User talk:Looie496/Recall

January 2011

Diffs please

For a completely uninvolved person to review this recall request, the filer needs to give us some diffs, preferably as part of a chronology of events, please. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Other methods of dispute resolution

Generally, for the Arbitration Committee to desysop someone, evidence must be prevented that indicates that the problem is not merely a one-off event. Now, that does not preclude the community from using higher standards, but one must wonder why the filter chose to come here immediately. I haven't followed the discussion in detail, but it looks like the only discussion that has happened has been three days (as in a tenth of a month or less than half a week) of..."discussion" on ANI and Looie's user talk page. Hardly substantial enough. There exist plenty of other dispute resolution methods, the most prominent of them being Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User, which has been used with a fair amount of success before—Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend, for example. NW (Talk) 20:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

filter -> filer. HeyMid (contribs) 20:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

let me get this straight

You are asking for him to have his admin rights removed because of one error? Not a pattern of ignoring consensus but one incident? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My reason for filing

There was an unblock request made here, with a discussion for consensus. User:Looie496 made this post clearly going against consensus. He has been contacted regarding this, and refuses to change his decision, which again, goes against community consensus. Dusti^*poke* 20:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a pain in the arse, but if you are looking to desysop someone over one incident, you need to get your evidence in order. That means diffs, not wikilinks, because wikilinks to ANI and user talk pages will get lost in archiving. At a minimum I'd expect to see a permalink to the ANI thread, a link to the relevant block log, and diffs for all relevant messages posted on user talk pages. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So, the answer to my question in the previous section is yes, this is about one specific incident. Ok, that's what I wanted to know. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get those diffs for you. One moment please. Dusti^*poke* 20:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is this talk page the correct location for a non-administrator to provide comments? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

View by Tryptofish

I've been quietly watching the discussions leading up to this recall request, and this is my understanding of the situation. Looie disagreed with a user block, and reversed that block. There does not seem to be any real controversy over the actual effects of the unblock, in that the user has made no edits since being unblocked. There has, however, been considerable controversy over whether the past actions of the blocked user did or did not justify the unblock, and there appears to be a preponderance of opinion in the recent WP:ANI thread against the unblock, although it is by no means unanimous. Some editors have expressed support for Looie's unblock, and some have expressed opposition to it, and some of the latter have objected to his decision not to self-revert in the face of objections.

My own preference is that administrators be careful not to be too quick to take unilateral action that appears to go against the tide of discussion at the time, unless there is an urgent need to do so in order to avoid doing harm. I do not think that this was the case here, and I would have preferred that Looie, instead, argue forcefully in the ANI discussion in favor of an unblock, before actually taking it on himself to make the unblock. However, I would see this as being a case of "learn from this experience and move on", rather than "this is sufficient reason to recall". Importantly, I am not aware that this unblock has been part of a pattern. Consequently, I recommend that Looie think about this, but that the recall request should be rejected. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• There seems to be some diversity in how editors are commenting in this talk, so I thought that I should note that I, too, am a non-administrator who disagrees with the filer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

About a day has passed, and I have some further comments after thinking further:

• I'm conflicted in some ways on the merits of this recall. I think that Mkavierta's rationale in the second part of his pro-recall !vote is very compelling (and I've advised Looie at his user talk to take it very seriously). Those points are very well-taken, and seriously weaken my argument above about learning and moving on. On the other hand, it seems to me that the administrators who make themselves available for recall are, by definition, the ones who don't need to. As many users have pointed out, quite a few administrators have made mistakes that are arguably worse, and have near-zero likelihood of being called to account.
• In regard to that latter point, I smiled at Animate's suggestion that anyone supporting this recall should, themselves, make themself subject to recall. When I think back to the CDA proposal, an awful lot of users who opposed CDA called editors who would ask for an administrator to be removed "mobs with pitchforks". I suppose I could ask the five admins how they would feel about being described that way—but I also suppose that they could be regarded as living proof that administrators, very honorably, do not close ranks around their own. It also strikes me that it takes a lot more support to pass a reconfirmation RfA than would have been needed to survive a CDA, and I have a feeling that those who say they support the recall, but will likely support reconfirmation at RfA, may not really understand that they may be setting up an RfA that might not be able to pass.

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Re: "anyone supporting this recall should, themselves, make themself subject to recall", hear, hear, ILIKEIT !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Seemed like kind of a no brainer to me. You can't support the process and participate in the process if you yourself are not willing to be subjected to the process. It seems hypocritical, and yes, I am open to recall. AniMate 00:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
      • As I noted below, there are admins who have signed the petition to recall Looie, whose stated reason for signing is that Looie's fate should be decided by all, that are not open to recall (implying they will only allow their fate to be decided by Arbcom and Jimbo). I used the term ironic to describe this, but yours works too.Dave (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• Trypto, I am open to recall, and have had someone attempt to open one against me. (I would have been the first signer, but I've had an edit warring block within 6 months, disqualifying me.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, administrators who make themselves available for recall are, by definition, the ones who don't need to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrators who disagree with filer

 Clerk note: This is not the place to vote against the recall. The way this works is if there are five votes in support of the recall, then Looie will resign or re-run RFA, should he do the latter you will be given an opportunity to voice your opinion at the RfA. However, you are free to leave your thoughts at this talk page as a means of persuading voting administrators to change their minds, but note that any against "votes" will not have any effect on the tallying of the recall request, they should instead be saved for the RfA should it come to that. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Noted, however, if there is a concensus that recall should not happen, then I feel that concensus should be followed. Otherwise, the grounds given for recall are flawed in themselves. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Looie496 choose these recall guidelines himself, and is not technically required, even if 5 admins vote in favour of recall, to follow them. If there remains a consensus that he should be an administrator then he will be able to stay an administrator, he'll just go through RfA and get consensus there instead. That's how he's decided to do it, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate and that position but I don't believe it commands that we not register our disagreement here. As you have noted, recall is just a made-up process with no enforceable rules. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that (and encourage that) you can voice your opinions (whatever they may be) on the talk page. I just wanted everyone in this section to be aware that they won't be tallied in the closing of this particular page, and that they should therefore keep an eye out for an RfA in the event of the recall being successful. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As there is no place on the user recall page to record this, I felt it would be appropriate to open a section here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree. While the unblock was clearly quite wrong and out of process, a single gross mistake does not make a sufficient reason to recall, for me. If diffs of further transgressions come to light I may reconsider, but for now will not be signing the Recall list on the user page. Mkativerata makes good points in favour of recall. I will support a recall - but would !vote to keep Looie496 if an RfA should result. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)What he said, pretty much word for word. --Danger (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC) After reading Looie's statement below, I am striking this. I am not comfortable with admins who cannot limit themselves to action that is not unilateral, ie, action that is backed by consensus. It is not the action itself that is particularly troubling, but the continued defense of it. --Danger (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with above. There are some offenses so bad that one instance of doing it can and should lead to removal of sysop rights. This isn't one of those cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Per Beeblebrox. However, I don't support the timing of the unblock, and wouldn't mind further formal discussion about it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• I think Tryptofish and Reyk have made the most reasonable arguments so far, but I will try to remain open to new arguments and evidence. Dave (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• I started writing this before I saw the subject's own statement below, which largely confirms my own view. Weighing consensus by nature and strength of arguments rather than numerically, and evaluating possible outcomes of action or inaction, is part of admin discretion. This was pushing the bounds, but not beyond them. I prefer to see ANI discussions run at least 48 hours, so I personally count that as a mistake, but that happens often. The big mistake in my view was not leaving a strong caution for the unblockee outlining the norms for interaction here and the possibility of re-blocking for similar battleground behaviour. That's just not a big enough mistake to have a re-!vote, and I've noticed Looie496 around and they haven't been breaking other stuff that I've seen. Franamax (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Diffs by request

• is a link to the unblock
• attempt to discuss with the sysop
• link to the ANI thread
• diff for sysop providing unblock statement
• block log for the user

The second and third aren't really diffs. I think you want [1] and [2] for those. 28bytes (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback comment

Is there more than a single instance of the admin disregarding community consensus? If not then removing the sysop flag would seem premature. No permanent harm was done by this action, even if it was contrary to the prevailing input at ANI. It might be more helpful to the project to retain Looie496's services as an admin, assuming he acknowledges the importance of following community input.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 Clerk note: moved from recall page - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata comment

I'm awaiting a statement from Looie496 which would be very helpful. Absent a statement I'm inclined to endorse the filing, so long as my block log doesn't prohibit me from doing so :) This is more than an error: it was a contumelious disregard of community consensus. Many of us, myself included, do rash and silly things. If they're recognised for that and are isolated incidents, we can move on. But unless I'm confident this won't happen again -- and at the moment I'm not -- I'm pretty worried. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-admins who disagree with filer

• Basically per Beeblebrox and Will Beback. This was not an error so severe as to merit desysopping. A user who'd served a three-week block for one off-colour comment was unblocked and hasn't misbehaved since. What harm has been done by this? On the other hand, going against prevailing consensus isn't something to encourage and I would advise Looie to tread more carefully in the future. On the other other hand, I supported the original unblock of ActuallyRationalThinker and consider some of the opposes unfair to the point of vindictiveness- the motivation seems to be not the prevention of damage to the project, but humiliation and punishment- and somewhat dishonest because the possibility of being unblocked was always dangled in front of ART but would obviously never be granted no matter what he said. These mean games are definitely not something that should be encouraged, and so I can't be too hard on an admin who puts an end to it. Reyk _YO! 22:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Not sure that this will actually do any good, but yes - I agree with Reyk. I see where the two people who have endorsed the recall are coming from in terms of letting the community decide via RfA but, personally, having seen how unpleasant the RFA process is, I would not want to subject someone to it again without good reason. This, in my view, is not a good enough reason.--Korruski^Talk 23:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Per my rationale below. I'd also add that it's rather amusing to see AniMate's comment that admins don't get a supervote in a section that only admins are supposed to vote in, while we ordinary users (of whom there are far more) can only make statements that have no effect on the recall result. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Modified at 17:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Martinp (nonadmin)

A quick review of the situation shows a real clusterf!ck. Reading the discussion at the point Looie got involved, I really don't know what was the most productive way forward. You can argue that Looie crossed a bright line of "don't disregard consensus", you can argue it was a well-intentioned use of IAR where consensus was impossible to read or would not be reached. You can certainly argue that it was a situation for multilateral rather than unilateral action, and that he failed to consider what impact similar actions have in some of the more toxic areas on Wikipedia. All of this would make for a good discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Looie496, if that weren't a red link. But driving this to a recall at this point is premature. Martinp (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

View by AniMate

I'm of two minds when it comes to this recall. I'm very comfortable certifying it. Looie496 made a controversial admin action against emerging consensus at WP:AN/I. He was being WP:BOLD and WP:Ignoring all rules. In situations like this, an administrator must be willing to discuss and defend their actions. Looie496' chose not to discuss it. Frankly, I'm not sure he should be desysopped, and likely wouldn't be here if he had chosen to continue to discuss this. I likely won't oppose a reconfirmation RfA if it comes to that. It just kind of sucks for it to take a recall to get him to actively engage in regards to this issue. AniMate 23:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually WP:Cowboy adminship summarizes my views on this rather well. AniMate 00:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

View by 28bytes

This recall may be extremely premature, since, as best I can tell from the diffs provided, it's based on a single objectionable decision Looie496 made. However, now that it's open, I have to echo Mkativerata's concern that after reading Looie496's statement below, this isn't so much a one-off "oops" as it is a stated intent to disregard consensus if consensus doesn't mesh with what Looie496 thinks ought to happen in a given situation. He seems to say that if there were a better way to unblock against consensus among the editors who responded to User:Bwilkins' request for input, he'd do that instead, in the absence of one, his decision to unblock unilaterally was the best decision given the circumstances presented to him. I disagree, and don't understand what was so urgent that required User:ActuallyRationalThinker to be unblocked "expeditiously." 28bytes (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Contrary positions

I cannot contribute above, because according to the criteria, I am not an "Administrator in good standing", despite my long-standing contributions to this project. Let's be clear about this; we are all volunteers; and we are all human. To expect a 100% counsel of perfection is unreal, otherwise there would be no need at all for human intervention here; artificial intelligence would ensure that every edit to every article, and every administrative action, would be undertaken within perfect rules; but it is not so. However, in the absence of that, we have to deal with the realities in that editors will fuck up, so will administrators, and so will arbitrators. There is adequate history for all of those. Meanwhile, however, a balance has to be struck between the merits of an individual admin/editor, whatever, and the long-term benefit of the the project as a whole. While it may be said that Looie was not as responsive as others might have wished, he has boldly submitted to this process, and personally, since I have been taken to WP:ANI on several occasions, but am still here, my considered opinion is that one error, unless egregiously gross, isn't enough to de-sysop. Bottom line is that Looie is arguably better being an admin than not and if he takes away a message from this incident, fine. I'm not in the business of destroying people for its own sake. Rodhullandemu 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Clerk note: moved from recall page - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The stark reality is that, for better or worse, Admins are difficult to remove from their positions, regardless of the good work they may do behind the scenes, which very few editors see. It's not a free ride, and nor should it be; but one swallow doth not a summer make, and the rare lapse should not give rise to a witchhunt. It's not as if, as pointed out elsewhere, that this is a systematic failure of adminship. Contrition and advice might be adequate here, but this process IMO, ain't gonna go anywhere. To Looie: whatever your honour may suggest, the reality is that on balance you are better off being an Admin than not, and let no man take that away from you without a struggle. It's difficult enough passing an RfA these days, without the struggle of maintaining it. Rodhullandemu 01:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by The Blade of the Northern Lights

I'm not buying Dusti's rationale here for a second. Did anyone get this angry over Fences and Windows unblocking Colonel Warden for comparing people's tactics (on a rather lengthy ANI thread about Epeefleche's canvassing of 65 editors; will give a link if necessary) to Nazis? No; what happened was people developed a consensus to reblock, and that was that. If it was such a big deal to reblock this editor, that's what should have been done, and where it should have ended. There's no consensus to do such a thing right now, so one could, if they chose, deduce that unblocking may have been the right thing to do. If we insist on doing anything, an RfC would suffice; this happened once, and I've seen far more egregious issues get treated with nothing (I can provide one example off the top of my head if asked). This recall isn't as egregiously vindictive as what happened to Herostratus, but it seems like treating dandruff with slow decapitation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments on HJ Mitchell's support

Per Courcelles. Picking such a block to be your 11th unblock despite the consensus of a community which has reviewed thousands was unwise and the wider community should have a chance to comment on whether they still trust you, so I'm going to stick my sig here in case any of the admins above change their minds. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's neither here nor there to me; numbers are irrelevant, and each block or unblock should be treated on its merits, as opposed to some jejune criterion as regards numbers, unless there is some course of conduct that is in contravention of policy, guidelines, or consensus. Otherwise, it just seems like serendipity or otherwise randomness. If there is evidence of a systematic course of conduct, please, let's see it. Otherwise.... Rodhullandemu 01:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking that the community still trusts you after every controversial decision is utter madness, and would paralyse the ability of admins to act boldly.

Still, too late now. For some reason we're going to put Looie496 through hell-week again.--Korruski^Talk 09:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved non-admin User:SandyGeorgia

While it's refreshing to see admins attempt, even if misguided, to "police their own", I can't help but notice the continuing double standard. When eight admins opined that another admin had misused tools against me, nothing was done about it. I do not see consensus that there was clear misuse of tools as occurred with me, rather some gray territory over which many others disagree, so this is a sad state of affairs to have initiated a recall over. Take home message: abuse of and malign a "regular editor" with charges of vandalism that no admin supports and every admin weighing in agrees is a clear policy violation of a clearly stated policy, never retract or apologize, and get away with it, but come up against the wrong group of admins on a marginal call, expect to pay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the event to which Sandy is referring to, although I became aware of it after it happened. I was busy trying to build an encyclopedia at the time it occurred=-). While I don't think what this admin did to Sandy alone would justify a recall, and I do think Sandy overreacted in her response, it was part of a longstanding pattern of events where this admin flaunted authority and in general conducted themselves in a manner that made both wikipedia admins and the larger wikipedia community look bad. I agree with Sandy's larger point, the admin she has a beef with is a much clearer case of an admin that _should_ be subject to a recall action than what occurred here. Dave (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that (except the overreaction ... if they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone, so I have to stand up and scream :) That issue was not worthy of a recall, but neither is this. No matter how trivial, that issue was a much more clear and straightforward policy violation and misuse of tools; this is much less clear, and not worthy of a recall. Also, I don't think I still "have a beef" with that admin; I suspect the RFC/U was effective, and I really wonder why the folks here launched a recall instead of an RFC/U? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have said "had a beef..." I did not mean to imply you were holding grudges.Dave (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by subject of Recall

I'm going to keep this as terse as possible. I am myself very uncomfortable with having acted unilaterally here. Here is why I did it. There were two aspects of this situation that seemed clear to me: (1) the editor had not committed any offense that justified a permanent ban; (2) because of the way the situation evolved at ANI, the editor was de facto community banned unless somebody acted unilaterally. If anybody can show me a mechanism that (1) does not require some admin to act unilaterally, and (2) would have had a reasonable probability of leading expeditiously to an unblock, I will readily admit that I should have used that mechanism. One possibility might have been to file an Arbcom case, but my understanding is that Arbcom does not get involved in issues like this, and in any case the editor would have remained blocked for months unless Arbcom unblocked by motion in the meantime. The root problem is that the whole business of deciding on blocks or unblocks by holding a vote at ANI is completely broken -- it inevitably leads to actions being based on emotions rather than on any sort of consistent policy. Looie496 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Kim Dent Brown

Concerning the issue about whether only admins should be allowed to accept, I sympathize with the idea that participation should be broader, but I am unable to see how to design a mechanism that can't be gamed. It basically comes down to finding a way to restrict participation to editors who can be considered "responsible" in some sense. Admins have been through the RFA process -- there is no obvious equivalent for other editors. How could you rule out socks, SPAs, and editors who hold a grudge? Maybe it's possible, but for me it is too tricky to work out. MBisanz put a lot of thought into this; I don't have any expectations that I can do better. Looie496 (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I sympathise. Any 5 editors is a low hurdle, and I understand why you chose any 5 admins. I've gone with 5 editors for my recall criterion on the basis that if five socks or meatpuppets can be gathered together to force a recall, this would be pretty obvious and the RfA would likely be snowed against them. It's a paradox that if your criterion was 5 editors I would not have voted for recall! But there we are, the law of unintended consequences will doubtless work its way out in due course! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of process

For purposes of recall, a sysop shouldn't set a recall on the basis of "How hard would it be for the community to get me out" or "Is this too easy for me to have my flag removed" as so many sysops do. The criterion for Looie's removal of the sysop bit has been met, and I respectfully ask that his sysop bit be removed, and the next step take place: Either an RFA for permanent resignation. Dusti^*poke* 00:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The recall is supposed to last 48 hours. There's no rush here, and I may in fact remove myself from supporting. AniMate 00:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I posted a comment on Looie's talk page about this. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that a full 48 hours would be good as well, now that I think about it. I'll make a note at AN/I about this (more people seem to watch that than the AN anyway. Maybe Louie will give a better response or a greater consensus will come forth in the overflow section. My only concern is regardless of what happens > he understands (and should now) about community consensus. A great number of mistakes happen by Sysops and I'm okay with that. But a clear "I don't care what you guys think, this is what I think is a slap in the face to the community who entrusted him with the bits. Dusti^*poke* 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec, this was meant to reply to Dusti's comment above) The one thing I do find disturbing in this recall petition is the complaints regarding the criteria for voting and/or passage. First of all, let's remember that wikipedia, at present, has no administrator recall procedure; the admins who subject themselves to recall do so voluntarily. I find it ironic that two of the votes for recall are from admins complaining that the voting process for this recall petition is only open to other admins, yet they themselves have no statement of their recall criteria on their userpage. Regardless of what you may think of Looie's decision to unblock that led to this recall, I would hope all would at least respect that he voluntarily submitted himself to this recall, rather than demand that he retroactively reform the criteria.Dave (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

He is the one who posted the recall criteria. Sysops can post their own criteria or it can go through arbcom/rfc/jimbo.. etc. I was simply asking for his next move, respectfully, and it wasn't a demand. It was a request. This is his recall, and he controls it. I don't see an issue with this petition for recall as it was a clear misuse of unblocking and clearly against community consensus. He stated his gross intention and that's that. Dusti^*poke* 00:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(following from Dave's comment) For what it's worth, two of the five admins !voted against WP:CDARFC; one of them is open to recall while the other is not; the other three did note !vote there. (For whatever any of that is worth. Not a criticism of anyone, more a musing on human nature.) Perhaps more significantly, though, looking at the comments in this talk (as of the time that I post this comment), there actually appear to have been more administrators opposing this recall than supporting it. My point: this was far from a perfect process. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think of this as something leading up to an RfA, rather than an in-depth consensus building process itself, then things don't seems so bad. While more admins may oppose then support recall, that can all be sorted out at RfA should Looie decide to go there. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with the rationale behind this I too am dismayed that Looie has not seen fit to respond. All in all, I agree with Looies logic that the block was unjustly harsh, but I also agree that lifting it was contradictory to the consensus at that time at ANI. I just don't think we need to lose an admin over one (very) bad call. It would be nice if he would at least acknowledge he acted against consensus. He doesn't have to agree with it, he just has to accept it. I've closed lots of AFDs where I didn't agree with the result, it's part of the job. As an aside I would also mention that the reason some of the participating admins do not list their own recall criteria is that many of us, myself included, don't have any. As you can see this process is toothless and unenforceable without the consent of the admin being recalled. Attempts to come up with a standardized, binding procedure have repeatedly failed. We may yet get there someday but currently the only ways to forcibly revoke admin status are ArbCom, community sanction, or in rare cases direct action by Jimbo. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Response

Excuse me for not responding to this until now -- I've been offline. I have to agree that the procedure makes no provision for rescinding of "votes", and I have accordingly submitted my resignation of the admin bit at WP:BN. Looie496 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

SarekOfVulcan

 Clerk note: SarekOfVulcan voted in favour of recall, however, as he does not currently pass the criteria of an "administrator in good standing" used by this particular request, the vote has been removed. The vote can be viewed here. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Does my block log count me out? Just checking to be sure. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, your block appears to have been a genuine mistake by the blocking administrator (yourself), who had no intent of blocking you and did not think you should be blocked at the time of blocking. In addition SarekOfVulcan's unblock appears to have been a "time served unblock", rather than an unblock because the prior block did not apply. SarekOfVulcan is of course free to contest this removal and I may reverse it if he can provide further details that I am not currently aware of - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It was almost a case of me blocking myself on purpose, actually. I realized that I was past 3RR in a case that wasn't clear vandalism or BLP enforcement, so I brought it to AN/I for further opinion. When the blocking admin pointed out that I had gotten up to (iirc) 7RR, I insisted on the same block I would have given to pretty much any other editor in the same situation. Someone else promptly unblocked on the grounds that it obviously wasn't preventive at that point, but I would have objected if I had been asked first. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Mkativerata

 Clerk note: Mkativerata voted in favour here. The only block in Mkativerata's block log was an accidental blocking of himself. He is defined, for the purposes of this recall, as an "administrator in good standing" - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kim Dent-Brown

 Clerk note: Kim Dent-Brown voted in favour here. For the purposes of this recall, Kim Dent-Brown is defined as an "administrator in good standing". - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

AniMate

 Clerk note: AniMate voted in favour here. For the purposes of this recall, AniMate is defined as an "administrator in good standing". - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 Clerk note: AniMate has withdrawn support of this recall request per this edit. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein

 Clerk note: Sandstein voted in favour here. For the purposes of this recall, Sandstein is defined as an "administrator in good standing". - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles

 Clerk note: Courcelles voted in favour here. For the purposes of this recall, Courcelles is defined as an "administrator in good standing". - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell

 Clerk note: HJ Mitchell voted in favour here. His vote was moved from the overflow section to the "Five administrators who agree with filer" after AniMate withdrew support. For the purposes of this recall, HJ Mitchell is defined as an "administrator in good standing". - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)