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
On 10/7/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
What strikes me as curious is how people who assume bad faith construe this as a bluff.
I'm not assuming bad faith. Rather I am describing what I believe to be the unintended result of a struggle in which I (thankfully) am not part of. I'm not accusing you of bluffing either, in fact I sense that you are a lot more serious about what you say than anybody else on this mailing list.
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.
First of all this isn't going to happen, I'll bet all the tea in China (PRC). Second, the exploits to this process will be, and always have been, in plain sight of anybody seeking to use them. Third, yes, the process is meaningless with or without clearly defined exploits, but so is RFA, and besides, nobody here is going to agree on what does or does not constitute an "exploit" in this or any other context.
—C.W.