User:Avanu/Process

(moved from Administrators' Noticeboard)

Question on process
In a couple of recent discussions at AN/I, I made the comment that I felt that SarekOfVulcan is not a great administrator on some issues. Specifically, my complaints revolve mostly around the WP:Civility pillar. His response was that I should pursue a recall of his adminship or keep my complaints off Wikipedia. While I feel that administrators as a matter of public good should be willing to accept critical commentary, I recognize the reasoning for his statement.

However, in the vein of responding to his request, I would like to ask for a temporary ban for Sarek on using tools for any purpose whatsoever, to essentially live the life of the common man for a consensus-directed length of time. After doing some checking, I don't see an obvious route or process for this sort of thing, so I'm here asking how it would be formally requested and done in a manner consistent with community consensus and fairness.

My basis for this request simply goes back to the civility pillar, and the admonishment on the WP:Admin page that administrators "are never required to use their tools and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved". In essence, to reinforce civility, I would like Sarek to live by the restrictions of a normal user for a time, so that he can gain the perspective that I feel he has lost.

Your thoughtful assistance in directing me through the next step to make this request is appreciated. -- Avanu (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about your concerns - though I've seen the name (Star trek reference, so the name at least is memorable), but I don't recall ever actually interacting with SoV.
 * Anyway, with the disclaimer out of the way. I'll say that I think I remember more than once that the community has, through discussion, approved desysop in the long past. though in the cases i can think of, it was "approved" by Jimbo Wales (back then he was a bit more "hands on", and so did the de-sysopping himslf following the community discussion.
 * So I dunno. Arbcom, definitely. AN/I discussion, "maybe". but I think that it's been a long enough time, you'd probably need to run an RfC on it first, unless IAR applies somehow. And if this is going to be a "reverse rfA" (a call of no trust), then a bureaucrat would probably need to "close" the discussion as well. - jc37 04:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * After I had some time to consider what Sarek had said and time to re-think my statements, I wouldn't be asking for a 'de-sysop' really. Just a 'ban' in the manner of a typical WP:BAN, except that the ban would apply to the use of tools. In other words, he would still fully have the rights and opportunity to use his additional powers, but would have to refrain from the use of them for the specified length of time. More the idea of a 'sanction' than an all-out destructo implosion thing. My goal is not to 'make Sarek pay', but to encourage him to see the side of things that so-called normal editors see, for a while, in order to gain insight and improve as a part of the community. -- Avanu (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have my own disclaimer: this is a process comment only, and not a recommendation on what you should do. Administrators have historically only been desysopped by Jimbo or at the direction of ArbCom. All deviations from this were emergencies related to compromised accounts and a couple of special cases where editors were granted the bit for technical reasons. However, administrators can be blocked or banned as much as anyone else can, so that route is certain possible through ANI. As for actual recommendations: if you think there are serious, actionable behavioral issues, then file an RfC. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, Avanu, you don't want to de-sysop Sarek, but you do wish to seek lesser sanctions against him for a time. I would recommend either pursuing an RFC/U or a notice at AN/I, carefully constructed to present evidence of incivility clearly and concisely. In either case, you should explicitly state that you do not seek to recall Sarek, you want them to stay an admin in the long run, and you are just seeking a short-term sanction. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, no. My response was that if he wasn't willing to actually put in the work to demonstrate that I deserved it, and that he  to block someone to enforce a BLPBAN. I explicitly said on his talkpage that, as opposed to personal attacks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  11:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As a TPS'er of SoV's talkpage, and having viewed Avanu's interactions and commentary about SoV across many platforms, I have to say that the tone and nature of Avanu's interactions are hounding bordering heavily on dickish. He's needlessly provocative.  SoV has kept their cool.  Avanu has found zero instances where SoV has actually broken any policy, and done nothing but WP:ABF on anything SoV does.  My suggestion would be a one-way interaction ban on Avanu, that does not permit them to discuss, or comment on, or interact in any way regarding SoV. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * *snort* Nice edit summary there, BWilkins. :-)-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * heh, I knew you'd appreciate the sarcasm LOL (I was going to say "SoV is provocativelessly needy") (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to respectfully disagree with BWilkins on this. Particularly "Avanu has found zero instances where SoV has actually broken any policy and done nothing but WP:ABF on anything SoV does.". This is a request for process, not a platform for reviewing Sarek's actions. In addition, the AN/I determined several months ago that keeping a log of admin's bad deeds on Wikipedia was a violation of policy, not sure if you recall that debate, but an editor was keeping a list on their Talkpage of bad deeds (in their opinion) that certain admins had taken. I have compiled no such list on Sarek either on Wikipedia or elsewhere, I simply don't care to do that or have the time for it generally.
 * However, back to facts, over a long period of time, extending beyond SoV's talkpage, I have observed SoV's behavior and I take issue with some of the particulars. The idea that I am hounding another editor when I have next to no interaction with him normally is absurd, and the only reason I recently did was because he closed/resolved a AN/I debate I had participated in. He banned the person, and then proceeded to block the guy; the community consensus found this block to be overly harsh and overturned it. I have a particular disdain of power being used in a pushy way for its own sake. I did allow my indignation to get the best of me in that recent debate because I see it as the latest incarnation in a continuing episode of the same. BWilkins might find it humorous to have a legitimate complaint about an admin, and humorous to want to proceed in a professional way with such a complaint. When an editor has a complaint, this kind of ABF only serves to make things more contentious. Additionally, the assertion by BWilkins that I do nothing but assume bad faith on SoV's action is absurd as well. Even in the latest debate, I called on other editors to defer to Sarek's determination of a ban and get his clarification for how it was to be implemented. In other words, I respect his right to act in an administrative capacity, and respect his decisions when they are made impartially and fairly, but I take issue with his actions if they serve to amplify contention or are outright uncivil. I appreciate the assistance from others on how to proceed, sarcasm isn't as helpful though. -- Avanu (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the tone of Avanu's comments in the WP:AN thread not far above this one (eg ), it's rather hard to take this report seriously. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There are two options in this case. You could file a WP:RFC/U to try to influence Sarek and have him voluntarily agree to stop using admin tools for a while. You could also file an arbitration request with the intention of having ArbCom temporarily desysop Sarek (it's unlikely that they would enjoin him from using the tools without desysopping him). Neither option seems likely to happen, but they are your only two options. NW ( Talk ) 12:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, the 3rd option is that we implement the WP:IB I suggested quite seriously above :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Sarek's point in telling you to put up or shut up, so to speak, is that the way you've been going about things cannot fix anything, it can only increase the ambient "grar" level surrounding you guys, which is exactly what it's been doing. If you believe a user has a history of disruptive behavior or misuse of tools, the way to deal with that is to lay out the case in an RfC/U, showing the evidence you believe proves it, and let the community discuss and reach consensus on what should be done about it. The way not to do it is to drop small comments in unrelated threads about how the person in question is a problem, until they're forced to tell you to either do something about it or drop it. Avanu, if you really feel that Sarek's behavior is so problematic that something needs to happen, then you either need to start an RfC/U about him (which cannot desysop him, but can reach a consensus that he should be desysopped, or that he should stop using X tool, or that he should stop doing Y thing, etc), initiate his recall procedure (whatever that entails - I haven't looked at his in particular), or start an arbcom case (which is likely to be rejected unless you can show some really egregious behavior that could not be resolved through normal dispute resolution). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I tend to agree with you on what you just said. If I do take some action, I want it to be done with a clear head and reasonable rationale. Generally, I just leave him to his own side of the Wiki and move on. I think the commmunity input here has been helpful in allowing me to know the options and focus my thoughts on this, and I think it is reasonable to allow some time to pass before taking action to make sure it simply isn't emotionally-driven. I want a positive outcome ultimately. Thanks for the comments. -- Avanu (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)