Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The concept of "community confidence"

I've been mulling over the concept of recall/reconfirmation for a while now, and wanted to set down an idea for discussion. The general subtext of those wishing such a process (especially a compulsory one) seems to be that there should be some requirement to maintain "community confidence" - that, were an administrator to act in such a way that confidence in their judgment is lost, they should have the tools removed even without evidence of the sort of misconduct that ArbCom would look for before forcibly removing them. I wanted to float a pretty general question: is there any sort of consensus as to whether we should require an administrator to maintain "community confidence"? Perhaps we could phrase this as: if it could be shown that less than half of the community still supported an administrator, should they lose the tools? Instead of requiring recall to show RfA levels of support - felt by many to be onerous and difficult to maintain once doing potentially unpopular but beneficial admin tasks - a simple majority is needed.

I don't propose at this stage to get into the question of what triggers an assessment of whether this majority support still exists, just to ask that conceptual question: do we think that an administrator is (or should be) required to maintain community confidence if they are to continue having admin rights? WJBscribe (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've raised this question at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, as I thought on reflection that I should sound out a wider audience. To avoid splitting the discussion, could people respond there? WJBscribe (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How many admins have been recalled?

I've been asked to be recalled, I'm using the sample process, I have little doubt I'll get six signers and go to RfA. How often has this happened? What were the outcomes? Is this info gathered in one place? Just curious. Herostratus (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it happen once in a year. It needed to happen though User:Blueboy96 was the last I believe. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a list of past requests at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests, along with the outcome. User:Crzrussian was reconfirmed by Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crzrussian 2. Hut 8.5 08:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice added

This notice added seems to make this entire page not applicable, and actually, a disruption of site processes if it is to be attempted. The notice should be removed, as the page in its prior version stated an outline which was to be undertaken by the admin who wished to self-request to undergo the RFA process. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the notice should be retained. What is clear is that an admin may resign and then resubmit to a new RFA, but cannot submit to a new RFA without resigning.--Milowent (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This page has never been deemed to be a guideline or a policy, and yet people are treating it as such. If you have a concern about an editor, regardless of what extra tools they may or may not possess, you should open an WP:RFC/U. Any editor is welcome to open one on themselves, as well (and this has happened in the past, I believe). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

NOt only has this page failed to garner even guideline acceptance, it was condemned as a failure about a year ago when an admin candidate promised to put themselves on it, provided guidelines, but then failed to follow through with the promise to step down if certain criteria were met. For a while anybody who agreed to put themselves on this list, was getting defacto opposes at RfA because the process had that little support.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit. Given that the Arbitration Committee has provided that administrators may regain tools (or confidence) through confirmation RFA, such a close would be illogical and process wonkery at its worst. No administrator is obligated to submit themselves to a recall RFA or the conditions of this page. However, they are perfectly entitled to do so without other users (let alone fellow administrators) interfering and snatching user rights on dubious grounds. Confirmation RFA (in fact) may be a voluntary agreement that becomes the outcome of an RfC/U. However, it is not a requirement that an administrator must first go to an RfC/U prior to self-nominating themselves for reconfirmation. On another note, Nihonjoe, you are incorrect in suggesting editors can open RfC/Us on themselves; that the rules have been ignored on a few occasions does not mean that it is so flagrantly encouraged. Finally, RfC/U is not the only way to deal with grievances about administrators, or the only way to figure out whether an administrator may be desysopped, should an administrator agree to other methods as stated in administrator policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The ArbCom can not set policy. The community decides policy, and the resounding decision on this is that it is not policy. Your reversions were out of line. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 13:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As I just noted here, the community can decide if none of this should be covered by admin policy anymore, but you are not permitted to unilaterally decide this and edit-war your personal position of "this should no longer be in written policy". You were reverted appropriately, and your conduct was unbecoming of an admin, let alone a bureaucrat. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "anymore" as it has never been deemed part of policy. Just adding it to a policy page does not make it policy. It was discussed for quite a while and the resounding result was that it was not and should not be policy or guideline. My conduct was entirely within policy, and your attempts to make this about me are pathetic. It has never been about me, and it still isn't about me. You're just diverting the discussion away from the real issue: that this is not and has never been policy or guideline, so trying to pass it off as such is disingenuous and deceptive. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, if it was never part of policy, be it in spirit or in letter, a policy page would not have a whole separate section dedicated to giving administrators this entitlement, and it most certainly would not be up there for such a long period of time. A policy dispute is one thing, but to close it in the way that you did and then insist all recall RFAs be taken to RfC/U - that's neither relevant, nor appropriate, and it's definitely not for you to determine. Not a single user attempted to reinstate your close because no reasonable person in your position (as a bureaucrat or admin) is expected to act so foolishly - be it in terms of how dubious the close was ("wrong venue"), and/or how much drama you were inviting. The sole reason that I (or anyone else) decided not to escalate this was in consideration of the likely fact that this is your first (and hopefully last) severe lapse in judgement. I think I've said all that I need to say: if a recall RFA was filed tomorrow and you made a foolish close of this sort again, one does not need to be a genius to work out what will happen next - I think the meaning of this sentence is plain enough that if you still don't get it, then it's beyond the stage where anyone can help you. Adios. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of consensus, shouldn't this be labelled with {{essay}}? I would use {{notpolicy}} but it no longer exists. Other option is making a RfC and labelling it as "failed" or "historical" if it fails (again) to get consensus. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins voluntarily submit to this process, so whether it is policy or not is pretty irrelevant. Mark it with an appropriate tag by all means. I would be interested to see what happens if an admin goes down in flames and then says "hey, never mind, I'm keeping the tools." I'd guess it would go directly to ArbCom. Fences&Windows 13:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Martinp's notice[1] looks good to me. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert warring about standardized tags in a situation which is unclear is unproductive. I've tried to instead summarize in a paragraph at the top of a page; happy to be reverted or to have the text edited, but let's argue about the way forward, not what template to slap on the page. Martinp (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this already covered by the lengthy explanations about the voluntary nature of the process? There is nothing failed about Herostratus' recall. It's just been decided by a 'crat (though this is the part under debate), that he should have resigned the bit before the reconfirmation RFA. Nothing about this makes the process invalid or failed. It has never claimed to be policy or guideline, so marking it as a failed proposal for policy or guideline is clearly inappropriate. If you want to tag it as an essay, that's fine with me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you on the substance of your points, but given it's an active point of discussion with strongly held opinions on many sides, let's not tag it as anything. As we've grown, we've developed lots of so-called standardized processes and tags, and in unique cases - especially temporarily - finding the right standardized category may not be the most fruitful discussion. Martinp (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Martinp, I think your notice is better than Nihonjoe's was. It might be a bit redundant but... ++Lar: t/c 15:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment, by Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As do I. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the current notice is fine as well. As long as it's clear that this is not and has never been policy, I'm fine with it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Alternative process

Following recent comments, I've created an alternative to the sample process. Comments welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems OK; probably should add a note at noticeboards for more input. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the criteria you are going to adopt? –xeno^talk 13:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. I think resigning before the RfA has some advantages. I'm not sure about the 20 names on the petition - the comments on WP:BN are that it's a little low, however, until now I would've used the sample process, which has only 6. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Confusing as hell

This page is confusing as hell.

• If I want to see the list of admins who are open to recall, how can I see it? If I click on Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator recall, which seems like the place to go, then this just circulates back to this page. [2] - Are these the only people open to recall? Can't make it out and it seems hopelessly outdated. The link to [3] should be made more prominent.
• This ... um, claim "The desire is to keep this as simple as possible. Just ask, nicely, on the administrator's talk page, and if the admin and a sufficient number of others agree, it's done." stands in stark contrast to the convoluted, arbitrary and designed-to-make-sure-it-never-happens criteria that actual administrators actually require. Even the "simplest" ones involve something like "Start an RFC/U against me and if it looks like a lost cause I *might* consider resigning". Does anyone honestly believe that if I go to an administrator's (any of them - gimme even one) talk page and "ask nicely" then "it will be done". Honestly, at least stop lying to people.
• What is the record here? How many of these open to recall folks have actually been subject to a recall proceeding and how many of them have actually been recalled?

This seems nothing like an exercise in hypocrisy - pretending that one is willing to give up the tools while at the same time setting up the procedures which ensure that it never happens. It's a dead letter.VolunteerMarek 02:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Add: Based on this [4] I only see people being added to this category. I don't see a single person being removed, which is what would happen if someone actually was succesfully recalled. Hence, this means that a successful recall probably has never occurred (though maybe there might be someone who got missed). This further suggests that this page is only slightly more than a tasteless joke. I'm nominating it for MFD.VolunteerMarek 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you overstate the situation, but I do have to agree that the "simple as possible" language doesn't reflect actual practice and "it's done" is very unclear in terms of what "it" is.--Kubigula (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Some are simpler than others. A record of past recalls is located at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests which indicates that while most recall requests have been unsuccessful, there has been the occasional successful one. As for the issue of unrealistic standards for recall, well in a system with admins making their own recall criteria, that may happen. However, I think many recall criteria, including my own, set a good balance between protecting against frivolous requests and not making recall impossible. CT Cooper · talk 22:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to close the process and mark as historical

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Looking through all the pages associated with this page, I do not believe that this process is of much worth as it was before. Rarely has this method to decide if an administrator should have their "bit" removed been used. AORs have only happened twenty six times since its inception. The most recent was made was in 2012, which resulted in it being failed. With a process that currently has roughly 180 editors taken part in this, according to this category, one would think it would be used a bit more often. Though with the details that the process is "voluntary and non-binding" and "administrators can change their recall criteria, decline participation in the process, or disregard the outcome of recall proceedings", there's a sense that there's a lack of it being impactful. Sure people have resigned in some of these recalls. But if the process hasn't been used for the past two years, how long do we wait for the next one to happen?

So this raises the question: Should Administrators open to recall be closed and marked historical?

Discussion

• Support as nominator - GamerPro64 03:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• How is this a failure? GB fan 23:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • When I said failed, I meant it to be what the overall consensus was, which has the first sentence saying "This request for recall has failed to achieve the 6 certifiers." GamerPro64 02:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• It looks like people are still doing it, so probably not historical. I think it is a terrible idea begging trolls to come out of the woodwork but if someone wants to create their own designer impeachment system all the power to them. Chillum 02:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'd oppose this action. I admit the process itself is pretty toothless. If anything, the community should mandate recall processes. Marking this as historical won't help the project. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If not marking it as historical, maybe just close down the process? GamerPro64 03:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • You cannot close this process is that you cannot prevent admins from stepping down when their arbitrary criteria is met. What is wrong with this being here anyways? Chillum 16:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'd oppose this, too. This process isn't historical, it's just little used (as always). But it's better to have it than not (even if it's just the admirable admins role-modelling for those of us who're dodgier). WilyD 14:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly I would describe this as our most noble admins making themselves vulnerable to being removed by people with an ax to grind. I don't consider it a good role model, an admin should not put themselves up for mob justice. We have means of review and despite all the complaining that it is inadequate I don't see a long list of bad admins that have not been desysoped by that process. Chillum 16:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Without a list of good admins that have been desysoped by the process, it's hard to argue from the results that admins are putting themselves up for mob justice. WilyD 16:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Until we have some other method for community de-adminship, this shouldn't be marked as historical. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A fair point. Guess we'd have to wait for that along with a replacement for RfA then. GamerPro64 22:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep it, this provides a mechanism for showing someone who has overstepped his/her bounds of civility and reason that there is no confidence in allowing the person to continue. It's a way to spank admins who get out of line so it should be kept. Damotclese (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Standard recall procedure

There's a section entitled "confusing as hell" here.

The recall system is nearly a sham. The administrator makes up their own rules. Often, it's difficult to be hard to do.

Administrators should be responsive to concerns and accountable. To achieve that, I propose a standard set of conditions which administrators may agree to. Still, since they have to agree to it, it's not really fair to the community.

DRAFT 1

1. An administrator will be subject to a learning period of 30 days. During this 30 days, an administrator cannot be recalled except for the most severe misconduct.

2. An administrator can be recalled by one user if there is a violation of policy and there is not a correction to it within 7 days of a request for correction.

3. An administrator can be subject to a limited recall if requested by two users for serious violations of policies or repeated poor judgment or improper blocking. A limited recall would be suspension of administrative powers for 30 days. An administrator could be suspended for a maximum of 30 days per calender year. (In other words, even if ganged up upon, that administrator would retain powers for 11 months of the years.)

4. An administrator can be subject to a permanent recall if requested by 3 experienced users who have edited more than 500 edits and have edited for more than 6 months. If the complaining users are found to have started the recall in bad faith and without discussion and attempts of prior resolution, then they will be blocked for a period of 15 days.

EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't really see a valid argument for not having this in place. Administrators should conduct themselves at the epitome of good conduct, following guidelines, policies, etc; as examples of how others should conduct themselves. Therefore, if a user, regardless of what user rights that user has, clearly point out a policy that was disregarded... well then why should an admin be able to enforce rules that they want, and disregard others?

If the rule is pointless.. I imagine it never would have been put in place. Policy is policy for a reason, there should never need to be a case which would entitle an admin to not adhere to them. David Condrey ^{log talk} 06:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

in case anyone cares...

Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria is wildly out of date. There are a number of users on there who are not admins anymore, some who aren't going by the same name anymore, etc. It kinda makes the whole thing look like a largely forgotten, unused process, which isn't far off the mark. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)