Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall/Past requests

This page was nominated for deletion on 11 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Protect book of grudges

Since this page can attract trolling from users unhappy that their recalls have failed, I'd suggest protecting it so that only admins can edit it. Otherwise it will turn into a 'book of grudges' - "I was right but he was not recalled!" pretty soon.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is past requests, so I cant see any reason for non-admins to make regular edits to it. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have got a point but I suppose some admin will sooner or later revert unnecessary comments. - Darwinek (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone should be able to correct errors. The mere possibility of future mischief is not accepted as a sufficient reason for protecting articles, so it probably shouldn't be accepted here either. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And sure enough, look what just happened. I just got added to this list by Hipocrite, even though I'm not available for recall. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tbsdy

I removed the section on Tbsdy, because to my knowledge, there was never an actual recall request. Just asking someone about their standards, is not sufficient basis to add someone to this page (heck, I'd have a dozen listings by now). --El on ka 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is if they promptly declare themselves non-recallable. Hipocrite (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. For example, I routinely have editors in ArbCom enforcement areas threaten that they want to get me de-sysopped (example). If I were to withdraw from the Recall category today (or any day), I wouldn't regard that as something that needs to be logged on the AOTR page. Now, if a recall had started and then I withdrew, then sure. But just asking someone for standards, when they hadn't even been in the category for very long in the first place? Nope, I don't see it as an issue that we need to record. --El on ka 02:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said that you weren't officially requesting a recall, you were only asking for my general process. Which is it? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update?

I was wondering if any recalls had been started after April 2012 which was when this page was last edited. I can't recall any but I've just been editing regularly for two years. I hope that some editors will have this page on their Watchlists and will help with updating this list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2021

What Liz said six years ago. It seems someone is trying to make "will you be open to recall?" a de facto RFA question, yet according to this page the last successful recall was a decade ago, so it seems kind of pointless. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: It is indeed very pointless. I commented on this on my recall criteria page. A case could readily be made that that Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall should be marked {{historical}}. I can't think of any process we've allowed to 'stay on the books' , as it were, that hasn't been used in nearly 10 years. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see now there was a proposal in 2014 to shut it down. But, that was 6.5 years ago now, and there's not been a single recall request since. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like there are some folks determined to somehow make it relevant again. A common problem around here, there's always a small but vocal group that will fight to keep any obviously dead and broken process no matter how obviously useless it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - As one person noted at that 2014 discussion, there are still people doing it and it's still being asked at ~60% of RfAs. So, in that sense, it's still "in use". In practice, it's a vestigial process. Ok we still have blood pumping to it, but nothing ever happens with it. Though, as you say, there will likely be a vocal group that opposes shutting it down. Still, it seems very silly to keep a process around and ask people to be part of it when it almost certainly will never be used again. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Recall has clearly been attempted post 2012, see e.g. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 41#Recall request (WJBscribe). That said I can't think of any that have been outright successful, although I'd be the last one to know about a low-drama recall that involved 2-3 admins telling one of their friends to quietly resign.
      As far as edge cases go, and sticking solely with high-profile stuff, Gryffindor resigned following a vote of no confidence on AN or ANI, can't remember which but that was not exactly a recall per se. Malik Shabazz on refusing consideration for return of tools at arbitration said something to the effect of "I haven't lived up to the standards in my recall criteria", in a similar situation John Carter also said something along those lines but that was instead a resignation prior to a final arbitration decision. In all three cases however the presence or absence of this process wouldn't have made a difference so YMMV on the relevance. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crzrussian

Should we mention that Crzrussian later asked to be blocked? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]