Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2

Who can and who can't comment

What is the rational for the no admin voting request? Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the same point: not that I'm particularly interested (at present) in indicating my views in any section of the discussion, but why does Herostratus assume that admins, if not "prevented" from doing so by him, would support him? And is this request to admins to stay clear of the discussion any more valid than a request to non-admins to steer clear would be, e.g. on the grounds that non-admins can't understand what it's like? If the request is valid and enforceable, it would have the intriguing result that those who wish to read the BLP AFD for themselves cannot participate, and those who can participate cannot read the material for themselves... Bencherlite ^Talk 15:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we've seen in the past, recall is a voluntary, and ultimately unenforceable, process that the admin being recalled can direct at their whim. By the same token, the candidate's request for admins to recuse from the page is probably unenforceable as well. FYI, though I added the pagenotice, that doesn't mean I endorse the request or even endorse this process in-and-of-itself (nor do I intend to close it). Just facilitating. –xeno^talk 15:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC) [comments not made in a bureaucratic capacity][reply]

It is enforceable. It's a wiki. I or any editor can remove comments. As to the rest...well, I want to evenhanded and fair. I don't know if admins would be tempted to prevent the setting a precedent here ("There but for the grace of God go I"), but isn't it possible? Given human nature and all? How about if said "Admins may vote/comment, but only in the Oppose section"? Would that be OK? Should I do that? It would seem an odd thing to do, though. As for the BLP AfD, allowing some commentors to read it and some not seems even worse; at least now everyone's on the same level. And I did provide an abstract, granted this is my version. Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request from Hero that Administrators not be able to vote on the assumption that they will all vote for him is just imo another example of bad judgment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, thats a bit like the reasoning used in Inquisitions: if the accused confessed to heresy then they were burnt at the stake, and if the accused refused to confess their heresy they were also burned at the stake. Not to say this is a kangaroo court or anything, but please don't mistake possibly misguided attempts to prevent bias with deliberate bad faith. Syrthiss (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see things differently. There is brought up, from time to time, a perception that admins join together to defend each other. I think it comes up often enough that, whether or not it is true, there may well be a desire by admins to prove it's not true by doing just the opposite in a case like this. The fact that he's willing to stand for reconfirmation is amazing; asking only a few hundred out of many thousands of users not to participate appears to be part of his right to set the rules for the reconfirmation. Perhaps if you would prefer admins not have the right to set their own rules, we should find another way, such as the automatic reconfirmations that everyone seems to think would be impossible to achieve.--~T P W 16:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be only a few hundred active users, but admins form a high proportion of those who generally participate in RfAs. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page is listed as a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Has there been a recent change to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship which prohibits a certain class of user from participating at RFAs? -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a recall RFA so the candidate can presumably set the rules. But I share your concern: it's rather unwiki and the presumption is probably at least somewhat misguided. I've just deleted the pagenotice because I do not want to give the impression that I endorse the request that admins recuse. Candidate may, of course, recreate it themselves, I've left the code in a hidden comment. –xeno^talk 16:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC) [comments not made in a bureaucratic capacity][reply]

I do not think it would be appropriate for that to be added as a page notice. Page notices can only be edited by admins, and it implies an endorsement of a unwiki action which flies against WP:RFA process. -- Cirt (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. –xeno^talk 16:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC) [comments not made in a bureaucratic capacity][reply]

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll run for adminship and request that no one who would oppose me can participate. (of course we all know I'd be likely to unanimously pass anyway :) ) Keepscases (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, Keepscases has a very astute comment here. -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous, although out of deference I have not commented on the "RFA" pending some resolution of this thread. As I just stated elsewhere, shall we ask anyone who has +rollback to abstain from discussing a rollback removal at ANI? By logical extension how about anyone with edit rights should not be allowed to discuss blocks? Pedro : Chat 20:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it anyone can and should vote comment. Administrators have now vote commented in both positions.Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept that the initiator of a recall RfA gets to set the rules. At the extreme, one could write that only those in support are allowed to contribute, which would obviously be a mockery of the process. I see two acceptable possibilities and one action that should be undertaken:

One could put forth an argument why sysop votes might be inappropriate, and let each individual sysop weigh the argument and act accordingly
One could put forth an argument why sysop votes might be inappropriate, and urge the closing 'crat to give no weight to sysop contributions, at which time the 'crat can decide whether the argument is valid

My second point leads to a question - it is a 'crat function to close traditional Rfas; has there been any discussion about whether this process is just another RfA, or whether they ought to have a little chat to think though whatever issues might occur to them, as this will set a precedent.--SPhilbrick T 21:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see both sides of this discussion. It's very unconventional and arguably very undesirable for a candidate to decide who can and cannot !vote at RFA. But, the counterargument is that this isn't an RFA, even though RFA is hosting it. This is a reconfirmation process to which Herostratus has voluntarily submitted and according to our current rules, he's allowed to control the terms on which this discussion is conducted. After all, the purpose of the process is to determine whether Herostratus should voluntarily resign, and we should see that this is ultimately a decision for him that he makes of his own free will on the basis of his own principles. That's not to say that I agree with Herostratus—I don't, and I think admins should be permitted to !vote. I'm saying that I think Herostratus might be wrong, but I will argue for his right to be wrong about this.—S Marshall T/C 21:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire premise of voluntary recall only seems to exist because those admins can write their own rules. I guess it's the best we can deal with until we get consensus for a more consistent process.--~T P W 21:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thought

If I pop over to meta, get a desysop, comment here, pop over to BN and get resysopped does my vote count? Hero seems to think that admins might club together to protect one of their own (and I can think of many editors who might agree with that assertion to be fair). Unfortunately it is misguided in the extreme to think *all* admins club together. I personally find Hero's breathtaking arrogance/ignorance/hubris in this matter worthy of an oppose - the actual reasons behind all of this whole process being somewhat secondary (although no less important). Pedro : Chat 22:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worked for me. – iride scent 22:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zackly so, Pedro. The more I see of this, the more I dislike it. To my knowledge, I have had no contact with Herostratus, but the idea that admins should be excluded from voting on a reconfirmation, perhaps on the basis that they might support him, seems to me to be a breathtaking and offensive misjudgement. It's not about a cabal of admins, it's about basic confidence in abilities and judgement, and I can see the way this is going already. Rodhull andemu 23:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it a different way. He is under no obligation to go through this process. The finding could be 100-0 against him and he would be perfectly free to ignore it. If he is not interested in the input of admins for an optional process, then that is his prerogative. --B (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two levels here; there is no obligation even to have recall criteria, and I personally don't have any, because I could easily game the system to set up those criteria such that they would be impossible to satisfy, and so I regard that as a broken process, and I think I made that plain during my own RfA. However, once you set up a recall process, and it is satisfied, however weak the criteria, you voluntarily submit to a new RfA, in my view. That's the honourable thing to do. Second level is that once a reconfirmation RfA goes against you, it is also honourable to resign the mop, although there is no superior mechanism for doing so. In any case, it should be implicit in a reconfirmation RfA that you should perhaps resign the mop and are re-seek it; that, to me, seems to be the appropriate process, otherwise it's "back me or sack me, but if you do neither, nothing will happen". That's an utter waste of time, and should be castigated as such. Rodhull andemu 00:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree Rod. Whilst B is right, that he could ignore the outcome, to do so would be (in Rod's words) dishounourable. Further, adminship is based on trust and I can't possibly see how he could use the tools without that trust. Having said all that, and to be fair to the "candidate", I don't get the impression Hero would ignore the result - looking at his opening statement he would do the right thing if it went against him. Pedro : Chat 07:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other then a few fuck ups, Hero's behavior in this has been very honorable and admirable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we ignore his treatment of LP's--Cube lurker (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the rercord I, an admin, have !voted in this RfA. So have other admins, on both sides of the question. What has not been decided, and IMHO should have been decided before before this started, is on what basis a 'crat can decide consensus. An ordinary RfA needs, subject to 'crat discrimination, around 70% support. Jimbo, whose opinion must carry some weight, suggests that de-sysopp needs 70% agreement. These two figures are wholly irreconcilable. So do we now !vote on the percentage needed, pass it to ArbCom, ask Jimbo, ignore the whole thing and leave it to Herostratus to evaluate his support, or what?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Just FYI, the request for admins to recuse was struck). I've placed some thoughts on reconfirmation RFAs here. –xeno^talk 19:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the pretence? We all know how it will end up. Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might, but I don't (so "We all" clearly don't). At first, I thought he'd survive it. Then for a while it looked like he would go down in flames. Now it looks like he'll survive it again, but it's clearly ... not clear. --GRuban (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When have you ever seen this kind of farce end in anything other than the administrator walking away? Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three times. But I'm an old timer. :-) Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests:

Admin: Crzrussian; Request: made 7 August 2006; Result: Successful; threshold met. Crzrussian chose to resign rather than seek immediate reconfirmation.
Admin: Durova Request: begun 21 November 2007; Result: Following recall requests made at her talk page, at AN/I, and in an RfC, together with escalation of the root issue to ArbComm, Durova resigned her adminship.
Admin: Mercury Request: begun 10 December 2007. Result: Recall was brought up on user talk. Mercury removed himself from the category, then later reconsidered and agreed to the recall proceedings. After the recall petition was certified and the recall RFC started, Mercury removed himself from the category again and declared the RFC closed. The next day Mercury requested that his bit be removed.

--GRuban (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

other issues

The joke - I will post links later but basically User:Herostratus posted a comment on his talkpage allegedly from his parents that he was not going to be allowed to edit wikipedia anymore. The joke resulted in another Admin blocking his account which Herostratus then unblocked himself, (I was only joking) the issue went to Arbcom and he was reprimanded. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the Arbitration Committee as an entity did not block Herostratus, nor did it recommend, request or advocate to any administrator or arbitrator that Herostratus be blocked, for that joke, or for any other issue. Risker (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The wording by ArbCom was: "For failing to adhere to the standard of decorum expected of administrators, and for unblocking himself in direct contravention of blocking policy, Herostratus is strongly admonished.". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. The Arbitration Committee also admonished the blocking administrator. Risker (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were both admonished, but the issue would never have even arisen if it wasn't for the creation of the situation by User:Herostratus. User is attracting drama and such users do not imo make good administrators and we would not be here if it wasn't for some dubious decisions from this user. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sense of humor is something I'm still mulling over. I am not offended by the sense of humor, and even though I restrain myself on this site, I'm prone to rather dry humor myself. This is the internet, though, and people missing jokes is nothing new (something about body language, tone of voice, context, that sort of thing). Admins need to be able to get the point across, even through barriers of language, maturity, and technical expertise, and Hero seems reluctant to set aside his wit for that purpose. I suspect that Wikipedia is more humorless than when he was first appointed.--~T P W 13:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The userfication of articles without request from users

There was also another recent issues (diff to come) where Herostratus userfyed an article that was tagged as a copy vio, there was no request from the user to userfy and Herostratus removed the copy vio thinking if it was in user talk space the copy vio did not matter. This created a small edit war after other experienced users replaced the copy vio template and the creator of the article removed it again, the article has since been deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for diffs (it has been deleted) for this specific issue, but the userfication without request is demonstrated as in diffs like this , user Herostratus userfyed this imo speedy delete issues , I can not see any request to do it and the new user who used his only four edits to create the stub didn't ask for it userfied and has not edited the stub and now it sits there apparently unrequested and appearing to be unwanted, userfyed by user Herostratus. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your vendetta against Herostratus is becoming slightly tedious, and to be honest you're starting to look obsessive and desparate. There's nothing wrong with userfying an article without a direct request. Big Dom 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay civil User:BigDom, your accusation that my actions and comments here are representative of any alleged vendetta is imo a blockable offence as a personal attack, additionally you continue with the attack by claiming I am desperate and obsessive, both of which are also uncivil and you should attempt to present your case a bit more politely. Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a blockable offence I'd have been blocked more times than you've had hot dinners. I used to be "civil" and polite but the more I see things like this, the more I just can't be bothered with the whole wiki. What you're trying to say is that you're allowed to utterly devastate the reputation of an editor who has done very little wrong, but nevertheless has admitted his shortcomings, because you're doing it urbanely. But anyone who dares to make any defence of this man should be blocked? Sounds reasonable. Big Dom 07:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying I have lost the trust of this user to be an Administrator is not to utterly devastate his reputation. You and anyone else are more than welcome to defend him, just please do it without wild accusations against users, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I think you're looking for User:Mg1200/My Hustle, with relevant entries in the history being (for the benefit of non-admins):

06:00, 15 June 2010 Herostratus (talk | contribs | block) moved My Hustle to User:Mg1200/My Hustle [without redirect] ‎ (Userfuy copyvio material)
06:03, 15 June 2010 Herostratus (talk | contribs | block) (4,493 bytes) (since its in userspace, it ok to remove copyvio tag. right? i hope so)

I found this fairly quickly through looking at Herostratus's log for moves. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a stupid rookie mistake. An Oppose vote on that grounds is valid (although overly harsh in my opinion, but I'm biased I guess). I'm supposed to know better. The situation was 1) Someone tagged an article as copyvio, but without specifying what the source was was, and 2) the source was not on the web, as far as I could tell, and 3) I didn't think it was a copyvio, although I couldn't prove it. I'm still not sure what to do in situations like that; I'm looking it up now. But if I didn't do anything, the article would have been speedily deleted, probably. I hate to see someone's hard work thrown away without discussion. That is not the way to attract new editors. So my heart was in the right place in this case, but my brain wasn't. Herostratus (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The tag used was {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.hiphoppress.com/2010/06/goldfinch-films-presents-new-york-city-screening-of-the-new-documentary-my-hustle-hosted-by-televisi.html and others}} so did specify what the alleged copyright source was. As is clear from the edit summary from the article's creation, that tag was present from the start, because the original author had obviously saved a copy of the wiki-markup of the article (including the speedy delete tag) before it was deleted by CactusWriter (talk · contribs) first time round for being a copyvio. So I don't see how your first point can possibly be right. (2) That url is working today, although obviously I don't know whether it was working on 15 June; however, I'm not sure whether you're saying in your second point that you actually checked that url or not before taking the steps that you did. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from admins

Since I guess we're not supposed to !vote, I'll say my bit here. As I said in the recall petition, if Herostratus had at any point in time realized he was wrong and said so, I would be his strongest supporter. People make mistakes. We're people - not bots. But his comments about the BLP subject really were not appropriate and on this, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect. I find this proposal to be frankly rather scary as it would roll back one of the strides we have made to try and reduce the amount of libel on Wikipedia. --B (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really the wrong forum for my response, but I'm going to agree with Hero on that. If I say "George Bush is an idiot, he was the worst president ever" during a discussion on, say, Talk:2003 Invasion of Iraq, should that really be deleted as a BLP vio, as opposed to being chastised as unhelpful? Furthermore, if I say "I hardly think X counts as a reliable source on propensity to commit crime by race, he's made some pretty racist remarks in the past", is that too a BLP vio? It's one thing to keep accusations like that off of article space, it's quite another to keep it off talk pages. The rationale behind BLP policy is partly to protect the project from legal liability. The talk page is, however, quite clearly a forum, and the views expressed therein are quite clearly those of the individual editors and not the project. US and international law absolves forums of legal responsibility for what their users say and do. I think this is a pretty big over-reach of BLP and is ultimately harmful to the project. As to the matter at hand, I think Hero showed good judgement on the asking of that particular question, if not great knowledge of BLP. I'm inclined to support him on that matter. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I invokd WP:IAR and !voted anyway. Admins are editors too, aren't they? Obviously Support because he's a fellow admin would not be a valid reason to vote, but I don't see why one's editing priviliges should prevent one from voting here. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse

As far as I see it, RFA was not made as a vehicle for admin removal. Granted, it's Herostratus' recall procedure, but I foresee a very, very bad precedent in allowing this to continue. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page, Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall, leads to what it refers to as "a default procedure and set of criteria", which states, "The venue for re-confirmation is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Following a successful recall petition, the admin submits a new RfA, making clear that if it fails, they will resign. (At the admin's discretion, they can resign first and submit a new RfA at their own convenience.) The standard for the RfA, just as for any RfA, is community consensus: if the user has consensus to remain an admin, the RfA is successful; if they lack such consensus, it is unsuccessful. Admins who resign during or as the result of a recall process are considered to have done so "under a cloud" and should re-apply at RfA to regain adminship." Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much in agreement with Bibliomaniac. I have been trying to make this point at WP:BN#Herostratus' "recall" RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole process is, for better or worse, described as being "entirely voluntary" — even to the extent that "Administrators are free to change their recall criteria at any time, to decline participation in the process despite having previously agreed to be open to recall, or to disregard the outcome of any recall proceedings." I believe we would be far better served by some uniform, mandatory procedure, established in advance by consensus, and applying to all admins, past and future, and without any right to opt out.

However, at the same time, I do not like the idea of taking the mop away from someone who fails to continuously maintain the same extremely high level of support (what is it now? 75%? 80%?) that they needed on their original RfA. Admins are sometimes going to make unpopular (even if correct, or at least arguably justifiable) decisions and will inevitably antagonize some users — just by the nature of the position. I would not favour a mandatory recall process unless the rule were that there would have to be a broad consensus to take away the mop (i.e., the subject of a recall would keep the sysop bit unless a large majority, well over 50%, were opposed). Richwales (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Richwales: In this case, at present, over 50% are opposed. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe we should make it something like 60-70% need to oppose. That way, the people with personal vendettas against whatever admin (in this case Herostratus) would not be the primary vehicle for desysopping. That'd be fairly similar to the "broad consensus" needed to gain admin status, but not quite as stringent. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Well, it is now at 60% oppose. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a mandatory process is that admins who are active in unpopular areas (like deleting improperly used fair use images) can easily attract a vocal crowd of people who would love to have them desysoped, even if they are doing everything right. For a mandatory process to work, it needs to be an impartial jury, not a quorum of whoever shows up. Unfortunately, you almost have to block Jimbo for the impartial jury that we have (arbcom) to take action. For this RFA, I don't know that you can set an exact percentage - it's a judgment call based on the reasons given for the !votes. Are the supports convinced he should be an admin or are they just not wanting to remove someone for an action that doesn't involve the tools? Are the opposes opposing for a good reason or is it because he deleted their image? --B (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above concerns are similar to what people would say if the American president was subject to removal if his approval rating fell below 50%. No president would last a month. That's why the American "impeachment" process is supposed to be limited, i.e., to "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," not calling someone a "mook," and once impeached, it requires a 2/3rd majority of the U.S. Senate to convict and remove from office. What's going on now seems to be requiring the admin to be re-elected every time, which means any admin open to recall will never be able to do the dirty work that admins have to do. The RFA is less then 24 hours old though, there's time to ruminate.--Milowent (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunately, you almost have to block Jimbo for the impartial jury that we have (arbcom) to take action." You forgot the "or attempt to enforce neutrality on Eastern Europe articles." That gets them to act, too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of my main problems with this RfA is that its underlying question is not well posed and, consequently, it is really unclear what exactly the participants are supporting/opposing. The nominating statement phrases the issue as a "recall RfA", where, presumably, the basic underlying question is: "Should the admin under consideration be stripped off his admin powers?" It is clear that quite a few of the support !voters understand the underlying question in this way, since some of the supports are based on the argument that Hero's misuse of admin tools was not sufficiently severe to merit desysopping. Some other participants, mainly quite a few in the oppose column, appear to view this as an essentially de novo RfA, where the main question is: "Should the candidate be granted admin powers?" I think this applies to some of the opposers who argue that, under the current standards, the candidate would not be granted admin tools if he run a new RfA from scratch (without having been an admin or after resigning). I don't think that, given this lack of clarity about the question being asked, it is possible to evaluate the consensus of the RfA's outcome in any meaningful way. Plus, if we were to view the basic question of this RfA as that of desysopping, there are currently no agreed upon standards of how to evaluate consensus in such cases. That is one of the reasons why a recent extensive RfC on requests for de-adminship was closed as no consensus. So it is really unclear how a "pass"/"fail" outcome could be reasonably determined at the RfA's closure. Nsk92 (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that most (probably all) !voters are understanding the question as "Should this admin keep his admin powers?" When I looked at the !votes just now, it appeared to me that all "supporters" want Herostratus to keep the mop, and all "opponents" want him to lose the mop. You do have a point that the question might be unclear in general, and I would agree that more clearly labelling exactly what "support" and "oppose" mean in this case couldn't hurt and might help. But I don't think it's a process-invalidating issue in this case. In any event, the bureaucrats evaluating this recall will presumably read everyone's reasons and should be able to catch any instances of this sort of confusion.

I've already explained that I personally think a recall ought to fail unless there is a clear consensus for revoking adminship. And I agree with B that people's reasons for their !vote should be more important than the raw numbers of !votes — i.e., that it really should be a !vote and not a vote. But that's my opinion, and clearly there are other people who feel differently, and that's OK. Richwales (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your interpretation of the underlying question as that of desysopping is correct, then there is no reasonable way to evaluate consensus of its outcome. Earlier this year there has been an extensive RfC regarding this Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC, which was closed as no consensus, particularly because there was no agreement on how to evaluate consensus in de-adminship requests. Nsk92 (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this recall was closed just now, "with no result determined", on the grounds that the issue is one of user conduct and not a proper subject of a recall. Richwales (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it was closed because all recall issues are regarding admin conduct, and therefore the correct venue for discussion is WP:RFC/U per the WP:DR policy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, open to recall is even more so the joke it was assumed to be. Every editor is "open to RFCU" whether they accept it or not. Good to know. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This was just trying to create more process for process' sake when there was no real reason for the additional process (meaning it did nothing which already couldn't be done at WP:RFC/U, and was kludgier to boot). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly it looks rather cabalistic. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being paranoid. Despite it usually being tongue-in-cheek, it's actually true: there is no cabal. Stop looking for secret handshakes where there are none. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 00:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that an admin can agree to resign, and then submit himself to a new RFA. But what Nihonjoe is pointing out is that you can't have a "recall" under a new RFA for a current admin. It would be far from the first time that someone comes up with "rules" that can't actually be implemented without violating higher order rules. In Herostratus' case, he never agreed to resign based only on a six-editor recall petition. The rules were flawed six ways to Sunday without this extra one anyway, because Herostratus could have withdrawn from the recall process at any time for any reason.--Milowent (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are we saying that we might as well just forget about the "recall" idea, and rely instead on WP:RFC/U (with "agree to relinquish adminship" specified as a desired outcome) or arbitration to handle cases where an admin's behaviour is "unbecoming" and they really ought to give up the mop or have it taken away? Richwales (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I was disappointed that this was closed early. Herostratus was not forced into using RFA as his recall venue; that was his choice, just as it was LHvU's choice to use RFA when he decided to go through a binding reconfirmation RFA. I have never seen any rule against using RFA for recall procedures, and closing this clearly failing one as "wrong venue" gives the impression of one editor overriding community consensus at best. NW (Talk) 06:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much with NW on this, and I think it's surprising and disappointing that a process Herostratus initiated himself was stopped cold in that way.—S Marshall T/C 06:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I reverted the close due to how grossly and fundementally incorrect/inappropriate it was. For the reasons, see here and at the AOR talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It did seem rather stringent and inflexible, however that's what bureaucrats do. I'm curious to know how Nihonjoe feels about Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats open to recall. -- œ ^™ 07:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on that category. My main beef with all of this is people touting admin recall as being supported by existing policy and/or guidelines when it very clear that it is not. I also have concerns about using a venue for requesting adminship (WP:RFA) to ask whether they've been bad and should have it taken away. That's very clearly the kind of thing that WP:RFC/U was designed for: discussion of the actions of an editor (in this case an admin) where some people are seriously concerned about apparent ongoing issues with those actions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some philosophical thoughts

This case shows clearly that the current situation is flawed to a significant degree, and certainly lacks clarity. I think I can identify some strands of consensus emerging from the discussion, particularly if I state things relatively "loosely".

1. There is broad support for the idea that admins need not keep the same high level of popularity that was necessary to originally become an admin. Some admins work in areas where even very good work is likely to generate dissatisfaction, and all admins may be called upon in the course of their normal activities to take actions which may be either broadly unpopular at that time, or extremely unpopular with a vocal minority. In order to be able to make tough calls from time to time, it shouldn't be very easy to lose the admin bit.

2. The ArbCom does desysop people, but generally for only fairly egregious matters. An admin who, over time, has simply not be doing a good job, but not so awful as to land before ArbCom, is currently in a gray area which may be problematic. The current voluntary recall process, such as it is, has been a grass roots effort to fill the gap. It is not clear that it is successful at doing so, perhaps due to the entirely arbitrary and voluntary nature of it.

3. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be a sensible thing to try to do, to write a new policy, have a big poll on it in the old fashioned way, and attempt to get very broad consensus which I could then endorse as policy. Because an admin recall process is a fairly major constitutional change, I think we do need the checks and balances of a full discussion and vote and formal declaration at the end of the process.

A reasonable policy would have the following features, or similar:

1. Resistant to gaming by a small number of people - i.e. an Administrator recall process shouldn't be something that we get pestered with every time 6 people are mad at someone.

2. Not a requirement of a de novo RfA - instead of requiring consensus to confirm again as admin, we should require consensus to fail to confirm.

3. Ideally, there could be a default "baseline" level for those two numbers - say, 20 people to call for a recall within a one week window, and 70% votes for removal. These levels would be mandatory for all. But admins who want to be particularly responsive to popular opinion could voluntarily specify - in advance - lower numbers for both.

4. For the same reason that we need the process of removal to be somewhat difficult for ordinary admins (so they can have the courage to take difficult decisions) we really need to exempt sitting members of ArbCom from the process altogether. That's not to say that sitting members of ArbCom can't be desysopped, but that they shouldn't be subject to popular recall as admins while sitting as members of ArbCom. There should, perhaps, be a process for ArbCom recall votes, but that's a very complex subject for another day.

It is not clear to me that we can write a policy that gains broad consensus. But if we can, I support the idea in principle.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about the whole admin recall thing for a while, through various discussions that have taken place, and my main fear is exactly the same - that being open to recall also means being open to gaming (especially as there seems to be a small minority who appear to be anti-admin and will jump on any excuse to criticize them), and it can be a barrier to admins making necessary tough decisions. In fact, I think it takes the best admins to make tough decisions, and I've seen a few where I've thought "If I were an admin, I wouldn't touch this one, cos it's going to piss off a lot of people whichever way it goes" - and the admins with the skill and courage to make the tough decisions are precisely the ones most at risk from unfair/gamed/vindictive recall. (Having said that, though, I don't think this current case is in that league at all - it looks like a simple case of alleged unprovoked BLP abuse) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is desysopping seen as a big deal? Because becoming a sysop is seen as a big deal. Why so? Because we view it as a promotion. Sysopping is, in effect, a dirty great big barnstar. Therefore desysopping is seen as a punishment. And because of the vote-like structure of RFA, we've turned adminship into a political position when it ought to be a custodial one. Part of the reason RFA is so hard to pass is because people are reluctant to support when getting rid of a bad sysop is so hard. But then the fact that RFA is hard to pass makes desysopping seem more extreme.
If it were up to me, I would unbundle the sysop rights into three groups, so that we can have a group of people whose only authority is to block and resolve conduct disputes. They would be appointed, overseen and de-appointed by a committee, and it's the committee who would be elected by a RFA-like process. As a separate usergroup we would have people who delete, and can therefore view deleted contributions, again appointed by a committee, with the committee elected by a RFA-like process. And then above them we'd have the checkusers and oversighters and arbs who oversee the committees.
The result I intend is that "administrator" would cease to be a political post, and therefore would be able to take unpopular actions without regard to concerns about subsequent desysopping, and we could concentrate the drama and politics around the "commissioners". But the benefit is that there would then be (a) more people using the tools in a well-supervised way and (b) a workable desysopping process.
No idea how to get there from here, though.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested this before, and got very firmly sat upon. But really, you need different skills to (say) identify and handle copyvios, or delete speedy/prod candidates/close AfDs, than you do to handle conduct disputes. At the same time though, the argument advanced previously was that an admin who deals with nothing but images still needs to be able to block serial copyright violators. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem rational to me. An admin who deals with nothing but images needs to be able to refer serial copyright violators to someone who can block, surely... or could apply for both userrights. More immediately relevant to this, though, is: to deal with this immediate problem we could keep the current structure for electing admins, but also elect commissioners who would have responsibility for supervising what admins do. In order to be effective they would need the technical power to desysop and a community mandate to use it.—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how introducing new votes and bureaucracies will help depoliticize the situation. I think Jimbo is on the right track, but what is needed is a rethinking and overhaul of the entire admin system. If we change things piecemeal, we run into the problem you identified. People won't vote for a system that makes desysopping easier, because RfA is so hard. People won't vote for a separate system that makes RfA easier, because desysopping is so hard, and we have a few very visible, very polarizing admins out there. The last thing we need is more.

The solution, to me, is to reform both systems simultaneously. That way we don't run into either problem, and people can vote based upon how the system would work in total, with all of the necessary interactions. Not only does this make getting anything passed more likely, but developing the sysopping and desysopping systems side-by-side is likely to make both better. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with this thought (sorry for posting out of sequence - but it's getting hard to see who is responding to what). In my post below I tried to demonstrate how I see these 2 issues as inextricably linked, and they are. It needs to be easier to create admins, and easier to remove them - and the 2 things go hand in hand. It's telling that the opening post in this section refers to the same high level of popularity regarding RFAs, and in my opinion this betrays the problem. RFA shouldn't be a popularity contest - it should be an assessment of competence and suitability. I'm not saying I have the solution to this - but I'm damn sure there are enough astute minds in the community to come up with one, given the will and the support. The hard part will be preventing the process from becoming derailed, because unless interest can be generated in a wider audience the tendency will be for inertia to win the day. - Begoon (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think there'll never be a better time than now, when minds are focused on the problems of community de-adminship.
The "Commissioner" idea is not a good idea. I only embrace it because it seems like a less bad idea than our current process. My view is that the community should not be voting to remove admins, for the same reason that the real life community doesn't get to vote to remove police officers; and the community should not be electing admins either, for the same reason that the real life community doesn't get to elect police officers. Adminship should be appointed and removed by a small committee of trusted users ("commissioners") and it's the commissioners who're elected. Commissioners would have a specific brief to oversee administrative actions, but not in a judicial paradigm (I don't want to create a mini-arbcom). Instead of judges, they're managers with the power to hire and fire, so they make business decisions on the basis of the community's needs, not quasi-legal decisions on the basis of drawn-out advocacy.
This would replace RFA, community de-adminship, and an important bureaucrat function, so I don't think it can be done at a single stroke; it's simply too ambitious. One thing at a time, and I think the first step is to seek consensus for the formation of a "commissioners' committee" of users that supervise admins.—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see with that is that to a degree you've just moved the problem back a level. Under your new scenario what happens when the commissioners won't remove an admin when petitioned to do so by the community? Assuming this is a fixed term appointment I guess that commissioner just doesn't get re-elected? This, in my opinion, is adding a possibly unnecessary bureaucratic level.

Much simpler, surely, to make it easier to elect admins to fixed terms, and easier to remove them by not re-electing? I know the argument will come forward that this introduces a massive number of new RFAs every year - and that would indeed be a problem if RFA continued to be, as I saw it described recently, like a confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court Judge. However, since this whole change brings admin status back towards not being a "big deal", you need to accompany it with a more streamlined, shorter RFA process. This shouldn't be a huge problem, because you're no longer appointing an admin effectively for life. And yes, I know the idea counts as a "perennial" and hardly new - but not all of those are wrong just because they've been deemed too hard and dismissed. - Begoon (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no job that can get you hated more than being a member of the Arbcom, and yet in the last election, 2 former members got the highest number of votes. This idea that community vote is a mob rule has no basis in reality. Sole Soul (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is broad support for the idea that admins need not keep the same high level of popularity that was necessary to originally become an admin. (from the first post)

For me - there's the problem. RFA has become a popularity contest to a greater degree than it should be. I voted Support in this RFA because I see it as a process to ascertain whether there has been abuse of the position to a degree sufficient to remove the tools. Others don't see it that way, and are voting based on whether it would pass today as a new RFA. It would not pass today IMO, so in that sense these oppose votes are correct. The process is obviously not working here, because the people voting have differing views on what the process is, or should be.

Should I change to neutral, now that I've said all that? I don't know - and the fact that I don't know means that I don't understand the question being asked in this RFA. I suspect I am far from alone.

Should I remove my vote now that I've admitted I don't understand what I'm voting for? Maybe, but then what do I do about the fact that I agree that the editor should have reacted to the recall by creating the RFA, respect him for doing so, and wish to express my opinion in the resultant process?

Or should I change to Oppose because it could be better to join the "popular" vote just in case I ever want to enter this beauty contest myself?

There's the dilemma, I think. - Begoon (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only way you can solve it is to decide whether you personally think the admin should retain or lose his admin rights, on whatever criteria you think are most important to that decision, and not worry about what specific criteria your "supposed to be" considering. If you think abuse of sysop tools is what counts, go on that. If you think proper knowledge of and support for BLP policy is more important, base it on that. Or if you think something else is most important... etc. (Not saying that's necessarily easy, mind - I'm still in the Neutral camp because I'm still undecided on what really is of most importance here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see Jimbo's comment that the required support level in a recall action should not match the original hurdle. While I've seen support for this, I have also seen some who assume (implicitly or explicitly) that the hurdle should be the same. Making it identical creates the potential for instability. Some aspects I believe belong in a policy:

(As noted) level of support for retention has to be materially lower than for original grant of the bit
Whatever rule is adopted, it should not have in it a provision allowing the candidate to choose their own rules. (This seems so obvious that it shouldn't need saying, except for the odd fact that it is the existing rule)
I do not support the notion that RfA candidates should propose their own, lower recall requirements. This will just lead to messy "horse-trading" at the original RfA.
While sysops should not be precluded from discussing the process, we should find some way to explicitly emphasize the input of non-sysops—it is mildly inappropriate for the elected to craft their own rules for removal.--SPhilbrick T 12:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee - yes, that's pretty much what I've tried to do. I wouldn't support removing the tools for the BLP issues at this point. Maybe after a series of proper warnings/blocks and a failure from the candidate to correct behaviour contravening policy it would cross a line for me, but it isn't there yet. (Unless it is, and I just can't find the "audit trail").

But that's just this case - I'm more concerned about the fact that this case highlights the lack of formal procedure existing for any of this. It seems to me that desysopping is only really currently effectively done through Arbcom - so maybe that's where this should have gone in the absence of a proper recall process. That's far from ideal too, because it removes the possibility of the admin submitting to voluntary recall as a reaction to expressed concerns. If the recall process is so broken that it needs to proceed in this haphazard fashion, though - there is a huge argument for not letting it happen in this way, under the auspices of RFA. RFCs seem pretty useless in this regard - that will just be several pages of drama ending in either no consensus, thus no action - or the need for a formal Arbcom. I suppose the summary of my ramblings here is what everyone else seems to be saying: Urgently implement a formal recall process applying to all admins, and don't allow the process of creating this policy drift away into another unresolved attempt to do so. - Begoon (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I certainly agree with your general thoughts - the voluntary recall procedure seems entirely unsatisfactory -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We went through trying to agree on a formal community de-adminship/admin recall process earlier this year, see Wikipedia:Community de-adminship. Despite a clear consensus in November 2009 that the status quo was not OK (Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall), the final proposal failed to reach consensus in March 2010: Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Fences&Windows 13:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It ended up a typical Wikipedia mess. Like twenty proposals came out for a process, one RFC on top of anohter, endless polling and bickering, and in the end no change whatsoever. And yet everyone seems to agree that the current processes are beyond useless. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "clear consensus...that the status quo was not OK" is very different from "clear consensus on which way to proceed" — indeed, it's even a far cry from "clear consensus on what the problem is", which is the most serious hurdle. (Suppose that 35% of Wikipedians think that there are too many admins, and 35% think there are too few, while the remaining 30% minority think the number we have is just right. No doubt someone will argue that there is a clear consensus that we have the wrong number of admins – after all, a full 70% of the community thinks so! – and then be shocked that the hidebound, reactionary, ossified, power-abusing admins and their sycophants suppress any of his proposals to 'fix' the problem one way or the other.)

The major problem with the last process is it put the cart before the horse. It asked how we could get rid of admins efficiently, without looking at why people wanted to get rid of (some) admins and without attempting to reach some sort of consensus about what problems (or perceived problems) existed with respect to the admin corps. It failed to examine cases where existing processes hadn't worked the way the community wanted them to (and indeed failed to determine if there were any such cases, and explicitly discouraged any discussion of specific cases or admins in attempting to formulate policy). The proposed process was subject to gaming and abuse, and failed to justify its existence. That is why it failed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming a formal recall process really is necessary, I'm basically in agreement with Jimbo. The only point on which I think he and I would seem to disagree is that I do not think the process should include the idea of would-be admins "voluntarily" agreeing (in their RfA) to a lower threshold for recall — I agree with Sphilbrick that such a provision would only serve to create undue pressure on candidates to deal their rights away in return for a better chance at appointment. (And just in case anyone might wonder, there's no collusion or shilling going on here; although Jimbo and I share the same last name, we aren't related and have never met.) Richwales (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I am persuaded by this argument. I can see much merit in a process that's simple and the same for anyone. Of course any administrator can hold an informal poll at any time and resign as a result - but there need be no process for that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would people feel about desysopping simply being a reverse RfA, with similar percentages (80% auto, 70% buro choice). The nominator would have to answer questions and state their case, maybe it should be co-nommed by several people, the admin would answer questions from the community, then people would vote? If, perhaps, we lowered the threshold to, say, 70 and 60 (possibly doing so for RfA as well), then I think adminship might be easy enough to gain, and lose, that it really wouldn't be that big of deal. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that having term limits for admins is unworkable. It would be a very useful tool for evaluating an admin, seeing if his or her knowledge was still up to snuff, and quietly get rid of the ones that are unwilling to brush up on knowledge or seem to be rougher around the edges than we as a community would like. I expect that some of them would go through like many XfDs, with little or no participation, while others would garner lots of discussion; the argument that it would cause a backlog befuddles me completely. Where would the backlog come from? A bot could be in charge of tracking when admins need to stand, and they could be automatically removed and invited to stand again at a time of their choosing if they didn't do so. We could use RfA or some simplified process for reconfirmations. In fact, I will go so far as to pledge that if I ever become an admin and there's no reconfirmation process, that I will give up the bit in three years and stand for another RfA if I want to continue. Reconfirmation would diffuse so much drama it makes my head spin, but we can't get our minds around it and act. I just don't get it.--~T P W 12:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied (to S Marshall - above) saying almost the same thing - (that'll teach me not to "middle-post" :=)) - term limits would do this: make it easier to appoint (RFA wouldn't need to be the same "Supreme Court Hearing" as they are now - you're not appointing for life), make admins stay current with policy and involvement (or risk non reconfirmation), make users feel the admins were accountable. Against that is the risk that admins will be scared to take tough decisions - but you could offset that by having a relatively high bar for reconfirmation failure, and by reinforcing collegiality in admins getting admin consensus for controversial actions. I'm certainly not saying it'd be a simple change with no problems to iron out - but what I am saying is we shouldn't just dismiss it as "oh - that's a perennial suggestion which always gets shot down as too hard". Given the will, I'm sure there would be a way. - Begoon (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to have inactive admins (those who have not used (or have barely used—say less than 10 times or something) their bit for 6 months or so, the time frame can be debated, I'm sure) having the bit removed. If inactivity was the only reason for removal of the bit, then they could request it back the same as any other admin who gave it it up under uncontroversial circumstances. If they are having a problem, or people are concerned about their actions, I still think WP:RFC/U is the best place to begin discussion of removal of the bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

I haven't had the time yet to read all the above comments, I will as soon as I can, but I'm sorry that asking admins to recuse proved to be a controversy. I have removed this request because

I want to avoid further drama on this subject
On consideration, there are a lot of admins who don't like me, and they should get to vote
I'm not sure I even have the right to ask a class of editors to recuse, although I think I probably do.

Instead, I just asked admins to look in their own hearts and be sure they weren't engaging in a conflict of interest. I'm sorry this turned into a big deal and wasted people's time on this. Herostratus (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the above thread as well as the relevant threads at WP:BN and WT:RFA carefully, you'll see that you have more to be sorry about than telling admins to recuse. There was an extensive recent RfC Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC about de-adminship proposal. It was closed as no consensus, in particular because there was no consensus on how to decide on the pass/fail outcome of de-adminship requests. The current RfA system is not designed to deal with desysopping requests and you are attempting to use it in an improper way. If you really want to use the RfA venue for resolving your situation, you should withdraw the current RfA, then formally resign admin tools and only after that submit a new RfA request to be resysopped. That way it will be clear what the underlying question of your RfA is and how consensus is to be evaluated when deciding its outcome. Nsk92 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Herostratus needs to be chastised for following the rules of a process which is voluntary and for which he is expected to develop his own criteria. The voluntary recall process is awful, but it's (apparently) the best thing this community can agree upon. Can you perhaps help me by pointing to the exact portion of the voluntary recall criteria that have been violated here?--~T P W 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD mess started when Herostratus opened it without first requesting the removal of his Administrator status. Do you Herostatus agree to this AFD running and being closed in a manner as if it is an application for Admin status? If not as you opened it, what are your closing conditions? Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't fair. Herostratus is simply using what is listed as the default recall criterion and he's doing so in good faith. The fact that it's so problematic in practice is not Herostratus' fault and I expect he'll be confused and dismayed by these questions.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it is a bit confusing but the issue needs clearing up. The AFD should not have been opened without first resigning his Admin status, so it is presently messy. Does User Herostratus accept that this AFD can and will be closed by a bureaucrat as if he had resigned his admin status first? If not then what are his closing conditions? Off2riorob (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since 'crats can't remove the admin bit, if Herostatus were to unconditionally accept the outcome of this RFA, could it not be a steward the one closing it and removing the bit, if warranted? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Herostratus should clarify his position on this, I will ask him on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the role of the steward, I would bet they would decline to participate. –xeno^talk 15:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify for me what AfD you're talking about? Administrator for Deletion? Another use of the acronym maybe?--~T P W 22:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding closure (from talk)

Miscellaneous commentary

I would just like to say that I find it thoroughly inappropriate that another admin would try and close this down unilaterally and then try to justify their actions with some sort of process wonkery about it being the "wrong forum". Perhaps there are other administrators who ought to be recalled. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Nihonjoe is a duly promoted bureacrat and it is one of the main functions of crats to close RfAs. What I do find to be thoroughly inappropriate is that a crat closure was reverted by a non-crat who disagreed with it. If a crat closure is to be reverted, it should be done by another crat, presumably after a crat chat. Nsk92 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious to me that Nihonjoe's closure was a crat action, because it's not obvious to me that this is a RfA. I rather think it isn't; I think this is an ad-hoc procedure that merely happens to be hosted on the RfA page for lack of any other decent venue. I'm not aware of any consensus that bureaucrats should be closing community de-adminship requests and I don't think bureaucrats have any mandate to do so. As far as I'm concerned the only person who has a mandate to close this discussion is Herostratus. So I think that Nihonjoe's closure was not a crat action at all, and it's therefore subject to WP:BRD.

The contrary view—i.e. that Nihonjoe's closure was correct—accepts that it's for crats to close de-adminship requests.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that's interesting. So who exactly, in your opinion, can close this thing (eventually it will have to be closed, right?), and according to which standards? Note that according to the outcome of the recent RfC, Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC, de-adminship requests proposal was closed as no consensus, particularly because there was no consensus on how to evaluate the results of de-adminship requests. For better or worse, the current request, whatever it, was filed through the RfA system and bureaucrats are specifically charged with closing RfAs. Nsk92 (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy the answer to this question is quite simple. The only closer that matters is Herostratus. He is either going to request removal of his bit, or he'll remain an admin.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs on the talkpage, without objection I will move it there. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nsk92 (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that I find it thoroughly inappropriate that another editor would unilaterally revert the close of this RFA by a bureaucrat, who specifically noted that the "sample process" for Admin recall, as currently formulated, which is not a guideline or policy, is in violation of actual wikipedia policies. Perhaps there are other administrators who ought to be recalled (or resign, as the policy apparently currently requires prior to a recall RFA) (ETA: or users banned for 100 years, as I realized that a regular editor did the revert--Milowent (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)).--Milowent (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a farce. If bureaucrats or anyone else had a problem with the standard recall process they should have raised it earlier, not during a recall RfA! That page has been sitting in plain sight and is linked to by many admins. The idea of "admins open to recall" is not a new one. Suddenly going "omigod, someone actually used the process!" is an unjustifiable kneejerk response. Fences&Windows 13:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'standard recall process' does not include a stipulation that the candidate can pick-and-choose who can participate at their reconfirmation RFA. –xeno^talk 14:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's wholly fair. The community said, rather clearly, that the status quo isn't fine (as Nsk92 points out above). The problem is that the community has not come to an agreement about what to do. If there is any sliver lining to this mess, perhaps this specific incident will add impetus to finding a solution. --SPhilbrick T 19:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "standard recall process" as no proposed process has ever garnered anywhere near the needed support to become a guideline or policy, yet there are people running around here trying to enforce it as such. This is not acceptable. As it is, it is a failed proposal with no more teeth than an essay. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) For my information, Nsk92? I don't care if Jimbo Himself closed this discussion. Anyone doing so would immediately, and rightfully so, be seen as improperly shutting down legitimate community discussion. Wikipedia is not a government and there are many ways to determine consensus. We don't shut down busy community discussions just because the process being followed doesn't have a related policy. As the person who reopened it stated, this is pure process wonkery. WP:IAR. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Perhaps instead of suggesting that I'm part of a racist death squad someone could try to convince me that Herostratus is a good admin. Just a thought.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Count yourself lucky you haven't been accused of paedophilia yet. Big Dom 20:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did find that troubling myself, however I hesitated following the links provided. Rather not have to try to explain that to my boss.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone misunderstood but I realize that could be read two ways. I found it troubling that someone would make those comments, not that I was troubled i.e. accepting them as likely truth.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good idea, although rest assured that there was nothing incriminating in said links, and the claims were completely unfounded. Big Dom 20:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there was nothing even vaguely disturbing there - the whole paedophile thing was a disgraceful slur. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that while I agreed with the comment someone made about paedophilia being an issue for courts, not for wikipedia, I don't think I would have trusted myself to leave an unbiased !vote if this had been true, and I'm relieved to hear that the claims turned out to be unfounded. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the convincing, however, how about the fact that he's willing to let the community decide whether he should keep the mop? There are plenty of admins who would never do that. How about the fact that he does work to clean up pedophilia articles, an unpleasant task in a large number of ways? --GRuban (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On these, The first, I see that arguement all over lets just say I don't agree with that reasoning. The second at least seems to be an arguable point. If you really think his work in those outweighs his behavior than wou have a well thought out support.--Cube lurker (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that either of these actions overrides the fact that he made libellous comments on an AfD, claimed that this was per-policy, and then set out to change policy to suit it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was wrong, and admitted it. He says it was wrong for a different reason than WP:BLP, and he's not setting out to change it, the entire point of his proposal is to clarify what BLP already says. I disagree with him, I don't think it says what he thinks it says, but disagreeing on a policy isn't a reason to remove the mop. He's not saying what he did was right, he's not saying he has the right to do it again, and he's not saying he's going to do it again, even though you seem to be implying he is. We all make mistakes, it's part of being human. All we can demand is that he learn from them, and try to do better. He's doing both. --GRuban (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see also: Parrhesia —S Marshall T/C 23:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pedophilia remark was paranoid and posining the well. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments that Herostratus made were not libelous. They were roughly on the order of calling someone a "jerk". Tim Pierce (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think "bigot", "homophobe", and "noxious bigotry" are the same as "jerk", I'd hate to get into a minor argument with you ;-)

But I note that in Q7, Herostratus has accepted that the use of those terms was a violation of BLP. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet proposes policy to make their use on talk pages A-OK.--Cube lurker (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely stronger than 'jerk', but still not libellous. You can't libel someone with your opinion, and 'sir, your own statements reveal you as a bigot and a homophobe' is a statement of opinion. To be libellous, the statement has have a factual element.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Elen says, "bigot" and "homophobe" are -- like "jerk" -- an expression of opinion and clearly not an expression of fact. I do not agree that an expression of an opinion about a living person on a talk page automatically constitutes a BLP violation. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigot and homophobe have very clear definitions, and it is not an opinion to accuse someone of either or both of these: it's either true or it's not. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I could argue that point... but let's cut to the chase. Will you put your !vote behind what you just said? If I find reliable sources that cite subject matter experts using those or equivalent terms about the politician in question, you'd have no problem with Herostratus? --GRuban (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you can find and cite subject matter which shows that the politician in question has made homophobic or bigotted comments, and demonstrate that Herostratus had seen such material and therefore was basing the accusations of evidence, then I'll concede that it was not libel (but still a BLP violation as it was contentious and uncited, and Herostratus still tried to pass his actions off as being within BLP policy, and then filed to change the policy). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the OP of this section please note that my opinions as stated do not coincide with Giftiger wunsch in certain areas.--Cube lurker (talk)

Giftiger, 'bigot' is always going to be a matter of opinion: one man's bigot is another man's plain speaker. Espousers of Family Values (TM) feel that they are upholding the word of G-d by condemning homosexuality - members of the LGBT community feel that they are homophobic bigots. Two things arise from this. First, it is quite common for the Family Values (TM) espousers to say things like "if this makes me a bigot/homophobe/etc, so be it." This shows that they recognise that some sections of the community would refer to them as such, without their necessarily agreeing with the description. The second is that the statement 'anyone who reads his website will know that he is a bigot' can never be a libel, because it can actually never be a statement of objective fact in the way that 'anyone who reads his website will know that he is a liar' definitely is (see Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., which while muddying the waters in some aspects, is clear enough on the issue of citing objective fact as if it were opinion).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about "libel" this is about abuse of living people. And this is about the distasteful concept that BLP is about legal protection as opposed to ethical behavior.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without dragging out the matter of libel vs. BLP any further, it is the fact that it is in any case a serious BLP violation that should concern wikipedians, and I have to agree with Cube lurker that while part of the purpose of BLP is to protect the wikimedia foundation from lawsuits, enforcing the strict BLP standards is also an ethical issue, and the idea that it's okay as long as wikipedia doesn't get sued is highly objectionable, IMO. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC) -[reply]

(response to Cube Lurker) Actually, that's a perilous path to tread. If you are Peter Tatchell, identifying and labelling the bigots and the homophobes in the political system is as important as catching Nazis was to Simon Wiesenthal. I've done an exercise as a thought experiment with many groups, and we could never agree on one thing that was an utter taboo to all societies (although eating your own ordure, and copulating with your mother came close) - which just goes to show that ethics is as ethics does. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether taboo to all societies or otherwise, homophobia is the hatred of homosexuals, and a homophobic comment is a negative comment made either about homosexuality itself, or about a homosexual simply because they are a homosexual; you don't have to agree that homophobia is wrong, but I don't see how whether someone is homophobic or not is a matter of opinion. But this is getting a little off-topic here anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Elen of the Roads)Like so many others your what if completely ignores the real situation that occured.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not at all, although it is rather off-topic. Ethics are not fixed in tablets of stone, they are decided on by the communities in which they are expected to operate. In this case someone has decided that calling the subject a homophobe is bad, and therefore unethical. However in the case in point, what the LGBT community view as homophobia (in this case perhaps the statement from the subject's website that two Moms/Dads are not as good as a Mom and Dad, or even a single parent) the FV community view as straight talking support for the Word of G-d. To this community, being accused of homophobia is not a slur, it's just proof that they are upholding their core ethical beliefs. It cannot therefore be either a libel or anything that would actually hurt or offend the subject - he would patiently try to explain that in fact it is the homosexuals and their supporters who are wrong in attempting to promote their viewpoint. OTOH, accusing David Cameron of homophobia would be a significant slur, as he is trying to present himself as a liberal conservative (or some similar form of heraldic beast), and he would not care at all for the allegation. See, it's not so clear, is it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real life situation was an AFD where the discussion is "Is he notable or not". Under what circumstances does a discussion of "Is this person a bigot" belong in that setting.--Cube lurker (talk)

revelation break?

This section has been blanked as a courtesy.

Ya gotta laugh

Good time to be throwing me overboard, ya mooks. =/ Herostratus (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look to me like you're being thrown overboard - it's currently 60/35 in your favour. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you calling a mook? That's a BLP violation ;) Big Dom 11:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that article is throwing you under the bus, then is it safe to assume that you are one of the people quoted or referred to in the article? Is this an admission to the accusation that has been made against you, that you are in fact a pedophile? I didn't give the allegations much credit, but I'll need to look into this anew. I expected to see a reference to this rfa there....---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)NOTE: I even reviewed the comments to see if somebody was pointing here.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His area of interest in the Wikipedia is the Pedophilia-related articles, which he tries to keep balanced against some very ... let's say intense ... people on both sides. They don't get as much admin and experienced editor attention, since for most people, it's not a pleasant area to work in. --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm not a pedophile, for chrissakes, and I wish people would stop making that allegation! I'm an anti sex-with-children normalization-advocacy editor, I founded WP:PAW; see User:Herostratus/Pedophilia and Me for details. Because I edit in the area of pedophilia, this makes me a pedophile? Have a litte more subtlety, people. I am referred to in the article, although not by name, as the person who nominated Marthijn Uittenbogaard for deletion, for crying out loud. My point was: I have been working for five years (mostly successfully, note that most of the refs in the article are old) to clear this sort of crap out of Wikipedia. This is to protect the Wikipedia from this kind of actual bad publicity that (as we see here) can actually happen as opposed to the less likely "Wikipedia Editor Calls Polician A Mook! World Explodes!" type of thing. I'm perfectly inclined to hand the baton over to you, Balloonman. Want it? Herostratus (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was Squeakbox who started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marthijn Uittenbogaard on 17 May 2007, you started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit on 26 February 2008. MickMacNee (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

You're the one who provided a link to an article that you tied to yourself without providing an explanation as to how/why it relates to you. When you are trying to make these types of points, if you don't want people to misconstrue them, you need to explain them.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Ok, I couldn't see how the article was throwing him under the bus... you've indicated that the he is working towards neutrality in the subject of pedophilia---which does indicate that he is interested in the subject. It does not indicate that he himself is a pedophile (he could be a victem, know a victem,work in the field, etc). Can somebody more familiar with his work in area point to some discussions wherein he is countering the pro-pedophilia agenda?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did it get to be okay to make accusations that someone might be a pedophile on Wikipedia without evidence or even the suggestion of evidence? Not that Hero needs defending, but his writings on the subject seem quite sane to me. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice, I did not make that allegation. But Hero provided a link to an article on Pedophiliac Wikipedians and drew a direct line between that article and himself... which he had to realize would highlight the allegation. Sorry, but Hero's did more to substantiate the allegation than Keepscapes' allegation, Hero SHOULD have said, "This is my motive for working in this area, to avoid this exact situation." Instead, he connected the dots and made people wonder. My post above only points out the fact, if he edits in the arena, then it is obvious he is interested in the subject---that does not indicate motive or drive, it only indicates that for some reason (and as I pointed out there are valid reasons) he is interested in the subject. That is a fact.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey....look at the BLP violation...!!!!!--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er where?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Balloonman: There's a link you might like to follow in my Support vote on the RFA. It's been there ever since I voted - it's been commented on, and I believe it's been linked elsewhere in the RFA too. Hope that helps. I, also, per Dank, see no need for defence against a seemingly knee jerk accusation with no hint of evidence - but, as requested, there it is, anyway. - Begoon (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Elen: Indeed...(hangs head in wonder...) - Begoon (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually haven't been paying too much attention to this RfA... and didn't put much weight into the unsubstantiated allegation, but when Hero puts a link like he did, saying that it is throwing him under the bus... and there is no reference to him in the link... it makes you wonder if the accusation has any basis. Sorry, his post was not the wisest of posts because it reopened the door into the subject. Hate to say it, but it does go towards substantiating the claims of poor judgment on his part. I had never heard of Hero until 2 weeks ago, but since then what I've learned of him has not been overly impressive. His "joke" makes me question his sense of humor---which makes it very difficult to know what he might be thinking when he made this post calling people mooks... A post that insults the reader, while highlighting an allegation against him, and provides no explaination as to what he was thinking---except to insult the reader. To do so during one's "RfA", when there are bound to be people, such as myself who are barely paying attention to the RfA just reaks of immaturity. Even if he isn't a pedophile, his post has raised questions in my mind---and I'm not talking about questions related to pedophilia.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you start with "sorry" and end with "Even if he isn't a pedophile", I suppose your post itself kinda supports the fact that he was unwise to post a comment without a lengthy explanation, and diffs, into an environment where people are prone to leaping to unsupported conclusions. I do apologise that I appear to be "picking on you". I'm not. I'm just stunned and dumbfounded at people's willingness to assume the worst without investigation, and then express that unsupported assumption, sowing the seed for others. It's the most insidious form of Chinese whisper, imo. Anyway, as I say - really not trying to pick on you - this is far from the only place I've seen this happen here. I'm popping off now to see if I can get my vandalism reverts on Incest revdeleted before the tarring brush looks my way. - Begoon (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that maybe I could have explained that better - so I'll try - and after that, I'll probably leave this alone, since I'm sure everyone will have had enough of my opinion.

Here we are in an RFA for an editor being hauled over the coals for alleged BLP infractions suggesting that a politician might be a homophobe and a bigot. It's since been suggested that those allegations may indeed be true - but I'll leave that alone, it's not my subject here...

In this very RFA several people imply (not directly accuse, but imply) that there may be grounds for wondering if the editor is a pedophile.

The problems I have with this, are:

firstly, the unsupported suggestion skirts the very behaviour they want to censure the admin for
secondly, it is an extremely damaging implication risking irreparable harm to a reputation, without any suggestion of evidence
thirdly, it is supported by no evidence I can see, nor is any effort made to show any, save "well, he might be..." or similar.
fourthly, it appears that, contrary to the implication, the editor in question is working hard to counter the influence of the very group he is almost accused of being a member of.

I know it's an easy, knee-jerk reaction - there is a very valid unease around the possibility that an editor may be associated with this kind of behaviour (I'm a parent of a little girl myself - I don't need the worries explained to me) - but this itself is what makes it of paramount importance that we don't cause this sort of concern, or promote it, without sound evidence, and certainly not in public until we have that evidence.

Let's try and hold ourselves to the BLP standards we want to apply to articles when we discuss our editors too, shall we ?

</rant> - Begoon (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the press coverage by Fox and others, it seems to me to be a singularly bad idea to cast unfounded aspersions against admins who edit these topic areas. These articles are public interest hotspots; we want more admins working in them, not less. --JN 466 16:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I started reading this section, I immediately went to the Fox article, and based on my reading of this RfA I said to myself, "Ah, Herostratus is pointing out that there is an increasing need for admins willing to work in this area." It didn't take rocket science to make that connection, all it took was reading the text available. I shouldn't be stunned that another editor immediately asked if he is a pedophile, but I'm thoroughly done with this line of questioning. I think I'm going to take up editing pedophilia articles because I can see why people don't - no good deed goes unpunished. For all his poorly-chosen humor and occasional bad temper, Herostratus is becoming a hero in my eyes because he's willing to take this sort of libelous abuse with good grace.--~T P W 20:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed. Hobit (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is is, is what is is, and not what we want is to be.

Lost in the chatter, but well documented in this section, is that fact that the politician who's article kicked all of this off actually is a homophobic bigot. Now, we have hysteria here because as an encyclopedia we limit ourselves from an objective view of events and people because the terms that best describe said events or people are charged and tainted as offensive. Of course, the words are charged and tainted as offensive because they describe world views which actively seek to limit the rights and freedoms of other people for, in this case, being attracted to adults of the same gender. Because of objective science, we know that homosexuality is neither sinister, nor immoral, and thus seeking to repress it in others is by definition homophobic and bigoted behavior.

The statements available on the public record by the politician who's article was up for AfD, and the fact that we are essentially here because Herostratus pointed out the facts in a less-than-eloquent fashion should give every one of us pause when it comes to considering whether Wikipedia reflects the distortions of reality, or whether Wikipedia should provide a description on what the distortions are. An article on a politician who seeks to restrict the rights of people should reflect when the desire to place such restrictions are based purely on bigotry. Bigotry is generally driven by ignorance, and ignorance is driven by many things, least of which is access to objective knowledge. Objective knowledge is the fragile and delicate resource which Wikipedia was founded to disseminate and protect and thus people should be able to come here and learn knowledge objectively, rather than political spin... That's my two cents. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That section is ridiculous, and misses the point by a mile. Nobody gives a monkeys whether you personally think you've discovered a bigot, or even if he outed himself as a raging loon of a bigot, and thus you want to shout this from the rooftops using Wikipedia as your soapbox. Wikipedia is not a political platform for righting the wrongs you perceive in the real world. Wikipedia is an encyclopoedia, and 'xyz is a bigot, FACT!' is not, and never will be, a necessary part of an Afd discussion, and it is, and always will be, a violation of BLP, both the spirit and the letter. If you want to go and bash Republicans, or Democrats for the matter, go somewhere else, please. MickMacNee (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infact, I don't know why I'm surprised, I was equaly shocked whan I learnt it about Herostratus, but you are also an admin. Are there any admins on this site who have a clue about BLP? Yesterday I found out a number of admins don't even have a clue about basic stuff like WP:NC. Now this. Seriously, the arguments for mandatory fixed term re-confirmations has never looked greater to me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, just because Wikipedia isn't a platform for political discussion doesn't mean we don't share our views here and there. Wikipedia isn't MySpace either, but how many people, even admins, have pictures and short bios of themselves up? It's not really doing any harm. I understand what you're saying about calling someone a "bigot"- however, there has got to be a better way to deal with this that doesn't involve coming to this whole train wreck of a recall all over again. There's got to be something less drastic we can do to prevent this rigmarole from happening over such a minor issue again. Really, was this worth the time and drama? All told, we have to 1. get a better recall structure in place and, far more importantly, 2. Figure out how to loosen BLP enough so that people aren't being recalled over minor comments like this- especially when the comments turn out to be accurate. Maybe we need a subsection of BLP called WP:DONTGETYOURSHORTSINAKNOTOVERTHEBLOODYOBVIOUS or something like that. That way, we won't be dragged through recalls every time an admin makes an offhand remark at an AfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. MickMacNee, please understand that I don't think an article should lead of with "John Doe is a US Senator representing the Democratic Party, and a homophobic bigot from the state of...". That obviously has no place in an encyclopedia. In the case of the specific politician who's article rests at the heart of this ugly affair, well, he actually is a homophobic bigot, by the very definition of both words. You'll note that I didn't bring up the fact that I'm an administrator in this thread, or in my vote of support, because this doesn't strike me an issue that stems from abuse of tools. This is ultimately an issue over the words used on an AfD or a talk page to discuss the content of the encyclopedia. This is not a case of an administrator vandalizing an article, or deleting an article when he did not get his way. That, just like what's-his-name's political views, is a matter of fact, and we do well not to lose sight of it. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to keep repeating this, but the point doesn't seem to sink in; the phrase in question was neither "mook" (easily laughed off) nor "homophobic bigot" (unacceptable but defensible); it was 'He's the one who proclaims himself in public as a bigot and a homophobe -- how respectful do we have to be to these kinds of people? As for WP:BLP, where that matters is in the article -- which makes him look ridiculous. I would be ashamed to have an article about me which proclaimed that "my father taught me honor" while highlighting my mediocrity vis-a-vis people with actual articles and documenting my electoral failures, noxious bigotry, and complete ignorance of the actual public policy issues' – a long string of, yes, outright attacks. I very rarely agree with MickMacNee on anything, but he's absolutely right here; if a new account had posted something like this, they'd have been instantly blocked as a troll. – iride scent 19:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than a week into this saga, and I still don't get it. What exactly is the attack? "Homophobic bigot"? Has been referenced. "Mediocrity"? Applies to 99% of the people in 99% of their actions. "Ignorance of public policy issues"? Hardly an attack. Moreover, the point H made -- that keeping the article is the actual insult -- I still find rather intelligent. Now to the BLP issue: We have WP:NOTCENSORED, so H should have been allowed to say what he did. Given that, his crime was not to source his statement, but have you ever seen refs within AfD nominations just to back up a certain terminology? This is absurd. Again, What's the problem? --Pgallert (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"this doesn't strike me an issue that stems from abuse of tools". Quite right. It's an issue of whether someone who has no clue what BLP is for should be the person who is nominally here to uphold it. I don't think I would make a very good admin if my interpretation of NPA was that I am allowed to call another editor a fucking moron if I thought this was a FACT!. Although, as ever in Wikipedia, you don't have to go far to even find that interpretations like that even get traction sometimes, usually as a result of someone getting shot down by clueful admins for making personal attacks. I personally don't give a damn if you think he's a bigot, not only is there no reason on Earth you would ever have to say that in an Afd, it is against BLP, period. MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what happened to initiate the recall. He had ample opportunity after the initial mistake to reign this gathering drama storm in. Instead, he has arguably fueled it a little with some of his later comments and actions. Sure we can change the recall system, it seems absurd as it is now, but BLP is not likely to get relaxed just for Project space any time soon, because the people who are arguing for this, have totally misunderstood why BLP even exists in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee and Iri... do both of you realize that Hero was advocating for the deletion of the article, and in the deleted AfD he states as one of his reasons for nominating the article for deletion the following: "(A couple of notes regarding the content, rather than existence of this article: in addition to everything else, this is an arguable G10 speedy (attack page), because the article subtly satirizes the subject". That sounds like someone who understands the concept of upholding the BLP policies as well as the quality of articles. If a new account had posted something like the article in question, said article would have been speedied, which is what Hero wanted to do but out of deference to the even earlier AfD that the article had passed through, he opened a new AfD. That is the farthest thing possible from being a bad administrator. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, he (and you) are explicitly accusing a longstanding Wikipedia editor (and admin) of creating an attack page. You can't have your cake and eat it; either Smee wrote it in a good faith attempt to write a neutral biography and Herostratus came wading in with his "noxious ignorant bigot" ranting; or, it's an attack page, in which case this link shouldn't be red. Pick one and stick to it. – iride scent 20:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no problem saying that an established editor created an attack page. The only difference between a speedy delete and an article that gets sent to AfD is who created the article. Wikipedia has many failings, that being one of them. Again, we pretty much agree with each other Iri. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do, I was at that Afd. At the time, I just dismissed that part of the nomination as slightly ludicrous - iirc the article can hardly have been said to have been a piece of satire, rather than just an ordinary puff piece, and that comment just looked like another subtle dig at the subject in of itself, but of lesser importance than the more obvious examples. Then later, as I became aware of his history while watching the recall train gather steam, I just attributed it to another manifestation of his now notoriously unique sense of humour. Anyway, all things considered, I find the idea that the Afd was filed because he did not want Wikipedia to be harming the subject throught satire to be wholly dubious. If that was in all sincerity his true motivation, and not just a joke in of itself, it doesn't negate my fears over his competency one bit, as it very well underlines his lack of awareness at the time that BLP applies everywhere, something he's still not seemingly accepted. And finally, to specifically say in an Afd nom, 'and now to the content and not the issue of its existence, it should really be G10'd', is just nonsensical. He's an admin, if its a G10, then G10 it. MickMacNee (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "his lack of awareness at the time that BLP applies everywhere, something he's still not seemingly accepted" - at the RfA, Q7, he said "Now, please note, that when I did call the person a redactophobe and a redact, I was violating BLP". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already seen A7 before I got into this Rfa, and I was referring to a few other things he's said both before and after that confirm my view of what he thinks BLP is, and evidence that he truly does now get it seems to be thin on the ground. This sort of post made a couple of hours after A7 is not doing it for me. Other post A7 comentary is rather thin on the ground. You partial quote of A7 in of itself reads like pulling teeth to me. And even looking at the rest of A7, you don't come away with a sense that he has the first clue what BLP is all about. Instead of fessing up and saying, 'yes, I violated BLP by calling someone a bigot and this might have got Wikipedia sued', I'd rather have some detailed evidence that explains ridiculous and irrelevant screeds like this - "You know what? I don't like people who spam the Wikipedia. I don't like non-notable crypto-fascist wannabe politicians who have their toadies spread their toxic waste onto the Wikipedia. And you know what else? I refuse to pretend to like these people or respect them. I won't libel them or anything, but I refuse to adopt a tone of hushed respect for these people. Yes I am passionate about this. So sue me. Oops, I am being sued", posted an hour before A7 [1]. It shows to me he has no clue, not one single idea, wtf he did to violate BLP, either in the first place, or with subsequent and increasingly worse comments about a living person. BLP was not written to silence people who don't want Wikipedia policy to 'help crypto fascists use Wikipedia as a spam host'. The article subsequently got deleted without anyone calling it the creation of crypto fascist lackey's working for the outrageous bigot who is the subject of the article', and he is utterly clueless if he doesn't realise what role BLP has to play in this depressing episode. People stating that it's all OK by BLP if we can actually cite that he's a bigot (and apparently we can't, without some rather biased and wholly non-BLP compliant usage of the sources offered), have missed the point by a mile, and I rather think Herostratus is still, even now, one of those people. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second Iri... are you saying this whole thing comes down to "Admin from clique A" doesn't like "Admin from clique B" because he tried to delete his article? That's what it sounds like you just said. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No; aside from anything else, I don't think you can accuse Cirt of being a member of a "clique" since to the best of my knowledge he doesn't have any friends. I'm saying that either you and Herostratus are accusing someone else of deliberately creating attack pages, in which case put your money where your mouth is and start an RFC; or you're saying that it's not an attack page, in which case explain why "noxious ignorant bigot" et al are somehow appropriate. At the moment you seem to be claiming both and doing neither. – iride scent 20:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can honestly say that the last thing I would ever do is open an RfC on someone because they wrote an attack page. So, with your protest noted, I take said cake and eat it. It's Wikipedia, and we all do well not to lose sight of it. I shall now adjourn to my yard where grilling duty awaits, and cold beers abound. I extend to you the offer of a cold beer, albeit virtually, if only to remind us all that it is July and a weekend. I also need to go drown my tears after the appalling end of Team USA at the hands of Ghana... again. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa... after several beers, and a well seasoned steak, I returned to my living room to find this comment still on the screen, only to notice that it isn't July yet. C'est le vie. The virtual beer offer still stands. ;-) Hiberniantears (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since BLP seems to be a central focus of this RfA, I thought I'd point out that there is currently an RfC related to BLP going on at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closure process

I'm really concerned about the proposed closure process. Is there any chance of dumping it? I'm confident, personally, that all three editors will be fair, but in terms of appearances it is a mess - the person up for recall being both one of the three people making the final decision and the one selecting the other two people? And then relying on a majority of the three? If any recall and reconfirmation process is going to have any merit, then it needs to be fully above board. - Bilby (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe Jimbo should be the one to close this thing, whatever it is (IMO, the most appropriate closure would be something like "clusterfuck/don't do this again"). Nsk92 (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would work. But there does need to be some sort of neutral process in place. - Bilby (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing would be for Hero to put the RfA aside, and simply step down.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? 63% is a very high level of support taking into account all controversies. This recall has failed and should be closed. There is no need to appoint a special panel, just close it and forget. Ruslik_Zero 10:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See that is the exact problem with this recall process... you see the 63% as a high percentage given the controversies... but if this were a true RfA, 63% wouldn't even be in the discretionary range. A 'crat would really have to think there were socks or something involved to pass an RfA at 63%. But the actual percentage doesn't matter. For the good of the project, he should step down---regardless of the percentage. This has already been such a drama magnet and regardless of how it is closed, will likely continue to be one. The only way to avoid the drama, is for him to voluntarily step down.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for the good of the project he should not step down. If 63% is not good enough for an admin to "stay in office" recalls could become much more common and detract from mainspace work. But then again I believe the process should be similar to impeachment, and that the opposes should be 66% or more for the recall to succeed. In the end, maybe this dramafest was necessary so that we can come up with rules to govern this in the future.--Milowent (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in doing some reading through other RfAs, Carnildo's RfA after his desysopping passed at 61%, and that was after he was desysopped by ArbCom. In addition, Jimbo said above that users shouldn't have to meet the same broad consensus they did for their first RfA. I'd agree with that, especially given that Herostratus works in a particularly tough area that would stigmatize him no matter how good a job he does. If Carnildo's RfA could pass at 61%, having been far more controversial than this, I'm not sure why this wouldn't. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo 3 occurred 6 months after the desysop and after the failed Carnildo 2. It was a true outlier from four years ago, I would be surprised if you could find any other RfA's that passed with that low of a percentage---and if you did, they would probably be from years ago. I think the lowest successful RfA in the past two years was at 68% and it was highly controversial. The problem with this RfA is that it was poisoned from the very get go with his desire not to allow admins to participate and the insistance of people to have this in the RfA forum---despite the fact that it is not an RfA. It has created a world of Drama, and I fully expect that if he doesn't step down, that we will not be hearing the last of Hero. It would not surprise me at all if some of his detractors were to take this to ArbCOM or an RfC should he retain the bit. It would not surprise me at all if some of his detractors would not be lying in wait for the next mistake. This whole process has been one of the more divisive processes on Wikipedia in quite some time with discussions on numerous pages. I am not saying that the right thing is for him to step down, but that the best thing would be for him to do so. Any attempt to cloak his decision in terms of "consensus" will be decried/criticized by one side or another. IMO it is clear that he does not have the support to pass an RfA today. IMO it is also true that there may not be a clear consensus to remove the bit and if this were an RfC, then keeping it would be a much more defensible position. But he put himself into this position, and the essay that he followed, dictates that the RfA use the same criteria that any other RfA would follow. And by today's standards, 63% is not enough to pass an RfA.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly have different viewpoints, and are fairly far apart at this point, because I believe this whole thing starting from the recall petition (the six votes) was a witch hunt. I'd like you to revert yourself to the Balloonman of June 27 who !voted "cautious support," but alas that seems unlikely. As far as I'm concerned Hero could choose to ignore the outcome of this process, but he's already shown he's a class act and will respect the outcome, whatever it may be, a la Socrates.--Milowent (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to have stayed in the support, but believe that if he remained an admin after this RfA that it would wrong.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a discussion about closing this particular case is unnecessary; as an admin open to recall Herostratus has considerable latitude to dictate the process. If you want to have a discussion about developing a non-voluntary process for recalling admins, this probably isn't the right forum. --~T P W 10:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree that a bigger question needs answering. But at the same time, if the process of closing this one isn't open, transparent and above reproach, then it does Herostratus no good either. There' a risk that there will always be cause to question the result, rather than accepting it and letting Herostratus move on. I have no horse in this race, as I'm not voting either way, and I think Herostratus is just trying to work out the best method of closing it given the current circumstances, but this model won't help settle things and may cause ongoing problems. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the technicalities of this matter. 1) There is clearly no consensus for de-adminship, and 2) the "nominee" is going to do whatever he wants subsequent to closure anyway. Townlake (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 1 IF this were an RfC. He chose to frame it as an RfA, adhering to a model that places the burden to weigh consensus as if it were an RfA. As such, there would be no consensus to promote if this were a true RfA. He chose the model.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no, he chose a model that would assist his personal decision in whether he wants to keep his tools or not. That is why recall is voluntary, while community desysop proposals were not. He thinks/thought that this model would provide him with information in a manner that is most comprehensible to him (or whomever it is he was asking to close). He can disregard it if he chooses, but that isn't likely to happen. I think it's pretty clear that he also got more opinions here as a result of this format, and would have received far less input at an RfC/U. If someone is still unhappy though, take it to ArbCom, because no one else has the authorisation to change the outcome that comes out of this recall process. Personally, I don't see any reason for ArbCom to intervene in this case either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only sensible way of closing this is with Hero resigning and going to RfA again after a break. Which is what he should have done to start with. As he chose an RfA for this, it is very important to acknowledge that this RfA would not normally have passed with this level of opposition. Verbal chat 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I am neutral to this RfA for reasons I made clear already, but IMO the most sensible thing to do is simply step down, wait about a month and continue to edit constructively as a normal editor, and then file another RfA if he feels he can use the tools to benefit the community; by that point, this issue will have blown over if it was simply a one-off, and most of the oppose !votes are likely to reconsider (depending on Hero's actions during this period). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If hero resigns, he will only be doing so at the wish of a minority.--Milowent (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, since only 32% of the editors who commented expressly opposed their adminship. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean 37%, not 32%. The point remains however that RfAs fail if they're opposed by 30% or more of those expressing an opinion, so the minority argument just doesn't wash. Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe GB fan has added the neutrals into the denominator, which aren't used to calculate the displayed "support" %. –xeno^talk 15:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Gwen_Gale#re_my_RfA_close_--. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

e/c No I mean 32%. 147 editors commented in the last 7 days and 47 said that they oppose. 47/147 is 32%. This is not a request for someone to become an admin, this is a request to remove the bit from a current admin. IMO the rules should not be the same. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would fully agree... if this were in an RfC. See my comments the other day on WP:BN. But Hero chose to put this up as an RfA and to accept the standards as expected in an RfA. Do I believe there is consensus to remove the bit? No. But has he passed the RfA? No. As Hero chose to do this as an RfA, then he is bound by those parameters.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Herostratus has cast the deciding vote against himself, so its time to go back to bed. After us in the filibuster-proof-yet-still-not-a-good-enough majority have some ice cream to sooth ourselves.--Milowent (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this was closed incorrectly.

This isn't an RfA, where 70-75% is the needed hurdle. This was (with some poorly constructed rules) a question about removal from position.

If we look at positions outside WP, such as President, judge, congressperson, governor, even dogcatcher, there process for removing from position is (intentionally) more onerous.

Even within Wikipedia, the process to become an editor, a rollbacker, even a founder, is easier to become one that to have the status removed. It would be exceedingly odd if sysop were the only position with identical requirements for both directions, and not good policy.

Unfortunately, we haven't articulated the hurdle, so we are operating in the dark. However, based upon other examples, the hurdles are very different, sometimes materially different. I submit that while 63% is somewhat different than 70%, it is not close to material in the same way that virtually every other positional hurdle is different. I realize a deciding vote was cast by the candidate, but I think the candidate was (understandably) worried about appearances, and too cavalier about rejecting a materially different hurdle.--SPhilbrick T 21:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do I think there was consensus to take away the bit? No. Do I think Hero did the right thing? Yes. Had this been an RfC or in another setting, Hero would still be an admin. But Hero chose to put this in as an RfA and to subject the verdict to the standards expected at an RfA (the model he used explicitly stated that.) As such, the only possible way this could be closed would be with him relinquishing the bit OR there would be more drama to come. 37% opposing his adminship is not a consensus to remove the bit, but that wasn't the question being asked. As an RfA, the question being asked was "should he retain the bit?" As such, 63% is not enough to reach conensus in support of that question. Hero acted with integrity and personally it would not surprise me if he passes an RfA down the road should he chose to run.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's about right. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the opening paragraph, this was badly constructed. I hope we take away from this some lessons and figure out how to do this right. Had he relinquished the bit, and then reapplied, I'd agree the standard should be the same. That option was suggested, and he affirmatively rejected it. Unfortunately , we are creating a precedent, which is why we should have some opinions on the record. I predict when we get around to rethinking desysopping, this will be brought up as evidence of why the hurdle should be the same. I hope that notion is roundly rejected, as this RfA had far too many flaws to serve as precedent.

Do I think there was consensus to take away the bit? No. Do I think Hero did the right thing? Absolutely not. Casting the deciding vote in your own confirmation? I'm stunned that this isn't being laughed out of the building. Yes, we allow politician to vote in their own elections, but that's ceremonial and is almost never material. Can one imagine an impeachment trial where a tie vote is broken by the subject? It's too absurd to consider.

I do NOT fault Hero's decision to relinquish the bit but he went about it all wrong. An acceptable way - first, don't let yourself be the deciding vote. Second, you could conclude that the vote did not reach a consensus to remove the bit, but voluntarily relinquish it anyway. Instead, we have allowed a farce of a process, when we should be denouncing it so it is never viewed as precedent.--SPhilbrick T 23:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I called it, If it is closed as a removal of the bit, it will be decried as a farce. ;-) But on a serious side, he always retained the right to remove the bit, so his casting the !vote in that direction is not a problem... had he declared that he was going to keep the bit, then it truly would have created more drama. I agree, this was poorly planned/designed/implemented... which is what I've been critical of the whole way. I think he did the only honorable thing he could have, given the hand he dealt himself, but I don't think it was in any way the experiment we would have liked. I thought it was a joke from the very beginning and in no way shape or form am I condoning this "rfa". But given the situation, I think the result is the best we could end up with. Hero did what might not have been the best for Hero, but what was best for WP.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That this silly process is being compared to an impeachment trial speaks volumes for what the real problem is here, but nobody wants to listen, least of all administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy2010's closing rationale

Hello everyone. What a week. I want to start off by saying that this was not easy in any way. In fact, I would be lying if I told you that I wasn't feeling a little anxious about this the hours before. The reason why I am typing this now is because I want everyone to completely understand my reasoning for my !vote, so that even if you don't like how I voted, you reasonably understand why. I was planning on having a discussion, similar to a bureaucrat discussion on a highly debated RfA/B. However, this is HS's Recall, so it's all up to him and this is how he wants it done.

As you all may recall, I had originally !voted neutral/lean support, but changed to opposed because I didn't like the way it was originally being run (ie- non-admin only). After questioning him, he changed this and as a result, I changed to oppose as it had became clear to me that this sysop cannot think about his potential acctions in BLPS nor even in a recall. However, during the last 7 days, from originally being really turned off by HS, I cannot express how impressed and respectful I have become by HS's maturity throughout this whole process. This whole BLP issue is, as an admin put it, a 'mess' – Not the policy, just how do we deal with it. And I echo Jimbo's concern's above. This is why I removed my !vote oppose. I have now have no opinion. Clearly HS has been here a very long time, from the original 2005 scandal that lead to the formation of the BLP policy. Thus, anyone should expect such a long-standing admin to certainly not violate it.

In the end, I would have !voted successful if the consensus was 70-75%. Hell, even 69% I would have given him the benefit of the doubt as he has expressed his wrongful actions. However, as it is his recall, it is up to Gwen, HS and I (as requested) to help make the final decision. With 63%, I had to say "was not successful". I hope that HS stays with Wikipedia, helps writing, maybe some BLPs, and tries again in 5 or 6 months in a new RfA if it comes out that way. And while this was a lot to consider and finalize, I want to thank HS for his honesty and maturity throughout this whole process. Thank you and I hope you all understand this difficult decision. – Tommy [message] 15:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus's closing rationale

The general threshold is around 75%, and the candidate did not meet that. Some people have suggested that the threshold be lower for recall RfA's, but the only cogent rationale I have heard for that is that admins can make enemies with unpopular actions, enemies who will then vote against them. Whether or not that is true, it isn't the case here. If any Oppose votes were motivated by personal animosity or previous encounters with this candidate or that sort of thing, they are very few. Absent any shenanigans, of which there were none here, no one with 48 Oppose votes on an RfA can be said to have consensus to be an admin, in my opinion.

A few comments claimed that this was a witch-hunt or whatever. It was not, and the system worked fine. If people were voting because of hidden agendas or nursing secret grudges, OK, but that was not the case here. I don't understand why some people are so vehemently opposed to admin recall. People say OMG if we had recall admins would drop like flies, but I see absolutely no evidence of this. This is the first successful recall in, well, practically ever. And anyway the closing editor(s) can discount bad-faith votes. Herostratus (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale's close

There is nothing for a bureaucrat or steward to do here. There is no consensus to de-sysop. There is a consensus Herostratus did not abuse the bit. There is no consensus to grant adminship, but Herostratus already has the admin bit. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy blanking?

Not sure I understand why the RfA page was (or whether it ought to be) "courtesy blanked". Richwales (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1. It seems like it would be convenient to leave it on display, especially as it may continue to be discussed as we try to come to some kind of consensus on these. –xeno^talk 17:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As best I can tell, there isn't anything in the RfA that would merit oversight or revision deletion. Even if there were a consensus (which, I believe, there is not) that this was an abuse of the RfA process that should never have been allowed to happen, others might still find it useful in future discussions as a case study of how not to recall an admin. So I think it should stay (archived and not blanked). Richwales (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i thought he might have wanted that. – Tommy [message] 17:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it should be moved out of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship area as it is not a request for adminship. It doesn't belong here, and it has never belonged here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK. It was in the Requests for Adminship area when it was active. It was formatted as a Request for Adminship. When it was closed, it was closed according to the % success requirements of a Request for Adminship. If it had been closed as successful, Herostratrus would have been an Admin. When it was closed as unsuccessful, Herostratus was not an Admin. It was closer to a Request for Adminship than it was to anything else. But just to be pragmatic, which is probably most important, when people look for it, they will look for it here. There is no benefit to moving it somewhere else, while there is a noticeable downside. --GRuban (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you'd leave the automatically-created redirect in place. And Herostratus is still an admin, so your comments make no sense ("would have been"? He currently is an admin). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's not listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers/sysop&limit=2000 --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely no longer an admin. Here's the de-admin log entry. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was still an admin when I posted. Regardless of that, this was not a "request for adminship" and so doesn't belong here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please drop the stick and back away from the carcass. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to stand by silently while you ram through WP:RECALL as policy when it has consistently failed to achieve consensus to become policy. It is not and has never been policy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been part of written policy since 2008 and was derived from the right for parties to come to agreements as to how they move a dispute forward. Administrators are perfectly entitled to select this method without fear of being intimidated by you and your constant attempts to impose your personal views on the community through incorrect/inappropriate closes/moves. Nothing has changed, except that you are trying to ram it out of written policy on the basis of totally different community desysop proposals that failed to gain traction. As for your undiscussed status-change of long-standing policy, and blatant misuse of administrator tools to try and further this cause (which makes this no longer a mere vocal disagreement), you are totally mistaken if you think that these facts will be swept under the rug - the constant pretences and evasion of legitimate concerns, including about your inappropriate reliance on IAR, will not work. Avoiding scrutiny of your own ongoing conduct in this matter is unacceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not sure where you're getting this "constant" from as it has only been in the last few days (about seven, now) that I became aware of this attempt to pass off WP:RECALL (the process itself) as policy. Yes, admins may select to use it if they wish, but it is not policy and the outcome is not enforceable in the least. As I stated before, just because it is mentioned on WP:ADMIN doesn't mean that it is policy. That is the only point I've been trying to make: WP:RECALL (the process itself) has never been policy. Ever. It's been soundly defeated multiple times. I'm fine if it's linked from WP:ADMIN as long as people are made aware that it's not policy.

Nothing is being swept under a rug, there are no pretences being made, there is no evasion happening, and I don't see how you could think any of those were happening. I've been very straightforward with everything, and I haven't tried to do anything underhanded or in the shadows. You may scrutinize all you want, but there's really nothing there to scrutinize. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is policy; for something to be part of policy, be it through dispute resolution (which has been restated in administrator policy since 2008), the outcome does not need to be enforceable - that is what you constantly ignore. What is enforceable is the method by which an administrator (after hearing from the parties) legitimately agrees to try to come to an outcome that is agreeable to them. Not one of the parties was remotely pleased by your action; being a bureaucrat does not mean that you try to deprecate WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY at all costs - that's not going to fly, and that is why this recall RFA continued despite your attempt and campaigning to close it down or move it on dubious grounds. In this case, parties wanted RFA-type input (where RFA regulars also added their input) - similarly, where a party wants to limit themselves to RfC/U input, they are entitled to that also, which is why Kirill's RfC was not deleted despite failing to comply with minimum requirements, and it is also why it was archived per usual RfC/U conventions. Both of these tried methods are reasonable and have been used in good faith; that's all there is to it. The community desysop processes is a different matter altogether - those outcomes would be enforceable, but aren't (and are not supported by policy) due to the lack of consensus on the issue, and admin policy specificially notes that. On the other issue, when a bureaucrat (let alone an admin) inappropriately relies on WP:IAR and misuses their tools, and makes no acknowledgement or suggestion that this will not happen again, there is plenty to scrutinise because they have (and are) not engaging in the proper conduct that is expected of them. Even that response you made evades that issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're turning this into something it isn't. You're ascribing motives to me which are incorrect and uncalled for. RFA-type input can be had at places other than RFA. You could even create a separate section for recalls which didn't use the RFA space (and that would be ideal because a recall is not an RFA, something which you seem to fail to grasp). Just because something has been used in good faith doesn't mean a better, more logical method can't be used. I did not misuse my tools when I closed the non-RFA in RFA space, and I'd appreciate it if you quit assuming bad faith on the part of my actions there. A recall is not an RFA, and that's why it was closed early. There is nothing which needs apology or acknowledgement or suggestion that it won't happen again. I didn't do anything improper. Even Jimbo acknowledged the policies are not clear on this issue (yes, his word is not the final word on the matter, but people still look up to him in many ways, and it shows that "everyone" wasn't disagreeing with what I did). If you could get off your high horse for one minute and stop whacking me with your "you broke policy and you're an abusive admin" bat, there wouldn't be an issue. You call for assumption of good faith on my part, yet you fail to show it yourself. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats, let alone admins, are prohibited from using their tools in disputes in which they are involved because their judgement lapses and becomes clouded. You were involved in a dispute ([2] [3] [4]), and it was this involvement that clouded your judgement and made you perceive that page protection was warranted - it was not. You breached policy when you used that rationale, as well as this one, to justify your action of page protection for the dispute in which you were involved - your reliance on WP:IAR was totally inappropriate, be it in good or bad faith. Even after your protection was overturned, you took absolutely no responsibility for your actions + conduct, and you made no acknowledgement or indication that this will not happen again. This is unacceptable. Bureaucrats are expected to engage in conduct that other admins can look up to; you failed miserably in doing so. To date, you've repeatedly misstated each of my concerns, including about your improper conduct and misuse of tools which I already specifically raised on your talk page just a few days ago. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's enough. I suggest you two drop this bickering, as it's not going to lead anywhere constructive. Failing that, you can take it to your own talk pages because it's no longer relevant to this RfA. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AOR states "The following is an informal process, not a policy or guideline". That looks clear to me. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's statement

Deep Thoughts:

Fine. Be that way. Do your own friggin' history merges and stuff. Do I look like someone who likes doing history merges? =/
Thank you all for participating. Most every comment was cogent and interesting and polite, and I read them with interest. Thank you for taking the time away from your article work.
I am sorry for any unnecessary drama. I don't think there was too much drama. It was a controversial action, people have to talk these things out, that's not necessarily drama. Note that I did not want to initiate this process, I was required to (granted that I had earlier voluntarily agreed to be required to).
It was not a lynching or witch-hunt or anything like that. There have been such things on Wikipedia, but this was not one of them. The Oppose voters had cogent points which I respect, although mostly did not agree with.
I think a lot of the Oppose comments were weak, weak, weak. Look: there are those characteristics which indicate value and those which constitute value. Lots of times the indicators are not true indicators and I think that is so in this case. Many people said "ABC shows that he will/might/can't be trusted not to do XYZ", rather than "He did XZY". Did anybody point to, say, one single CFD'd article that I deleted when I should have saved the article and engaged the editor? No, because I don't do that (or try not to); other admins do do things like that and they are the ones who should be scrutinized. This is my opinion.
The system worked and worked fine, notwithstanding that I don't agree with the result. What's wrong with going to an RfA if six good editors request it? It hardly ever happens, and the threat probably would keep admins honest. We need to have a universal admin recall structure in place. You have performance review at your job, don't you? What's wrong with that? Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: agree completely. As I've said before, if i had it my way, it'd make a "reconfirmation RfA" mandatory for all sysops every year. That way, something like isn't such a big deal and 2. it helps keep admins a part of a community where everything is transparent; that being an admin isn't like a "ha ha" position... not say that's common, but i've seen the more tenured admins here act blatantly rude just because they are an admin.. just my 2 cents. And i am not naming names. – Tommy [message] 17:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd just like to express my enormous respect for Herostratus for going through with this, and for treating it in such a calm and open-minded way -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Completely agree: While I found some of Herostratus' actions leading to the recall questionable, I eventually decided to be neutral on this RfA; since the result was ultimately at Hero's discretion, I think he has shown enormous integrity by voting that the RfA was unsuccessful and accepting the result. While he has made some bad decisions, and evidently bad enough decisions that a significant proportion of the community lost confidence in his ability to use the admin tools, I think this is a good first step in proving that he can still be a constructive member of the community. I would certainly take this into consideration if Hero decides to open another RfA in a few months to request the tools again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stand by my earlier comments regarding the appropriate criteria in general for evaluating a "recall" (or, indeed, whether we really even need a formal recall process). In any event, I note that Herostratus appears to have (voluntarily) resigned as an admin — something which, of course, any admin is always free to do for any reason (or for no reason at all). If and when Herostratus should decide to stand again in a new RfA, I imagine some people will complain that it's a sham because he didn't resign "under a cloud" and could thus take back his mop at any time simply by asking. In any case, if Herostratus ever does put forth a new RfA, I'll evaluate him de novo (as I expect many others will do, and as I expect he himself will request) — and I would expect to see a significant change in his understanding of (and respect for) WP:BLP, and an overall improvement in his attitude toward Wikipedia, before I would be prepared to support his adminship in the future. Richwales (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait -- I did resign under a cloud, here. I do not understand where you got the idea that I did not. Herostratus (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I missed that. Sorry for any confusion I might have caused. Richwales (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and...

Oh, and would people stop calling me a pedophile for crying out loud? This is getting past the point of being amusing. There are (or were) people advocating to run me to ground on this account, and while there is little that can be done to me in real life at this point, my wife holds a position of public trust and could be destroyed by this, and how fair would that be? Who knows what the people at Wikipedia Review think or are capable of? So would y'all watch your mouths please.

In fact, I insist that anyone who called me a pedophile obtain, purchase, and consume one cheeseburger in a can as penance. It will serve you right. I am dead serious about this. I insist. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like spamvertising there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks like time to discuss a permanent ban for such flagrant behaviour.--Milowent (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a disgrace that there are Wikipedian's, even Arbitrators, that give that site legitimacy by posting there. The absolutely halfwitted shite posted there about you, that some editors were even so daft as to repeat here, and the even worse things you allude to that were attempted, is about standard for it. Those editors giving that site legitimacy need a serious word with themselves if they can just dismiss that thread. You almost got a support just for standing up to them in the way that you did. Most people won't even take the risk of even signing up to it for fear of the real world consequences. MickMacNee (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least it's in black and white in policy now that such behaviour is not acceptable: Allegations concerning pedophilia can be extremely damaging, and editors should therefore remain civil and avoid engaging in speculative public accusation. I expect those who did this will justify it to themselves and others by some kind of notion that they "speculated without directly accusing" - but personally I find such a concept ludicrous - in cases like this the speculation itself (without any suggestion of evidence) does the damage. I'm sorry you had to tolerate this. I think it would be nice if some of the admins who enjoy taking a stand on BLP took one on this, too - to send a message that this behaviour demonstrated in this RFA was equally unacceptable. - Begoon (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment removed with agreement by Verbal, see edit history Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that was a reply to me - I'm not sure how it relates to my comment. My comment was related to behaviour in the RFA, not its existence or outcome. If it wasn't a reply to me, I apologise - the indentation led me to suppose it was. - Begoon (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]