Oddly enough, when I actually explain this to veteran
edit warriors
they react as if it's reverse psychology.
If you are referring to the idea of being open to recall, that's not
far from the truth.
Those who aren't "open to recall" emphasize the inherent conduciveness
of the recall process to abuse by "axe-grinders and trolls". Admins
who are "open to recall" assume that most people will be reluctant to
call their bluff, for fear of being characterized as... well, you
know.
Also, if anybody remembers the scene in that one movie where the new
sheriff threatens to shoot himself...
—C.W.
******
If this were just a "go ahead, make my day" thing I'd have no reason to go
beyond the category's standard parameters. Sysops make a lot of decisions
quickly and under pressure. It's incredibly easy to goof up, lose
perspective, lose one's cool, etc. Recall is a quiet reminder that the
community can hold me accountable for that. It motivates me to pause
sometimes, get a glass of water, or sleep on a decision before posting.
What strikes me as curious is how people who assume bad faith construe this
as a bluff. Adminship is no big deal to me. I've done as much as I can to
demonstrate that I'm actually walking that walk. I have a strong suspicion
that if Wikipedia ever implemented a mandatory recall process, the same
people who assume bad faith would either find exploits and subvert it or, if
they failed to find exploits, they'd complain that the process is
meaningless.
-Durova