can review my actions and act accordingly.
  • Only actions that involve my use of an administrative function (something an auto-confirmed user/rollbacker couldn't do) are grounds for a recall. There are plenty of noticeboards to handle other actions as well as User Conduct RfCs.
  • This process is an optional, expedited process, the above forums may be used in place of it, at the filer's discretion.
  • If I am "recalled" I will either resign my adminship or re-stand for RFA, the choice of which option shall be mine.
  • The clerk selected will manage the technical page formatting aspects and interpret the close of the recall.

Can I file a recall request?[edit]

If you answered yes to all of the above statements, you may file a recall request. Please see a clerk for further help.

Can I agree with a filed recall request?[edit]

If you answered yes to all of the above statements, you may agree with a filed recall request. Please see a clerk for further help.

Procedure[edit]

  1. A user who wishes to initiate a recall proceeding shall sign in the space below, add a short summary of what they are basing the recall request on (must be less than 1,000 words and 100 diffs), and place an "X" in the check boxes of the administrative power(s) abused.
  2. They must notify me on my talk page User talk:Looie496 of the initiation of recall. (The order of steps 1 and 2 may be reversed at filer's discretion).
  3. They must select a clerk from the list below and notify the clerk of the recall. There will be one clerk and only one clerk per recall request, selected from the list below, by the filer.
  4. The clerk will then notify appropriate forums of the recall, starting the clock ticking (These will include WP:AN, WP:BN, and WP:RFA).
  5. The recall will last 48 hours, extendable at the clerk's discretion to a maximum of 96 hours.
  6. If 5 administrators in good standing (in addition to the original filer) sign that they request recall, then the recall will be considered to have passed. I will either re-stand for WP:RFA or resign adminship.
  7. If procedure six does not occur, the recall will close with no further action occurring in this forum. Again, all the above forums remain available.

Clerks[edit]

Please use an (X) to indicate the individual selected to clerk the recall.

Filer section[edit]

Filer identity[edit]

Dusti*poke* 19:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Filer statement[edit]

In a post here, This sysop has stated that he is unblocking an individual that was under discussion at ANI. There were NINE oppositions to unblocking the user in a previous discussion immediately above Looie's post, and there was a seeming conensus on not unblocking User:ActuallyRationalThinker. Looie clearly disregarded community consensus and I am requesting an immediate recall of his sysop flag. Dusti*poke* 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


Amendments[edit]

Power(s) abused[edit]

Check the (x) for the admin action(s) abused:

Five administrators who agree with filer[edit]

  1. I have the time to write this up now, but won't later, so I'm parking here pending a statement from Looie496. I'm comfortable with this approach despite my earlier post on the talk page because, looking through the diffs in more detail, he/she has had quite some time to make that statement, and was prompted to do so, but hasn't yet. What I see here is (a) knowingly using administrative tools in a way that was contrary to a clear community consensus; (b) knowingly using administrative tools to unblock a user during an active discussion about whether the user should be unblocked; (c) so far, a refusal to acknowledge the problem with (a) and (b). It was exacerbated because of the wheel-warring rule which prohibited any administrator from reverting the unblock. In my view, this is as grave a misuse of administrative tools as they come. Much of the opposition to this recall is on the basis that it was an "error" or a "one-off" incident. They're not good enough explanations, in my view. First, it was not an error, it was done knowingly and deliberately. Secondly, we can only sweep aside one-off incidents if we are confident they won't be repeated. So I'd be happy to withdraw this endorsement if Looie gives a satisfactory statement in this respect. No-one has a right to hold administrative tools: the onus should be on the administrator to demonstrate they should keep the tools. Had the community been aware of Looie496's proclivity towards taking such an action at the time of his/her RfA, clearly the direction of that RfA would have been different. I'm not calling for desysopping (nor am I calling for retention as a sysop; I'm neutral). But unless we can be confident that it won't happen again, the community -- not a small cadre of admins -- needs to reconsider whether Looie496 should hold the tools.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    Now that Looie496 has made a statement, I'm obliged to reconsider. And I'm staying here. The statement indicates: (1) Looie496 acted in accordance with his own opinion on the justification of an indefinite block, knowingly contrary to the community's view, which it appears he/she readily dismisses as being susceptible to "emotion"; and (2) Looie496 acted because of what he/she perceives, rightly or wrongly, as a fault in our processes. I don't think it is acceptable to do either of these things. Perhaps it would have been better if there was discussion before the original block, but that doesn't absolve responsibilty for the unilateral unblocking. Given the same situation in the future, it appears that Looie496 would do exactly the same thing again. So the community should reconsider adminship. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. Mkativerata makes persuasive points above. I was originally minded not to agree with the recall (and would still !vote to keep Louie496 if an RfA results.) But in addition to the points Mkativerata makes I am uncomfortable with it being admins only who decide on whether this recall should happen. I believe all editors should have a say on this, and if a voluntary RfA is the way forward, so be it. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    I'm comfortable signing on here. Looie496 ignored community consensus and then declared he was uninterested in discussing his actions. Admins do not get a super vote. AniMate 23:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Upon reflection, I think this is overkill. This is a relatively new admins first major mistake. Granted it was a doozy, but I don't think it will happen again. I think all administrators should be open to recall in order to be held accountable, but I don't think one bad call should trigger this process. I wish Looie496 had been more open to discussing his action, which I think is the biggest problem here. Finally, I would just like to add that any admin willing to sign on here should also add themselves to Category:Administrators open to recall. AniMate 20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. Per [3].  Sandstein  23:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  4. His statement indicates a wilful ignoring of consensus, and leaves me no confidence he would not take the same steps again, in a similar situation. There were a lot of chances to say something that would have made this entire process moot and we could have moved on. I also don't like this "admin-only" process, as it separates admins as somehow different than everyone else. Should go back to the community, instead of being an admin-only decision. (For the record, I don't know how I'd vote at the second RFA, but I believe one should happen- or a process open to all editors should be opened.) Courcelles 00:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  5. Per Courcelles. Picking such a block to be your 11th unblock despite the consensus of a community which has reviewed thousands was unwise and the wider community should have a chance to comment on whether they still trust you, so I'm going to stick my sig here in case any of the admins above change their minds. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Overflow[edit]

If you are an administrator who agrees with the filer but there are already five administrators above, feel free to list yourself here. Administrators in this section will be moved into the above section in the event of one of the five administrators striking their support

  1. I'm forced to concur with my esteemed colleagues, above. I'm all for admins who disagree with the community - Lord knows we do some awful stupid things as a community. But you make a good argument, you stand for the blocked user, and you advocate. You don't unblock in the face of overwhelming consensus to keep them blocked. I think Looie496 has been doing good work, and it's possible, perhaps likely, that I would support them in the upcoming RFA - so it bothers me to see this. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Looie496/Recall&oldid=1140398185"