Wikipedia:Adminship survey/Q

(12/06/24/03/02) Adminship recall should be extended to all admins
In some form, not necessarily the present form. Consider whether such a system could/would be abused by trolls or axe-grinders, and whether it should be editors requesting the recall, or only other admins, or some combination.

Agree

 * 1) Very, very strongly. It works, it's fair, and it may be the best chance for a non-ArbCom, lowly-bureaucratic form of removing problem administrators. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Limited agreement - the devil's in the detail about how the desysopping should be carried out - 5 wikipedians in good standing is way to low, 50 looks too cumbersome.--Mcginnly | Natter 16:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree, to all admins, but the number recalling should be a larger amount, and should be either admins or very well-respected users who are neutral in the situation. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 16:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed, having faith in ones ability at a time does not extend forever. There have been cases where admins have been desysop'd, showing the community can be wrong. In the same manner that we worry about "recall" being a feeding ground for trolls, wouldnt that same logic apply to those trolls opening an Arbcom against an admin? A recall would not soley consist of a vote, but people have to provide points and discussion, making it a community decision, no trollish behavior can hide the truth of difs and actions. --Nuclear Zer0 16:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Only scalable solution proposed so far. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Qualified yes. Non-recall should be the default, but the requirements to recall shouldn't be too high, perhaps even a simple majority of qualified votes. Term limits with the same standard to requalify as to qualify in the first RfA may be an acceptable substitite, as bad admins would fail their next RfA. That would draw out the length of the problem, but avoid the divisiveness that a dedicated AdR page would create. Αργυριου (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) While the opposition reasoning is not trivial, it has worked well in practice and I really think that a community based way to de-admin is what is missing from the current system. Eluchil404 05:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Definitely. I have nearly 30,000 edits and no blocks, but admin misconduct - against which in reality there is no recourse for non-admins who do not wish to undergo great stress in a nearly hopeless cause - drove me away for seven months. An unacceptable proportion of admins become arrogant about their status. At the moment they are an unaccountable overclass. CalJW 00:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Admins are granted their powers by community support, and should keep them for only as long as they maintain that support. It's true that in the course of their duties, admins sometimes upset people. But if an admin upsets so many people that a substantial number of users in good standing question their adminship, something is wrong.  Accountability requires not merely that admins earn the trust of the community, but that they keep it.  I commend the members of Category:Administrators open to recall for stepping forward in this regard.  The greater the category's size and the longer it exists without serious abuse, the more it demonstrates the viability of community-based recall, and the easier it will be to institute a recall process which applies to all admins. Tim Smith 01:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Sounds like a reasonable, low-overhead, solution to deal with admins, although it would better work if formalized. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Absolutely. With some of the blatant abuses of policy going on now (particularly arbitrarily blocking on a whim and then citing so-called "disruption") it's necessary (what if the community doesn't want to put up with it any more?). If a particular administrator has behaved fairly and he knows it, then there is nothing for him to fear even if trolls do have it in for him. It should be however more than just votes; convincing evidence would have to be presented for a successful de-sysoping and those responsible for de-sysoping would have to take the process more seriously. To set limits on who can participate (sockpuppets excluded) would be unacceptable.--Domitius 15:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) I agree that all admins should honour a recall request if it came from several users in good standing. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 21:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but only with sufficient suffrage level to keep the trolls out

 * Yep, that'll have to be part of the detail. "Level of suffrage" needs some explanation - does this mean established users (me) or an admin clique? --Mcginnly | Natter 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I think this is the only scalable solution to problem admins that also prevents troll abuse. The details on how it works are not clear to me.  The easier it is to take away the admin bit, the easier we can be on awarding it.  GRBerry 16:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I think we urgently need some way of recall, but we will need barriers. What I do not know is what level the barriers should be, and we wont know till we have experience. To discourage single issue trolling, it should perhaps be time on wiki, rather than just edit counts--e.g. unless you've been here for x months, you probably don't know enough about process here to vote. I am prepared to guess that once we o have a provision for mandatory recall, we will very rarely use it. Having it available will be sufficient to deal with most admin problems. 19:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
 * 3) Very, very strongly here. "The faith of the community" gained during an rfa isn't infinite. The community should have the same right to say when that faith is gone, not just some elected arbitrators. Just H 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) The current suffrage is just too low. My personal specification is that recall has to be started by another admin in the category.  While one could criticize this as cabalistic, expanding this to the entire body would seem to minimize this - if 1000 admins don't feel that you've done something that merits sanction, then you almost certainly haven't. - BanyanTree 17:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Here is not the place to decide the level of suffrage, but I think it's a good idea provided trolls don't get their way. James086 Talk  09:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes. See my version for the 'how to keep trolls out' bit. It works well for me, showing that I have full support of neutral 99,9999% of the community (which can easily recall me at any time but hasn't bothered to so far...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

 * An admin simply can not make all the decisions they should if they have to worry about people recalling them. An established user would be able to go wacko, and nobody would be willing to block them, because whoever did would instantly be recalled. If they only went slightly wacko, you wouldn't even be able to bring an Arbcom case against them, because you'd get recalled for that too. -Amarkov moo! 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Recall is often trolling. Admins who are in the category are worse for enabling trolling. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) The only recall that ever happened shouldn't have done. Crz went to RfA and was resysopped immediately, which as far as I'm concerned showed up Recall to be the pile of poo it is. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Not an accurate description. Crz stepped down without going through actual recall proceedings, and the RfA was rather emotional. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) 'Delete. Recalling is not the way to redress admin failings. MLA 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) An admin who attempts to deal with a content dispute can piss off a lot of people at once. Recall is too easy, too democratic, and most importantly too fast--an admin should be counseled to improve his behavior by other admins a number of times before serious sanctions are considered. Chick Bowen 17:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Recall is too easily gameable.  I've always supported relative recall- if you've pissed off so many people that you are no longer trusted within a significant portion of the community, you should voluntarily resign.  But this should not be set in stone, it should not be required and it should be revocable.  Ral315 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) The jury is still out, but so far, the recall category has added drama but no value. Newyorkbrad 18:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Recall has performed poorly thus far, so it would be unwise to extend it at this time. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) As per the above. We've seen plenty of incidents flare up over one or two actions, which every bit as quickly are moved on from and forgotten about. Not to mention that some areas (e.g. Image copyright issues) are for some reason much more emotive than others, and therefore more likely to lead to calls of recall, it's generally these tasks where we need more people willing to take tough decisions, not less. --pgk 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) I disagree. Implementing forced recall indicates we are not assuming good faith and trusting our admins to do the right thing. Yuser31415 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) We have an admin recall process.  It's called ArbCom. —Doug Bell talk 02:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Although I agree something needs to heighten accountability, it's not this.  Daniel.Bryant  04:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Does nothing to actually improve accountability, but does encourage forum-shopping and trolling, and would discourage admins from taking on necessary but contentious tasks. How would the Esperanza MfD have ever gotten closed if recall of the closing admin were in play? Opabinia regalis 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo, the closing admin for the Esperanza MfD, is, and was at the time, open to recall. Tim Smith 07:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What makes you think there are no trolls amongst us admins? I've been around long enough to know that there is no troll that can compare with an admin whith his hackles up - just look at the userbox wars last year. If there really is an issue with the actions of a particular admin, it should at least be resolved by a disinterested party rather than a lynch mob. Rje 00:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete, for the nth time. Too easily gamed, and too open to abuse. Any admin worth his/her salt will have accrued a long list of disgruntled nogoodniks lined up looking for a chance to take cheap shots. The community already provides existing processes for policy admins, RFC and RFAR, both of which work sufficiently well as recent desysopings attest. FeloniousMonk 02:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, as I have said a dozen times in a dozen places. All admins are open to "recall".  This isn't useful.  Guettarda 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Yet another "solution" which causes problems rather than solves them. As has been noted above, any admin who has been active in contentious areas for any length of time has pissed people off - and there are already proceses in place for de-adminning. This would open the door to yet more trolling and politicking, wasting the time of admins as well as the community at large, and resolve precisely nothing. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Troll magnet. Would we want give all the POV warriors, disruptive editors and trolls that we have blocked such a tool? No way. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Disagree, per Doug Bell, FeloniousMonk, and jossi. Musical Linguist 23:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I'd like to think it could work, but I don't see it happening. What number of users? What's "experienced"? What's a legitimate gripe? It gives me a headache just thinking about the 30kb ANI discussions that might lead up to and follow one of these. Grand  master  ka  09:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) In-n-Out Burger for trolls. Doesn't actually solve anything, as BrigitteSB points out below. A different idea may help, but not this. Tito xd (?!?) 00:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) What good would it do? Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  01:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Take a look at Friday's recall ordeal and you will see how horrible this idea is. How can admins deal with problem users if their hands are tied behind their backs with this? --210 physicq  ( c ) 21:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Its hard enough to become an admin why go through it all over again? One bad egg spoil a whole admins contributions I say, these should be very rare. Artaxiad 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Tony Sidaway 01:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I've always opposed this. Administrators must work for the encyclopedia first, the community second.  The normal dispute resolution process has repeatedly shown itself capable of handling problems with administrators.

Other

 * 1) I am uncertain as to the need or practicality of this proposal. I'm open to proposals that are workable, necessary, and address real, not perceived, problems. However, absent any new proposals that have not been suggested before, I cannot see how recall, by any process, would solve the current alleged problems and avoid incorporating those same problems. Recall in any form would pretty much be an RfA in reverse, and the culture and behaviour in RfA would likely carry over to the new procedure. Agent 86 21:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't see how this addresses the real problems of how adminship has not scaled, but I do think it could be part of a broader reform of adminship.-- Birgitte SB  22:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) We need a way to desysop without an Arbcom proceeding; they are far too long, cause too much drama, and many of the people who could provide evidence actively avoid the committee for those reasons. To deal with the issue that recall would be too easily gamed by trolls, I would support a form of recall such that consensus is required to remove the admin tools, not to keep them, consensus judged the same as in an RfA. If you can't get a meager ~25% of people to agree that you should have admin tools, you should not. -Amarkov moo! 05:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment/Question
If I may, let's try one more question, for everyone but particularly those who voted "agree." Are there any admins right now whom you would seek to recall if this measure were in effect? How many? No admins' names, please, I just want to know whether the absence of recall for all is a potential real issue or just a perennial theoretical one. Newyorkbrad 02:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The number has been in the zero - four range for me over the past few months. Right now, one.  GRBerry 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Even though I didn't agree, I do have one admin who I'd like to recall, but I have no interest in being involved in an Arbcom case, so I'm not going to subject myself to one. I really do wish that someone came up with a form of admin recall I think would work, but I can't imagine any . -Amarkov moo! 03:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I imagined one. -Amarkov moo! 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)