User:Kim Dent-Brown/Criteria for recall

{| cellpadding="10" cellspacing="8" style="width: 100%; background-color: #8686A6; border: 2px solid #545473; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" 
 * style="background-color: #E9EAFF; border: 1px solid #545473; border-right-width:4px; border-bottom-width:4px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px; padding: 8px;" colspan="2" |

Criteria for recall
I am an administrator who is open to recall. My criteria for this are as follows.

If, within any thirty day period, three editors in good standing make a request on this page, I will submit myself for a confirmatory RfA. By 'editors in good standing' I mean editors who are registered, who have not been blocked in the past month and who have made at least 100 edits to Wikipedia.

Exceptions, quid pro quos, whereafters and wherewithalls

 * The request must have a stated reason, which must involve the use of admin tools (including rollback) and not simply editing tools available to all.
 * I would ask that before making a request here, editors first contact me on my talk page to raise their dissatisfaction.
 * If the requisite three names are added within 30 days I will immediately raise an RfA.
 * If I do not do so, I request that the case be taken to requests for comment with a dim view of my oathbreaking.
 * If the requisite three names are not added within 30 days of the first name being posted, I will remove names to an archive 30 days after their posting.

Active requests for recall
Please place any requests immediately below this text.

Archived requests for recall
Requests which fail for lack of support, or are denied for any other reason will be placed below here (and reasons made plain).

Request from Catrinamaria
Hi Kim,

I would like to contest your decision to delete the page for Nigel Tollerman. Nigel Tollerman is a leading wine consultant and expert on the Argentine wine market. He features regularly in Argentine press as well as international press articles about Argentina, as I indicated in the page I posted. An article from the Telegraph dated the 2nd of September 2010 criticises Wikipedia´s decision to remove his entry and that Nigel´s "burgeoning reputation on the South American wine scene suggests it is only a matter of time before it is reinstated." And that Francis Ford Coppola would "surely drink to that". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatlife/7973217/An-expat-sommelier-in-Argentina.html

Would you please give me the reasons as to why you have chosen to remove his page.

Thanks,

Catrina


 * Hello Catrina, I have replied about this on your talk page . This section of my user pages is for people to request that my administrator powers should be removed. Your message above doesn't explicitly say that - it looks more like an invitation to have a discussion (which I'm very happy to have!) Nevertheless you know better than I what you intended by posting here, so I will count this as my first recall request. PS: don't forget to sign talk pages with ~ which will then leave your signature and date. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  17:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed this from the active requests section as Catrinamaria does not meet my criteria above - fewer than 1,000 edits (8 edits as of this date). I have in any case restored the article in question so hopefully have met her concerns. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  18:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Request from Odinia
I am an Oxford educated scholar, textbook author and an Odninist priestess. I am writing in regard to your innappropriate anti-hetrosexual and anti-European bias which you take to the point of historical inaccuracy. I think it is pretty clear from your other edits that you are so biased in favor of homosexuality that you are willing to ignore facts. This is not appropriate in an online encyclopeda and I challenge the idea that a Wiccan whose views are profundly opposite to ours is qualified to edit regarding our religion which you apparently either know nothing about or are purposely misrepresenting. You should not be allowed to present lies about our religion. We are neither universalist nor pro- homosexual. Processing a liberal gay rights agenda is not what an online encyclopedia is about and it certainly is not factual.

I happen to know the author in question and I did cite his work and his name clearly so I fail to see why my revision was reverted by you. The artcile in question was so anti European and biased that I believe it to be legally actionable. I think it is pretty clear from your other edits that you are so biased in favor of homosexuality that you are willing to ignore facts. Processing a gay rights agenda is not what an online encyclopedia is about. (Request placed but unsigned by User:Odinia on 5th February 2012).


 * Removed from active requests as it relates to non-admin action on my part - ie this reversion of material. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  10:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)