User:Jc37/Sandbox/Closure

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Listify and then delete - There is consensus that this should be kept in "some form", but not necessarily in category form. This will also allow criteria for recall to be voluntarily listed, if wanted, sonething that obviously can't be done in a category. (Listified to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/List of administrators.) - jc37 10:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This close was overturned at deletion review — see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 16#Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall (closed). 22:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall - (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is useless and divisive. A significant number of administrators listed, or formerly listed here have had their recall requested, and the requestors have seen their pleas ignored. Would-be administrators have pledged to follow the procedures outlined here only to refuse to add themselves to the category after they have been sysoped, hoping that no one will notice. This category only serves to mislead. I don’t doubt that the majority of administrators listed here would do the right thing when asked about recall, but enough have failed to do so that listing now does more harm than good. Until a form of binding recall is implemented, this is a poor placebo. I move for the deletion of the category of these grounds. ➪HiDrNick! 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Question. Might I ask you to cite examples? bibliomaniac15 04:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'm off to bed, but to be quick I'll direct you to User talk:Mercury#Recall and this diff here for preliminary examples. I'll come up with some more tomorrow. ➪HiDrNick! 04:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A category consisting of admins who are open to recall only so long as nobody wants to actually recall them is useless. Since people are unwilling to demand that those who put themselves here actually honor their promise, there's no point. -Amarkov moo! 05:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm in that category myself, and am in there in good faith. While I understand that it's a little toothless in its current form, it still serves a purpose, IMO, and I would personal honour it - Alison ^❤ 05:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't doubt that some, and probably most people are there with the intention to actually stand for recall. What purpose does it serve, though, if some people put themselves in this category without meaning it? Categories don't work if they only truly apply to a subset of the people listed. -Amarkov moo! 05:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. The few rotten apples haven't spoiled the entire barrel in this case. It's still pretty representative as a category - Alison ^❤ 06:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The history of known recall attempts is logged at Category talk:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Past requests. It shows that recall attempts are rare and even more rarely result in loss of tools through the process. The only such case to date is that of Crzrussian, who learned that what he did was wrong and readily received the tools again after a two month break. The process may have in Ryulong's case contributed to him modifying his behavior - but maybe not enough as we nearly had an RfAR quite recently over the same root issue last month. The process may or may not have contributed to Durova's resignation; it is impossible to tell. In at least two cases, the process has helped our administrators be better, and in the remainder of the cases it probably showed the complainant(s) that their complaint was frivolous. So it is actually a useful category that has helped Wikipedia in the past, and will do so in the future. If admins don't join the category after promising to or withdraw under controversy, that is significant information for the community to evaluate in future decisions regarding that editor. I know I will, as it affects the basic question of whether the editor is trustworthy. GRBerry 05:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is more of an issue of editors choosing to abide by the principle of voluntary recall rather than placement in a category... It seems to me that the indication of acceptance could be gained via a text notice, rather than self-categorisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - largely per GRBerry and per my response to Amarkov above - Alison ^❤ 05:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The only thing divisive about the category is how people respond to whether an administrator agrees to recall or not, which ultimately has very, very little to do with the category itself. I don't feel that that is a particularly compelling reason for deletion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Recall is a misused tool. Mercury 05:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I will not express my opinions on the issues of voluntary administrative recall and self-placement in this category; however, quite simply, the category is not needed. Administrators who are open to recall may indicate this on their userpage via a userbox or a simple text notice. Why would anyone want to browse through a grouping of administrators open to recall (that is, after all, the purpose of categories ... to allow editors to browse through a grouping of related pages)? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflicted) Keep. So far, the opposes I see so far are more towards the process of recall than about the actual merits of the category. In this case, I would have to keep with a rationale similar to EVula's. I do, however, agree that admin recall should be made into a less messy affair. bibliomaniac15 06:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please see my comment directly above yours. Though you may not find my argument convincing, it is directed toward evaluating the value of the category itself rather than the merits of the voluntary recall process. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per the historic uselessness of the category itself, and the demonstrated insincerity of those who place themselves within it. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• The "demonstrated insincerity of those who place themselves in it"? Way to assume good faith there. Nice to know that I'm marked as a liar. Leithp 08:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep So this process isn't always followed to the letter. That's not a reason to abandon it altogether. We have a neutral point of view policy, but some people still make biased edits. Is anyone talking about abandoning NPOV? Yes, AOR is voluntary and NPOV is official policy. The point is, non-conformance with a policy or process is not a reason to delete. szyslak 06:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Deletion of the category does not automatically equate to the abandonment of voluntary admin recall, which is something that I strongly support. Administrators can still declare that they are open to recall via other means (a userbox, a text notice, a messagebox) ... the category itself is useful only if there is value in grouping together admins who claim to be open to recall. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, no, but it would represent a symbolic attack on open recall. As in, "You can make yourself open to recall, but you're not allowed to facilitate that process and show your support for it by using a category". The "we don't really need it" argument could apply to almost any user category. Should we abolish all user categorization? szyslak 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      • No. A lot of user categories are genuinely useful in that they help editors find other editors with a particular attribute (interest, skill, etc.). The issue here is that there's no real reason to actively seek out admins based simply on the fact that they are open to recall. Also, I don't see how it would be a "symbolic attack" on open recall ... a category tag that serves as a userpage notice could easily be replaced with an actual text notice. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Per Tim Smith's comments below, I see this whole thing as a way to test and develop a method for community admin recall. As such, the category furthers that goal by providing one clear way to measure the progress - how many admins have decided to participate.--Kubigula (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If admins want to put their names here, despite the obvious potential for abuse (which we are now beginning to see), they should be able to. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. At least until there's a recall system with teeth (and please don't mention Arbcom, it's a mess). BTW, since nobody has mentioned it, Mercury has started the recall process. Leithp 08:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Can't make my mind up per Black Falcon and Raymond Arritt. I don't see the value of having this category (what purpose does it serve?), but on the other hand I don't see why we should regulate this if admins want to classify themselves thus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a useless category. If an admin abuse his power, he/she must be de-sysoped. It doesn't matter whether that person is listed on Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall or not. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Although the category is currently a who's who of the best admins, it does have potential uses. Epbr123 (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As can be seen in several of the archived cases, administrators tend to consider the actual requests either frivolous or unappropriate when they are confronted with a recall request. Obviously, such a recall request will always come from editors with whom the administrator has had issues and such a request should always be taken seriously (which is why there is the limit of 5/6 people requesting recall, if it really is only a minor dispute, never ever will this limit be reached). So, because several administrator who were on this list did not take it seriously themselves when confronted with a request AND because the Arbcom has more or less mentioned that they will not actively support the idea, this category serves no other purpose than showing off. Obviously, any administrator can always make a statement to this extend at his/her userpage, but this category gives the impression that we are dealing with some sort of policy. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Administrators who grossly abuse their power (which rarely happens, thankfully) are desysopped by ArbCom. However, administrators who use the tools in controversial or inappropriate ways, not amounting to gross abuse, ought to be removable by the community. I have, on many occasions, suggested the implementation of a community desysopping process or a form of compulsory recall, but this has been consistently rejected in polls etc. and is unlikely to be introduced at this time. But all admins should be encouraged to add themselves to CAT:AOR; I agree that it is somewhat toothless, but I trust most admins to be honourable enough to stand by their promises, and those who refused to honour a good-faith recall petition after promising to do so would (hopefully) quickly find their position untenable. Walton^One 12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This category currently houses the only available description of the recall mechanism and past requests. Although this could be converted to the Wikipedia namespace, categories are a convenient and hassle-free way to maintain such a list. I don't see the category itself causing any harm, and although various editors have reservations with the process it describes, I don't think the deletion of a category would eliminate the concept of recall. Personally, I suspect that I'll keep the category even if it becomes a redlink, as I want a simple, unobtrusive notice of a commitment to accountability. A userbox would look cheesy and a vetted list would only add another level of bureaucracy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree that there are flaws with recall, but a deletion discussion is not the place to address them. The category has a use related to the running of the project. Imperfect or not, that is enough reason to keep it. NoSeptember 13:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Despite previous discussions of the inappropriateness (that motivated a previous CFD), I continue to see this spammed into RFAs (including a fourth of the current RFAs). As a noble experiment that people sometimes adhere to, its not very useful. As a bludgeon to make point at RFA, I consider it actively harmful. It's a devisive category that gets misused and poorly followed. Better to eliminate this category and invent a real policy on recall rather than this voluntary mess. Dragons flight (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Listify in userspace or just plain Delete. If it's not binding, not official, and there are binding and official ways (WP:DR and WP:RFAR), why is this necessary? We would never have a category called Category:United States presidents available for impeachment, would we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoutersig (talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Any tool can be misused. If you don't like it, don't participate, but don't try to stop the experiment. We have only a smattering of data from it so far. Friday (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. People may make whatever commitments to recall they wish - having a category to identify those who have made such commitments is fairly unremarkable. I share the concerns of some that people have withdrawn from the category once they have suspected they may be recalled. Ultimately however people are only as good as their word - someone who broke their word in such a manner would fall considerably in my estimation. An ignored recall request leading to the subject removing themselves from the category is something that ArbCom should they come to review the matter would I hope take seriously. WjBscribe 15:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. My own preference, like that of others here, is for all admins to be subject to recall: not by ArbCom, an appointed body which itself consists entirely of administrators, but by the community at large. Administrators are granted their powers by community support, and I think accountability requires that they keep them only for as long as they maintain that support. That said, direct attempts at establishing compulsory recall have a poor track record. What I hope proponents of binding recall who oppose this category will understand is that to institute a compulsory recall process, we need to build community support for one. It's not just a matter of "invent[ing] a real policy on recall"; we need to demonstrate that community-based recall is viable, and this category is a way to do that. By employing flexible conditions through which individual recalls can vary, the category gives us an idea of what works and what doesn't, helping us to fine-tune the current procedure and design a future one. The greater its membership and the longer it exists with successful abuse the exception rather than the rule, the easier it will be to take the next step and set up a more universal process. Tim Smith (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the process here is better than nothing and will, hopefully, evolve into something more. But a list would serve better than a category. —ScouterSig 17:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. All admins should be open to recall for serious complaints, and less serious complaints should go to WP:RFC/ADMIN. There isn't a real need for this category. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Tim Smith's excellent reasoning.--Kubigula (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This commitment is greater than that faced by all admins. It is a statement of trust in the community. It's non-binding, and some have been questionable in the way they followed it, but better than nothing. The perfect is the enemy of the good. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't really care one way or the other about the process itself, but a category probably isn't needed. Can it be listified to Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall (or something similar)? --Kbdank71 (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Mark as historical. I understand this is a completely voluntary category, based on the individual. As such, it's more suited to userspace as opposed to project space, which, fairly or not, lends an air of officiality to the process. The process has been abused - the most prominent example I can cite is Ryulong, who arguably only gained admin status based on a promise to be open to recall[1] [2] [3] [4]- only to remove himself from the category[5] once people actually started calling for it. [6] [7] [8] Since this is purely up to the individual administrator, they should feel free to detail processes and procedures for their recall in their own userspace, should they desire. But it shouldn't be a part of any official process like RfA, nor should any impression be given that it is an official process. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per GRBerry. As disclosure I was in the category from the start of my adminship almost til the end, and I hope this wasn't demonstrative of my inherent insincerity or my pandering to trolls or whatever else the oppose concerns are. The category has never pretended to be policy. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in the absence of an alternative, and per Tim Smith. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reasons I gave the last two times this was proposed for deletion. However I'll try to be less strident this time. :) The process works when you let it. It's not official, not formal, but the weight of public opinion works just fine as an adherence enforcer. if the consensus is to delete it, I'm still going to be open to recall anyway though, with every intent to honor it... I'll just have to userify more stuff, I guess. By the way I really wish people would stop asking RfA candidates if they are willing to be in the category or not... I used to ask that question myself but I've come to realise that is not a good thing. It needs to stop. ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Friday, Tim Smith. There is no better process in place for the community. The only divisiveness occurs when the category comes up for deletion. That the recall system has been abused by dishonest admins (which is true) is no reason to delete a category. The category page itself has done nothing wrong: it just links admins open to recall on the same page for the sake of convenience. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as the place for policy decisions (and most any decision regarding content in the Wikipedia namespace) is not a deletion discussion. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 22:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although I think the process is fatally and fundamentally flawed, while it exists the category is an appropriate means to administer the process. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep some admins wanted to lower the requirements to desysopping. While I don't share their views, the category serves a purpose to "officialize" this process a bit. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the voluntary system should be kept. Whether it needs to be administered by category, rather than a list, is another matter. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That's exactly what this discussion is; to keep as a category or to listify, etc. It's not trying to disband the organization. —ScouterSig 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• KeepIt's a stupid category, but it's voluntary so who cares? If you don't like it, take yourself out of it. Nobody can do anything about it if you do, since it was voluntary in the first place. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should we keep "stupid" categories? —ScouterSig 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete it's listed at the appropriate page; and one person's standards for recall differ from another's. Some admins may only be open to recall if Jimbo desysops them personally for all we know. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Wait until a valid desyropping proccess is created by the community, yes recall is super broken, but I agree that there needs to be a process regarding the misuse of tools. Secret ^account 07:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think all admins should be willing to step down if enough editors think they made a big enough mistake. Thus, I think this category is unnecessary. Redrocketboy 17:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now, let the idea die out on it's own if that is its fate. -- Ned Scott 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Unfortunately, being "open to recall" is a vacuous promise. People tend to claim they're open to recall because this gives them more support at RFA, but when such a recall is actually requested, the subject tends to (1) set ludicrous standards of the amount of people required to recall, (2) blandly states that whomever requesting it does not qualify, (3) remove himself from the category, or (4) promise they'll seek RFC or RFAr which applies exactly the same to anybody not in this cat. This started as a nice idea, but in effect it's now only a political misdirection. >Radiant< 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- it's the best thing we have now even if it represents only a moral, not a binding obligation. I know that admins can just keep a user box without being categorized, but I see no problem in having a category. (Besides, I just added my name to it -- I'd hate to think I killed a category!) --A. B. ^(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, or add every admin to the category. All admins should be subject to recall if they abuse the tools. - ∅ (∅), 05:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as divisive. –Pomte 06:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - easier to maintain than a list. (I said this then and signing now :-)) Antariki Vandanamu (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per A. B., and several others SQL^{Query me!} 12:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or add every admin to the category to be recalled by the community. Miranda 17:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No to add every admin to the category, it is broken the category, and that's the main reason why it's being nominated for deletion. Secret ^account 22:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and create Wikipedia:Requests for administrator recall instead, with a process similar to a user conduct RfC that is either binding or not binding depending on the consensus of the community. Alternatively, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator review which would provide an opportunity to establish community consensus on the conduct of an administrator without explicity requiring an outcome of -sysop. Avruch^Talk 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If there needs to be a process about admins misusing the tools, I like Avruch's idea of creating Wikipedia:Requests for administrator recall. There will be better community consensus that way. Spellcast (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, or failing that, Create Wikipedia:Requests for administrator recall. We need an effective system of non-voluntary administrative recall to hold administrators responsible for their actions in the community. Afraid of mob rule? This is Wikipedia, it IS mob rule. Put a ribbon on mob rule and you have consensus. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Every administrator should be open to recall, or the whole idea of consensus is empty drivel. The shear existence of the category has lead to RfA's (at least one recent one) where the argument was, "Well if you don't like the person, you can always recall them." This herring is a bit to red for my tastes. Justin ^chat 08:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I agree with many of the above "keep" opinions, especially that of GRBerry. I also agree with a couple of the "delete" ideas. For example, I do agree that I'd rather see that all admins be open to recall, not just the ones in this category. But I don't think that deleting this category will help towards the achievement of that goal. I also listened carefully to the idea that a "category" isn't needed, and that admins can just list themselves individually, but I disagree with this. I think having a category is extremely wise. I know that when I was a new user, I found it very reassuring to see so many names of administrators here. Without the category, it's very difficult to tell how many people are participating. And, frankly, the way to get more people participating, is to show that it's the "cool" thing to do. And lastly, the recall category is extraordinarily important to many users, as is evidenced by how often the question comes up at RfAs. The category should clearly be kept. --Elonka 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I really am not sure about this one. I did not put myself in this category when I became an admin, because I had a sense, which I could not really explain, that this was in some way suspect. All admins should be treated the same. However, I do not think we should have a scheme that makes it easy for the community to discuss taking the tools away from an admin. I think that will lead to a lot of drama arising from proposals from users who are just objecting that an admin has done their job. The debate is looking like running to a keep, or at least a no-consensus keep. Perhaps that is best for now. --Bduke (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Every administrator must be prepared to resign if they lose the trust of the community, not just those listed in the category. Publishing recall criteria in advice is an invitation to bad faith gaming. Advice from an experienced administrator and recent events have convinced me this category is a recipe for drama, and a net harm to the project. As such, it should be deleted. The concept of recall should be built into adminship and cover all administrators. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: agree with Jehochman above. This should apply to all admins. It should not be voluntary.(WP:AAA is also interesting by the way). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep My arugment is similar to BlackFalcon's Delete vote. I won't go into whether the idea of admin recall is noble, flawed, pointless, etc., but I do find it enormously helpful to see how many admins--and which admins--signed up for this curious phenomenon. As long as the concept exists, I think it's vital to know which users are (ostensibly) participating in it and which users are not.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per a lot of the above, the best I have found were User:Raymond arritt and User:AnonEMouse. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 01:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.