User talk:Friday/Recall Petition

Thoughts
Before anyone puts too much time into anything (or, perhaps, that ship has already sailed), I think I should probably point out that I don't see a good reason to resign my adminship in response to this. The relevant points have already been discussed elsewhere, such as the Light current block being extensively discussed on AN/I. A few people did object there, yes- some of the same editors we see endorsing the recall petition. But many experienced editors endorsed that block because they saw the same disruptive behavior I saw. We don't need to rehash this- I think we all understand well that there's still some lingering disagreement.

In short, I think that this is mostly a grudge rather than a legitimately warranted complaint. Many of those who opposed thought the same thing. I don't think we need a big long formal process here. I don't want to get into a long fight over who counts as an "editor in good standing" because doing so may only prolong a dispute that's already run on quite long enough. Anyone concerned with such could look at the contributions and logs of those involved. Some of the petitioners have blocks, by me, on record. I think anyone who wants to draw conclusions about the motivations of the petitioners has probably already done so, and nothing I could say would change that. Friday (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're not willing to say who is in good standing and who isn't, there isn't much more to do here, there's no way to, within the process, either certify or decertify the petition. So, if that's the case, I guess this is more or less done at this point from my perspective, as that's about all the clerk does, determine the numbers... Unfortunate, but oh well. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Friday just closed this herself in her own way. -- SCZenz 05:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Friday could say for sure, of course. ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Friday, you might consider using (or authorizing Lar to use) the longstanding "default" criteria, specified at CAT:AOR, of 500 mainspace edits and one month's tenure. (Alternatively, you might use the original criteria, which lacked the "mainspace" requirement.)  That could help to bypass the fight over "good standing", and you would still be working within the recall process.  Leaving the requests in limbo might create the impression that you are ducking the recall; best to leave no confusion on that score.  At a minimum, you might make clear that you are following process and rejecting the petition because you consider fewer than six of the petitioners to have good standing, and not simply because you see it as "mostly a grudge". Tim Smith 05:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The default criteria are alright, as is a common-sense interpretation of "good standing". I didn't want to put too much emphasis on exact numbers, because I think the content of the arguments is more important than how many people line up on either side.  To me, one editor with good reasoning carries more weight than 100 editors without.  However, I've no objection to the numeric criteria being used in this case.  The 5 day thing was something I suggested just because it seems like enough time for decent discussion and it's what AFD uses.  I'm not sure that this amendment is important enough to the complaint that it should be five days from then, I would probably use 5 days from the original posting of the recall petition.  But really, the point I was mainly trying to make is that distilling this down to an application of some formula is an oversimplification.  But, if it makes people feel better about the process, that's fine.  Friday (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What is your desire? Just let me know, as I am happy to help increase clarity of this outcome if I can, but please try to give me concrete things to act on, concrete criteria to use, and a concrete end time (the original one is fine, I can evaulate as of 5 days past that date if need be, but you have to be specific).

I'm assuming though, that you consider this over, that you've rejected this based on your own criteria and that the recourses open to the petitioners, if they are not satisified that you have taken their input on board and are not satisfied that you will work with them to resolve issues amicably, are the standard ones given by dispute resolution and that if they really feel the need, that's what they should do, start an RfC or whatever. ++Lar: t/c 18:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, really, I think it's over whenever people stop commenting on it, which has thankfully slowed down, but probably not quite stopped. However, I can see how some "official" closure might help, so if you want to apply the commonly used criteria, that's fine with me.  I'll be pretty busy the next couple days, and then out for a week or so starting around the beginning of January.  As for follow up, of course normal means of dispute resolution are available to anyone - nothing we do here with this can change that.  Friday (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I have carried out a formal analysis, which you can see on the non talk page. The recall fails. ++Lar: t/c 00:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)