Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Category talk:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Past requests


 * 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 debate was Keep per WP:SNOW and nominators request. Davewild (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests
There is no vetting here. There is no way to guarantee recall request is made in good faith, or is valid. The possible consequence on an admins good name by listing bad faith requests here is great. Please delete as not needed. M ercury  01:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We can see where this discussion is going. Can someone close this? M ercury  19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the talk page of a deleted category? Why does it even exist?--Docg 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is a talk page archive. — xaosflux  Talk  02:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it holds a lasting mark against an admin that recall has been attempted with, regardless of the merits of the recall.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Experience shows that frivolous requests are far far rarer than pessimists predict. Haukur (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand I'd be happy with removing Mercury's name from the list if he doesn't want it there. We can just make a note that the list is not necessarily complete. Haukur (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (or move to a more appropriate location); seems useful if we are to have a recall process and evaluate its effectiveness. Feel free to remove bad faith requests. Are there any you have in mind? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a historical record and functions as a talk page archive (on the topical method, rather than date method) which shows that contrary to the hyperbolic claims of many who oppose administrative recall, recall attempts are actually quite rare, and those that gain traction are even rarer.  The archive is vetted by linking to the archives of the recall discussion.  GRBerry 05:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - (edit conflict) An archive of old discussions can be extremely useful for examining past discussions and refining the process going forward; that's why we keep old XfD, RfA, FA, etc. discussions. As for concerns that bad faith nominations place a black mark on the admin they were made against, considering that administrators are free to participate in the category and set their own terms for recall, I see no reason why they shouldn't be free to simply remove their listings from the page if they so choose, noting that the nomination was made in bad faith in their edit summary.  Besides, even if this page were deleted, the individual discussions remain. -- jonny - m  t  05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. An obscure talk page archive that's being actively edited is not a good thing.  Was the community informed that this existed?  I certainly wasn't aware of it until just now when I came to MFD for a completely different reason, stumbled across this discussion, and found myself on it (no Mercury and I haven't been in contact over this).  I've no objection to recreating a page of this sort in some readily sortable and open location, but a little file like this tucked away in an obscure location has huge potential for pernicious misuse.  Durova Charge! 05:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Striking per GRBerry.  Durova Charge! 05:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is very clearly linked from the Category's page as "Records of past recall requests." It has been linked there since the category was renamed in August.   And again on the category talk page archives, this is the first archive listed in the archive box, and has been listed atop that talk page since at least December 2006.  It can't accurately be described as obscure when it is clearly linked on both the category and its talk page - anyone looking at either will see that it is linked there.  It has also been mentioned many times on WT:RFA.  That you may have been unaware of it is your own fault.  GRBerry 05:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why should valid records be deleted because someone might misinterpret them and arrive at a bad conclusion? -Amarkov moo! 05:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The record of past recall requests kept at this page provides useful data for evaluating and improving Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall.  The category currently employs flexible recall conditions, with members able to specify their own interpretation of "a sufficient number" (of editors), definition of "good standing", and venue for reconfirmation.  Individual recall episodes can vary in these conditions, and by tracking all such requests, successful or unsuccessful, we get an idea of what works and what doesn't.  We can make informed decisions about whether to loosen or tighten the recall constraints, and we can look for patterns of abuse and adapt the category to deal with them.    In creating the page, I was aware that recall can be a sensitive matter, and I tried for a just-the-facts presentation and took care to label unsuccessful requests as such.  The page is not meant as a wall of shame.  On the contrary, some cases show administrators responding to recall attempts with integrity and good grace.  I think it's an important history. Tim Smith (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There is rarely a good reason to delete a talk page or archive, and I don't see any good reasons here. szyslak  06:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that a recall request was made but the criteria for recall not met does not seem to me to be a stain on an admin's record. On the contrary it would seem to some extent to be a further endorsement that 6 (or whatever number selected by the admin) good faithed users could not be found to request their recall. If someone is embarassed at being included on the list because they removed themselves from the category once their recall was sought, perhaps they should reconsider their decision not to honour their word when they placed themselves in the category? WjBscribe 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What in the hell?!? Mercury, this is very strange.  What are you trying to accomplish?  If you don't like recall anymore, don't particpate.  But there's no reason to disrupt it.  Friday (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is disrupting? Are you saying my rationale is bad faith? M ercury  19:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your nomination is disruptive. But yes, I can believe the disruption isn't intentional.  As you can see, I'm not the only one who thinks you're too close to the situation to be impartial here.  Friday (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that is why I nominated it for MFD, so we can discuss it. That is what we do here, no?  I would have withdrawn this after the 5th keep but there is a delete vote.  Do you really think I would disrupt the project.  If MFD is disruptive, then MFD... MFD.  Otherwise, please reconsider your definition of disruptive.  Your disagreement does not disruption make.  Regards, M ercury  19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to imply you've committed some terrible sin. It's only mildly disruptive, it's no big deal.  But, upon re-reading your reasons for the nomination.. those aren't reasons for a deletion nomination.  So yeah, in my view, you're abusing the MFD process.  Not that I'm a "process is really important" kind of guy, of course. Friday (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly an historical page if not an active page. NoSeptember  16:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - no good reason for deletion given. I think I can understand a certain party's reservations about being listed there, but that isn't sufficient cause to throw out the entire thing. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Timing is suspect. If after the current recall has died down there are still reasons to consider a deletion I will reconsider. David D. (Talk) 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Talk pages and archives are rarely deleted; they provide reference for future attempts along similar lines: many of the pages from 2001 are still around, and I'd hate to see them deleted because some user didn't find them useful anymore. Worse: this page is still receiving edits. There are some flaws with Recall because not everyone on the list will really honor the list. This list appears pretty neutrally-worded, and doesn't appear to be the list of "bad faith requests" the nominator thinks it is. Nominator is projecting his own beliefs about those who would request recall, and is not assuming the good faith of the users who believe in the recall system (he actually states in the nomination that these are "bad faith requests"). I suggest the nominator is too close to the situation to see clearly, as he's up for recall right now. It raises conflict of interest issues in my mind. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.