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.

copyrigth

Czesc pan Piotrek, Im Thorek Sekuterski/Sredzinski Herby Leliwa.

I want to make a commercial book about Polish Nobility. I would like to use sources from wikipedia.org like example the text about: http://en.wikipedia.org/Miko%C5%82aj_Hieronim_Sieniawski

Mikołaj Hieronim Sieniawski (1645-1683) was a Polish noble (szlachcic), military leader, politician.

Son of the starost of Lwów Adam Hieronim Sieniawski and Wiktoria Elżbieta Potocka, the daughter of Hetman Stanisław "Rewera" Potocki. He married in 1662 the daughter of Court and Grand Marshal Prince Aleksander Ludwik Radziwiłł, Princess Cecylia Maria Radziwiłł.

Leliwa Coat of ArmsHe was Grand Guardian of the Crown since 1644, Great Chorąży of the Crown since 1668, Court Marshall of the Crown since 1676, starost of Lwów since 1679, voivode of Volhynian Voivodship since 1679, Field Crown Hetman since 1682 and starost of Radom, Rohatyn, and Piaseczno.

He became famous as a talented commander in wars against Cossacks and Tatars during the reign of King Jan II Kazimierz. In the rank of a Chorąży he companioned Jan Sobieski in the Chocim expedition.

He was Marshal of the Coronation Sejm on March 2 - March 14, 1676 in Kraków.

Like his son Adam Mikołaj, he participated in the Vienna expedition of 1683.

My version in my book is edited, modified or changed and shortend also i will use the photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Mikolaj_Hieronim_Sieniawski_%281645-1683%29.jpg

since all this history information is provided by users often anonymus and without sources i may use them? Im also using Boniecki and Niesiecki as source. Will there be a publishng problem with my commercial book?

Jenki for for yout pomoc Piotrek... Thorek Sekuterski/Sredzinski Sweden I would apreciate if the answer is sent to my email: Thoreks@Hotmail.com Jenki Pan.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.104.200 (talk • contribs) User:193.180.104.200, 09:03, September 8, 2006 (UTC)

Tony Judt

Hi... I wanted to let you know I reverted your recent edit to Tony Judt and to explain why. The external source (a blog!) you cited did not contain any statement from the ADL accusing Judt of anti-Semitism. The link is to a blog entry that contains an unsourced quote claiming to be from Tony Judt expressing dismay that a talk he was to give has been moved and rescheduled. The only reference to Judt's putative anti-Semitism came from Judt himself: he quotes 20/20 Network purportedly quoting the Polish Consulate purportedly quoting the ADL accusing Judt of anti-Semitism. Even the linked New York Sun article does not contain any reference to such an accusation by the ADL or anyone else. What is does contain is denials from both the ADL and the Polish Consulate that ADL objections played any role in the cancellation. Were you aware the external link you cited a source contained no such claim by the ADL? --Rrburke 22:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Followup:

Quoting Piotrus:

TJ wrote "anti-Israeli anti-Semites (= me)" where me equals him, thus according to his own words he was accused of being anti-Semite.

Yes, but you offered the link to cite an accusation by the ADL, not Tony Judt's claim of such an accusation. For that matter, he doesn't even claim the ADL or Foxman or indeed anybody "accused" him of anti-Semitism: he implies that the ADL regards him as an "anti-Israeli Anti-Semite." In neither case does that add up to Judt's being "accused of anti-Semitism by Anti-Defamation League," clear evidence of which a reader should expect to find after clicking your external link. The most one might say is that "Tony Judt recently claimed his upcoming speech on Israel had to be rescheduled after the venue was withdrawn by the Polish Consulate in New York, under pressure from the ADL, according to Judt and Patricia Huntington, President of Network 20/20, the group sponsoring the talk."

The uncertain provenance of the message quoted by the blogger is another matter. First, I doubt blogs meet the threshold for reliable sources. I know an uncorroborated citation by a single blogger of a communication (an email, a press release, a letter to the editor? -- the blogger doesn't tell us) purportedly from Tony Judt certainly does not meet that threshold. Every reference I can find to this message from Judt tracks back to the original blog, and I can't find any other coverage of Judt's message. You're an experienced Wikipedian, so I needn't remind you of Wp:rs#Evaluating_sources and Wp:rs#Using_online_and_self-published_sources.

Quoting Piotrus:

Also, from NYS article: "Judt have claimed that debate on the U.S.-Israel relationship is squelched by false accusations of anti-Semitism"

Again, this does not say that the ADL accused Judt of anti-Semitism, which is what your edit asserted. It doesn't say who is levelling these accusations, and it doesn't mention such accusations being levelled against Judt.

Quoting Piotrus:

I wonder if you could look at Talk:Tadeusz Hołówko where we were recently discussing the claims backed by sources citing sources citing sources being translated in each step

Gladly. But I'm not sure they'd be germane to our present case. Does your discussion mention cases in which A says that B told him that C told him that D pressured him not to do something, but where C & D deny such pressure was ever exerted? Judt says that Huntington told him that the Polish Consulate told her that they withdrew the venue under pressure from the ADL, but the ADL and the Polish Consulate deny any such pressure was applied. That doesn't mean such pressure wasn't applied -- people lie -- only that the claim that it was applied isn't verifiable and so shouldn't be included in the article as established fact, but rather -- if at all -- as something alleged by Tony Judt and Patricia Huntington but denied by the ADL and the Polish Consulate.

Besides, even if that were all true, it doesn't add up to Tony Judy being "accused of anti-Semitism by Anti-Defamation League," which is what the text you added claimed.

--Rrburke 01:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Much of the story is confirmed in a Washington Post article. The Polish consul appears to to have backtracked and now admits to pressure having being applied. The article now includes this information. --Rrburke 16:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Show/hide

Piotrus, have you come across a "side" template that uses the show/hide feature so I can copy the code into the HoP template? I've only seen it used in the "bottom" templates. Appleseed (Talk) 23:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 Please don't delete the article titled as : "Mall Sainthwar Rajputs" a warrior race of India.