Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall

See Also

• Wikipedia:Administrators § Administrator recall
• Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall – The "main" page, giving a brief description of the idea.
• Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall – talk page with discussion.
• Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria – the criteria and process for recall used by various category members.
• Sample procedures and criteria
  • Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process
  • Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Alternative process
• Records of past recall requests, hand-maintained by volunteers.
• Reference material about other proposals, ideas and general information.
• Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall – The category page, showing which administrators state they are voluntarily open to recall.
• Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats open to recall – for Bureaucrats
• 17 August 2008 Category Deletion Discussion
• Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages

Note: the above is not an exhaustive list.

Requests for comment

• 2009 - Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall
• 2010 - Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC
• 2015 - Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall
• 2019 - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure
• 2024 - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall
  • Village pump (policy)#Administrator Recall

Note: the above is not an exhaustive list

Removal

I removed myself from this category a long time ago. This does not mean I am not open to recall. Just that I disagree with the way this particular idea came to be implemented. Hiding T 11:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. The category is just that, a category. My intent to be recallable would survive the category, to be sure. Do you document how you are willing to be recalled somewhere? It might be interesting to add to the notes somewhere on these pages even if you're not in the category. ++Lar: t/c 00:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I can be recalled through all the normal methods any admin can be recalled through. I don't need to document them, they already exist. Two users can start an rfc and away we go. To me it is simplicity itself. Hiding T 12:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you commit that if the majority view of the RfC is that you misused your tools you would stand down? By what margin? Who is qualified to participate? Will you be cooperative and volunteer things or will you look to others to make all the points? See, an RfC without special strictures is just that, a request for comment, and nothing more. It is in itself not a commitment to take any particular action. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to can this page and process?

In the interests of streamlining, is there anything specific about this page worth keeping? Surely if an admin has behaved in a manner unbecoming, could it not be handled by RfC/U or by Arbitration? Is it fair that a certain number of admins are listed here and others aren't? I am thinking in the interests of simplifying process and having a level playing field, maybe it is better to can this and thus have issues of this nature go through either RfC/U or by Arbitration. What do we reckon folks? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As an admin who doesn't include himself here, I see no reason to do away with the process. You're not going to desysop somebody through a request for comment, and arbitration will only de-admin somebody after a pattern of abuse is discovered. This process tends to be more for those admins who may not have a pattern of egregious abuse, but whose actions have destroyed whatever trust they originally had. In an RfA, no trust=no admin, but once you're an admin, trust is irrelevant unless you're open to recall. - auburnpilot talk 13:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken. I thought a pretty grim RfC may lead to a desysopping but am unaware of it ever happening. I'll have a look. If never it does invalidate my argument. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The R.Fiend RfC ended in de-sysopping as it was clear it was going to ArbCom - Alison ^❤ 18:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

TBH, I can't recall a decent use of this process. The only occasions I've seen it have been very lynchmob-ish overreactions or empty threats when an admin does something unpopular ("is X open to recall ...?"). While the idea is good, it really doesn't seem to work in practice. Mr.Z-man 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Z-man. I've usually seen it used by a user who was mad at an admin (generally for enforcing a valid policy) to "get even" with that admin. What happened to User:Keilana was appalling. I'd support MfDing this page/cat/etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As someone else not on this list here, I'll note that, it seems clearly intended to be a voluntary "opt in" process. (Though I have seen questions at RfA concerning it.) So I would probably vote a "weak keap" at an MfD. Weak, because I think it may be being used to times to subtly "bully" RfA candidates, and because it seems really almost required to be a legalistic whiz to define what the criteria should be. (Loopholes seem to pop up here, there, and everywhere.) - jc37 10:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I might vote keep in an MFD purely on the grounds that is voluntary, you either decide to use it and face the consequences, or you don't. I would also point out that some users (such as myself) have made a direct commitment to recall that will still apply regardless of what happens to this page and the category. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If people want to be in it, why not? But the description on the page should adequately describe what it is. I think it reflects well on an admin if they're open to recall, but I can understand why people wouldn't want to be or wouldn't think it's necessary. I those in it are hppy with it, it's horses for courses. In the even no-one is in it, or hardly anyone, then it could be deleted. Sticky Parkin 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the process or not, deletion is not appropriate. The most that would happen is it would get marked as historical. But, people are still using it, so.. Friday (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's used, and growing - though not as fast as we might like. I was (briefly) the 100th to join last July, and we are up to 179 now.--Kubigula (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The admin recall process is dead

This proposal has also been posted on WP:AN.

The admin recall process is dead. I suggest it would only be decent to bury the corpse. See the current version of Elonka's talkpage (permanent link lest it be archived soon), especially her much-criticized response to the recall procedure. Note especially the comments of Durova and Friday. In view of the way this case has played out, I propose that Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall and its associated categories and subsidiary pages be marked "historical". Bishonen | talk 10:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

I set up a tally there :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil, of course. It looks more like a discussion to me. Which belongs here. Is whoever is so insistent on having it there prepared to make sure a permanent pointer is placed here? ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Marking the page historical doesn't accomplish anything, and it doesn't address the actual problem with recall. So long as an administrator wishes to be open to recall, s/he can do so. This page does nothing more than provide a central location for a list of those admins and their criteria. If you want to "fix" recall, ensure all admins available for recall have a thorough set of instructions in place. - auburnpilot talk 16:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The admin recall process is dead (WP:AN)

This section was moved here from WP:AN.

The admin recall process is dead. I suggest it would only be decent to bury the corpse. See the current version of Elonka's talkpage (permanent link lest it be archived soon), especially her much-criticized response to the recall procedure. Note especially the comments of Durova and Friday. In view of the way this case has played out, I propose that Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall and its associated categories and subsidiary pages be marked "historical". Bishonen | talk 10:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

• I agree. The most charitable interpretation is that this belongs to an earlier phase of Wikipedia when POV-pushers were less well organised and the stakes were lower. These days any admin who followed this process and stepped into any one of the many long-running disputes would likely be out of the door the first time they protected the wrong version - and of course all versions are wrong according to somebody. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Sadly I must agree with you, the voluntary nature of even accepting a recall as valid makes this system far to problematic. MBisanz ^talk 10:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Wow, I just remembered that I promised to place myself during the "administrators open to recall" cat during my RfA, did so, and never made a set of recall criteria. That was seven months ago. A recall process that relies upon the administrator to set the criteria cannot be enforced and has no real teeth. I strongly believe any formalized process for recall will end up being like CSN, but hey, I look forward to being wrong. That said, the current process is not the answer. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree/endorse - sorry, it can be gamed both ways to the point that it is rendered irrelevant...so shall we vote on this somehwere or just tally it up here? Guy summed up much of it well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral observation The concept of recall is good, however, it is open to abuse from both directions and is the cause of criterion so stringent by several admins that those seeking to recall someone would probably never meet the criterion. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• The recall process was never meant to be enforceable, but a voluntary improvement on the total lack of accountability that exists otherwise. Admins who are not prepared to honour their promise should not add themselves to the category, and admins who deal with a lot of tag-teaming pov-pushers in particular should either set criteria they are comfortable with, or remove themselves completely from the category. But this does not make the category useless. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the case of Elonka it has not indeed been useless, but actively harmful, zzuuzz. Elonka drew an inappropriate advantage from the pledge she made in her third RFA to be open to recall.[1] She was a very controversial user, who had failed two RFAs, and IMO she wouldn't have been likely to squeeze through the third one without that recall pledge. (I know I would have opposed her without it.) Now it turns out that she is not prepared to honor it. Bishonen | talk 12:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

• Recall is not the only process available to the community. There is a concurrent RfC which Elonka has pledged to heed (or has she? I am actually not following that closely). And if that fails, there is RfAr. As there has always been for any admin. That a particular admin has not given satisfaction does not mean Recall is a complete failure, any more than it means RfC is a complete failure or RfAr is a complete failure. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• People should not have attached any weight to it in the RfA. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• AMEN! A toothless tiger only has a bite as sharp as its teeth. AOR has been and always will be a stupid idea because it is completely voluntary.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Recall only works if those who sign up to it are honest, rather than lying to pass their RFA. Recall's ineffectiveness in this case was not due to a failing of the concept; it was due to a failing of the admin. Neıl ☄ 11:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, the people who ask the question are asking for campaign promises. Campaign promises may be made in good faith, but are often broken as time and conditions change. If anybody puts weight in it, then that was their mistake. I have no doubt that she feels as if she made the promise in good faith and is exercising it per her standard---but as it is voluntary and she gets to interpret it as she deems---then the entire cat is useless.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am old enough to remember the Read my lips: no new taxes incident. Campaign promises broken carry real consequences. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• And very little enforceability. Thus, if you are going to vote on somebody/thing, you need to do so based upon their history, not their promises. Especially when it is something like this.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• As I said years ago, I continue to believe that asking about AOR is an inappropriate question at RFA. People shouldn't use what is essentially political pressure to backdoor a process that has never had any official standing. If someone wants to resign because others ask them to (or any other set of criteria) that is their right, but pressuring people into setting criteria is divisive and inappropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This comes up periodically. It's almost a perennial proposal now, I'd say. The process is not dead. That some admins misuse it as a ploy to get votes, or fail to set criteria (I went round a few months ago and warned all of the then members to make sure they have criteria, and many did heed my warning) and then deservedly get run through the wringer by the community, is not a flaw of the process itself, it's a flaw of those admins. The process is voluntary. If you don't like it, don't be in it. But those calling for X, Y, or Zed, who are not actually in it... have no standing to do so as far as I am concerned. Also, this is the wrong page to be having discussion. The proper way would be to have the actual discussion at the talk page with just a pointer here. I propose to move all of this there and leave just the pointer behind... this page gets archived too fast. ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Lar, the administrator's noticeboard is entirely the correct location for this discussion, as it is intended for the attention and participation of administrators. Please don't shuffle it off to an out of the way talk page. Neıl ☄ 11:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

signing in agreement with Neil: User:Ceyockey (talk to me)

• Please don't do that, Lar. I would like more previously uninvolved eyes on what's gone down. It won't be archived until 48 hours have gone by without a post. (AN isn't ANI). Bishonen | talk 11:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

If there's a pointer HERE to THERE, what's the harm. That page gets archived not every 48 hours, but far less frequently. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Less frequently..? Er.. oh... that's good? Bishonen | talk 12:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC).

Yes. Archives are inconvenient unless linked to well. Are you or someone else advocating staying here going to update that page with a link to the correct history version here? If not, this is not the right place. But since there seems to be opposition to my proposed move, so be it. We'll see who ends up cleaning up the loose ends though. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personally, I think that anyone who is an admin should be subject to recall under some minimum standard criteria set which is mandatory as part of the role. In response to this thread, I've added myself to the listing ... which particulars to be determined at a future date. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

GO DO CRITERIA. Don't put it off till later. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, Lar. A minimal statement is now present on the page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That we allready have, it's called "arbcom" _→AzaToth 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

From WP:ARBCOM: "Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process–it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed." I tend to agree with this; further, ArbCom is broad in scope, not focused on the admin role itself. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe WP:AOR is something like the Better Business Bureau for Wikipedia? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Some admins also choose to be answerable to a lower authority. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'll consider the recall process dead while Elonka remains a sysop. —Giggy 12:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, no. The process is not the last step in dispute resolution, if you do not get satisfaction from it, pursue other processes. In this case, she has an RfC, no? If that fails, file an RfAr. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • So Giggy, if she steps down or is removed another way, would you consider AOR to be alive? The fallacy of a voluntary punishment has been highlighted (although it has come under repeated fire before and previously been shown to be fallacious.) People who need to be desysoped will be. There have been several people who have been pressured enough to step down without the toothless beats AOR. AOR is simply another way to spell Drama...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It's amusing that both supporters and opponents of recall regard Elonka's case as critical to the credibility of recall. In my case, I believe the woefully bad faith endorsements for recall generated almost entirely from opponents in content and mediation efforts rather than from a representative section of the community turned that recall effort (which was initiated in good faith by Jehochman, even though I disagreed with it) into an absolute joke. Orderinchaos 02:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Shouldn't we just have a recall process that is binding on all admins? How would one go about proposing such a policy? I think it would serve the community's interests if all admins were open to recall, and that recall was binding. Currently the system is meaningless. Alun (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • See perennial proposals. I'd oppose such a proposal ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well the decision would be by the consensus of the community, based on discussion about the merits of the idea, surely? Whether such a proposal would work would entirely depend upon whether the community was convinced that it would be fair and that it would work. On the whole the idea is sound though. I'd suggest starting by getting a consensus regarding the idea, if there is a consensus that it is a good idea then we could go on to thrash out the rules to apply, in the knowledge that this is what the community wants. If there were no consensus for the idea then it would be dead before it started. Get consensus for the idea first though, I'd say. Alun (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
      • By the way, it would be interesting to see how many admins who "support" the recall process during their nomination process under the current voluntary system, would still support a binding recall process. In theory it should be the same. Of course with regards to admins themselves, it's will be like getting turkeys to vote for Christmas. Alun (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Maybe one way to look at this is that anyone who indicates approval to the voluntary process is unlikely to actually ever have the process invoked against them. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
      • @Wobble/Alun: yes, if the community implements such a mandatory process I will either adhere to it or resign. I'm just saying it's a perennial proposal, I'd oppose it (and presumably so would many others) and it would fail again. The references section has a catalog of the various failed proposals. Those planning a new proposal might be well served by studying those to try to overcome the objections raised before. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I suspect the problem has always been that people are not happy with the proposed procedure. The thing is to get a consensus for the principle first, get a community concensus that all admins should be open to binding recall. I'll bet that most people would support the principle. Then we discuss specifics, with the knowledge that there is a community consensus for some sort of binding recall. I reckon it would be easier to get a consensus on the process if all parties knew that the community had already backed the principle. Alun (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Tagging the page historical will be a meaningless action. If admins want to enter into a recall procedure then they can do so, no matter what the status of the page is. You can't force people to keep their adminship. Hut 8.5 12:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Force people to keep their adminship? What a... strange way of putting it. Any admin who doesn't want the admin flag any more merely asks a steward to remove it. Very brisk process. Bishonen | talk 13:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC).
    • Right. My mailbox is always open for such requests. As is the page on meta. But I think the point is... if the family of pages gets deleted, you cannot force me to not be recallable. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• What was never alive cannot now be dead. Removing the page isn't a bad idea, since it creates the misleadin' impression those admins are open to recall (which some may truly, I dunno.). Replacing it with even a voluntary binding procedure, or a mandatory one for all is not a bad idea, or just nothing. As it stands now it is really misleading, and probably not worth keeping around. WilyD 12:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep current system per Lar and Hut. My interpretation of the page Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests is that, insofar as I can assume that page to be reasonably complete, there have been about 5 cases where the recall criteria were met, and in almost all of these cases the admin resigned or went through a reconfirmation process. So, I would say that the process generally works. I encourage any admins who have indicated that they're open to recall but have not gone into detail about what process they follow to consider stating that they will follow Lar's recall criteria, which I think are very well-designed. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah but read the footnote of the footnote: "if the user calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves have been [open to recall] for at least two weeks". Whoever said revenge is not best served through a straw? Or does this mean that you can voluntarily desysop (under a clear sky, so to speak) before requesting recall of Lar, in order to be eligible under a criterion with no personal liability, then be resysopped later by the nearest bureaucrat? Somebody should try this just to study how the criteria change. — CharlotteWebb 13:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• As everybody reserves the right to fortify their criteria at any time, the absurdity and complexity tend to increase proportionately to the likelihood of a recall request (and even in the wake thereof). I would suggest tagging this as {{humor}}, but then we'd be stuck debating at whose expense the joke should be made. The fine print wiki-lawyering is fascinating enough to encourage recall requests for sheer personal amusement. — CharlotteWebb 12:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• That is by far and away the BEST suggestion that I've ever seen... Perhaps I should add my criteria to the list as well... would something like "the apocalypse happening" and "a personal letter hand delivered by President Jeb Bush" be appropriate?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman you could offer to resign if six arbitrators in good standing ask you to... hey, wait a second! — CharlotteWebb 16:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a funny once, Majorly already tried that joke on for size. CW to your point about a quick trip through the mill to remove your bit temporarily... might fool some people, but not me. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I certainly find it difficult to recall why I ever wanted to be an admin... Thatcher 13:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Mod +1 funny. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • LOL @ Thatcher. We obviously need a new admin recall category: Category: Admins who can still recall why they ever wanted to be one. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC).
• Oathbreakers live in their own special hell. The category helps identify those who honor their words, and those who do not. Dishonoring a recall request has greater long term disadvantages than resigning. Therefore, keep. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You meant to link to WP:HELL. — CharlotteWebb 16:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree with Bishonen's proposal. As Lar correctly pointed out: "That a particular admin has not given satisfaction does not mean Recall is a complete failure". And Jenochman correctly pointed out that "the category helps identify those who honor their words, and those who do not". Let's not underestimate this ethical dimension. I don't know what the outcome of Elonka's case will be, but it is wrong to personalize the whole issue. The important is that Elonka and any other adm open to recall are judged by the community for their adherence or violation of the principles they said they will respect. Most of us participating in this category, we have set and made official a concrete administration accountability; Elonka after her word in the RfA failed to include herself here. But we did, and I believe that most of us intend to keep our work. If we do not, then we'll be discredited and face the ethical condemnation of the Community. What worse than that, even if the "lier" typically remains sysop. That is why I think it will be a terrible mistake to get rid of this recall procedure, based on what we could call self-commitment.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree the recall process is crappy, but Elonka's actions really wasn't wrong; there's now nearly twice as many people opposing rollback as endorsing, and even the initiator (Jehochman) accepts she shouldn't be recalled. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are putting words in my mouth. Elonka was properly recalled, but she refused to resign or stand for reconfirmation. That's a valid result for our voluntary recall process. I accept that result because the process is voluntary, and I have asked people to move along in the spirit of reconciliation. Time will tell if I am being overly optimistic. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'd compare Recall being made historical to the end of Return of the Jedi, when the people celebrate the Death Star blowing up. Fireworks and everything.--KojiDude ^(C) 14:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Death Star shrapnel doesn't bother me compared to the inevitable "prequel trilogy". — CharlotteWebb 17:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't followed this whole thing (actually this is the first I've heard of it, I guess I'm doing a good job of staying away from drama), but this looks like a good example of 2 things. 1) Why I removed myself from the recall category. And 2) Why rules based on arbitrary figures are stupid. As for the first bit, there's so much criticism, it keeps building up and it becomes very difficult to distinguish between people with valid complaints, people just jumping on the bandwagon, and people acting in bad faith. The standards for civility and personal attacks generally seem to drop as well. As for the second reason, luckily we can almost never agree on arbitrary figures for policy except in cases where we absolutely have to. Arbitrary figures are too easy to game and allow no room for discretion. In the case of Elonka's recall, after her RFA, 6 editors probably seemed like a decent idea, and in ideal circumstances (which don't happen in recalls, see previous point) it probably would be good. However in the actual circumstances, 6 doesn't make any sense. Since when do 6 users, with the exception of the arbitrators, ever get to decide on something like this? 6 users would never be able to prevent an RFA from passing, Elonka's passed with 10 times that many opposing. As it stands currently, there's almost twice as many people opposing the recall as supporting it. Do those magical six people get to override 40? That makes even less sense. While it is partially Elonka's fault for not thinking through her criteria initially or not updating them when she started working in controversial areas, the system is pretty broken. Mr.Z-man 15:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree/endorse. If we get rid of recall, we won't have to see those obnoxious, back door policy-pushing, how-else-are-you-going-to-answer-it questions at RfA anymore. I think the current system for removing the tools works just fine. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly support Bishonen's call to bury the dead corpse of the broken promise of admin recall. In spite of serious concerns, I did not oppose Elonka's RfA, mistakenly believing that the promise of being open to recall would encourage her to stay in line. I am a specific example of one editor who would have opposed if I didn't believe that recall had teeth. Bury it; it's already dead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  I think Sandy brings out a good point. Whether or not individuals would be willing to be explicitly open to recall, having the category and formalized page makes it appear as if the category has teeth. If an individual wants to be open to recall, and again I say we all are, then let us proclaim it on our own. Not on some psuedo-official page that lacks any enforceability.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the arguments here, and the difficulties evident in the process, maybe it is best to get rid of it. Maybe then ArbCom will actually desysop people when they abuse admin tools a lil more leniently. Wizardman 16:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sadly, this experience seems to justify my comments here. For a sysop to be able to help the wikipedia process in anything but its most neutral elements, they need to be able to act without the constant fear of recall by those whom their (the sysops) decisions have gone against. In theory, recall may be a good thing, but I am afraid that in practice, its primary function is to paralyze sysops from acting decisively when necessary. What we need, in my opinion, is a quicker-responding, more efficient ArbCom, or an ArbCom-appointed subcommittee which deals solely with Admin actions (as was suggested in the June FT2 writings, IIRC). -- Avi (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Get rid of AOR. Irongargoyle was right above; the only purpose AOR serves these days is to muck up RfAs. Tan ǀ 39 16:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• This is a rather pointless discussion. Marking the page historical doesn't accomplish anything, and it doesn't address the actual problem with recall. So long as an administrator wishes to be open to recall, s/he can do so. This page does nothing more than provide a central location for a list of those admins and their criteria. If you want to "fix" recall, ensure all admins available for recall have a thorough set of instructions in place. - auburnpilot talk 16:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Mark as historical and userfy. If an admin wants to be open to recall, that's fine, but they can put the criteria in their userspace and end the illusion of this being an official process. This should hopefully stop the gaming at RfA. Kelly ^hi! 16:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't quite follow how it's an official process, Kelly... it says it's voluntary. But whatev. As for asking at RfAs... I oppose that. I think it should be spoken out against. Recall should not be a mechanism to slide through RfA when you otherwise should have failed, either. Tell you what, you or anyone else see recall being asked about on RfAs... go comment. Ping me. I'll comment too.. You or anyone else see recall being used as a way to skid through? Go comment. Ping me. I'll comment too. Because that part, to me, is a misuse. Elonka, far as I am concerned, apparently weaseled. She deserves to be called on it. But it seems every time someone weasels, people turn up calling for the recall IDEA to be ditched. Wrong focus. It doesn't always work but it does work. It reduces drama, on balance. Thus, worth saving. But whatev... you can't make me not be willing to be recalled under whatever criteria I choose. Really, you can't. To assert otherwise is trying to impose CrimeThink. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• How exactly is AoR hurting anything? It's an entirely voluntary process, yes, and I think you would be a moron not to see its obvious stated limitations. But why frag a process which can work? It relies on the good will of admins, but don't most of our processes rely on the same AGF notions? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

AOR is only used for one thing these days - strong opposes if you don't say you're going to sign up. This happens far too often. Tan ǀ 39 16:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Auburn here, you can't stop admins from being open to recall. The only thing you're doing here is making them harder to find which I find a little pointless. If you have a problem with someone's recall process or how they ran it you just need to work it out with them (or go further into dispute resolution). In any case, I don't think marking this as historical over a single admin makes much sense. This has gotten way way too personal, and the recall process isn't to blame for that, nor is it to blame for a single recall that didn't go the way you wanted. The way through this is to make sure everyone understands that it's a voluntary process and to make sure everyone open to recall has clear and appropriate standards. (and most importantly to not freak out when someone decides not to follow through with a recall commitment). RxS (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  It's more than a single admin - there have apparently been others. Kelly ^hi! 17:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  Both your links refer to the same admin, Ryulong. Are you saying that he should be preventing from opening himself to recall if he decided he wanted to? RxS (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• It ultimately comes down to the integrity of the admin. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that marking it historical will achieve little or nothing really. As long as people are using it, it is not "historical" - and if anything is going to make the page misleading adding such a tag will. I don't get how its existence makes it "official" either, there a lot of things in the project space that certainly aren't official. If there is a problem with it not being clear that it is voluntary and not official than if necessary a big banner can be added to the top of the page! I am not aware of all the details of the Elonka case, but this and a few other cases should not mean the end to an entire process. AOR is not perfect, but until something better comes it works for me and many others. As for people opposing RfAs for users not joining AOR, well that is a more problem with RfA than AOR; I am not aware of many RfAs failing purely because of it, and my personal experience there makes clear that the idea that agreeing to sign up always means extra supports and less opposes is not that true. I and many other admins will quite happily stay open to recall regardless of what happens to the AOR page, if it is marked historical, deleted e.t.c the only loss will be general co-ordination and the convenience of easily finding out who is open to recall and who isn't. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete AOR: It has a divisive and destructive influence at RFA, since one can't refuse this "voluntary" process without some people assumming you are unfit to lead. As shown with Elonka and others it has a destructive influence when people attempt to use AOR as a shortcut to meaningful dispute resolution. I actually would support a well-thought out mandatory recall process that was neither easily gamed and nor easily abused, but the AOR process as it stands is bad for Wikipedia. If an inidivual admin wants to resign because of someone's request, that is their right, but the collective structure that has arisen around AOR and the unfair expectations of participation in a "voluntary" process is a bad approach that is unduely divisive and the community is better off without AOR. Dragons flight (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree wholly with DF. And its at CFD. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Removing the category (or marking it historical) is not going to stop admins from indicating that they are prepared to resign the bits voluntarily under certain circumstances if they wish, nor is it going to stop people from renegading on those "promises", and possibly it is not going to stop people from saying that they will be open to recall during their RfA. It may stop people from requiring a system of voluntary recall before supporting, but that is about it. In my instance, I am not open to recall - but I do comment on my talkpage that I would seriously listen to complaints brought by a couple of respected contributors and may be persuaded to set down the tools. It isn't any sort of recall process, so I am not interested in being in any such category. If the category becomes redundent, then there are those who will make record of their intent to be open to recall - and all the potential for drama that that entails - without a suitable box to put them all in. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• AOR is dead, Elonka has been recalled and is ignoring her own rules (which is not unexpected, this is quite common for her to do). Her recall process is not a matter of endorses and opposes, but endorses only. By her failing to go through with AOR she is gameing the system (again, quite common for her to do, as noted in her RfAs). Simply put, she told some fibs to get elected and when elected she is ignoring her rules. AOR is dead because no other admin wishes to enforce it, so what is the point of it? Because some admins feel better themselves for having this procedure? Is this because they know they can say "Yes, I am bound by it, but thanks to Elonka's example, I know I can safely ignore it"? There is a lot of impassionate defense of AOR above, but by people who don't seem to be asking a certain admin to follow it's rules. So until that happens, AOR is just pointless guff. Shot info (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

no other admin wishes to enforce it and what exactly is there to enforce? The category had no authority behind it to enforce. It is an entirely voluntary illusion that people have asked about at RfA's to intimidate others to join. Show us the policy or guideline that grants admins the ability to do something here and I'm sure there are some who would love to do so... the problem, is that this is a toothless tiger.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree ^{ZOMG not an admin} The current status of RfA is such that we might as well consider passage through it akin to achieving tenure here (like it or lump it). The AOR process doesn't proscribe a rational course of action for the community and doesn't protect the community from the offenses it means to. Right now it makes mostly for an uncomfortable RfA question (do we say yes and risk looking like we are currying favor or say no and risk offending people who are angry at admins generally). Protonk (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly agree that AOR doesn't work. First of all, admin can remove themselves from AOR at any point, even when the recall process is happening. Second, they can change the criteria in the middle of recall to render it moot. That brings to the third point, some *cough* people *cough* made the recall criteria impossible to achieve to even start the recall process. Some may not place the link to recall page anywhere so that it's very hard to find the recall page itself. Others hide the link in one of the obscure user's subpage. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Not an admin myself, but Support marking AOR as historical (or deleting it outright). As it is now, the page strongly resembles an official policy, which it is not; there are no common rules or standards for admin recall, and it is entirely voluntary anyway - nobody can be forced to abide by it. Unfortunately, some commenters at WP:RFA don't seem to realise this, and there have been many cases of admin candidates being opposed simply for not signing up to WP:AOR; as a result, it's now common for candidates to declare they will be open to recall purely to help with the vote, without necessarily having any intention to go through with it. (Speculation on my part, but I'd bet the majority of admin candidates who say yes to AOR have never looked at, say, the Elonka case as an example of what such a recall might actually look like.) There is nothing to stop any admin having their own recall criteria or process, which should be listed somewhere on their userpage; but having this central page lends the recall 'system' an air of formality and certainty that simply is not appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree. The category was a bad idea to begin with, and I've had a look at the recall criteria of many of the admins in the category. It turns out that most of them are so convoluted or wikilawyerish as to be effectively meaningless. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• I seem to have been venting in the wrong place. Kill with a big stick, incinerate, hang draw and quarter, salt and write up the actual recall method. I made a start at WP:RECALLME. I speak as one of the developers of the idea, and someone who has been in and out of the category twice. (I'm fickle?) Why do I want it killed? Would anyone here really support Category:Accountable Wikipedia administrators? How about Category:Trustworthy Wikipedia administrators? How about Category:More trustworthy Wikipedia administrators? If you wouldn't support those categories, you have no business supporting this one. And if you do support those categories, well... Best, and peace, Hiding T 09:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree Admins fighting tooth and nail to retain their adminship having previously submitted to an open to recall process—not an event limited to Elonka—is one of wikipedia's most unedifying sights, as is that of admins weighing in to support them. That's not a fault of the process, however. 86.44.27.232 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree, when coupled with RFAs Quoted from the CfD: this kind of process, in itself, is a moderately ok ideal, If you want to be open for recall, then sure, people who believe in this can add themselves to the cat. The fundimental flaw with such a thing is that when asked in a RFA, it becomes a very hard to say no. The problem with such a question is that when the question is answered no the asker and many others automatically assume that you are untrustworthy to be presented with adminship and oppose your RFA, whereas there may be other reasons as to respond in such a way. This leads the recipient of the question to either lie and say yes, or write a long (and sometimes generic) statement on how the entire process is fundimentally flawed and how you would rather to discuss problems first then taking the desysop first, talk later approach. The question is really irrelivent, its more of a different way of asking Can we trust you?, which in itself, is a really dumb question to ask because barring the phycological "<Phycoligist> says past behavior is a good indicator of future action" (which should be ovious anyway) you really can't tell if a person is lying or not (as if they would say No, of course not, I'm just here to get power and ruin Wikipedia). —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 03:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree I have long been an opponent of the recall system as it can be gamed by either side, produces drama (especially at RFA) etc. I agree with the principle of recall, but not this process - for example, I am not on AOR but there are set situations known to myself where I would resign my adminship if it became clear to me I had not the confidence to proceed with my actions knowing that I was doing so in the community's best interests. That should be the case with any admin. But it comes down to common sense, and through ArbCom as well as through "emergency deadminning" in cases of extreme abuse, we do have a process to remove admins. Orderinchaos 02:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's dispel the myth that recall is a voluntary process

These are the steps that led to my resignation:

1. I joined the recall category. I didn't need to; it hadn't been a pledge at my RFA.
2. The category had automatic standards at the time when I joined. After those standards got dropped--a program change that happened without notification to the category's participants--I voluntarily stated that I would abide by the original standards and articulated a procedure. Those terms are at User talk:Durova/Admin. If you're a non-admin and can't read the deleted page, take heart: neither can I.
3. A request for comment opened, per my stated procedure. Normal admin RFC lasts about three weeks, which is long enough for reasonable interaction.
4. 12 hours after the RFC opened on Thanksgiving Day it became obsolete because a member of the Arbitration Committee initiated RFAR.
5. Less than 24 hours after the case opened, ArbCom posted a proposed decision with a proposal to compel me to undergo an immediate reconfirmation RFA.
6. I requested time to present evidence. The Committee ignored the request and continued voting.
7. Two hours later five arbitrators had gone on record supporting the proposed decision. I resigned.

Whether or not you agree with that outcome, a greater precedent was broken: the Arbitration Committee itself dismantled a voluntary procedure and substituted a mandatory recall, and they constructed their mandatory process in a way that denied any reasonable opportunity for defense.

So to those who support a "voluntary" recall category: bear in mind that the Arbitration Committee has made no promise to refrain from implementing mandatory recall again. Durova^Charge! 13:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree with your point 2 as being entirely accurate, but as for the rest, yes, you got the rug jerked out from under you. I remember it well, since you had set up an RfC and then asked me to try to facilitate a smooth process. That itself didn't work very well, partly my fault, but it would have gotten on track I think... if you hadn't had, as I said, the rug apparently jerked out from under you. The speed setting on ArbCom cases is nothing if not wildly different for different cases, for no apparent reasons. But again, that's not a condemnation of recall so much as it is of the rug-jerkers. All THAT said, I'm not sure your conclusion follows. ArbCom always has had the power to override/overturn/abrogate/ignore various voluntary processes if it chooses to. That doesn't make the process any less voluntary. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It requires the ability to read deleted edits to fully verify point 2. And, with respect, I request that we not reframe this as an attempt to review my particular case. The broader significance is what matters here: a similar sequence could happen to other people. Durova^Charge! 19:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely accurate. Dmcdevit (talk · contribs), who brought the case, was not a member of the Arbitration Committee at that time; he had resigned in February. The committee was indeed acting quickly at the time; given the explosive nature of the situation letting it drag out for a month (which is what eventually happened) seemed an especially poor idea. We showed at least as much consideration as you did when you blandly advised people to "consult the committee" concerning your block of !! (talk · contribs), even though you'd never told us what the hell was going on. Under the circumstances I don't think members of the committee were prepared to put any trust in a voluntary and oft-abused process. The case was eventually open a month (at least); it was never what exculpatory evidence you intended to present, that would somehow justify that trainwreck of a block.

As far as adminship goes, the Committee may de-sysop anyone upon showing of cause. This is a necessary safety valve and one that's not disputed. There's little effective difference between de-sysopping and allowing one to stand at RfA without prejudice and ordering a mandatory recall; with the exception that the latter is an invitation to resign. Sorry this sounds harsh, but the tenor your statement throws all the responsibility for your actions onto those capricious dunces on the Committee. Mackensen (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Mackensen, your response appears to be predicated upon an assumption that I am subverting a discussion about the recall category to attempt self-vindication. An oft-stated supposition about the recall category is that it is fully voluntary. That made it necessary to outline how it is not, and the ways in which it is not are distinctly worse than normal desysopping. Durova^Charge! 20:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Durova: You did get the bum's rush (perhaps not undeservedly, I cannot comment on evidence I'm not knowledgeable on), but it has nothing to do with the sham of AOR. WilyD 14:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Again, without judging the merits of the case, it showed that when necessary, there are means to desysop somebody quicker than AOR can operate. There have been other cases this year as well where people lost the bit faster than AOR could possibly operate. When needed, there are ways to do it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That a process is not the be all and end all doesn't in itself mean it's bad. Not all of my can openers are Swiss Army knives, after all. Recall is one of many dispute resolution mechanisms. Perhaps we should ditch Mediation because it doesn't always work? Or ArbCom? ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

But the reality is that even if an admin never signs up for AOR, they are still subject to the community's whims. Take an admin to RfC/ANI and call for his/her head, and you can exhert just as much pressure on the admin to resign as you can via AOR. In fact, I suspect that we've had more admins step down over the past year due to pressure from these avenue than we have from AOR. AOR's primary role and appearance is in RfA's, where it is used as a badgering tool to get people to commit to sign up for a bad idea or face opposes.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the weaknesses of our consensus system is that discussions of this type often get sidetracked. This is no bid for sympathy: it's a caution to others. A precedent could occur again and affect people who exercise reasonable foresight in setting up what they expect to be a voluntary and fair recall pledge. The Committee could have used its discretion to desysop outright; instead it created a parallel initiative that treads upon the independence of the recall category and systematically denies the opportunity for defense. And it must be noted that the very definition of prejudice is to judge prematurely. Durova^Charge! 18:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll underscore what Durova has written. We have a system that, when used according to "design," works quite efficiently, except that it breaks down as the scale increased, and because we have a substantial body of administrators (not to mention many others) who either don't understand the design or sidestep it for personal purposes. (Which includes their POV of what Wikipedia should be.) The design is brilliant, truly, and very simple. But here is where it breaks down. AN/I, for example, is a noticeboard designed to receive requests requiring immediate administrative assistance, in situations where waiting for dispute resolution to find a consensus, could allow harm to continue. As an emergency service, AN/I should never determine "guilt." It should act, immediately if any admin sees fit, to protect the project, understanding that there may not be time for the more protracted DR process to work. Hence, AN/I should never decide anything more than a temporary injunction, as is done with ArbComm. If a user is blocked, it shouldn't be indef, based on AN/I or any other nondeliberative process. (RfC is partially deliberative, Mediation is deliberative and focused on finding true consensus, ArbComm is likewise deliberative.) One of the offensive things that happens is that an emergency process can derail a deliberative process, when the latter is more likely to find more widely satisfactory solutions to problems. Durova has pointed to her own situation. The Elonka recall brings up a different one. Administrative recall was designed to avoid complicated and disruptive recall process, beginning with RfC and including ArbComm. There could be a less drastic form that might work better: Voluntary administrative suspension, pending outcome of a DR process. This could even be made mandatory, with injunctions issued by, say, ArbComm, on the basis that there is reason to believe that an administrator would no longer be supported by consensus, which is far different from a determination of blame. Suspending use of the tools would not be a black mark. The DR procedure could decide, for example, that the complaints were harassment, etc.

Consider the Elonka situation. There are, quite obviously, a significant number of admins and others who consider that she has acted improperly. I've elsewhere commented -- and that's why I'm commenting now -- that the principles behind her actions were correct, and what is at stake in her RfC is those principles, that's what the real conflict is about, not Elonka. So it's important to address those issues, and find consensus on them, and Elonka's admin bit is a detail. If the community consensus is expressed that the principles she was operating under were improper or incorrect, then, presumably, so advised, she would not follow those now-rejected principles. However, if there is fear in the community that, if she continues to act as an administrator pending resolution, then there is a basis for immediate suspension. Even if many or even if a majority of us think that she is correct. I've been noting that ordinary editors really have the same powers as administrators, but they cannot directly exercise those powers. Elonka could warn editors of problem behavior without having the tools. And she could request the block of any editor who violates those warnings; the only difference is that a small delay is introduced. We can handle that delay, the reduction in disruption from disagreement and argument over her adminship would be worth it. If, I'll note, there is no admin willing to block based on her warnings, then we would have a very clear sign that she was off-base. We should have a quick suspension process; it should be voluntary suspension not voluntary recall, and we could, regardless, have a mandatory suspension process that would be quick. We actually have a block process which is very quick, all it takes is a decision by a single admin. So, as the very simplest system, any admin could request suspension of any other admin, on the grounds of abuse of tools or other major offense, by filing an RfC, which requires certification, i.e., there must be certification by two admins that WP;DR was followed, and I'd put teeth into that. I.e., false certification would itself be a serious offense. As part of the RfC, immediate suspension could be requested, with a simple Yes/No vote in a page devoted to it. In standard deliberative process, issues like this may be non-debatable, because the very purpose is to avoid debate. We need to take some lessons from standard process. We have advantages here: for example, such a vote -- and this would really be a vote, though decision based on it would still be by standard process, but it would be a standing decision, i.e., changeable. Simple majority rule. No debate. Comment, yes, in the Talk page for the suspension page set up for this purpose. It's not the voting that is divisive and disruptive, it's all the argument about it. If editors from the anti-admin "side" pile in, fine. Should they gain a momentary advantage, suspension, voluntary or otherwise, would take effect, but that is relatively harmless and it could quickly be countered if the community desires it, and it only takes a minute to vote in something like that, it takes far longer to read debate and respond with comments.

Who would enforce this? Mostly the admin in question, who would note, in the RfC, that he or she was voluntarily refraining from tool use pending resolution of the dispute or the lifting of the suspension. Note that voting for the suspension would not be a vote against the admin, it would be entirely possible to believe that the admin acted perfectly, but that suspension was still the least disruptive path forward, pending fuller expression and review of the evidence by the community. I'm posting this, now, but I'm unwatchlisting AN because I've got other stuff to attend to, including my own limited "voluntary suspension" pending resolution of issues and the opinion of a substantial number of admins that I harassed an administrator, which is disruptive whether or not they are correct. I want to find out, and I want to take the least disruptive path, so I'm starting in my user space.--Abd (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How can it be strictly voluntary when even as of this moment RFA nominees are being explicitly asked whether they'll add themselves if they're sysopped? It's doubtful whether anyone could get away with answering "no." Exploding Boy (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pointer please. Those sorts of questions, with the implicit "and I won't vote for you unless you do" needs to stop. I think most of us agree about that, regardless of much else. Go say so. I will if you will. Or even if you won't. Which ones need some input? ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bull. Of course they could get away with it. Answer: "No, I will not add myself to Category:Administrators open to recall, because the process as it currently exists is too deeply flawed." Cite, as an example, Elonka's recall. I have no idea what other people base their RfA !votes on, but I would welcome that sort of clarity and honesty. If an admin candidate agrees to be open to recall in order to please a questioner at his RfA, then that's an admin who will jump off a metaphorical bridge because someone suggested it on IRC. We don't need more of those. MastCell ^Talk 06:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

More words of wisdom from MastCell. May I also point out that if people actually are opposing based on "no" answer to the "will you be open to recall question", this is what we have bureaucrats for...to ignore opposes like that when determining consensus.

More generally, I have always considered admin recall a bad idea. Admins should have sufficient self-perspective to know when they have ballsed up and it is time to step down. I have never seen one recall request that did the slightest bit of good. The ones I have seen were either initiated by trolls, or when not, the admin simply weaseled his or her way out of it, as happened here. I consider Elonka not fulfilling her promise a very poor show, considering just how many established users and admins thought she's gone badly wrong, and endorsed comments like MastCell's at the RFC. I doubt Elonka will touch anything controversial again, really, but if more mistakes are made I will simply file RFAR. Moreschi (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one of the reasons I'm in the recall category is because I do want others to have another way to tell me if they think I'm doing something wrong. If I do something wrong, I don't expect that I will always see that straightaway, though you make a good point about self-perspective. On the other hand, thinking you have self-perspective, when you might not, could potentially be a problem. I suppose the same purpose of "being open to criticism" could be served by a notice on my talk or user pages, but being open to recall is simply, in my view, a principled stand to take. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, when I look through CAT:AOR, I see a ton of excellent admins in there. In your case, you obviously gave a great deal of thought to the process and to specific criteria before signing up, which was wise. Also, given the overwhelming and unanimous support your RfA received, it's clear that you did it on principle and not because you needed a selling point. Finally, you actually view it as an extra layer of accountability. In this case, Elonka's response to the recall request was, basically, "take it to the RfC or ArbCom". In other words, recall was just the illusion of an extra layer of accountability. The catch-22 is that admins whose judgement is good enough to do recall properly are those whose judgement is good enough that they'll probably never need to be recalled. MastCell ^Talk 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of you make fine points. So many of the people I see in CAT:AOR are admins who are almost obnoxiously virtuous and will never, ever, need to be recalled. For me, however, recall is simply not a good idea, not least because the core function of the arbitration committee is to deal with things that the admin community can't. That is, to sort out wheel wars and to desysop abusive admins. Everything else we really do far better ourselves (neither the admin community nor the ArbCom, however, has yet solved the VestedContributor problem). However, the AC does have legitimate functions and removing under-performing admins is one of them. Filing arbitration is not that difficult, either. I've done it a couple of times and the result has usually been positive, painless, and bloodless.

One further point. There are too many individual recall criteria that are far too complex. I hate to say this, Lar, but you will never be recalled (not that you should be, mind, I'm just using you as an example. Anyone who even thought about it would certainly give up before they'd even started. Qst and I, while chatting on IRC recently, spent a good while trying to figure out what on earth somebody would have to do to get you recalled and I, for one, still can't figure out exactly what your recall criteria are. Not that other people do much better...just look at those footnotes! Moreschi (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lar, maybe you should simply change your criteria to the six arbcom members in good standing one listed above ;-) But I agree... way too lawyerish to be actually utilized.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is WP:BEANS but ... you got a beef with me? Are you a non admin user in good standing (you've done some article work, not just hung around the dramahs rooms) or an admin already in the category? Post that you're wantin' my bit for my nefarious evil doings on my talk and say why. I'll scare up a clerk and if you can get 5 more people equally in good standing... recall petition certified. Once certified I'll either; resign and maybe stand for RfA again; or throw myself at the mercy of ArbCom (and I'll even help write the case for you!); or run a straight up down vote, but minus socks and SPAs voting, thanks. In any case, guaranteed, no grumbling by me. Easy peasy. All that extra verbiage is to make sure that process is transparent, and isn't gameable. By me, or by you, or by anyone else. A fair number of other admins use my process as is. Others think it too complex or don't like some part of it, and wrote their own. Which is fine. Whatev. I don't think it's perfect. Just good enough. I don't think it's for everyone. Just for me and whoever else wants it. I took a lot of feedback and ran a lot of what ifs... the outcome is clear, I've got a process that ensures if there are 6 users who really deserve to be listened to and who have skin in the game, they've got a voice. I want to know how they think I screwed up, because if they think that I did, they ought to get their say, shouldn't they? Then, I'd most likely choose the straight up/down, because "reconfirmation RfAs" seem to be not very favorably viewed by many, and hey, ArbCom isn't really all that fast these days (besides I've got one case going there already, in case you didn't know). If I can't get 51% of qualified folks to say I ought to stay... really, I ought to go, don't you think? Look, I think we're going to get another no consensus outcome here, which is too bad, but OK... whatev. My personal intention to only serve as long as I have a community mandate is unshakable. Process or no process, category or no category. CFD or no CFD. ++Lar: t/c 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unity

Why don't we stand by our administrators, and when they mess it up... Gosh I don't know: talk to them. Is there really a need for action immediately? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Rarely. The problem is when there are long term problems, no single incident of which is highly damning. Nothing is likely to happen in this case. As it applies to AOR, I do think it can/sometimes does lead to kneejerk recalls. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fair point, scream, but in this case there is a definite issue: Elonka did indeed rely on recall to pass her third RfA and to fail to stand by that is a very poor show. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the defense of Elonka and other administrators who have been hassled with the question of, "Will you submit yourself to AoR?" and then have five or six opposes based solely on their decline of a voluntary process, AoR should be depreciated in practice and it should not be opted as a legitimate question or concern at RfA. Basing judgments solely on a question that results only in generating opposing comments merely for not submitting oneself to a voluntary process should be ignored. seicer | talk | contribs 03:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• The admin recall process is dead. Good. It was much too open to abuse. Use the RfC and RfA processes, that's what they're for. Corvus cornix_talk 20:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

An unpopular opinion

As a non-admin, now and forever, may I express the (most probably) unpopular opinion (at least in this venue) that Administrators should not be discussing the question of what an appropriate Administrator-recall process should be. They should all recuse themselves from such coversations, and the issue should be decided by non-Admins only. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A wise man once said in 1787, "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest will certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity". I nominally agree with you here, Ed, but what's your proposed solution? Tan ǀ 39 20:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Forbidding people to discuss issues that directly affect them is quite absurd. I understand the rationale, but disagree with the solution. —kurykh 20:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well...not really. Assuming all the good faith in the world, all incumbent admins have a vested interest in remaining admins, and that has the far-from-insignificant possible effect of skewing their opinions on the subject. The general subject of how Wikipedia is to be adminstered is certainly of interest to admins, and, being the people who do the work of it, they obviously have important things to say about it. But on the specific issue of how admins should be recalled (and I believe it goes without saying that there should be a standard recall process, not a hodge-podge voluntary one), their personal interests should lead them to recuse themselves from the discussion.

Believe me, I understand this is not going to happen, I'm merely expressing what I believe should happen. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me revise somewhat: admins should participate in the discussion, but consensus should be based on the collective opinion of non-admins. Again, I have no idea how such a thing would be done, and on a practical level I don't expect that it would happen. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Tan: I have no particular solution, either for the admin COI problem or for what the recall process should be. As I said, I think there should be one, and it should be shaped so that obviously harrassing, trivial or misguided efforts to recall should be screened away almost immediately, and the standard of evidence for those that get through the sieve should be pretty darn high. Other than that... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is insightful, Ed. The fact that you and I agree about as often as France wins a war makes this even more interesting to me. Tan ǀ 39 20:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Tan, that might happen more often than you think---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 01:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[2] bibliomaniac15 01:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I could say something about you having to go back a thousand years to find an exception - but mabe I should just figure that bodes well for Ed and I to agree on future issues ;-) Tan ǀ 39 01:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Tan: Time flies when you're having fun, and what could be more fun than editing Wikipedia? I'm sure the thousand years to the next time we agree will fly right by! Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely off topic but the Normans while originating in what is now France (then Normandy) were never French. More accurately they were the decedents of native Gallo-Romans and their Viking conquerors. The only wars France won were when they were 'Franks' or with Napoleon who was really Coriscan. --ENAIC (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but would a vote where about 20% of active users can't participate really be a consensus? Mr.Z-man 03:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it really true that 20% of active users are admins?! Wow. Isn't that a lot of admins? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there someplace on Wikipedia where those kinds of stats are kept? I'd be interested in knowing the number of registered users, the number of IP users, how many users of both type are active, the number of admins, etc. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Z-man, that's an interesting perspective. You're saying that a vote where 80% of active users participate cannot deliver a consensus? Franamax (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL - is this because those 80% are members of a tag-team?? Shot info (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment when self-selecting groups show up to !vote on a single issue. OTOH, are the (putative) 20% of active users who are admins not also somewhat of a tag-team, when it comes to discussing issues pertaining only to admins? In this case, the 80% are all the other active editors of en:wiki, so you must be defining a tag-team as the majority of the editors who contribute content to the encyclopedia. That sounds like a pretty good team to me. Franamax (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

They can have a consensus among themselves, but how is it a community consensus if a big chunk of the community can't participate? If they agree pretty close to unanimously it would be enough to call it a consensus even if admins participated, but given the reaction to all the past mandatory admin recall proposals, that's unlikely. As for the numbers, I believe we have about 5000 active users and about 1000 active admins, so 20% +/-3% is probably pretty accurate. Mr.Z-man 14:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW Ed, I see nothing wrong with admins only deciding the fate of admins, I mean if my Congressmen can vote themselves raises whenever they want... </sarcasm>---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 13:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No surprise, but that's precisely what I had in mind. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose a measure, right now, to multiply my current paycheck, and the paycheck of all admins, by 1 billion. I'm assuming 80% of active users will support my proposal. In other words, spot on, Ed F. Keeper ǀ 76 18:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A billion?? I'm no piker, I'll support increasing the salaries of every single gol durn editor here by a factor of a trillion!! (As long as I get my 10% rake off). Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It was D.O.A.

• Since section breaks are growing common, I'll toss this one in. I scoffed at the recall idea when it was proposed. Since it was supposed to be a thing a person could add himself to and remove herself from, at whim, it really only carried with it a pinky swear. Elonka's statement that she sort of had her fingers crossed is disturbing, and I've been effusive there, but she isn't the only one. The sum of the recall vow is that it adds votes to an RFA, but it doesn't necessarily add force. Unless the recall process had standing and a full consent to have teeth, then it is clear that the most we can do is say, "Stopped being open to recall under a cloud," which is awfully weak. We can't point to it and say, "Let's arbitrate." We can't point to it and say anything, really, except, "You fibbed!" By the time that comes up, there is already dissatisfaction with the administrator, so it's just a feather on the elephant's back. My own feeling has been and remains that demotion from admin ranks should be both more common and less permanent. We now have all in or all out, or we get this bizarre hybrids (with no standing in policy), where we say, "You can be an admin, but not in regard to this user, or this page." We have demotion as the ultimate mark of obliquy. We have it as the most severe abuses. Instead of trusting someone to not lying when they say we can trust them, it would be more logical to have temporary demotions, with several of those adding up to permanent demotion. Not, of course, that I expect anyone to listen to me. Geogre (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You are right, actually, but I don't suppose anyone will listen, no. Moreschi (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Outbreak of sanity detected. 86.44.27.122 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Point system

There's a separate thread below but it's very much related to this topic. The proposal is for a point system. This would be good for repeated mistakes by admins. 1 point for each mistake. 5 mistakes in a year and you don't have admin tools for a year but you get them back automatically without a RFA. This would help for things in between the need for immediate and drastic recall (or ArbCom action).

The community would decide what you need to do to get a point, for example, being convicted of a crime or blocking someone to win an content dispute. The community would have to decide what is prohibited FIRST. If an admin did something in the past, it doesn't count. Mistakes would be black and white so there's no question to awarding points. HRCC (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if it's "the community," no one is going to go for a popularity based model. I've seen some rude mother-shut-your-mouth admins, but they're still good admins. I've seen some den mother admins, and they've been rotten. I've known some really popular personalities who have been horrible. "The community" is too diffuse. I think you'd be better talking about a demerit system, since that's what you're proposing, rather than a "point system" (unless you mean points as in US driver's licenses and insurance companies), but "community" would have to be heavily tied down. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the "point system" discussion in one place, and not duplicate it here. seicer | talk | contribs 16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OH thank God. I already got (lost?) 3 points in the other thread, heaven only knows how far I'd go with two threads open...Keeper ǀ 76 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You can make it up in Double Jeopardy. MastCell ^Talk 19:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How much would you like to wager then? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Promote AOR to guideline or policy?

I'm not an admin. I readily admit that I am not familiar with all of the fine details of the history behind the present controversy. This may be seen as a somewhat radical idea. I apologize in advance if this causes strife; that is not my intent. However, I think there's a point here that deserves more attention. To wit:

In reading through these discussions, one common theme I've noticed is that many complain that AOR, despite being labeled "voluntary", is frequently brought up at RFA, and refusal to proclaim that one will be open to recall is often used as grounds for opposition -- frequently, some claim, successful opposition.

If that is the case, then does that perhaps reflect a possible consensus in the community? If so, should AOR be promoted to Guideline or Policy status? I've always liked the concept that Wikipedia rules are supposed to reflect consensus -- "descriptive, not prescriptive".

Obviously, for AOR to be so promoted, the details of the Recall process would need to be codified. However, that also strikes me as a good thing, since one of the other chief complaints I've read is that AOR is vague and inconsistently applied. Creating a more formal process should help alleviate those concerns.

Sincerely submitted, —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 11:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Promoting a flawed mechanism to policy won't fix the flaws in the system, although I recognise that there remain fundamental flaws in the whole admin scam.

ALR (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am operating under the assumption that, in the process of turning AOR into a more formal policy/guideline, any issues could be addressed. Obviously, simply codifying flaws is a bad idea; I don't think anyone would sensibly suggest that. Right now, the AOR "mechanism" isn't really well-defined. I think it best to address that complaint directly, and document/improve the process. I highly doubt the idea of an admin stating they are "open to recall" is going to be eliminated entirely. I think it best to address that. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with the Admin scam, although the most significant appears to be that it's very difficult to withdraw adminship once it's been awarded, that has led to a heavily skewed admin selection process where the voluntary agreement to a review process is given undue weight in the voting. Most efforts to make it easier to withdraw the position have been strongly resisted, frequently by incumbent admins who are clearly not unbiased. In my opinion that's led to a fairly unhealthy approach to the electioneering process. The existing process is time consuming, unwieldy and has a tendency to alienate users rathe than address the issues.

I would agree that an improved removal process would be beneficial, although it does need to be fairly robust. Admin carries both a technical responsibility and a behavioural responsibility, the latter being de-emphasised in much of the positioning, and admins are likely to end up involved in difficult situations. Rarely is everyone going to be satisfied with an admins actions, unless the admin restricts him, or her, self to only those non-contentious activities which cll into question why they needed the facility in the first place. So the system should not encourage frivolous or punitive complaints.

I can see why you advocate the promotion to policy, but the migration to being a robust and useful process which actually supports the content rather than creates boundaries between admin and the common filth would change it beyond recognition.

ALR (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Only if AOR were binding via policy would it be meaningful, but there could never be a way to make everyone sign up for it. All of these complaints are ways of addressing a single concern: "It's very hard to get bad administrators to stop being administrators." Well, that's as it should be. When we have demotion as the annihilation of a person's career at Wikipedia, it should be very rare, very difficult. There are alternatives, but they lie at ArbCom. Finally, though, all admins are bad admins to someone. Every single administrator will have someone howling. The question is when these complaints are 1. neutral, 2. empirical, 3. demonstrative of the ineffectiveness of the administrator in performing appropriate actions, or 4. demonstrating that the admin is bent on acts that are contrary to Wikipedia's goals and objectives. Geogre (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree that AOR would be meaningful only if it were a binding policy. Obviously, AOR means something now, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I simply propose creating a documented, consistent definition for what AOR means. • While I largely agree with the rest of your comment, I think that is mostly a separate issue from the status of AOR. I think tying the status of AOR into the larger question of adminship is going to complicate things more than needed. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

AOR clearly means something to some people. In some cases it's a reasonable validation of their position and an honest QA approach, for others it's a fig leaf which presents the appearance of accountability but in practiceis meaningless either because the individuals criteria are restrictive, or open to weaseling around.

ALR (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason to attempt to come up with a consistent definition, then, right? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Move this discussion to AOR talk?

It seems like this discussion would be better had at Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall. Would anyone object to moving it there? Having it here is adding substantial size to the already heavy WP:AN. Additionally, other activity on WP:AN makes it harder to watchlist this discussion. Proposal: I would copy the entire text of "The admin recall process is dead" to a new section there. Then I would delete all the text here, and replace it with a notice that the discussion has been moved. Good? Bad? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Le sigh

I was hoping I'd not have to make any significant contribs while retired, but this has forced my hand here. Currently, there are three ways to desysop someone.

1. Arbcom finds there is abuse or activities unbecoming of an admin.
2. Jimbo finds the above.
3. Recall by the community.

Removing recall as a method to remove adminship will remove the only way the COMMUNITY has to remove it from someone. Personally I think it should be required for all admins, but that's just me. However, if it remains an admin's choice, it should be a commitment. Don't commit if you're going to back out when you're in trouble. I personally considered doing that when I blocked Giano, but that would make me look like a complete and total fool that was obsessed with power. A recall never really materialized, and the issue has passed on. But my point remains. Getting rid of recall will remove the community's voice (though it seems I'm a tad late here, oh well). Also, on a different note, lets not be voters shall we? Kwsn (Ni!) 06:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Criteria changes

Just for some transparency, I am noting here that I have made some quite big changes to my recall criteria as reviewed at User talk:Camaron/Adminship recall/Policy. Any constructive feedback is welcome. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Points system for admin recall (WP:AN)

This discussion moved here from WP:AN.

Jehochman asked me a question which brought to mind a past event. The details are not important (if curious, an admin didn't like a user name and blocked it without even asking to change it. The name seems to be permitted by the rules). Since Jehochman brought up an old question, I thought of this proposal.

Proposal:

Administrators must be accountable. There is a long debate over the ineffectiveness of the recall system.

I propose a point system. Any kind of bad decision or act unbecoming of an administrator would yield one point. Have five points in a calender year and you lose your sysop tools for a year. Since some dislike repeat RFA's, you get the tools back automatically in a year. Over time, a list of examples of conduct that causes a point would be listed.

If someone did something extremely bad, the usual channels could be followed for immediate recall or loss of tools.

This system would allow admin to make mistakes since they could have 5 instances of bad conduct and they could become more cautious once they get 2-3 points.

What causes one to get a point? The community would decide examples of bad behavior causing one to earn a point. Over time, we would form a list. At first, nothing would earn a point. If there was bad behavior, then we would add that to the list so initially, we would only have 1 or 2 things that would cause one to earn a point.

HRCC (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to humor you, I'll weigh in - I think this is a poor idea. We'll have the same level of discussion, committees, and arguments regarding what constitutes "a bad decision", whether or not a "point" was merited, etc. Tan ǀ 39 21:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, it won't solve anything. HRCC, you just have to accept that administrators are never in the wrong, and even when they are, they rarely admit it. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

HRCC, would you award Jehochman a point for the action you complain about above? Just curious. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because that was not an established offense. Admin are not suppose to block to win a edit dispute. That could be worked on as the first thing admin should not do. Say if an admin does so. ArbCom is not going to do anything. Neither is a recall. However, the community may see the offense is clear. So (if that is added to the list) the next time anyone does it, they get 1 point. 1 point is not serious. Do it 5 times and you can lose sysop tools for 1 year but you get it back. This is less drama, not more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HRCC (talk • contribs) 21:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Malleus. I decided that HRCC should not be blocked despite the tendentiousness and attacks, but I think I may well have been wrong. I'm perfectly happy to correct my mistake, if others agree. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is interesting but doomed to failure for two reasons. 1) It has could have been written in a more neutral and polite way. 2) Administrators are unlikely to agree on further restrictions on themselves.

In theory, this is a good proposal since it encourages good use of the tools without resorting to the drastic measures currently in place (Arbitration Committee, recall, and the very confrontational Request for Comment). The proposal, if enacted, results in no immediate action for anyone. A wrong action results in 1 point but nothing is done until 5 points have been reached in a year. That's more permissive than the 3-strikes law in some parts of the U.S. I think this proposal is worth a look. Loss of adminship for 1 year doesn't have to be the result. It could be counseling or mentorship or whatever we decide. Spevw (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Eww, no. Arbitrary figures == bad. This will have the same problems as recall anyway. Someone doesn't like an admin, so they wait for the admin to do something that could be construed as wrong, then start an ANI thread to give the admin a point. Or on the other hand, admins could game the system. People could just treat it as 4 free passes to do whatever they want. A (marginally) better system would use a system that used something like a hundred points before desysopping, and different actions were worth different point values depending on what the discussion decides. That solves some of the gaming problems but still has the arbitrary figures problem and the problems Tan noted. Also, this is a heck of a lot of overhead for what's arguably a minor problem. We have what, 1-2 admin recalls a year? There are far bigger problems. And removing content does not automatically mean vandalism. Please read WP:VAND before making accusations, thanks. Mr.Z-man 03:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, that would be a poor system that would only lead to further conflicts, endless discussions and... oh hell, I've described RfC and AOR and similar forms of dispute resolution.

In seriousness, it would allow any editor or administrator with a grudge to dock points from an administrator. The process could be possibly gamed or the canvassed in opposition to the administrator in question. Arbitrary figures could always be questioned -- is Action A really constitute an action unbecoming of an administrator that it warrants a subtraction in points? seicer | talk | contribs 03:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Negativity? That's a point. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The system could be made so it can't be gamed or canvassed. We just define what we prohibit. For example, we may not want a convicted murder who is in prison to be admin (maybe we want that?). If the community decides that, then we add to the list of pointable actions: While one is an admin, one is convicted of murder. There's no gaming the system. We would list only black and white violations. I have seen black and white violations of wikipedia policy and nothing happens. ArbCom is not going to desysop for that. With a point system, an admin would get 1 point. If they are good admins, that's the end. They won't get another point again.

The focus shouldn't be on opposition. The focus should be on figuring out how to make admins better and what policies we support enough to put it in the point system. The current system is that there is little accountability except that admin don't block each other and as long as they are civil most of the time, they can break the rules with immunity. There is an admin whose name does not begin with J who, has been very controversial but survives. If there was a point system, there would be no drama as he would have accumlated enough points very quickly. HRCC (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea. Points systems are extremely flawed. If a user or admin is a true problem then the community will get sick of them and bring it up here. Giving an admin a "point" would be an insult of the highest degree. --mboverload@ 15:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of a point system, how about a judge system, like Olympic diving? Admin does admin action A. The judges decide that they receive a 7.5, or a 3.5, or a 10, of course weighted by degree of difficulty. All admins, in all admin actions, are rated. Every admin, every action. (the only way to be fair really is to rate every admin, every action, you know, to set the standard. You wouldn't let someone dive without garnering a score, right?). If you get too many low scores, you'll fall towards the bottom, you are eliminated from the admin (diving) pool. Sounds easy to manage. A bot or bored teenager could be groomed to keep tally of all admin actions and the scores each received. Lots of fun for math(s) minded folks, who historically, are the right types of people to keep busy... does sarcasm earn me a point? Keeper ǀ 76 15:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That was an egregious insult. I am giving you a point. --mboverload@ 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have consensus for that point? Do you need consensus for that point? In either case, I've got three more fuckups to go before I hafta be a good admin...does boldly defying the point system, sarcastically, earn me 2 points? Keeper ǀ 76 15:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Vulgar word! NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. CIVILITY WARNING. -1 point. You're screwed now. seicer | talk | contribs 16:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not vulgar! It's Japanese (like Fukudome, the Cubs outfielder). Pronounced FOO-cups. Translation to English: "Not fuck-ups". Keeper ǀ 76 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just considering this "points" idea, what if an "overturned administrative decision" counted as a point, would that work? So, an admin goes and speedy-deletes a bunch of articles, and three of them are overturned at DRV, so three "points" against the admin. Ditto if a block was overturned via an ANI thread, a ban was overturned by ArbCom, an AfD closure was overturned by consensus, etc. Would something like that make sense? Or are some admins doing good work in areas where frequent overturns are just part of the normal process? --Elonka 19:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Right off the bat, I would say no. It would make, for example, a DRV, even more contentious, as closing admins, instead of closing debates, would ignore them. And if they did close them, now they are battling for their "own score", and not for the integrity of the encyclopedia. Changes motivations, and likely "doubles" the length of any attempt at unblocking/undeleting/unprotecting something. Admin works would grind to a halt, out of self-preservation. Keeper ǀ 76 19:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not. For example, I recently undid 24 image deletions by a single admin. There was nothing wrong with the original deletions, it was simply that things had changed and undeleting was the correct thing to do. I'd hate to be in a situation where doing the right thing for the encyclopedia requires harming someone else who was also doing the right thing. --Carnildo (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Explain? Wouldn't undeleting an image that someone else deleted, be considered a violation of WP:WHEEL? Or why was it that you undeleted them, instead of the admin who deleted them in the first place? I'm not saying you did anything wrong, I'm just trying to understand the context of the reversal. --Elonka 21:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Still not a good system. Admins who make large numbers of deletions are going to get some overturned at DRV, even if they have a 99.9% accuracy rate. Whatever arbitrary points threshold you set is going to be surpassed by some admins who are actually very good at telling whether something should be deleted. Hut 8.5 10:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The admin in question has been a problem in the past. However, there is virtually nothing to do about it. There is no admin oversight, and they can act with impunity. Don't waste your time, it isn't worth it. I hear there are new videos of cute bunnies on youtube.... Lord Oblate (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia, new user. I hope you enjoy the place and decide to stay. Keeper ǀ 76 21:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

← We just need to include a multiplier for degree of difficulty for each admin action, so the point totals can be adjusted properly. Experience points could be awarded for successful completion of monotonous tasks. Accumulating enough experience points would enable an admin to level up and gain additional powers, like oversight or the ability to detect evil. Admins should also be assigned hit points, which could be sapped slowly by AN/I admin-abuse threads or more rapidly via ArbCom reprimands or off-site harassment. When an admin's hit point total reaches zero, they disappear with an angry rant and a "RETIRED" template. After a suitable period, they'd be reincarnated under a new name, though they would lose all of their gold, weapons, and armor. I like where this is going. MastCell ^Talk 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What, make being a Wikipedia admin fun? That would never work. --Rodhullandemu 22:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... sounds like someone's dangerously low on hit points... :) MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not in a game whose mathematics concludes 22 < 6. Durova^Charge! 02:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• This thread is hilarious and fun is good (and I'm looking forward to Advanced Admins & Editors) but I think the original post was actually meant to be serious. Maybe we've said enough. The very idea of bringing a general complaint about admins to board established by, for, and about admins.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

potential sanctions

The points system is a honest but excessively complicated attempt at dealing with a true problem. There are no really usable intermediate sanctions between a rebuke from some colleagues and losing the bit altogether. True, arb com could and sometimes does do a suspension, but if the matter was severe enough to reach there, it usually warrants a deadmin. Most of us admins know perfectly well that we have made a few mistakes ourselves, and all live in glass houses, and we are thus somewhat unwilling to pursue anything that does not indicate total unsuitability. . There might perhaps be some community way of limiting use of some of the powers if used poorly without it implying the sort of censure that deadmin does. The one sort of instance where this is used is sometimes a warning to a new admin to go more slowly at first, and the same thing might apply to established people also: e.g., please refrain from blocking [or whatever the problem is] for a month or so, and meanwhile study the guidelines. DGG (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that using some type of very simple point system, might help reduce the abuse of the recall process. One idea I've been kicking around, is a minimum threshold of points (such as, 2 within 30 days), before a recall could start. As the recall system works right now, any user could start a recall at any time, regardless of whether or not the admin had done anything inappropriate. One user started a recall on me, because they had been blocked by a different admin, but within 20 minutes after the end of their block, the user came in and asked me to resign, because they blamed me for the block rather than the blocking admin. That would seem to me to be an abuse of the recall procedure, but even though it was just one editor calling for recall, it still got logged as an "official" request, which strikes me as a bit silly. I think a better system, would be for someone to have to show proof that the administrator had done something inappropriate, meaning something that was demonstrably against the community consensus. I'm not talking about an admin who does a speedy-delete, and is then asked to overturn it and they do it voluntarily. I'm talking about an admin who systematically deletes articles that then require an overturn via DRV. Or an admin who is blocking users, and multiple of these blocks require an ANI thread to overturn. So a more robust recall process might require a minimum of two "community overturns", before a recall could even start. And without proof of wrongdoing on the part of the admin, the recall could then be speedy-closed as "uncertified". --Elonka 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Some random ideas from a non-admin

I've been watching this discussion for a while and it's clear that there is some serious issues with AOR and the recall process in general. As a mere little editor, the only dog I've got in this race is the general sense of integrity in the Wikipedia process and the "janitors" who are entrusted by the community to maintain it. A few bad apples can spoil the whole pie and seriously undermine the community faith in the entire adminship corps. There needs to be a universal, consistent and fair recall process that is binding to every admin. How to achieve that will take even more mountains of kilobytes in discussion than what has already taking place. To that pot I offer a few brainstorming ideas. These mostly relate to the idea of a fair way to initiate a recall.

• Editors who supported the admin in their RfA--If editors who originally, in good faith, supported an admin now see that something is awry, there should be some weight to their views. These would obviously not be some random editors with a bone to pick. Set some arbitrary number or % of these editors (taking into account inactivity of original RfA supporters for older admins) on who can initiate a recall.
• Admins who have had 3 successful RfCs against them in the last 6 months--While RfC's can be gamed and prone to a mob mentality, it is difficult to repeat the same result in successive RfCs-unless there a serious problem or pattern of misconduct. Typically by the second or third RfCs the greater community has become aware of the situation and more neutral, 3rd party views are being incorporated into the RfCs.
• Set up (yet another) noticeboard-The AN/I board boldly proclaims in red font that "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department." Well maybe there should be one dedicated to complaints about admin misconduct. I'm sure this board would be watchlisted on par with AN/I where it would hopefully be a neutral but centralized discussion on admin conduct and use of tools. Sure there will be frivolous, crackpot complaints (just as there are now on AN/I) but a majority of neutral, 3rd party editors can quickly squash those while leaving the more serious allegation up for a broader community discussion. I'm sure this will draw comparisons to the defunct "Community Sanction" board but when new problems emerge sometimes old ideas need to be revisited.

Again, just a few ideas open for discussion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting ideas, some of which are similar to what I suggested in the thread immediately above. I do agree that those who supported an RfA should have a bit more weight to their comments, though there are exceptions to this. For example, if those supporters have been in a dispute with the candidate since then, or have lost their "good conduct" status such as by being blocked, having been the subject of ArbCom sanctions, or other issues (such as being de-sysopped themselves). I also think that three RfCs is a bit high... One single successful "please resign" RfC is probably all that's really needed. As for a process for recall, there does exist a basic mechanism, see WP:RECALLME. Ultimately though, I think that the main thing that the recall process needs to strengthen it, is some minimum threshold of, "The admin did something wrong." Without that minimum, a recall should not be possible. --Elonka 17:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The first and third points are interesting. I'm not so sure about the RFC one though. How do we define "RfCs against them" when most RFCs have no actual conclusion? Mr.Z-man 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The "complaints dept." idea sounds like something that would have a low signal to noise ratio (like BetacommandBot's talkpage did at one point). --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Question - any success stories?

Has there ever been a straightforward recall that ended with either the admin giving up the bit with no fuss or with an uncontroversial failure to meet the criteria? --Random832 (contribs) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes to both. See Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests. Crzrussian was a recall where the admin gave up the bit without fuss - as far as I know it was the only such case. There are several cases where there was clear and uncontroversial failure to meet the criteria. GRBerry 17:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Category proposed for deletion

Not sure if this has been noted above, but CAT:AOR has been proposed for deletion (for some time in fact). See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 17#Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Carcharoth (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It was closed as "somewhere between a keep and a no consensus keep" :) ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

make AOR compulsory but has to be vetted by quorum of bureaucrats

• AOL could continue as is, but consensus to deamin then results in a formal application to active bureaucrats for deadminship. Bureaucrats then have seven days, with a quorum of (insert arbitrary number, let's say 3) relisting in a desysop? Acts as a vetting process for AOR, flipside is to then make AOR compulsory and covers everyoneCheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd support that. I'm not sure I understand it, actually. ++Lar: t/c 03:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, the idea is that AOR can be gamed either way, either by those hostile to an admin steamrolling a no-confidence vote as it were from some hard decisions on contentious pages (for example), or alternatively, an admin can call a Recall as invalid due to the the (perceived or otherwise) non-impartial nature of a given recall. Thus, making the procedure overseen by a panel of bureaucrats allows the vetting of bad-faith recalls. Then, if it has this safeguard, it can be then generalized to all admins, rather than some arbitrary subset. This then fills a niche/pathway for assessing difficult admin behaviour which may require review of sysop status. Given we have a few more bureaucrats, and part of the role of a bureaucrat is granting sysophood, this may be an increased role for them and may remove some work from arbcom. I have a splitting headache as I write this, does this make sense now? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I will write this in a clearer fashion below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AMR has always appealed to me more than compulsory AOR.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for changes to AOR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I thought of this idea after the recent issue with Elonka's AOR as an idea how to circumvent it. Looks like it has gone down like a proverbial lead balloon, hence archiving.

---

Process is tweaked - remains as is but for two changes:

• A successful Recall results not in the admin's desysopping, but for a recommendation for a review by a panel of bureaucrats (a quorum (minimum number) of 5). If the bureaucrats agree there are sufficient grounds for the admin's desysopping, they are desysopped.

• The process of AOR is now applicable to all admins and is not voluntary anymore.

Rationale

• The process is now fair and clear and applies to everybody, not just an arbitrary subset.

• The process allows for another pathway for desysopping for questionable conduct, which has been of concern previously.

• Formalises a role for bureaucrats, who are editors who have a role in the sysopping and desysopping of admins.

• This vetting role will hopefully rule out both (a) bad faith or spurious recalls and (b) attempts by admins to ignore genuine recalls.

• Addresses some of 'all or nothing' approach (i.e. whether Arbcom are involved or not)

Discussion

Does this seem like a worthwhile adjustment or just instruction creep? I will leave support/oposes to get some idea of consensus Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

On what basis do the bureaucrats make the decision? DGG (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Related, how would the recall not become another ad hoc RFA that the bureaucrats would have to call consensus on? Or would it? I think we need to land on something like this at some point...RxS (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue for a quorum of bureaucrats would be to decide whether a particular recall called upon an admin was justified or not. A way may be a 5 day period where it is discussed and an opinion reached. This is an attempt to vet bad faith recalls. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose: AOR should never be mandatory for all administrators, per comments I left in earlier discussions about the subject. seicer | talk | contribs 14:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Nope. I will continue to oppose any similar proposals which require admins to be open to recall, or any proposals that allow the community as a whole to decide such actions (as much as some people would love it, we don't need a Wikipedia:Requests for Desysoping). This is primarily because, I don't see a problem with the current process and I believe that recall should be voluntary; but certainly encouraged. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Nope. I have never been open to recall and it was not a requirement when I requested the community to grant me the powers to use the extra tools, so I don't see why I should have it foisted upon me. I object to my principles of being open to persuasion by good argument being cast aside for some arbitrary process. If there is an admin so bad that they need to be open to recall then I suggest that there are already grounds for a RfC/RfAR. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose, per above. I'm open to recall, but I oppose making it mandatory. Wikipedia is not rule-bound; let's not move in that direction. We've already got processes by which admins can be de-sysoped.

   Also, I oppose this format of survey, with separate sections for "support" and "oppose". Are we trying to make it look more like a vote, or what? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose - ArbCom are perfectly capable of de-sysoping where required, surely. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Strongest oppose, admins have enough trouble doing their jobs without having the threat of vexatious recalls held over them if they screw up. Stifle (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose; the only thing that insulates admins from being politicians having to play the opinion poll is the fact that the bit is not up for grabs. Admins need to be able to make unpopular actions, and will make "enemies" of factions here and there. If every admin needs to fear a recall every time they use the mop they will stop using it. — Coren ^(talk) 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose — authority creep. Bureaucrats do not currently "have a role in the...desysopping of admins". 'Crats currently lack both the technical ability to flip the admin bit off, and any foundation in existing policy or practice to make decisions for that purpose. (And, frankly, I would regard the judgement of any bureaucrat who thought he did have such authority as dangerously suspect, and potentially worthy of community debureaucratting. Do we have a process proposal for that, yet?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose - This isn't what we have bureacrats for. We have them to judge consensus and flip switches, not evaluate evidence and issue rulings. We already have a group to do that - ArbCom. Mr.Z-man 22:23, 30 August 2008 (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.

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)

Shouldn't ALL Wikipedia admins be open to recall?

Shouldn't a recall process be available for ALL Wikipedia administrators if decided by the community? There's an obvious reason that you don't see certain Wikipedia admins that are on a total power trip such as User:Bjweeks and User:Gwen Gale on the list. In fact, admins such as those are the most deserving of recall due to abuses of their admin positions to silence editors that they disagree with. Treescoast (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators#Dispute resolution process. --Elonka 05:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: Per this edit, Treescoast appears to be a sockpuppet of a known vandal. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 19 September 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)