Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

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)