Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Not Binding

I've clarified the "not binding" language. [1] If you disagree, let us discuss. However... Seems to me that reasonable people would expect an admin who placed themselves in this category to abide by the outcome. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the important thing to keep in mind is that this isn't a community-approved process; it remains voluntary at each step. Having been with the project for some years and seen its composition and norms change, I would expect that many administrators who initially list themselves in this category may regret doing so at some later point. And the way things presently stand, there's nothing to stop them from doing so. What sort of loss of support this might cause for them remains speculative. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair points. I'd say that people who in the first flush of adminship add themselves really ought to remember to subsequently remove themselves if they change their mind. (but it's easy to forget these things, I forgot to remove myself from Esperanza for quite some time) I wish I knew how to track changes to a category, but I know for certain there are admins who have already removed themselves from this category, and I am sure there will be others that do as well. More power to them, it's voluntary to be in it. Further I don't want to see people bludgeoning others over whether they are or aren't in. One thing I think it is very important for this page to convey (which I'm not sure it does right now, at least not very well) is what exactly it is that an admin is committing to or not committing to by placing themselve in this category. Voluntarily committing to be sure, but I'd prefer to clarify it if we can, so that it's less likely that people have regrets later. I think it's fair to convey that it is highly likely that someone reneging on their word here will not be regarded favourably by the community, which is what I was trying to convey. Do you agree? If so, do you have a wording that might meet both your goals and that one? Thanks! (I'd also note that since (unless I am much mistaken) you're not in the category at present, it presumably has less personal meaning to you what is or isn't binding on an admin in the category than it would to someone who is in it ... it's a wiki, and the admins in it certainly don't own the page, but some consideration may be in order, would you agree? To a certain extent the admins in it own the process.) ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I approach this based on a longstanding interest in adminship matters as well as policy matters in general. My concern is that it is important that the wording reflect the current reality since I have found that with the passage of months and years and the ensuing turnover the thoughts behind the words are forgotten and new wikipedians accept policy as though it were sacrosanct. Accordingly, I want the words to make it very clear that this is voluntary, it is not enforced, people can leave the category at any time, and if a recall petition succeeds the admin affected has a choice whether or not to abide by it. I realize that we do not agree on aspects of this. My concerns are fuelled by the mess that I witnessed at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship during the brief time that page was active and by the unfortunate series of events that culminated in Kelly Martin leaving the project. While I understand your point about giving a degree of latitude to the admins in the category, it is important to realize that this is essentially an end run around a policy proposal that failed, and as such, any wording that does not make it clear that it is strictly voluntary at all points in the process is problematic. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree with any of that. And, my interest in community and policy of online communities goes back to before there was an internet, actually. Further, if you look upwards in this you're going to consistently see me saying (to anyone trying to add process or make moves in a non voluntary direction) "this is completely optional" and opposing such changes. I can't speak to it necessarily being an end run around anything though, at least not to me. The question that remains then, is, have the changes we've been making gotten us to where we need to be? I think the "editorialising" in this part Admins would be advised to think carefully about how it would be taken by the community should the perception be given that they went back on their word. is good to keep, somehow... As for the "at present", that's technically correct, but it's editorialising to remove it (in effect say "or ever"), isn't it? I'm fine with "and likely never" or some such. I still think that the folk to whom this applies ought to be saying what it means though. ++Lar: t/c 06:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Can someone point me to somewhere where the stewards have actually declared they don't consider recall petitions binding, or where such has demonstrated to be the case? Hiding Talk 15:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that they made this clear in the Silsor case. You can take a look at that if you like. You could also ask the stewards, or take a look at the sorts of requests for other wikis that they typically accept and decline. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to get to a place where it doesn't matter whether the stewards consider anything (other than a request by the recalled admin) as binding or not. IF it's clear that at least the other admins who signed up would consider it dirty pool to renege, THEN it doesn't really matter. The final check/balance for this voluntary process is the existance of involuntary ones such as ArbCom cases... and the weight of community opinion. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

While you are entitled to your view, there is widespread community opposition to this mechanism and as a result it remains truly voluntary. I don't believe that it is appropriate to try to make this into a de facto policy by creating "facts on the ground" through a purportedly voluntary process. While the administrators who sign up for this mean well, I think that over time some of them will end up being the target of recall petitions. I do not intend to support any such admins in any recall petition itself, should this come to pass, because I do not wish to participate in a process that the community has rejected. I would, however, understand completely if such an embattled admin were to ignore the results of the petition. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There may well be widespread community opposition to this mechanism but there is also widespread community support for it.

A lot of Wikipedia policy has evolved bottom-up by people creating, as you put it, facts on the ground. There's nothing inherently bad about that process, though you are of course entitled to oppose the recall mechanism on its merits. Haukur 16:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Uninvited Co., I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, or even what point you think I am trying to make. This process IS voluntary and should remain so. As my views have matured, I've spoken out in strong opposition at it becoming an adopted, mandatory process, repeatedly. Your wording "while you are entitled to your view..." suggests otherwise. Moreover, It does not really matter whether there is or isn't widespread support for it, if what we are discussing is whether an admin who goes back on his or her word is going to be looked at unfavourably by some people. THAT's the change I am trying to effect in the wording of the category, to make it clear that there are at least some people that will look unfavourably on someone going back on his or her word. Regardless of what the stewards do or don't consider binding. Why are you so seemigly opposed to that change which really is quite small in scope, and why all this other stuff that doesn't seem relevant? ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your view to be that the process should have some sort of effective enforcement for those administrators who choose to include themselves in the category, whether by the stewards or the prospect of some sort of community shaming. Perhaps I misunderstand. I am highly sensitive to the long-term effects of policy wording, because experience has shown that the words endure longer than the thoughts behind them. That is the reason for my sensitivity to certain points. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I had let this lie, but since it apparently has come up in the steward election where you have stated that you are "concerned that I may not respect existing steward policy and practice", I think I had better clarify this again so that you are clear on exactly what I am saying.

My view is that this is a voluntary process. Completely voluntary. It also is not formal or officially defined, and is explictly not part of WP official policy. So how COULD it be binding on the stewards? There is no enforcement mechanism on the outcome other than the word of the administrator who undertook to place themselves in the category. None. Stewards are NOT bound to honor the outcome of any RfC or discussion or whatever that occurs as a result of a recall. I am confused as to why you would think I ever believed anything different.

What they ARE bound to honor though, is the request of the recalled admin him or herself that he or she have his or her bit turned off. What an admin does by placing themselves in this category is give their word that they will so request such a turn off of their bit if that's the outcome of their process. Nothing more. Now, the court of public opinion will likely judge them harshly if they fail to keep their word, and there is always the chance that they will end up in ArbCom for the very reasons that caused the recall to be started in the first place. I'm actually sorry to see that the "not binding" text has been removed, because, with some clarification, I thought it could add value to the category description. I hope this clarifies my position, and I think, the position of many of us who have voluntarily placed ourselves in this category and thus given our word that we would abide by the process we defined for ourselves. ++Lar: t/c 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the Silsor case and it doesn't make the case you seem to think it does. Silsor opened an RFA, stating he/she would request de-adminship if there was no consensus, and that is what the user did. I don't see the Stewards making a pronouncement on the process either way. You did attempt to close the poll early, but Silsor quite rightly asked for it to run it's course. Also, it does state on m:Requests for permissions that To request the another user's de-adminship, please gain consensus on your own wiki first. All discussion must be kept on your local wiki. When it is finished and there exists community consensus that the user should be de-adminned, a trusted person from that wiki should just provide a link here to the discussion and a very brief explanation of the reason for de-adminship and results of discussion. Now someone may need to talk me through how that can be the case as well as the position stated on the front page here that The stewards do not consider recall petitions binding. One or the other is wrong, and I have had my reading of the meta page confirmed as being the actual process. I've removed the not binding section on that basis, because I don't think it represents the actuality but rather it represents your view. I won't be a dick and edit war on this, but please, do me the benefit of showing me how I am wrong, not simply reverting or telling me I am wrong. Hiding Talk 16:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  I think the stewards will honor the processes and consensus of each wiki by itself. Many wikis have a community process for deadminship and the stewards honor that. Haukur 16:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  No, that's not what it says. It states front and centre that This page enables stewards to handle permissions requests, including the giving and taking of administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight access, for all Wikimedia wikis which do not have a local permissions procedure. We do not have a local permissions procedure for de-adminning. Hiding Talk 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  I believe the stewards consider Arbitration to be our one and only approved procedure for involuntary deadmining. Dragons flight 17:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Look, I'm a jerk, I know, but give me a cite on that. I've discussed this issue many times, here and on the mailing list, and it has been intimated that that is not the case. And the meta page directs that it should not be either. I don';t mind whichever way this comes out, but let's not keep on with what we think or believe. The facts on the ground state that if we held a recall and it got a consensus, the stewards would desysop on that basis. There's been no testing of that fact, and I haven't been shown a direct quote otherwise, so I think it is wrong to assume otherwise. Hiding Talk 18:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Regarding Silsor, the stewards were asked to act before he listed himself and they refrained. Regarding the general principle, since you apparently won't be convinced any other way, perhaps you should ask them yourself. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Silsor asked for a stay so the process could run; it is isn't the case that the Stewards chose not to act. The stewards did not pronounce on the issue at all, I've checked through the history of the page. It may be that they felt there was no consensus reached when you closed the discussion, that's how I would have read it. But since the stewards did not speak, I'm not sure why you keep putting words in their mouth. As to your direction that I should ask the Stewards, please check the page you direct me to. I already did. That's the basis for my post here and removal of the text. Hiding Talk 18:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The stewards, as I recall, reverted (or perhaps just ignored) a request for deadminship for Silsor that was made by someone other than Silsor at the conclusion of the RFA. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing

I'm withdrawing from this category. I'm finding that people are misrepresenting my view and also seem to be playing politics with this category and that's not what I came here for. Like Lar said, this is supposed to be a voluntary category, and I'm becoming disappointed that people who don't even list themselves in this category are attempting to foist their viewpoint upon those of us who have done so. Hiding Talk 13:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I assume you are referring to me as much as you are referring to anyone, and I would like to apologize if I have misunderstood or misrepresented your views. Dragons flight 18:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to my comments above, I was thinking purely for the future -- of course people can interpret this category however they want, but I would like to see it officially implemented one day, which would necessitate something less, as Lar put it, "ad hoc". For now, of course, it is what it is. Also, I'm not on the list because I'm not an admin ;) - Che Nuevara 04:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Six?

Not everyone uses six. See User:Friday/recall. -- SCZenz 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Completely user-defined. I am editing the text. - crz crztalk 00:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Since its creation seven months ago, this category has opened with a section called "Inclusion requirements" containing the following sentence.

These adminstrators are willing to stand for re-confirmation of adminship if six editors in good standing request it.

The meaning of "good standing" is open to interpretation. So are the venue and mechanics of reconfirmation. But the figure of six editors has been a fixed element of the category from the start, and every member accepted that figure by joining. That's not to say it can't be changed, but let's think carefully before doing so.

To replace "six" with "a sufficient number of" would render the category largely toothless. "Six" represents a real commitment. The "good standing" of some editors can be questioned, but there are plenty of others whose good standing is pretty much undeniable. If six such editors request a recall, the initiatory threshold has plainly been met. But with "a sufficient number of", the boundary is much less clear. Are six editors sufficient? Eight? Ten? What admin wouldn't reconfirm or resign if requested to by a "sufficient" number of editors?

Furthermore, the admins in the category have already committed to the figure of six editors. Of course, they can change their minds and withdraw, but we don't see that happening with much frequency. With 60+ members and growing, why weaken the accountability requirement? That's what "a sufficient number of" would do. Notice that "six" is a maximum; an admin might agree to stand for reconfirmation even with fewer than six requesters. Friday says "a few" and then "a reasonable number"; that's compatible with the longstanding requirement, if Friday counts six as "a reasonable number".

In other words, when the category says "six", nothing stops its members from individually holding themselves to more restrictive requirements. But by changing it to "a sufficient number of", we not only open the door to less restrictive requirements, but we erase the commitment the members had already made to "six". With a growing category, we don't need to do that, and on the principle that more accountability is better than less, we shouldn't want to. Tim Smith 04:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Those who have committed to six will resign at six. Others are doing something else. I don't see an issue. You should edit it to read better if you think my off the cuff text has issues, but six is arbitrary. - crz crztalk 05:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think insisting on binding criteria for this category is tentamount to using it to make policy; this being a category and not a policy page, that would be bad. Ultimately, I trust admins to make their own personal commitments and stick to them, without a bunch of constraints. -- SCZenz 05:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that a hard number is needed at all, but having the category state that six is the default is good for backwards compatibility for those admins who are already members. -- nae'blis 19:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Re-confirmation". What's that?

Idiot alert. I'm not sure I entirely understand what is meant by 're-confirmation'. Does this mean that some existing admins want to be 're-confirmed' that they are admins, or does it mean there are users who used to be admins that want ot be re-confirmed that they are admins? I don't get it.
I believe this could be made clearer in the article. What do you think? Rfwoolf 09:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, too. If it means running an RFA to see if there's consensus to keep a current admin, I don't think the bureaucrats would agree to it. They've traditionally been cool towards official participation in processes related to this category as long as it's voluntary (and not policy).--Chaser T 13:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone in this category could always resign their adminship (by request to a Steward) and then re-apply. -- SCZenz 14:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Quiet promotion requests and RFAs aren't the only way to regain adminship status. There's also ArbCom. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy renaming

Following a request for speedy renaming, this category is now Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall, and the original Category:Administrators open to recall has been deleted. As a result, its edit history is no longer publically available, and there are over 350 broken links. If the new name is to be retained, could we {{category redirect}} the old page and restore its history? Tim Smith 18:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have any objections. Alternatively, I'd be happy to just fix those links (the two double redirects have already been taken care of, which leaves us with 359 instances). A lot of those are talk and user talk pages though. --S ^up? 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I just crunched the numbers: out of those 359 redlinks, 111 are not on talk pages. Out of those 111, 45 are archived RfAs/BfAs/RfCs/etc. so there aren't really that many articles to fix. I also went ahead and fixed the broken links on some of the more high-profile pages (WP:FIRED, WP:MOP) which leaves less than two dozen userpages (plus all the aforementioned user talk pages) with redlinks. --S ^up? 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, S. Fixing all the links would be great, though there's still the matter of restoring the edit history. Also, Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall might actually be better as Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. The former suggests Wikipedians who are administrators of any kind, while the latter would denote administrators of Wikipedia specifically, in line with Category:Wikipedia administrators. Tim Smith 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either suggests anything, it's just a matter of personal preference. I was thinking of Wikipedian as an adjective, as in "British administrators." Feel free to change it if you want, the idea was simply to make it clear that this is a Wikipedia-specific category, and I think either works. Dmcdevit·t 04:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: Thanks to WJBscribe for redirecting the old page and Xdamr for restoring its history. Now at least the 340+ links to Category:Administrators open to recall are no longer red. Tim Smith 03:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just for the record, I originally fixed the links on a few pages but obviously left archived XfAs and talk pages alone. That's most likely where the discrepancy comes from. -- S ^up? 08:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is to be renamed like this, it belongs at "Wikipedia administrators open to recall", not this "Wikipedian" nonsense. They are administrators of Wikipedia; not administrators in general who happen to be "Wikipedians". For example, people who are Wikinews administrators but not Wikipedia administrators who nevertheless edit Wikipedia and call themselves "Wikipedians" would fall under the category as it is currently named. —Centrx→talk • 23:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedian seems not as good as Wikipedia. We are all Wikipedians and may be admins elsewhere. Did the category history get merged? ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i'll go ahead and rename it as soon as someone creates the new category. I'm not sure of the protocol. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a bot will do the recategorization. Centrx has requested the name change at WP:CFDS. Lar, according to WP:MOVE, category pages cannot be moved, but only copied. So the category history exists at the old page, but did not get merged here. (The talk history did get merged.) Tim Smith 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It got renamed again, and I noticed because I saw an edit to my user page (by an admin since it's protected) I think there are still some inbound links that need cleaning. I've been trying using whatlinkshere for various things but I am finding some that were wrong from the last move still. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:100??

It appears that there are now 100 admins that are members of this category. Interesting if not particularly relevant statistic (it shows 101 but there is a double count for one admin. There may be more than one but I tend to watch for that, and did not spot another. Please check my work!), except that it does show wide (if minority) acceptance, I think something like 7-8% of all admins are in it, and I'd venture to guess that is a larger fraction when only considering "active admins" and "active members". FWIW I do not know who was the 100th admin to join. That's a hard thing to determine, I think. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Now there is 98 after I removed myself as I been having some complains over deleting some articles in AFD and CSD and I don't want to be recalled over that. Several other users removed themselfs as well. I still strongly support recall though, but there is a few things that needs to be changed before I add myself again. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think needs changing? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One important thing is the Friday recall request, all of those users were "qualified" even though they obviously had conflect with her before. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

At RfA, prior conflict with the candidate does not disqualify a user from opposing. Conflict can create legitimate grievances. The category already requires that requesters be in "good standing". Remember that a recall request is only the first stage of a two-stage process. If successful, it triggers the second stage, reconfirmation (e.g. at RfA). Only if the admin fails reconfirmation are they committed to resign (though they may choose to do so earlier, as did Crzrussian).

Jaranda, you said in your recent request for reconfirmation that "If I get repromoted, I will stand for admin recall, in which I was most of my time as an admin." Yet less than two weeks after your repromotion, you withdrew from the category. Membership is voluntary, but especially after what you said at your RfA, to see you drop out is disappointing. Tim Smith 20:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I added myself, so we are back up to 100, for the time being.--Kubigula (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kubigula! Tim Smith 20:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Back down to 97, I strongly support a plan of desyropping a bad admin, like what the German wikipedia does, and I still support recall, but I don't want to be recalled by users I had conflict with, and I been getting alot of warning of people who were upset about valid speedy deletions I did. When I saw Friday's failed recall request, I was rather shocked. The four editors who did that request were editors who had conflect with her. The rules need to change before I need to add myself again. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's your choice but the important thing to take away from that request is that it failed. You can set any criteria you want, the number doesn't have to be 6. ++Lar: t/c 09:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

See also addition

See also Wikipedia:Community_enforced_administrator_recall in which an involuntary process with some superficial similarities (but in my view vastly different) is proposed, and more specifically Wikipedia_talk:Community_enforced_administrator_recall#Forced_vs._Voluntary_(CAT:AOTR) where I rebut. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Fully Uncompelled Binding Administrator Recall which I just became aware of. Needs to be referenced from somewhere. :) ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

There is an ongoing request for reconfirmation (see also here); the administrator's recall commitment is here. Tim Smith (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ended now. Outcome logged. GRBerry 17:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Modified status to show that there is now (in the next stage of the chosen process) an RfC. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad actors

Given the number of people in Wikipedia who are willing to lodge trivial or bad-faith accusations, any admin who signs on to this list is nuts. (Well, maybe just overly idealistic.) Just one admin's opinion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why it's voluntary (one of the nutty admins) ++Lar: t/c 00:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what was said when the Wikipedia started: given the number of vandals and extreme POV pushers with time on their hands on the Internet, anyone who signs on trying to add actually useful information and thinks it can stay around would have to be nuts as well. This list is like Wikipedia itself, it can't possibly work in theory, it only works in practice. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, plenty of us have sat on the list for years(?) without the sky falling, or really anything going wrong. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Who, me? Nuts? Keilana^talk_(recall) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

see also Part Deux

See Wikipedia:Admin Accountability Alliance and Wikipedia talk:Admin Accountability Alliance which is another proposal. This one is voluntary to join but posits some enforcement teeth beyond the court of public opinion. Early versions (and who knows, I may have been reverted, it may be back to that way) did not at all comment favourably on the very successful process we've seen used here in the 11 recalls we've had so far. Also see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and in particular this diff where I do an analysis of the 11 recall processes we've seen initiated so far. Suffice it to say I do not at all agree with Radiant's characterizations in a number of areas. ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify in case it is not clear, that the justification aside, the proposal/process/policy/idea/whatever itself is interesting and novel, and if some serious issues with it could be resolved, is one that could exist alongside this process/idea/category/whatever and admins could be in one, the other, neither, or both, so I'm actually in favour of exploring it further. ++Lar: t/c 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Recall criteria

I'm a new admin and I wish to list my criteria for recall ahead of time on my user page. I'm considering setting it at five established editors, each with at least 3 months tenure and 500 edits requesting within a 30-day period.

Any suggestions? What have other admins set as their criteria?

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 17:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on my own research, it seems to be somewhere around 5-10 editors. At my RfA, I listed it as "six editors in good standing". There was some chatter at the RfA talkpage about making it more specific than that, but I think "good standing" and "good faith" are pretty good ways to describe it. Or in other words, we know it when we see it: A "good standing" editor is someone who's been around for awhile, has some edits under their belt, has no blocks (or at least no unreversed blocks), doesn't have a series of (credible) complaints and warnings on their talkpage from other editors, and isn't under (plausible) suspicion for being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet.

I also think (and other admins may or may not agree), that just as there are restrictions on admins on which articles that they can use their tools on, that there should be similar expectations on recall. For example, just as an admin is not supposed to use their tools on an article which they are involved in editing, I'd say that recall requests should have more weight if they are made by editors who are not involved in a current conflict with that admin. Anyone, involved or not, could of course request recall, but I'd give less weight to the requests of those who were involved in a current conflict. However, if a group of uninvolved good-standing editors make a good-faith recall request, I think it should be honored immediately. It doesn't get much more clear than that. --Elonka 18:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Elonka! --A. B. ^(talk) 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if by following this criteria, an administrator in perpetual war with almost anybody would have enough "editors who are not involved in a current conflict with that admin" left to be opposed at all. I know one who already classified this group of possible opponents as the "bad apple" segment. Rokus01 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. It's not one of my filters though. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

New reference pages

I have just created the following subpages for reference:

• Automated recording of changes to this category, powered by User:BryanBot... this tracks all (non bot?) changes to the category. Put this page on your watch list if you are interested in seeing which admins are added or removed and by who. BryanBot is used for this function in many places and this works well. Feel free to fiddle with the criteria it uses as needed
• Reference list of criteria/process descriptions of admins willing to specify all or part of their criteria in advance. I started it with mine. I allowed for there possibly being different pages for the criteria and for process descriptions... I would encourage anyone to develop their criteria AND their process steps IN ADVANCE, and then to commit to stick to them. This will make the process much smoother in future, and increase community confidence in the word that you give. I do not feel that other people should actually add entries, only the admin themselves. Again please feel free to tweak this as needed but it should serve as a good resource for questions such as the one directly above about what makes sense.

Hope these help! ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is great -- thanks. --A. B. ^(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Default criteria and process

Over the last month, Lar has individually messaged the members of this category about the desirability of increasing the predictability of the recall process, suggesting that they document their intentions at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria. As a result, about a third of the membership is now listed there. But that still leaves about two-thirds of the category—almost a hundred admins—without criteria or a process specified. Recently at User_talk:Lar/Accountability, one member wrote:

I now remember why I've never asked what would be the specific process of admin recall: I hoped someone else would create criteria and methods for me. [...] I absolutely agree that admins in this category need a delineated process to provide for an actual implementation and application of recall when necessary. And that it needs to be done and in place prior to problems with the admin. However, I think a uniform process for all admins would be preferable to everyone creating their own. [...] Perhaps I missed it but is there a reason why a relatively firm set of criteria and a distinct process hasn't been ironed out for everyone who puts themselves in this category?

Lar objected in response that having one standard takes away from the "and it's voluntary" style of the category, so I proposed a compromise: create a default standard and process which would apply unless the admin had specified otherwise prior to the recall attempt. That way, admins who hope someone else will create criteria and methods for them, and admins who would rather create their own, can both be accommodated. Lar thought the idea merited batting about, so I've posted it here for discussion.

In response to the objection that we would have to eject everyone from the category and ask them to rejoin, and get the default right and never change it again, I suggest that we can escape these inconveniences by presenting the default as a recommendation rather than a strict requirement. So treat the default as an option akin to the others in the table, but formulated and maintained not by any particular member, but by all of us. Members could explicitly commit to the default, or commit to something else, or just not specify anything, in which case the default would be a recommended and uncontroversial fallback at recall time.

As far as what the default criteria and process should be, what does everyone think of starting from the original formulation of six editors having over 500 edits and over one month of tenure? There's precedent for conducting reconfirmation at RfA, so I would suggest it as the default venue. Tim Smith (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as it was clear that the "Default" had to actually be selected by the admin to be the set that was in effect I think it's a great idea. My concern there is, as always, that different people are operating under different assumptions about what is effect. The other concern I have is that the original criteria/process was what several early recalls used and they ran into bumps because those don't specify enough. I didn't specify every last jot and tittle because I like process (or making people's heads hurt :) )... I did it because I think the less ambiguity, the better. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can make clear that the default is provided for convenience and does not take effect unless confirmed by the admin, while still recommending it as a fallback at recall time if no previous arrangement was made. I agree that the original formulation could use some fleshing out; I see it less as a finished construct than as a framework on which to build. If no one objects, maybe we could copy it to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Default process and start filling in details? Tim Smith (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've posted a draft. What does everyone think? It's less detailed than Lar's, but hopefully it can help to prevent chaos at recall time. It's meant to be community-edited, so your input is welcome. Tim Smith (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty good to me. For some completely different (and non serious) ones, see User:Majorly/Recall :) ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible new recall underway: User:SirFozzie/Accountability

See User:SirFozzie/Accountability, per discussions at User_talk:PouponOnToast, Alison's talk, and SirFozzie's talk, it appears that perhaps PouponOnToast has initiated a request. ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that one can be taken seriously, and I encourage SF as well as any admin to remove themselves from C:AOR to prevent disruption. Mercury at 10:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, if that one ends up NOT being taken seriously, I'd urge every editor currently going around saying things that don't always turn out true to stop doing that. Your own experiences with CAT:AOTR were, in my view and at least in part, due to your (apparent) lack of thinking through what process you wanted in advance, and then giving the appearance of changing things around as you went. Trying to delete pages mid recall, and badmouthing the process you volunteered to be in didn't help your case much. Subsequent to that experience there have been serious efforts made to counteract that, see Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Admin_criteria... I'd opine that your comments are not exactly free of bias and that your experience didn't have to come out the way it did if you had done things differently. I like you, Mercury, and think you have valuable things to add, but the above statement does you a disservice. ++Lar: t/c 14:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to disclose my bias... I was requested to recall my tools initially for three reasons. My bad close of an AFD, my involvement (that I can't yet substantiate) in the Durova chronicles, and because I had so many opposes in an AC candidacy. Does that sound legitimate to you? Sounds crazy to me. I'll give you that I misunderstood the process, and badmouthed it. I'll give you that I changed it mid process, and quit it. I behaved horribly, but I don't think I deleted pages or used my tools on the recall.

This gives me unique perspective I think. In that I know that the risk associated with C:AOR when not done properly outweighs any possible benefit. It is too disruptive. Especially when it is misused here, here, and as a tool to extract information here.

I might also opine that your support for the category may not be free of bias, having started the category a year ago, but I think they are free of bias.

Worst. Process. Ever.

I did myself a disservice by acting the way I did at my recall. I would do the project a disservice by not encouraging folks to avoid the pitfalls of this very dangerous process.

Regards, Mercury at 16:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I said you "tried" to delete pages, not that you misused admin powers to actually do so out of process. It's a matter of public record that while you were in the throes of the process, or shortly thereafter, you nominated various process related pages for deletion. The thing to do with frivolous requests, as several previous requests (Bunchofgrapes for example) have shown, is to take them seriously, and play them by the book. (without giving in to people trying to use them for extracting information, concessions, etc.) They then wither on the vine. Thrashing about usually ensnares the thrasher rather than the net caster. As for bias, I freely admit a pro bias, because yes, I was in on the very beginning of it, almost 2 years ago. Well before a lot of people now complaining about it had even DISCOVERED Wikipedia. We get it, you botched your recall and now you think the whole thing is flawed. Others may not agree. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"We get it, you botched your recall and now you think the whole thing is flawed. Others may not agree."

Then I might venture to say, you don't get it, others may. I have no axe to grind here, as it may seem. I do not believe in the process, I believe it is misused, and I'm all for encouraging folks to leave the CAT. There are proccesses already in place. Just because I had a failed recall, does not any less weight here when I opine on matters such as these. Mercury at 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak to whether the initiator takes it seriously, (I think he does), and it looks like he's been urged to withdraw that request by his friends.

I take the dictum that the "having the mop should not be a big deal" seriously. I set my recall bar low because, well, as I've seen in a recent admin conduct case I've been involved in, I might be convinced that my actions are not only sensible, but expected, while the rest of the Wikipedia community might be doing the online equivalent of staring at me in horror and saying "Foz, WTF are you thinking? Are you indeed thinking?".

I might tweak it slightly, so that recall votes expire in 2 weeks, or a month, or what have you. As I said on my talk page, "I want to be as open to people with legitimate problems as possible, while not enabling people to harass me." If there is a problem with my behavior that seriously makes editors question my good faith, I would prefer to resolve issues with a mininum of conflict and/or drama. SirFozzie (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The user in question has now withdrawn his request for my recall, so it looks like we're all set. SirFozzie (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed the archive, I have more comments I think I like to expand a little, and I may explore recall as a whole. Regards Mercury at 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If I may suggest, Mercury, stop futzing around with stuff here. We've not used archiving tagging here before, and you're not in the category, so I don't quite see why you think you should be introducing new processes like tagging discussions as archives. I think you're starting to verge on being disruptive, so please, stop. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Strike that. SirFozzie used the archive tagging, my apologies for jumping to conclusions. Nevertheless I think archive tagging is not appropriate, this is not a dispute or problem resolution page, so I stand by leaving it untagged. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have described this now completed recall at Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests#SirFozzie. SirFozzie or PouponOnToast should feel free to correct my wording of what transpired. I've changed the heading of this section back to what it was, something more descriptive than "recall". ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith requests

I've seen a couple bad faith requests go by, which seem to draw a lot of attention even though they're so obviously "single disgruntled user" requests. For example, I got a request when a user who was blocked (by a different admin) decided to get revenge by asking me to resign, even though I'd used no admin tools in the related dispute. And I just saw another thread go by on ANI about a different admin, where a recall request was generated by a SPA.

To prevent disruption by these kinds of things in the future, perhaps just making it clear that a single request from a single user is not going to start the ball rolling on a full recall request? For example, with User Conduct RfCs, we have required that such an RfC be "certified" by at least two users in order to proceed, and that those users need to be able to show proof that they have tried via other means to address the situation.

Would it make sense to adopt similar criteria here, that before a recall request gets taken seriously, that there have to be:

• At least two editors making the request
• There has to be an indication why they are making the request, meaning they have to point to something that the admin actually did
• There be a requirement that the editors making the request are in "good standing", meaning that they are accounts at least 30 days old, a couple hundred edits, no blocks within the last 30 days, and they're not listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

Thoughts? --Elonka 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I would do that myself, although others certainly could. Even a single user's recall request will be treated by me as a request (assuming they pass the criteria I set to initiate the request in the first place), and taken seriously. My view is that the best long term way to reduce non serious requests is to treat them seriously and then have them wither on the vine. To do otherwise is a disservice. We should not make it hard for users in good standing to raise issues or express dissatisfaction. ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, I'd encourage everyone to track these requests, even marginal and bad faith ones, at the tracking page. Do you have more specific details to go on so the two you refer to can be found? ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd disagree with even tracking bad faith requests. It effectively puts a black mark on an admin, even if they've done nothing improper. Sort of like a bad block on a new editor. Even if the block is acknowledged as an error and rapidly reversed, it stays in their block logs forever and continues to cause other kinds of problems.

If a griefer editor knows they can cause anguish to an admin just by making a bad-faith request, and getting that admin's name on The List, I think it's going to increase such frivolous requests. Instead, the best way to deal with a bad-faith request is to recognize its bad-faith nature, and ignore it. --Elonka 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, my Spidey sense tells me you were talking about my recent request(s) received. (Were you? :P If you weren't, I apologize, and will go back to tuning my Spidey sense.) Despite the obvious nature of the account, I did take the request seriously. I do concur with Lar that if it's obviously a pointless, revenge request, it will get shot down in flames by the other nice admins who aren't being recalled. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Elonka: I respectfully disagree. A bad faith request, tagged on the list as one that went down with no supports in a hurry, is not a "stain". If you think that being asked to review your actions, even by someone you think is a "griefer" is a stain, this category is not for you. If you think one bad block, quickly reversed, is a "stain", then you probably should never block anyone (and in that case, perhaps adminship is not for you either). As soon as I find these requests, I'll be adding them to the tracking list. I'd appreciate more hints, since you know of them already, but I will find them and add them regardless. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lar, I had a couple of requests the past week, in the history of User:Keilana/Recall. Just for the record. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the recall request Elonka received, I documented it at Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests#Elonka ... I believe the revision used was the last edit relating to that recall, and it's a clear example of the sort of recall I refer to as "dying on the vine"... no one took it seriously because it wasn't supported by anyone else. That sort of recall is, in my view, proof that the process works. That recall went nowhere, fast. It is by no means a smirch on anyone's reputation except the person requesting it. I'd welcome correction of the wording to how I wrote it up... As for yours, Keilana... I had a hard time telling which versions were the "end of a request", or put another way, how many there were, etc. :) Also, where/when was your original reconfirmation RfA request? I do agree with those that say you ought to have a bit more to your criteria. Care to take a crack at writing yours up there? I'd appreciate it! You probably have a better handle on the sequence than I do. ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you went ahead and added me to The List. Well, I'll back down on this, but I still disagree. My own Spidey Sense ^(tm) ;), says that in future disputes, that other griefers are going to use this as fodder with which to escalate disputes, such as by saying, "Look, Elonka's a bad admin, she's been asked to resign, she's on The List," even though they'll be bringing it up way out of context. But, we'll see. If it happens (to me or anyone else), we can bring it back here and re-discuss the wisdom of listing obvious bad-faith requests. If it doesn't happen, then no problem. And if it does turn out to be a problem, we can easily clean things up as needed, and then just list the "real" requests rather than the frivolous ones. --Elonka 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell ya what... first, a standing offer, if anyone in future gives you grief about that one, drop me a line and I'll swing by whereever it is and point out what a nonstarter of a request that was and how it doesn't count for anything in terms of history/pattern/etc... second, if the volume of the history gets large, I'm fine with doing some sort of more tableised approach and tagging the "ridiculous" vs. "sublime" (those aren't the right terms :)) or even pushing the former to their own page with a big header that says "don't use these for precedent because none of them are anything anyone took seriously other than the requester"... (or whatever, so the point is made) ++Lar: t/c 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. :) --Elonka 00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries then. Note that (regarding point 1) if you are in hot water over anything else other than "lalala, you were recalled" you're on your own for that other stuff. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Elonka) Hehe, sorry Lar. The first recall request I received was effectively completed when my nice clerk (User:AndonicO removed it, I did post on AN and ANI about it as per my standards, there is some interesting discussion there. last revision of first request, last revision of latest request (2 days apart!), removed by admin Dreadstar as a bad-faith request, last revision with the recall discussion on ANI, pretty sure about that, last revision of AN, reconfirmation RfA, and the discussion that originally led to the reconfirmation, plus lots of discussion scattered on my talk page for all 3 times. Whew. Didn't realize I had created so much controversy, :P. Is there anything else I should mention? I don't quite remember everything, some of it took place in the middle of the night and I was quite tired. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

UM... ya. Try writing them up as 3 entries like the other ones, and putting them in the page. You're still making my head spin :) If you really can't I'll take a shot.++Lar: t/c 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I think I just got the record for admin with the most recall requests in a week :P. It makes my head spin, I'll start with the reconfirmation as it was the easiest to figure out. Please feel free to copyedit/fix, I do have a COI you know. :P Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stating the purpose

Hello all, as a relative novice stumbling upon this page it took me a while to get my head around the concept of recall, and this is particularly because the purpose for voluntary recall (or some potential purposes for it) are not included in the page's text. Perhaps it would be useful if someone were to explain why this voluntary program exists (ie- to promote accountability among administrators, to further involve editors, to avoid the danger of becoming an "elite", etc...). Of course I would do it myself, but I'm not an administrator and I don't know everything about voluntary recalling. SaintCyprian ^Talk 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take a cut at what you think the purpose is, and put it here for comment. To me it's about being accountable. I don't want to force the community to drag me to ArbCom kicking and screaming if I have massively went off the rails, it's that simple. The whole thing is a pledge that it won't come to that, along with some processes to help make sure, and some history so we can see what went before. ++Lar: t/c 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

userbox

For those using {{User wikipedia/Administrator}}, if you now change the template call to {{User wikipedia/Administrator|recall=yes}}, it will now automatically place you into the "admins open to recall category". The content of the box is unchanged. - 52 Pickup (deal) 23:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

the language in this article does not discuss "recall" much

The page is supposedly about recall but the main body of the text calls it 'reconfirmation'- implying the request for recall will end with non-recall. It should at least call it recall or briefly mention the difference between the two, if there is one. If admins are not really open to recall, the page should be renamed "administrators open to reconfirmation."  :) Do you see what I mean- this page is written as if reconfirmation (an added level of confirmation)[2] is a foregone conclusion. Do you mean reassessment? Only in English reconfirmation means getting adminship confirmed again, i.e. re-affirmed that they are an admin, not just discussed. That's what it means in British English, anyway. I think the writers mean 'reassessed' or 'reviewed'? Merkin's mum 12:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... There are other outcomes of a recall than reconfirmation, see my page for example. I'll have to take a look to see if there are possible changes that could be proposed. However this text has been this way for a very long time, and it "defines" what people agreed to. Changing it may be problematic for that reason (no changing agreements post hoc)... ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a change in meaning, and I think admins already know what they're agreeing to when they're signing up to be open to possible recall. But the wording here is misleading- it implies recall is just 're-confirmation'- which may often be so but isn't always the way (in theory). In a way it's unfair to any admins who might sign up thinking they're only agreeing to be 're-confirmed', when in fact there's a chance they may be recalled. Unless this whole thing is a formality/gesture and they're not ever facing possible recall?Merkin's mum 23:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The history of recalls so far suggests it's not just a formality/gesture. My concern remains that I don't want to see what people agreed to changed without getting re-agreement. (see also "Stating the Purpose" two threads above, if there is confusion, it's worth sorting, don't get me wrong, ...) Can you suggest a revised wording? ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As it stands the wording, if you look, at least of the first couple of paragraphs, says they agree to re-confirmation. I.e. to have their adminship re-confirmed, not re-assessed. It implies having it re-confirmed (i.e. 'passing ' someone's attempt to recall you, is a foregone conclusion. At least, that is what 're-confirmed' means in the UK. Calling it 're-assessed' would be more accurate if that is presumably what the aim of the purpose is. Or reevaluated. I'm not trying to change anything, except the wording which as it stands implies a recall doesn't mean possibly losing your adminship, just having it re-confirmed. Or maybe we should add "usually means re-confirmation." This would just be the truth as perhaps unfortunately, some admins do not get re-confirmed, do they, when they are taken through the process of possible recall? Do you see what I mean? Or do they? I mean, I know it can sometimes indirectly at least lead to someone losing their admin status, as arguably happened with Mercury. Plus, it should carry at least the possibility of recall, if the purpose is to assess the consensus of people's view of the person's suitability for/use of the tools, and whether they need to be recalled. Isn't that what "open to recall" means?:)Merkin's mum 02:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible small tinker

"These administrators are willing to stand for re-assessment of the community's consensus about their adminship if a sufficient number of editors in good standing request it. The number of editors, their standing in this project, the good faith of the request, etc. are entirely up to the user's discretion, as participation in this category is completely voluntary. For example, an admin could choose to be accountable to six editors with over 500 mainspace edits and over one month of tenure; however some admins have imposed other restrictions (or none at all).

The desire is to keep this as simple as possible. Just ask, nicely, on the administrator's talk page, and if a sufficient number of others agree, it's done. The venue for re-assessment shall be an open question, to be decided by the entrant. Participating admins are encouraged to outline their understanding of this commitment and the procedure they intend to follow in more detail on their user pages. For convenience, a default procedure and set of criteria are available.

Adminstrators can voluntarily add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall to show their intent."

-What do you all think?:) Merkin's mum 02:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this, what's the diff exactly? "re-assessment" vs "reconfirmation" or is it more? I personally don't see that as a substantive change but I think ANY change to the wording needs everyone to reapprove, so any change should mean everyone is dumped out of the category and has to readd themselves. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all the change I was after.:) Has it always had this strange wording which implies a request for recall will always end "happily"? That's inaccurate and so not fair even to those who sign up, as it may mislead them. That would be annoying though if everyone had to re-add, I admit. Sticky Parkin 00:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Political purposes" clause

I've had to modify my recall policy some months back as someone wished to de-sysop me on account of my posting on a site they felt to be objectionable. As a result, I added this clause to my recall page, with an addition at the end to prevent myself from being able to game the policy by opting out at a particular point. Just FYI - Alison ^❤ 04:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Who decides if it's for political purposes? It's an interesting clause, to be sure. :) ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Who decides? Well, more than five editors in "good standing" - if they decide it's for political manipulation (such as a BADSITES thing, as happened before when I was threatened by User:PouponOnToast with de-sysopping per the recall process), then in can be nullified. It's just an insurance against political oustings - Alison ^❤ 00:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)