User talk:Hipocrite/02/2022
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
AOR
Hey, Hipocrite. What is it that makes you think "candidates who are informed about what they are pledging would never promise to be open to recall."? valereee (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Because recall is nonbinding, the last step in any recall process is "convince the target of the recall to resign." That is, in fact, the only step to get any admin to resign - open to recall or not. Given this, the "pledge" to be open to recall is completely meaningless - it is, in effect, a promise that, if you convince the candidate to resign, they will resign.
- In fact, at least one admin had as their recall criteria, in summary "convince me to resign, and I will."
- As such, the pledge is made only to appease the crowd - it is not a pledge to actually do anything at all. As such, making the pledge is either a dishonest person, making a pledge to appease crowds, not to actually promise anything, or a person who did not know this, making them uninformed. Best wishes.
- PS: I note in your badgering the neutral response you stated you were open to recall. What are your criteria? Hipocrite (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- If multiple other editors I trust approach me to say I need to put the mop down, at minimum I would run reconfirmation. But I'd likely just put it down if multiple editors I trust told me it was time. valereee (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- QED. Editors need to have your "trust," to even start your alleged recall process - your recall process, thus, is even more strict that the recall process that every admin, including you, has already signed on to - you explain some ways that a subset of editors can convince you to resign, but exclude any possibility for people you have no knowledge of, or distrust, can convince you to resign. Further, unless convinced they are right, editors can quickly go from the "trust" to the "distrust" box merely by asking. Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, it's a quandary. Doesn't mean I'm ill-informed or dishonest, though. Just means I haven't been able to figure it out. I'd agree to anything that could work. I'd re-run RfA every year/3/5 if people wouldn't consider that in and of itself disruptive, which is an argument I've seen. I don't think I'm alone. valereee (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are confused about my concerns. I don't care about people who put themselves in the meaningless category post RFA. My sole, and only problem with the category is when it is used to cover up deficiencies in admin candidates. As we have witnessed time, and time, and time again, recall cannot remove bad admins, and so any extra consideration provided to recall as a shield against a possible badmin situation is consideration provided in error. When recall has been the dividing line between pass and fail, we get admins who have proven to either be disasters, or merely close-to-disasters. And lets be clear - this is a twice-bitten-still-willing-to-vote-neutral. Take it up with the people who ask the idiotic question, already. Hipocrite (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, it's a quandary. Doesn't mean I'm ill-informed or dishonest, though. Just means I haven't been able to figure it out. I'd agree to anything that could work. I'd re-run RfA every year/3/5 if people wouldn't consider that in and of itself disruptive, which is an argument I've seen. I don't think I'm alone. valereee (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- QED. Editors need to have your "trust," to even start your alleged recall process - your recall process, thus, is even more strict that the recall process that every admin, including you, has already signed on to - you explain some ways that a subset of editors can convince you to resign, but exclude any possibility for people you have no knowledge of, or distrust, can convince you to resign. Further, unless convinced they are right, editors can quickly go from the "trust" to the "distrust" box merely by asking. Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- If multiple other editors I trust approach me to say I need to put the mop down, at minimum I would run reconfirmation. But I'd likely just put it down if multiple editors I trust told me it was time. valereee (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wingnut (politics) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Record charts on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)