On 12/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:10:39 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_Dece...

Best way forward, IMO. It's a troll's charter.

This nom's not going to change it, however. There's pretty strong "no consensus" shaping up right now.

-david

On 12/29/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:

On Dec 29, 2006, at 12:35, David Ashby wrote:

...

On 12/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:

...

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:10:39 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/ Log/2006_December_28#Category:Administrators_open_to_recall.E2.80.8E

Best way forward, IMO. It's a troll's charter.

This nom's not going to change it, however. There's pretty strong "no consensus" shaping up right now.

-david

Is there any precedent (which hasn't been completely defunct) as to how to deal with such institutions as it were? Administrators open to recall isn't a category in the normal sense, and deleting the category doesn't necessarily disband the practice. I'd doubt anyone is objecting to the organization of these administrators, but instead to the practice of recalling (and all its idiosyncrasies). One can't really delete a practice, so I'd say it needs a separate more suited procedure for reforming and/or getting rid of it. However, the only similar situation that comes to my mind is the Esperanza deal, and I'd say MfD wasn't suited for that either...

--keitei

The "practise" exits for all admins. Every admin should be accountable to the community.

If you do something wrong, people will tell you. The people who are in the best position to keep any admin in line are that person's friends and others in the community who s/he respects. If you are doing something wrong as an admin, someone should speak to you or raise the matter in some public forum. If you are blindsided by a complaint then the system isn't working.

If there's a serious enough problem, we have admin conduct RFC. Again, if you have an admin conduct RFC filed against you, you should stop and think, even if it's spurious. Other mechanisms only come into play when you get beyond these mechanisms.

So what is an admin open to recall? Is it someone who rejects these mechanisms and instead says "I only listen to feedback if you go through these bureaucratic mechanisms"? Or is it someone who says "despite the fact that I ignored the opinion of the community at my admin-conduct RFC, I will voluntarily surrender admin status if the community thinks I should"?

Recall only comes into play if you choose to ignore all the normal channels. I find this hard to believe.

The alternative to "admins open to recall" isn't admins who don't give a damn what anyone else thinks"...the alternative is "admins who prefer non-bureaucratic forms of feedback".