Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall

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

The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall

See my comment [1] here. AFAICT this process has never been used successfully and probably never used at all (baring one or two exceptions missed by the update of the cat page). The individual criteria seem so convoluted so as to purposefully prevent the idea/process of ever being initiated. As a consequence, the page is a dead letter whose main purpose seems to be to enable a bunch of folks to engage in some "make pretend game". Hence, it's existence is pointless. VolunteerMarek 02:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the list of past recall attempts, including several succesful ones, is at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests.--Kubigula (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see 2 successful ones.VolunteerMarek 04:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, the recall process has resulted in or contributed to 7 desysoppings (Crzrussian, Durova, Mercury, Blueboy96, Herostratus, Looie496, La goutte de pluie). Unfortunately, there have also been several instances where admins have not honored their commitment, when push came to shove.--Kubigula (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of these at least half (it depends on how you classify these) were of the "they were going to get desyssoped anyway through other means" variety.VolunteerMarek 02:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many incoming links. It is "The "main" page[of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall], giving a brief description of the idea. Even if the process is merely symbolic, not actual, it is part of our history and must not be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Many incoming links" is not a valid reason for a keep, I believe. I have no problem with preserving the page as some kind of historic relic - but not an actual policy.VolunteerMarek 02:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many incoming links *is* a very importance consideration in deciding whether to delete. The number of incoming links, unless abused by a sneaky template edit or a signature link, is a fair indication of past interest. Deletion of a highly linked page can be disruptive to attempts to follow activities and discussions where the page was referenced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, I understand, and share, the nominator's scepicism but if some admins want this I do not see why not. And yes, the page should be improved and it should be clearer how you see the category of involved admins, but that is not a reason for deletion. BTW, my bêtes noires have not included themselves! Thincat (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - recall works as explained on that page. No reason given for removal. Achowat (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't speak for anyone else, but I fully intend to comply with my own criteria and, personally, I wouldn't want to keep the tools at the cost of my reputation and respect.--v/r - T P 01:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to hear that. But what matters is whether the process is viable/works/has substance ON AVERAGE or even in most cases, rather than in particular individual cases.VolunteerMarek 02:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know at least one admin who has been recalled. Also, it serves as reminder that some admins consider themselves more responsible to the community than others. Granted, individual criteria can make it meaningless, but at least for some it is more than that. I see no harm in leaving it be, at least till we get some proper and obligatory version of this (yeah, like I can see it happening soon...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh the fact that I can write my own recall procedure makes this a bit of a joke. Especially when some admins can sidestep their commitments or write criteria so complex that that there is lo logical way that it can be followed. I put a Severability and a Ex post facto clause in mine to limit the temptation. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's sort of the point here. Also, this just makes me wonder, having read your recall procedure (and this aspect shows up in many other people's recall procedures): You need to find six net editors from the community-at-large to certify a petition asking me to step down - how are these six net editors to be found? Suppose I got some problem with you as an admin (actually I don't even know you, but just hypothetically). Can I go around asking folks on their talk pages to certify this petition? Wouldn't that be a violation of WP:CANVASS? Is this some kind of built in "catch-22", whether by design or accident?VolunteerMarek 01:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any significant admin misconduct is sure to be raised at ANI - and you would be able to do so in your hypothetical.--Kubigula (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your definition of "significant". Run of the mill incompetency and low intensity abuse wouldn't make it AN/I. And anyway, if we have AN/I for de-sysopping people, why then do we need this page?VolunteerMarek 02:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Start a petition on AN, ANI, my talk page, a RFC/U, or anywhere else you would like. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page functions primarily as an explanation of Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. As long as the category exists, this page should as well. If you have a problem with the category, Categories for Discussion is that way. Note also that ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process, nor is it a formal part of any sort of Desysopping policy (since we have none). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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