User:SirFozzie/Accountability/Archive 1

My terms of recall are simple. Any five editors in good standing (not named as a party in an ongoing ArbCom case) can request recall, and I will voluntarily relinquish my administrator privileges. The five requests must be placed within a two week time frame. I do request that you do provide a reason for requesting recall. That will help me determine whether I should run for admin again, or just turn in my mop. Thank you.

I request that SirFozzie relinquish the rights and privileges of being an administrator.

1. Monobi (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

2.

3.

4.

5.

In the spirit of following common sense in the pursuit of an encyclopedia, rather than having an exercise in bureaucracy, I move that the preceding recall vote be voided according to the following rule. A recall proposal needs to provide a substantive reason in order to be valid, and that's validity in terms of furthering the project, not some "It follows the rules" notion of validity—even if you did write the rules yourself. Being upset that someone warned you for edit warring to keep your uncivil commentary back in a thread it was removed from, for example, is not a substantive reason. In fact, I call it a good job. Poor reasoning, and the people that try to waste our time recalling an admin using poor reasoning, should be ignored.

I request that SirFozzie relinquish the rights and privileges of this recall vote.

Dmcdevit·t 03:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely - Alison ^❤ 03:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No reason has been stated for a recall. Jehochman ^Talk 03:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
To coin a phrase...."We haven't gone away you know?" One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Viridae ^Talk 05:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Frivolous. Ty 06:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Traditional unionist (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ~Kylu (u|t) 18:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It won't be popular, but it's the right call. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Easiest decision I've made all day. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Abusing the spirit of AOR is a prima facie evidence of jealousy. :)Prashanthns (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Count me in. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Wait a minute! SirFozzie established this procedure. Some admins have stated in their RfA that they would be open to this kind of recall. I was asked in mine (by the way, it failed, running about 50-50, which I thought absolutely great considering I had too few edits for the taste of most); sometimes people assume I'm an admin), and I declined. I've seen many accept, and, in fact, I commend SirFozzie for having the courage and integrity to set this up, (and to support it against a challenge that Kurt was out of bounds). Contrary to what I see above, SirFozzie did not set up a poll. Period. Nor did he set up a requirement for reasons to be given. He did not set up a discussion. Rather, he set up a standard, a criterion: if five editors (with some minor restrictions) do X, he will give up the mop voluntarily. He explicitly did not require "reasons." He asked for reasons, which would help him to decide whether to go for RfA again. If he made this promise in his RfA, I'd consider him bound by it, no matter what the majority say. Let me put it this way, if he does not resign when the conditions have been met -- even if there are a hundred !votes for him to stay on -- he would have violated his promise, and that, all by itself, would be a good reason to remove the bit. However, if he resigns, I'd be highly inclined to vote for him in a new RfA, especially if he addresses the problems that led Kurt to begin this. They may be minor compared to breaking a firm promise.

I'll note that by calling attention to this, as happens when anyone looks at their contributions, the editors above increase the chances for the magic number to be met. SirFozzie may, if he chooses, interpret his promise very strictly, and close this if the five isn't met in two weeks, exactly. Though the editors could, actually, start over. What I'd actually recommend to him is that he proactively address the reasons Kurt had to start this up. Even if he doesn't convince Kurt, he might easily convince me. I don't know Monobi at all, but I can say that, other than a brief review of the situation that led Kurt to make this nomination for resignation, and an agreement that there is something worrisome there, I have no other bias against SirFozzie. As far as I know, he's an excellent administrator. With maybe a lesson or two to be learned. As have we all.

My opinion, by the way, is that the process as designed is foolish and not scalable. That's part of why I declined. I would prefer to set up a standing "poll." Voting. But no specific deadline, and then rules about when the request would operate. I can say this for sure: I'd resign if a majority of editors wanted that and I'd probably resign before that, but I'd want to make sure that the process was truly representative, not the result of accidental participation bias. So the result would not become binding until it reached a certain threshhold and then stayed there for a certain period. And if we had WP:PRX, I'd use it to expand the vote. Voluntarily. WP:PRX was not designed to be voting, per se, nor should it be anything other than advisory (as are polls here). The "binding" part would be actual votes from editors.

Here, SirFozzie bound himself by making the promise, and he did not set up a poll, he set an absolute standard, easy to judge. That part was very good, in fact. It's just that the number is, shall we say, "sensitive." On the other hand, a new RfA isn't all that big a deal.--Abd (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As those who wish him to resign are entitled to their opinions, so are those who wish for him not to. By stating that not only are our opinions not part of the process, but in fact detrimental to our "side" of this process, you're declaring that our opinions be ignored entirely. There is, however, something you failed to consider: Perhaps, in the face of all those who see SirFozzie's adminship to be far more useful to the project than it is a detriment, those who would otherwise sign his recall may be convinced of this and change their mind. I dislike single-sided petitions for just this reason: There's no consideration of opposite opinions at all. Granted, our "votes" won't count directly, but SirFozzie knows he has the moral support of more people than he has opponents. I would, in fact, encourage others to consider if having SirFozzie resign would be beneficial for the project in the slightest. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(puzzled) We are all entitled to our opinions, and I set up this section for comment, so Kylu's edit summary is odd: Comment: Why is yours the only opinion allowed here? However, that it is allowed doesn't make it wise. You want to see SirFozzie tested in his promise? Make a big fuss, attract lots of users who might not like him. Every edit here increases that probability. *I* was attracted to this page because of a questioning of the propriety of Kurt's request on his Talk page. In my case, I have *nothing* against SirFozzie beyond a concern about some remarks of his, and if I saw, from him, a serious attempt to engage the problem, I'd seriously consider withdrawing my name from the list. The "problem" hasn't been detailed here. I found references on Kurt's Talk page. If SirFozzie doesn't know what it is, he can ask Kurt. Or if he really can't find out, he can ask me and I'll go back and put some diffs together. As far as I'm concerned, this is up to SirFozzie and the users who have signed or would sign. The process that SirFozzie set up does not involve an RfC. It does not involve a poll or vote. It does not involve community consensus. And if SirFozzie's adminship is considered useful, it can easily be restored. And SirFozzie won't have to repeat what may have been a foolish promise. The most that will be lost will be a week of admin tool use. This is not a "petition." It's a specific and clear process, and it was obviously intended to be so. I think the whole point was to avoid the contention and wikifuss that comes with RfCs and ArbComm consideration of desysoppings. Then, it's up to SirFozzie and the community to make a decision if SirFozzie wishes to come back, or consents to a renomination. Good chance, though, the five signatures won't appear. And so all this extra fuss will be for nothing. Someone likely to sign is not likely to be deterred by what is above, in the material extraneous to the process SirFozzie set up. But if those inclined to try to defuse this thing were to try to understand the problem, investigate it, ask Kurt (better than asking me, though I'd try to help if asked), and try to negotiate a settlement, instead of just giving SirFozzie useless "support" that could backfire, it might all go away quickly. Since calling attention to this page is dangerous, I'd suggest, if you want to show support for SirFozzie, send him an email. If someone votes for him to resign, send that person an email, asking why or encouraging him to withdraw the vote.

I must confess I'm rather enjoying one thing about this: the turnabout, it's exposing a common phenomenon: a basic disregard for courtesy that permeates so many Wikipedia processes. Telling people that their request is frivolous isn't exactly the brightest way to get them to withdraw it. Kylu's edit summary previously was: (voting/polling for admin recall without discussion or, at a minimum, some rationale as to why, should be discouraged in the most severe manner possible.)

"The most severe manner possible" on Wikipedia is community ban. SirFozzie set up this process. Is Kylu suggesting that SirFozzie should be banned? If this process is so bad, why hasn't someone objected to it before? If SirFozzie's process is okay, but the problem is if anyone uses it, then the process would be a trap. Get banned for requesting recall. Let a hundred flowers bloom. The whole point was to avoid complex process, see SirFozzie's promise in his RfA: [1].

(On the other hand, I also hope that this is not stressing SirFozzie, and I'd encourage him to simply let it fall where it falls. Try to understand what went wrong, and fix it if he can, but don't worry about the outcome. It is likely that the worst thing that would happen here is that he'd have to stand for RfA again, and, frankly, I'd prefer an RfA to an ArbComm review any day, or even an ordinary user conduct RfC.)

So: want to help SirFozzie? *Don't* attack Kurt or others who join in the request. Do try to find out what caused this, and fix it. Let SirFozzie know that you support him through email. If you like, promise to support him in an RfA should the five requests appear. If he did something wrong, give him some friendly advice. I can say that while I currently have my name above, if this request makes the quota, and SirFozzie comes back up for an RfA, his excellent record of service, as well as his keeping his promise would weigh strongly in his favor. I happen to have a bug about administrators abusing their tools, and I see too much of it, so I'd probably review what happened here very carefully, and question him about it in the RfA. I certainly can't say how I'd vote, but an assumption that I'd oppose would be, certainly, premature. The process SirFozzie set up is not disruptive. Debating it could become so. It was up to him.

One more point. I do not see SirFozzie as bound to continue to keep the recall rules the same. He gave a general answer in his RfA, he chose, after being granted the mop, without "consideration" in the legal sense, to set the critical number at five in two weeks. (a promise made "without consideration" isn't considered binding; though detrimental reliance can also make it binding, i.e., now that someone has actually filed the request, gone to that trouble, withdrawing it would be offensive.) But later, he could change that. He could really do what he chooses, as long as he provides some reasonable process. He could, for example, require some statement of reasons, as he explicitly did not. He could, with a complainant, jointly appoint an arbiter, which can be very efficient. He could do lots of things. But right now, in the middle of the process he set up, I'd say that it would be problematic. To avoid even an appearance of impropriety, if he is going to change it, he should give at least a two weeks' notice of the change. My opinion, slightly arbitrary. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

All this discussion is about process and justice, and not about encyclopedia at all, and that's what you're missing after all these words. I don't care if SirFozzie was shortsighted and made up some dumb rules. The solution isn't to hold him to a bad process just because, so I am here to correct his mistake. :-) Dmcdevit·t 04:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because you don't wish to make yourself accountable for your piss poor and destructive actions doesn't mean it's wrong for others to stand behind their edits. Monobi (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This page is not about holding him to his promise. It's a page he set up to collect requests that he resign. What he does with that information is his decision, not mine, and not Dmcdevit's. "Process" and "justice" are, in fact, necessary elements in any community that is going to succeed, long-term, in cooperating on any project, including encyclopedias. *If* the five requests appear, the ball will be in SirFozzie's court. I'll say this: if he doesn't resign, or at least set up an RfA, Administrative Recall won't be worth the paper it isn't written on. Specifically, the process, developed by consensus, leaves it up to the admin to set the standards. Not the community. Given that, for the community to then try to interfere is to totally contradict Administrative recall. Now, it appears, some members of the community want to set standards to apply. This then creates more process, more fuss. The whole point of administrative recall was to make it simple. I'm not sure that the process he set up was bad. Might be. I refused to promise recall when I was asked, precisely because the whole thing was so vague and a promise wouldn't mean anything; I could set up impossible standards. There is one admin who basically said, "if I feel like it." I.e., he must accept the objection. That's not administrative recall at all. However, I'm going to remove my vote above, because I consider the present situation too dangerous. I do not think I have adequately investigated to make sure that SirFozzie deserves removal, and given him sufficient opportunity to remedy a situation. So I've decided to not take the risk that my request takes it over the top, before I've truly checked it all out in detail. I saw enough to make this into something serious, but I don't want this to go through because two editors who are really hidden socks of those SirFozzie protected us from decide to spend a little of their capital. Three, I was willing to risk. I'll look the history over more carefully, before deciding whether or not to put my name back before the deadline.

There is a very good purpose, though, to not requiring reasons. It was set up to avoid debate, which can waste huge amounts of editor time. This is not a poll. It is not an RfC. It is a *process* SirFozzie set up, and it is quite counterproductive to treat it as if it were a poll or RfC, all the while objecting that we shouldn't poll. I've seen this contradiction so many times I could barf. The time for arguments would be in the RfA. (Or, I suppose, in an RfC if the magic number is hit and SirFozzie says, "I decided not to respect it," which, by the way, would surprise me. Seems to me he's got integrity. Before that, what would seem appropriate would be doing what wiki theory would suggest: trying to mediate, and you don't mediate by telling people that what they are saying is frivolous, or wikilawyering, or just plain wrong. You do it by listening, assuming good faith, trying to understand what's going on, and responding with courtesy and consideration, treating editors with respect. I wasn't here early on, but I understand that this used to be much more common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 04:38, 18 May 2008

My reasons for requesting recall are short and simple. SirFozzie believes that he is able to enact his own preferences and will, when in fact the proper role of an administrator is to enact community will. Monobi (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs clerking

This process needed a clerk from the get go in my view, someone to interpret the terms, because (walking the history) there appears to be some confusion about the terms, who could sign, etc. KMWeber never gave a "reason", so if I had been clerking I would have pointed that out pretty shortly afterwards and removed the sig pending a reason being given, and put it back if one was. That's a stated requirement, after all. Also, a stated requirement is that the 5 sigs have to all happen within a 2 week period. Hence the removal of KMWeber's sig after 2 weeks went by seems supportable to me. Another interpretation is not just one sig gets removed, but in fact, the entire thing is over, since 2 weeks went by... it's not a rolling window. That probably should be crisped up in the verbiage to clarify if it's a fixed start time or a sliding window (and also clarify is Kurt eligible to re-sign if he comes back and makes a new sig with a new timestamp, and gives a reason this time, or is he DQed...?) Laugh at my long winded process but it has less loose ends. :)

As for all the people turning up to voice support, and to discuss, bravo, that's good info for people thinking about whether to sign or not. But it's ultimately not something that actually invalidates the petion itself in my considered judgement. (nor does anyone say it is, mind you, I don't think, except maybe Dmcdevit under certain interpretations of what he says...) ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)