User talk:Hiding/Recall

"This is true for all admins. However, SOME admins have voluntarily placed themselves in a category, denoting that they are open to recall by other means, which they specify. This is a completely voluntary category, but it is supposed to signify that they will voluntarily cooperate with the dispute resolution process, rather than resist it. Note that there have been cases where some have felt that admins placed in this category did not so cooperate, or where some felt that admins were coerced into being placed into this category during their RfA." (Posted by User:Lar to the front page at 15:20, 18 August 2008. ... moved by Hiding)

As I said on my talk, either this is a user essay (in which case, have no redirects to it from project space, which you do...) and you control the content, or it is not a user essay, in which case the content is subject to community editing. ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to your preferred version until we sort this one out. I'd appreciate a link to where it states you can't have a redirect to a user page, because that's seemed common practise to me since I came here, so I'm surprised it's guided against. Hiding T 15:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take guidance from Wikipedia:User_page#Copies_of_other_pages... the guidance against article -> user is quite clear. That of project -> user less so but the second paragraph seems clear enough. There may be other, clearer guidance, that was just the first I found. On the other hand, policy follows practice, not the other way round, with rare exception, so if there's rather a lot of other such redirects from project -> user that I was unaware of ... trot them out and let's together work to clarify policy to reflect that they're in fact considered OK. Of course in that case I'll be pushing you to get the page itself moved to project space, because as I say, I think it's a useful and valuable perspective. :) (I'm biased because I happen to agree it's correct... both the original part and the part I added) ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything in the section you've linked to which supports your point. I'm also a little alarmed at the tone you're taking here Lar. You seem to be implying that your edit has to stand full stop. I may be misreading you here, but from my POV you were bold and made an edit, I reverted it and initiated discussion, asking you for time to think about them, and then you appear to have threatened me. You seem to indicate that community process does not apply to user space, through your statement that "the essay itself needs to move to project space, at which point the edit is a good one subject to community process." Now if I am misreading you here, I apologise, but at the minute you seem to be taking a very confrontational attitude which I don't believe is going to move the issue forwards. You also seem to be shifting the burden of proof, which I again disagree with. You are the one who made assertions. When I make assertions, I check the policies and guidance first to make sure I am right. I believe this is an expected part of the social contract we operate under on Wikipedia, and I hold others to the same standards I hold myself. If you can't find anything in policies or guidance to support your view, then it should be relegated to a side issue, because it is somewhat irrelevant to the point at hand, which is making this page the best it can be.

What I am looking for in this page is to ignore the voluntary process as being outside of this, because I think the issue with the voluntary process is that it has led to an entrenchment of the view that it is the only way. I take issue with that. I have no objections to modifying the text to indicate that where consensus indicates an admin should be desysopped, some may voluntarily ask for the bit to be removed, and point to the category, but I don't currently feel the voluntary process warrants as much text as the community process. I would also like to see the word SOME in lower case. I don't like the implication of the upper case text. I now feel that I have to ask your permission to actually reformat the page to see if we can reach a point we can agree. I am sure you will agree that is not really in keeping with Wikipedia processes, but realistically, it is how I feel given the sword you have hanging over my head. All I asked you for was time to think. I'm both puzzled and sorry that could not be afforded me. Best, Hiding T 08:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot there to respond to. Zeroeth, I'm not trying to be confrontational, if it came off that way, I'm sorry, let me try to do better. First, I do think policy supports my view, that particular policy seemed clear to me. if you don't think so, I'll keep digging but I also said I might be wrong... a few counter examples would sort that, and policy ought to be clarified. That's not a sword or anything, just an acknowledgement that hey, maybe practice is out of sync with stated policy. It happens. It's how policy gets changed, we change policy to reflect practice. Second, to my way of thinking, suggesting that an essay needs to move to project space is a compliment, not a threat. There's no rush, but it ought to, because it's good and important. And I agree that the main goal ought to be, as always for any page, making it the best it can be. I turned up here to try to help with that. (you don't see me calling for it's deletion, do you?) That hopefully sorts the processy stuff.

As to the page content/theme itself, I agree. The notion that the voluntary process is the only way to get satisfaction is not goodness. The notion that the only way to do a voluntary process is by being in the category is also not goodness. I'd like to see a way to capture in the category's documentation your stance that you're not in the category, yet still recallable... because if the category goes away, that'll be my stance too. I encourage you to make whatever edits you think necessary while this page is your own page, and take whatever time you feel you need. (I'd just kill the redirect, basically, till then but even so I might be wrong about that) There is no rush. I just think that eventually, this ought to be a project page, because it's an important perspective. I hope that clarifies matters, and I'm sorry if this has upset you, wasn't my intent... I like this page. ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually thinking about making a list of user space essays with shortcuts, or some such, but I don't want to do so if it means they end up getting removed. I can say that having trawled through the first 200 pages in the user essay category I have 33 redirects, which is to my mind a good indication that it is a common practise, if not an accepted one. I don't really want to argue about numbers, because if you've only ever seen those 33 then it would appear that it is more common than if you've seen the other 167. I hope we can agree it happens, I'm not the only one who does it, and I assumed it was common enough based on the examples I'd seen. Whether we need to determine a policy for it today is another matter. I'd rather not force the issue at this moment in time. I will give you the most prominent short-cut to a user page, WP:SOP.

As to the page content itself, howabout this then. I'll edit the page. We'll go from there. I don;t mind moving this into project space, I'd just rather it had more flesh on the bones before then. I admit to ownership issues, but a lot of that is down to beans, and to the specific issues I have with the category. The category makes people think there isn't another way. That's wrong. When we started it, the whole idea of recall was what it was back then, for better words. The idea of recall has moved on since then. The category has done its time and I don't think it helps now. I hope you catch my drift. As to any confrontational issues, I think we've stared them down now, yes? I'll go edit the page, then you can edit it, and then who knows, at some point a consensus will emerge. That's what I should have done at the start, but I had to go to work. That's what probably put it off to a bad footing. I know my first instinct is usually wrong, I need time to ponder. I maybe wasn't clear enough in asking for the time to have that ponder. Hiding T 16:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects, if you found 33 in the first 200 you checked, I'm wrong. It is accepted practice, and the page I referred to needs to be changed. One of us should at some point. As for the rest while I don't agree the category itself isn't useful, I agree with the issues and criticisms you raise, and that they're important and worrisome. Take your time. Move it to mainspace when you're good and ready. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the best place to move it to. I think I'm quite happy to move it now and let community consensus edit it where it goes. Like I say, I cogitate a lot, but once I decide I'd rather just have done with it and move on. Hiding T 18:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, it really needs a better lead. Any thoughts? Hiding T 18:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best place for this would probably be in Wikipedia:Administrators#Removal of adminship, which needs expanding anyway. --El on ka 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked it to fit in there as best I can. Hiding T 21:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) I tweaked it a bit more and reorganized a bit, but someone reverted me (sigh). Could you please take a look at my changes, and see if you agree with them? I don't think I was making any major content change, I was just reorganizing and removing some duplication. --El on ka 15:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

Very well-written. :) Concise and accurate. Could probably condense it a bit further by getting rid of the last sentence, but that's up to you. --El on ka 16:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which last sentence is that? :) That whole last section is from me, and Hiding'd rather not see it there at all. But that last sentence is rather key, because it's true. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it's true? --El on ka 23:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um? Are you saying it's not? All I have to do to show it's true is produce "some" people who think either or both of the things I assert. That's trivially easy to do, really. Are you sure you want to go there? ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we're just talking about feelings, that's not really helpful for this page. Just because person A feels that person B was coerced, doesn't mean that person B was coerced. If, however, there are some diffs of people saying they were coerced, that would be a different story. In other words, do you have diffs of people saying that the only reason that they went into the category, was because they were forced to? I'm not aware of any, but if you know some, I'd be interested in reading about them, especially as it makes a mockery of the idea of a "voluntary" category. --El on ka 03:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're quibbling about feelings vs statements and first vs second person. If there's a widespread feeling that there's coercion, that itself is noteworthy. But I think it won't be hard to find admins who feel they were coerced. It's my perception that in your own case, on your third try, you yourself offered to be in the category, as a way to pass. That strikes me as a kind of coercion, looking in from the outside. I think there are other examples... when people are asked the question in RfAs and after trying to say no and seeing opposes, they switch their view. I'd have to dig for exactly which but I remember seeing it, which caused me to switch from asking, to opposing the asking. Noting that coercion happens is the first step to stopping it because coercion is a bad thing. It does indeed make a mockery of the voluntary-ness, which is deeply concerning to me. Or are you arguing there has been no ocercion? This may not be the page to address the issue but it's an important issue. ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, your perception of my motivations is not correct. In fact, it appears you haven't even read what I actually wrote. I have been a supporter of the recall category since even before my first RfA. I never felt coerced into it. And I still think it's inappropriate to put "feelings" into a document like this, because it tends to refer to the "feeling" of whoever wrote it. Let's stick to actual documented facts. --El on ka 16:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if there is consensus to desysop in RFC

What happens in step 4 (RFC) of there is consensus to de-sysop? Will stewards desysop based on an RFC? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Edit: stewards, not bureaucrats --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from m:Steward requests/Permissions: To request the removal of another user's status, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first. All discussion must be kept on your local wiki. When there is community consensus that the user's access should be removed, a trusted person from that wiki should provide a link here to the discussion, a very brief explanation of the reason for the request, and summarize the results of discussion. My honest answer: Cross that bridge when you come to it. If the consensus is demonstrated, then the issue will become one regarding the nature of the balance of power. Hiding T 10:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus to de-sysop, then the admin in question, to save face, would probably voluntarily request the change of their own access, by contacting a steward. If the admin did not honor the consensus, then the next step would be for the community to take things to ArbCom. If the consensus at the RfC was clear, and the admin had ignored it, ArbCom would probably take a very dim view of that admin's judgment, and would probably vote to de-sysop. --El on ka 01:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]