Misplaced Pages

If you have come here to place a request for a re-confirmation of my adminship, please note that, at my discretion, I will either:

1. seek community approval of my adminship through a modified RfC; (no consensus == no change) (see separate section for process)
2. choose to take the matter to ArbCom; (see separate section for process)
3. resign my powers "under a cloud" and possibly stand again for adminship at some later date of my choosing; (see separate section for process)

• once the "six editors in good standing" count has been met using my own criteria
• and the matter concerns use of my admin powers at this wiki rather than a non-admin editing concern (use the standard dispute resolution mechanisms), a use of CheckUser (use the ombudsman process, or take the matter to the Audit Subcommittee, as appropriate, if standard dispute resolution does not resolve the matter), or actions at another wiki (use the processes at that wiki).

The rest of this page fills out particulars and commits to certain processes in advance so as to reduce ambiguity or the possible perception that I will change the rules as I go along to get the desired outcome.

Note: This page has a talk page because I value input and feedback on this whole thing. There's some lively discussion there already, and you, gentle reader, are invited to comment as well.

The Recall Petition process

The petition shall operate as follows:

• A clerk of my sole choosing, but chosen for ability to be impartial, will be selected by me to make sure that the petition process itself is smooth and that the requirements for petitioners are satisfied.
• The petition start time will be constituted as when the first eligible petitioner announces intention to recall by posting on my talk page. Ineligible petitioners (as judged by me) will not start the process unless I choose to waive eligibility for that petitioner. Such waiver shall be binding. If it takes longer than 24 hours to find a clerk and begin the process, the petition start time will be constituted as when the page is created and ready for use.
• A page in my user space will be created with sections for certified, unknown, and uncertified petitioners.
• If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice (one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention)... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated, but is not required as a condition of participation in the petition process. Deleting, or arguing for deletion of, the petition page by a petitioner, however, shall cause that petitioner to be disqualified from certification of the petition, unless I explicitly waive that disqualification. If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable.
• Additional sections may be added as the community desires for comments of whatever sort. These shall have no bearing on the petition outcome except to sway public opinion. The clerk is empowered to enforce decorum at the clerk's (and my) discretion, subject of course to public opinion not looking kindly on suppression of expression.
• I reserve the right to waive eligibility and numeric requirements at my sole discretion on a case by case basis. This means that I can deem a petition certified when it strictly would not have been. However this is only a waiver, it cannot make anyone ineligible or raise any numeric requirements. Waiver of requirements for one person does not waive them for others by default.
• The clerk will move petitioner signatures from unknown to certified or uncertified based on eligibility.
• After exactly 5 days the petition shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible petitioners. If at least 6 petitioners including the initiator are eligible, the petition shall be deemed certified and the next step of the process will be initiated. (the next step is one of the three, Modified RfC, self initiated RfAr, or resign "under a cloud" and stand for RfA at some later date of my choosing) as given above, at my choosing... the decision may be announced in advance of certification, at my option, but need not be.

The modified RfC process (choice 1)

This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The modified RfC will be constituted as follows:

• A page in my userspace will be created.
• Certification of the RfC will be waived.
• If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice (one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention)... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated but is not required as a condition of participation in the process. Arguing for deletion, however, shall cause that person's comments to be stricken or construed as favorable to retaining adminship, whichever is appropriate or more favourable to me, at my discretion. If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable.
• A clerk of my sole choosing, but chosen for ability to be impartial, will be appointed to make sure that the RfC process itself goes smoothly, and to determine eligibility where appropriate. Preference would be given to the same clerk that clerked the petition, if that clerk is willing and if I feel they have done an adequate job.
• The RfC will be started by referencing the entire text of the recall petition
• Two questions will be included: Should I keep my adminship/Should I resign my adminship
• Anyone qualified to vote in an ArbCom election, as construed in the most recent previous one to the initiation of the petition, or one then ongoing, whichever is more favourable (looser voting requirements), can sign under either of these two questions. Those not qualified will have their signatures and comments moved to sections that make it clear what their views are, but that do not count toward the total.
• Any other sections desired may be added but will not have bearing on the outcome except to sway public opinion
• At the end of exactly 5 days the modified RfC shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible commenters. If a simple majority to retain exists, I will not resign. If tied, or if a majority does not exist, I shall resign. Resignation shall be construed to have been "under a cloud", and if I wish to regain my adminship I will have to stand again via the normal RfA process.
• Those that consider this not to be an RfC are welcome to give it whatever term they wish but these process steps will be used, and supersede standard RfC process where there is a conflict.
• The conclusion of the RfC after the outcome is certified and my action is taken, if any, will conclude the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including starting a regular RfC, initiating an ArbCom case, etc.

The RfAr process (choice 2)

This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The RfAr will be initiated as follows:

• I will initiate the case myself, perhaps with assistance from the petition clerk if the clerk is willing.
• I will name myself and the certified petitioners as parties.
• I will state that I feel sufficient notice has been given to all parties.
• I will incorporate, by reference, the petition, and ask that arbcom consider it as evidence.
• I will ask any arbitrators that were petitioners to recuse but leave that decision to their good judgement.
• I will otherwise cooperate in whatever way possible, answering any questions asked to the best of my ability.
• I reserve the right to present material in my own defense.
• I reserve the right to suggest that other persons be named as parties.
• I undertake to carry all this out in the shortest reasonably possible time consistent with external events.
• Final determination of whether to take the case rests with ArbCom but I will strongly recommend that the case be taken and I would certainly appreciate (but not require) petitioners to also so strongly urge/recommend as well.
• If ArbCom declines to take the case, that concludes the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including initiating other cases. I reserve the right, but not the obligation, to initiate either choice 1 or 3 in this case. (I will try to be reasonable)
• If ArbCom takes the case, their judgement on principles, findings, and remedies will be binding on me, I will not work to circumvent them. The conclusion of the case will conclude the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including initiating other cases.

Resignation (choice 3)

This is one of the three possible "next steps" after a certified recall. The resignation shall be constituted as "under a cloud" meaning that a re RfA has standard success criteria as then constituted by the community and that withdrawing midway through is not an option for regaining admin status. Only a successful RfA will suffice. I may choose to stand again for RfA immediately, at some later date of my own choosing, or never, as I deem appropriate.

Grace period

Any change in any provision of this that makes it more stringent to qualify a petition or participate in any other part of the process, or more likely to lead to an outcome more favourable to me shall have a 2 week "grace period" during which any recall initiated will be under the old terms. Any change that is of the opposite sense (easier to qualify/participate, less favourable to me) shall go into effect immediately.

No Double Jeopardy

Once this process concludes for matters raised by petitioners during an instance of this process, I will not honor a second recall request regarding the same matters. If however new matters arise, the community is welcome to initiate another recall.

No vexatious litigants

No petitioner may initiate or support a petition for my recall more than three times in any 365 day period. This does not apply to participation in a modified RfC.

Severability

This is about my commitment to the community to be accountable, not about a category membership. Thus, the provisions of this page shall survive if, for example, the CAT:AOTR (or successor, whatever named) is deleted, renamed, listified. etc., and under any other reasonable circumstances. Only my explicitly stated withdrawal from this commitment itself will suffice.

No withdrawal

I do not intend to withdraw but that's an intent, not a promise. However, I promise not to withdraw to escape the consequences of this commitment. The only time I will withdraw from this category is if no recall is currently underway. This is subject to the same 2 week grace period as the eligibility or any other changes, so any withdrawal has at least 2 weeks to go into effect.

Notes

1. Remember, this is a voluntary action, and does not preclude an RfC or RfAr being initiated by others, should others feel they have no recourse.
2. ^ This is the colloquial term for what is more formally described as "under controversial circumstances", see, for example this ArbCom principle
3. Lar's criteria include the requirements:
   • that if the user calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves have been in this category for at least two weeks. This does not apply to non admins.
   • that if the user calling for recall is a non admin, the user must have at least 4 months edit history under that ID or clearly connected and publicly disclosed related IDs, and at least 500 mainspace contributions, at least 100 of which must be substantive article improvements, and must have had no significant blocks for disruptive behaviour within the last 4 months.
   Lar reserves the right to impose additional criteria at any time. However Lar commits that any criteria changes which remove anyone from the eligibility list will not go into effect until two weeks have elapsed from the time of the diff making the change (the "grace period"), to give folk time to get a recall started under the old criteria if they so desire, and further, that criteria will not be changed to remove anyone during the time of an active recall (starting from when notice is given by first petitioner, ending when the petition has been certified or decertified, in effect extending any 2 week grace period as necessary) Changes which only add eligibility, and do not remove anyone, are not subject to this limitation.
4. If you spot holes, now would be a good time to point them out so they can be fixed.

Holes

I agree that Ghirla's comment was a definite ethnic slur, and I would recommend taking it to ANI. --Elonka 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeszcze raz

Witam tu znow Tymek 17:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Pisac to ja moge - nie ma problemu ale problem jest w tym ze nie moge wiecej doklejac tekstu i nie wiem co z tym zrobic

A co do zrodel to dodam jak juz skoncze artykul opisy obrazkow uznalem ze nie sa potrzebne to sam sa same herby klubow plus dwa plakaty olimpijskie pozdro

Rzeczpospolita article

Hello. From your comment to Rzeczpospolita article on Polish Portal: ...and seems to misunderstand the role of administrators (who according to article verify and approve articles). Perhaps the following passage from the Polish Wiki could be interesting to you Administratorzy w MediaWiki (oprogramowaniu, na bazie którego działa Misplaced Pages) w Ostatnich zmianach widzą, które z edycji nie zostały jeszcze zatwierdzone przez któregokolwiek z administratorów. Zapewnia to, że każda zmiana zostanie skontrolowana nie tylko przez wielu zwykłych użytkowników, ale również przynajmniej przez jednego administratora. I think it does suggest something you criticized. Surprisingly enough I can not find a similar statement neither in English, nor in French version. Maybe a good occasion to edit this article? --Beaumont 00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Crash space

Unfortunately as much as I would like to help, I will already be back home in NYC on that date! :( Páll 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sociology Project News

Move by Balcer

Please tell me you don't support Balcer's latest action. This is the kinda thing which destroys trust on wikipedia. Surely this name doesn't mean so much to you that you'd condone such an action. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New barnstar proposal

Hi there! I see that you previously supported a barnstar proposal for stub sorting. There's a new one I'm trying to drum up support for. If you like, you can see it at The Stub Sorting Barnstar. Thanks for considering it. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your new green signature

Your new signature is more than three lines in my window without the datestamp, uses some shockingly obtrusive colors, uses smaller text than the standard, and has its own span class.

Could you please use something a little lower-key? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was inspired by the sig of User:(aeropagitica). I wanted something that would be easily visible, but not to obtrusive, and I think I might have overdone it a little. I thought about making it smaller with <small></small> but you say that small text is bad, too...I am open to suggestions, see some of the ideas I played at User:Piotrus/Sandbox#Signature_testing_range.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not use your old sig, which was just fine? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I saw (aeropagitica) sig and I liked it. It is easier for me (and others) to find my own posts in discussions, keeping WP:SIG#Appearance_and_colour in mind I'd suggest everyone had some 'striking' element in their sig. But yes, I agree, I may have went to far. If you have any suggestions how to shorten my sig and make it somewhat less obtrusive, do tell.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  18:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not ditch the span classes and borders and backgrounds and just use colored text? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of 6b? It loses the span line, shortening it by about 25%, result is:  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk} . Yes, it is even smaller, but I think smaller makes it less obtrusive...? Compare to: -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  18:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I have to admit, the current color kind of hurts my eyes, too. It's distracting, and makes it difficult to quickly scan a talk page. I mean granted, it does make your comments easy to identify. :) But it's a bit on the unpleasant side, and when I'm just scanning "recent diffs", the amount of code can make some comments very difficult to parse. My recommendation is that you try something else. Of those at your testing page, I like #1 and #6a the best.  :) --Elonka 18:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 6a shows most promise, let me see what I can tweak with that (6a)  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  While on the subject of sigs, Elonka, have you considered addinga link to your talk page? It is very handy for others.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  18:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For now I am changing to 6d, it is much less obtrusive but keeps colorful talk link which should be enough for my primary purpose of making the sig easy to spot. Tnx for the comments, and any further suggestions are appreciated. If you think 6d has still to much code, I guess I could lose the span and go with 6i.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  19:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New signature (6d) test: -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's still three lines of code, and it's still really small. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:SIG#Length three lines is acceptable, but I will work on that. As for smallness, well, as I said, it can be either small or obtrusive, right? Although if you prefer I remove the small or sup tags, we can try those variants (but it will be more obtrusive then, I am afraid). See variants k,l and m.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The obtrusiveness is due to the bright green background, not the size. It can be both illegible from being too small and obtrusive from being a brightgreen block. I still suggest ditching the backgrounds and span classes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, the bright green background is gone, so I hope we dealth with obtrusivness. Small size I don't believe is a problem: people don't really have to read anything but talk, after all we have our share of users with completly illegible sigs (for example using non-Latin characters). Remaining small background servers to make the sig visible on cluttered pages and I would prefer it remain. Border is not necessary, but I think it is a nice touch.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If I remove the small tag (version 6l) my sig is only a half a line longer then yours, and safely withing the 'two or three lines' lenght requirement of WP:SIG:

_{<span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span>} 19:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

vs

] <small>(] | ])</small>

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Honesty

Piotrus, I was very surprised to see the recent post of yours at AN/I , where you said, I am not currently involved with any content dispute with user Ghirlandajo, and so Irpen suggestion that I try to gain something by this block is a sad example of bad faith on the part of an otherwise reasonable contributor. Huh? You absolutely are involved in a dispute, and a major one, about the naming of the Jogaila article. How can you justify your statement? --Elonka 03:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to stop useless personal attacks against me.

Saying things like "as you both seem to think that WP:CIV is a useless policy. May I recommend AfD it first? If you suceed I promise never again to bring the issue of your incivility up." are blatant personal attacks, and I would rather prefer you avoiding them. If this was an attempt to try and make me using insults or things like that, well I'm not Ghirla and never use those.

Admit, Piotrus, that the war between you and Ghirla is no longer a matter of content or opinions, as, like you said, you never edit the same pages. It is just a useless personal war. -- Grafikm 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What's this, building a phony case against one of the few editors who had the guts to stand up to Ghirlandajo's harassment? Pathetic. I would suggest you look into Ghirnadajo's edit history (inluding his most recent announcement) for loads of actual "blatant" personal attacks. More newspeak and turning the tables around hoping to turn attention away from the actual problem on our hands, i.e. Ghirlandajo's incivility towards other users. Pathetic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.247.158 (talk • contribs)

I suggest you create an account and stop harassing everyone. And incidentally, Piotrus advised you to create an account to... :) -- Grafikm 16:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page, Im sure you will understand that it is Ghirlandajo who needs to review his behaviour. Full (reconciliatory) reply there. 83.5.247.158 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC) PS Forgive me Piotrus, I have been labelled a troll by some, which might be used against you, just wanted to let you know that you shouldnt cave in under the pressure of the unjust comments of a few. 83.5.247.158 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and when you take off your mask and register, maybe people will consider you to be a person, instead of the troll that you object being referred to as. For an anonymous user you sure do seem to know the ropes and the ins and outs of WK. I've personally stated that I doubt that you are user:Molobo, since you seem to be a lot more intelligent than he was. Dr. Dan 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus knows as well as I do that I warned Ghirla several times about his incivility.

P.S.: Piotrus, what's up with your talk page layout. Comments don't seem to indent? -- Grafikm 16:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize Grafikm for the confusion, the remark was not adressed to you, as you are a very civil editor, it was adressed to Calgacus, who is not. As for the indent problem, I've noticed it lately, but have not figured out how to fix it yet. Will try to do so soon.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop the slander please

Piotrus, do you want to ease it down with the slander. I was only trying to defend Ghirla. Attacking the character of everyone who speaks up for him hardly looks good, especially considering you are supposed to be behaving like an admin. I'm only on wikipedia to write articles and keep things NPOV and help maintain fairness. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't remove comments from my talk page, as some other editors do, but your accusation of slander is just another violation of WP:PA in your record.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

seeing that in your very last edit before this one, you very maturely called for a return to content creation, you do not look very good here. It's ok to have an ego, Piotrus, but if you hysterically jump at anyone criticising you, people will stop listening to you, much like to the boy who cried wolf. Now try to follow your own advice and forget this all happened. dab (ᛏ) 19:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)