Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall/Archive 1

• Archive 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

This is the first archive for Category talk:Administrators open to recall. It covers the first edit on May 24, 2006 to the last ended discussion as of November 29, 2006. Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Policy

I know that I've been chewed up and spat at once by Kelly Martin for suggesting that someone else stand for re-confirmation since only Arb-Com (and Jimbo) have the power to take away the bit, but I also am 80% sure that I've seen it done. Captain beefheart (or something?) put himself on RfA while retaining the powers, I think. - brenneman ^{L} 07:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sarge Baldy, and he requested his powers be removed and then stood again. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sarge Baldy. That sets the precedent, and I'm surprised at Kelly's comments, I believe admins have always had the power to ask for the admin mop to be taken away. Hiding Talk 09:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, Kelly was objecting to the idea of standing while having the bit... I'll dig up the comments, as Captain Beefheart != Sarge Baldy shows my memory is pretty falliable, and I don't want to mis-attribute. - brenneman ^{L} 11:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Here they are: to Xoloz, 26 October 2005 to me, 26 October 2005. - brenneman ^{L} 11:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see what Kelly is saying, although Sarge Baldy's actions kind of negate some of her conclusions, in that he didn't get opposed for being flighty or anything. But I don't see that it's against policy that one stand for reaffirmation, and I think the way it's set up at present, as an honour system, isn't the worst way. Other wiki's allow such a system, and I think there's mileage in testing the water on having a system here, although I'd favour either fixed terms or letting the arb-com periodically review admins. I'm not sure I'm ready to don the sack cloth just yet but I think adminship as a concept has moved on since the early days. Even looking back on my own vote shows wikipedia to be a simpler place than it appears now. Still, as a voluntary system, I can't see a problem with your category. Hiding Talk 12:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• I also loved the gesture of "Captain Beefheart" (?!), and support the concept of this category. For myself, I've already upped the ante: all it would take is one established Wikipedian saying that I had substantively abused my admin buttons. This isn't as radical as some think: I won't stand just because someone says "I don't like you." He or she must cite a real incident, and the claim must be both serious and reasonable. I know I'm a moron, and I make loads of mistakes every day; but, since I try to think before I act, I'd be genuinely surprised and disappointed in myself if anyone seriously caught me abusing the buttons. Being wrong is an acceptable human failing; being a jerk about being wrong is not, in my eyes. Xoloz 14:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Perceived benefits

For myself, I'd like this to do three things. I've signed every section so then can be discussed in "pieces". - brenneman ^{L} 00:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perception

• Decrease the mental space between admins and Morlocks. I personally believe that the vast majority of admins do feel like they are just janitors, and that a simple majority of non-admins don't feel "oppressed." But it's the skinny margins that make the most noise. - brenneman ^{L} 00:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Self-regulation

• Provide a reminder that the actions we take can really effect people. For some editors, "their" article has tremendous importance. In the very recent past I've had e-mails from someone depressed enough over an article deletion that they went to counseling. Taking things more seriously can't be a bad thing. - brenneman ^{L} 00:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A thousand cuts

• Accomodate "chronic" problems. We've got several well-trod paths for "acute" difficulties. It doesn't take too many serious abuses to get called onto the carpet, but since anything below the ArbCom threshold isn't cumulative, if you know just when to stop you can get away with a lot. - brenneman ^{L} 00:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible drawbacks

Don't you just love vague section headers?

I agree with the basic idea here, that if six editors in good standing want to see you undergo RfA (or whatever) again, then it should happen. This is fantastic, as it allows admins who haven't done something egregious enough to get ArbCommed a forum to see if the community really wants them. However, I see several problems.

• We already have RfC. I know, I know, RfC does a crummy job of solving problems (in my experience, anyways). But if RfC does a crummy job, I see little reason that this won't do the same.
• Will it happen? So six guys say, Out with you. Man says, No, you're all vandals/trolls/poets/whatever and you're wrong. Standoff. Now what? Is he required to go into this re-RfA? How do you plan on handling the inevitable "quelching of the underdog's opinions" when if you say, No, he's doing fine, you're a langer, piss off (politely, of course)? Basically, who decides whether or not the request is valid? Who are editors in good standing?
• Will this actually help anything? We get into conflicts. Admins who RC patrol, deal with copyvios, and others will have many people disliking them, even if they do the best job. Yet these jobs are necessary, and admins who don't care about the popularity sacrifice one makes in these fields should be respected. My fear here is that you'll get six blokes who make thousands of userboxes wanting to deadmin the man who deleted {{User shirley}}. Then, pileup occurs and the admin who did nothing but uphold policy gets sacked due to "no consensus" on his re-RfA.

Things to consider. Snoutwood (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff there, all valid and worthy of thought. That said, I added myself to the category because it seems a good idea, but I'm not thinking I'd turn in my sysop bit and go through RFA again. to me it's more like I'd do an RfC and if consensus was that I was duff, I'd turn it in then. No consensus? no turn in. That seems to defend against trolls turning up... maybe. ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing to remember is that it is all voluntary. No one would have to stand for Re-adminship. Seacrest, out. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You think I got that number of "six" just out of the air? I counted the number of people I thought would want my guts for garters and added one. ^_^ I've got a small change to propose that would ramp up the guard against abuse pretty strongly: make it 500 mainspace edits. - brenneman ^{L} 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a very good idea. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How about 500 non-minor mainspace edits? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Different versions

There are just a few of us here as of now but we still all seem to have slightly different ideas about this. Maybe we should try to evolve this into a general category of admins who would be open to recall under conditions stipulated by themselves on their user pages. For example I would simply hand in my bit if asked by five established editors - and then maybe run again in RFA at a time of my choosing. Haukur 03:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I'm just dutifully fulfilling a request to comment, and have nothing of much consequence to add. I view this scheme as at once commendable, harmless and unnecessary. I think it is commendable because it signals the high value placed by at least some of us on accountability. I think it is harmless because I am unable to see that the scheme will be harmful, either to administrators and the body they serve, or to the resources of time and effort so often done violence by similar proposals made in the past. I think it is unnecessary because I believe those administrators who will unhesitatingly undertake to do this are precisely those administrators who will never have to; a glance at the current list confirms the conjecture. —Encephalon 11:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That was pretty much my take. Though I suppose there's some chance that this idea snowballs, peer pressure forces every admin to join or be known for deliberately not joining, people start pledging to join in their RfAs or they lose voters, and it sweeps through Wiki culture like Sherman through Georgia. Oh, did I mention it was a small chance? :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that exact thing- participation in a program like this, while voluntary, may end up on people's requirements lists for a support vote at RFA. Personally I would have severe reservations about supporting anyone who wouldn't be willing to be held accountable. Friday (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My optimism must be shining through. This is exactly what I hope will happen. Once some critical mass is reached, since policy is descriptive not proscriptive... who knows. I had intended from the beginning to start asking about this at RfAs at some stage.
brenneman ^{L} 03:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Another idea

Just tossing this out, but we have RFC's don't we, on admin abuse, and perhaps we could incorporate that, perhaps if 10 admins certify an admin abuse ticket then an admin should step down and seek the trust of the community again. The problem I have with objections to these sorts of proposals is that they always seemt o be from people with something to lose. It's completely analagous to proposals to reform the House of Lords. Adminship is granted because a user has the trust of the community, yet the community has no power to recall the power granted if that trust is lost. That is the bare bones of the issue to me.

So an rfc on admin abuse should probably look at getting 10 admin sigs, say the average count on an rfa is 50 people, and so 20% of that is ten, which would put you in the crat discretion zone, and either the case goes to arbcom (automatically, they should not refuse), or the admin can elect to have his adminship reaffirmed through an rfa. That's the way I'd do it. But that's just tossing out thoughts. Hiding Talk 13:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentally, you still have the problem that the people who would get 10 admins to endorse an RFC against them (and there have been a number of such cases) would also refuse to do anything like this voluntarily, or to support an involuntary system. Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So we need to get arb-com to agree to take any such cases. Might be something to bear in mind next time elections come up. Assuming we get elections. Hiding Talk 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wild speculation, but I think any potential ArbCom member who publically voiced support for something like that would draw down fire from the heaven, old-skool. Call me a "long term" kind of guy, but looking at the evolution of the committee I think that it might be the year after this next (putative) election that it would be a viable platform. - brenneman ^{L} 03:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you teasing me into running on this ticket? ;) I don't disagree, but I think if we at least make a point of this at the next (putative) elction, even just in the form of a question to every candidate, it'll push the debate along. There's definitely support for something, based on that accountability poll Radiant set up and "we" seem to be doing a good job of not closing. :) Hiding Talk 19:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

I made my first ever non-Babel userbox on stuck it on my page. Does this help publicize the project or does it just look stupid? Haukur 21:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I allowed to say "the latter" without appearing rude or hostile? :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

All things considered, creating a userbox may not be the best way of getting publicity; we probably don't want to connect this project to a particular position in the userbox wars.

Plus, wouldn't this image be more appropriate? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, scratch that idea, then. Inquisition would be fine if you could get it down to icon size :) Haukur 22:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice box

I cribbed this box (User:Lar/Accountability) from Hiding but put a few more linkies in it. Feel free to crib from it as well, and modify it to suit because everyone's process is different (one of the beauties of this idea, IMHO). ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts

One thing I would suggest adding to any formal proposal for this sort of thing is a limit on how often re-affirmation can be requested. We don't want people calling for a recall immediately after someone they opposed becomes an admin or a week after the person was just re-affirmed. Keeping an 'X month' limit on attempts would prevent this from being used for constant harassment and bogging down the process.

The concept of needing a certain number of people requesting re-affirmation to start the process also makes sense in that it would prevent vast numbers of re-affirmation requests on people who will easily pass. I'd suggest something like the current RFC practice of needing 'X signatories' within a time limit of 'Y days' so that it isn't just a collection of every vindictive vandal the admin has blocked over the past year. The 'must have Z edits' standard makes some sense for the users calling for re-affirmation, but I don't think it would be needed for the actual 'RFA' any more than it is for current RFAs. If there is excessive sock-puppet activity the bureaucrats can take that into account when making a decision.

Finally, as a means of making this more palatable to some admins (aka 'giving it a chance in hell of being accepted') I might suggest starting out with a lower thresh-hold of required support and then slowly increasing it over time. The most common objection to this sort of thing is, 'admins just naturally become unpopular by doing their job / a handful of vandals and trolls will derail the reaffirmation RFAs'. I don't agree with that assessment, but if we accord it some validity it might be argued that roughly 50% approval is sufficient support for an active admin (given the extra dislike argued to be inherent in the position). I'd like to see 80%, same as becoming an admin in the first place, but even meeting a 50% thresh-hold would require some admins to display a bit more discretion. I think the possibility of losing adminship in this way would lead to better admin behaviour in general and thus allow higher standards of consensus approval to be expected as time goes by. I don't think there is any way an '80% consensus' for reaffirmation would be accepted to start with, as there are dozens of admins who would be gone within a month... but we might be able to slowly raise standards back up to that point, and virtually any standard is better than the '0.001% community approval' currently required (0.001% = '50% of active ArbCom members').

For myself, unless an actual process for this is installed before then I plan to put myself up for re-affirmation once I've been an admin for six months or so to help prove the concept. --CBDunkerson 12:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is a centralized place where the reaffirmation is done, I expect many admins will choose to watch it and participate. And that is what is needed next - a noticeboard for cases in the practice. So a small number of trolls should not be an issue during the reaffirmation, but they could get one started. I think if the practice evolves gradually, having one started will come to be seen as no big deal, especially if admins don't have to put down the mop during the process. GRBerry 12:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

These are very good points, but I don't think the majority of them apply, for the simple reason that this process is entirely voluntary; the only consequences to an admin for not actually following through with the re-affirmation are to his reputation. Thus, an admin could disregard a request as obvious trolling—or run an RFC with some unusual percentage of support—as he felt most appropriate. Kirill Lokshin 12:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments in Requests for Adminship

Just to document that there was a thread about this proposal, subsequently archived, here's a link Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_58#Admin_recall_has_landed to the discussion. We are at 19 admins that have added themselves to this category (out of 1000). That's less than 2% and growth has tapered off... There was substantial resistance to the proposal raised in that WPT:RfA thread.

I have to admit to some sympathy to the notion raised in the resistance that those of us choosing to do this might be saying we're "better" than others, or that this would be something that people feel chivvied into doing.

My goals are stated on my talk page... I want to be accountable to the community and in a way that's less drastic than an RfAr, and this process lets me do that. If others don't want to do this, that is their perogative, it doesn't mean they are bad admins (As I said, one of my co-noms, a person I have a great deal of respect for, a person I knew from a former community, came out strongly against this idea and she is by no stretch of the imagination a bad or unaccountable admin). I'm wondering (thinking out loud) if removing the category and just leaving the notice box (a variant in your own words perhaps?) might be an approach that engenders less feelings that this is something being forced. It does reduce the PR aspect though. Maybe that's good, or bad. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm always open to being challenged on my adminship. I try not to be a rogue or rouge admin, but sometimes I'll be bold if I think it's the right thing to do. However, I've not added myself because I don't want to be put in the position of a) having to say "but you (6) are not in my opinions editors in good standing" b) having to worry about lynch mobs. Everyone who has listed themselves here has their heart in the right place for sure, but it's not for me. Furthermore, as has been stated elsewhere, the admins who are likely to be troublesome will probably never list themselves. --kingboyk 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not rogue, I don't think, but I'm perfectly fine with being considered rouge, (although no one's put the flag on my user page yet) despite being a process wonk, because being rouge means doing the right thing for the right reasons, even if process gets in the way. Process here is our servant, not our master. Note that nothing is stopping you from taking this idea (the pink box on my page is seperately editable) and shaping it to meet your own needs (and then adding or not adding yourself to the category as you like). If this idea were to spread to the point that no one remained unlisted that wasn't troublesome, that would tell you something, but I suspect that is not going to happen as it stands now, because many people have principled and legitimate objections. So I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should re-scope the category to include anyone that would be willing to go for re-confirmation based on some form of request, and let everyone write up their own conditions? Kirill Lokshin 23:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that. ++Lar: t/c 21:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So would I. Haukur 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Technicality

This page doesn't really say that only the admin in question can add him/herself to this category :-) --W.marsh 04:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Question from non-admin

Hi all.  :) I have to admit, I'm feeling a mix of emotions at the moment since I just found this talk page. My first reaction when I saw the category was, "Wow, what a classy thing to have!" And then when I saw the names of the admins on it, my thought was, "Wow, what a classy thing for them to do!" But then I saw this talk page, and I realized, "Oh. It's not something stable, nobody agrees on it yet." So I'm kind of bummed. Then again, after having read the ANI discussion, I can see the other side. There are plenty of "rogue editors" out there who love to pick on admins, and so it's a risky thing to put one's name on such a list, especially when there's a perception that there are more problem users than there are good users (or at least that the problem users are more vocal, whether or not that's true).

But this brings me back to my original problem, which is what to do about an admin that I really do believe needs to have their admin access removed, or at least re-examined. I looked into their original adminning discussion from over a year ago, and the reports of their behavior were glowing. 100% support votes, not a single oppose. I actually had difficulty reconciling the behavior of the individual that I was reading about from that discussion, with the behavior of the individual that I've been observing over the last few months. But for whatever reason, their behavior (at least, IMHO) has changed. They're engaging in defensive behavior, personal attacks, name-calling, moving pages without consensus (and sometimes without even discussion), reacting with escalated behavior when the issue is brought up on their talkpage, etc. etc., and other "good" users are also rumbling that there's a problem and that a de-sysoping may be necessary, but no one yet appears brave enough to "bell the cat".

When I saw this category, I was really happy because it looked like a good solution. But, now I'm not so sure. So, I'd like to ask those of you who are discussing this process, and doubtless have access to more tribal knowledge about Wikipedia than I. What should I do? Just wait around and hope that pressure increases enough to where someone with more Wikipedia experience than I is going to try and fasten the cat collar? Or, how should this be handled? --Elonka 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know, it's definitely an uphill fight. The thing is that 90% of complaints about admins are basically incoherent rants by clueless newbies, trolls or people who may not be completely sane. The 10% of complaints that are legitimate tend to get lumped in with the rest. Haukur 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you act with integrity, intelligence, neutrality, kindness, understanding, and with civility, you'll do fine. Talk to the admin first and see what happens. Don't post rants. Find evidence to back up your claims, show that the problem is continuing and not a past issue, and bring it up on WP:AN or WP:AN/I, depending on the situation. Be aware that any request saying "X should be de-sysopped" is likely to be ignored because almost all such requests are trolling (I mean, it's like writing a letter to your Congressman and saying, "Bush should be impeached!" Thus, be reasonable with what you ask). Understand that you may be wrong and that there's quite possibly a side to the story that you're unaware of. Never be afraid to admit what you were wrong about, and apologise with dignity. Remember what we're here for: to build an encyclopedia, not for any other reason, and make sure that what you're doing matches that. If you do that, all things should come up roses. Based on your post, you seem capable of all those things, so I wish you the best of luck. Snoutwood (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In poking around Wikipedia, there appears to be a "User Conduct" section on the RfC page, specifically relating to admins: WP:RFC/ADMIN#Use_of_administrator_privileges. Archived User Conduct RFCs are here, which appear to be a mix of "regular editors" and admin RFCs: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive. I haven't started researching through them yet to see how effective they are, but I thought I'd ask here, of more experienced users: Are those kinds of RFCs effective? Or do they tend to be perceived as a waste of time?

I'm especially curious about any cases where there was a bonafide abuse of admin powers, that resulted in complaints by non-admins, and the eventual de-sysopment of the admin. Is there any history of this, or is it a case that once someone has admin access, it's pretty much super-glued? --Elonka 21:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There most certainly is a history of that. See Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship: CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, that's exactly what I had been looking for, thank you. --Elonka 02:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A poke and a prod

No, not a {{prod}}. I mean is there any margin thought to be had in mentioning this in RfAs? "Q5f) What are your thoughts on..." etc? - brenneman ^{L} 03:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to be putting that kind of pressure on every candidate. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Is it really an inappropriate amount (or type) of pressure? Unlike many of the questions that seem to appear on RFAs these days, this would be directly related to the question of potential admin abuse. While actually asking someone to sign on as a precondition for one's support would be in somewhat poor taste, I don't really think that a simple request to consider the topic and respond in some way would be over the line. Kirill Lokshin 03:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see the harm in asking it, and seeing what develops from there. There's a long standing survey somewhere on admin accountability, so the issue is one that bubbles around in all our thoughts. Hiding Talk 12:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd support asking as long as it was asked in a way that gave NO pressure to add oneself to this or not. Any hint of pressure would be very poorly received, I suspect. Note that User:Kylu has indicated she will add herself if she passes. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And so I did. I asked this question (and one about WP:ROUGE) of all the active admin candidates a few days ago... comments or thoughts welcomed, got some interesting answers I think. ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Voluntary review?

I've also been meaning to ask, we have the voluntary process Wikipedia:Editor review, what do people think of a similarly voluntary Wikipedia:Administrator review? Hiding Talk 12:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Editor review seems to be focusing primarily on "how to pass an RFA"-type of reviews. What would the admin review be doing? Kirill Lokshin 12:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A sort of, "how am I doing" thing, which is what the editor review was set up to be originally, I thought. Hiding Talk 13:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That was the original purpose of editor review. Tintin (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, then. (We've had some self-RFCs by admins before, and this would probably be a neater solution for that.) Kirill Lokshin 14:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin review already happens for individual actions at WP:AN/I sometimes. But an overall review focused on the admin, not the actions (and the various admins involved) seems goodness. The RfC is a possible vehicle but it can become adversarial. If someone did something like this I'd certainly consider participating as a reviewer and a reviewee. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I'd be willing to be a guinea pig for such a review if you need one ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too, is what I was saying. It may be a bit early for me, I've only been an admin for 2 months or so ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I've taken the plunge and created Wikipedia:Administrator review, one issue I can see needing discussion is whether an administrator review would be by an admin's peers, i.e. fellow admins, or by all users? Probably best to discuss there? Hiding Talk 15:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just comments, right? If that's the case, I can't see any real need to exclude non-admins. Kirill Lokshin 16:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Good standing

For that reason "good standing" shall mean having over 500 mainspace edits and over one month of tenure.

I would like to propose a small addition to this.

For that reason "good standing" shall mean having over 500 mainspace edits, over one month of tenure, and no blocks.

I'm not sure if this is reasonable or not, but there is rarely a troll who hasn't been blocked at least once. Obviously up to other people, but I would definately place myself in this category should this be ammended. - FrancisTyers · 16:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Two points:

1. Everyone is free to define "good standing" as they wish, as this entire process is entirely voluntary. I recall I suggested removing that wording entirely in favor of having category members write up their own criteria for recall.
2. This would eliminate a substantial portion of editors, including a significant number of the most prominent admins. I'm not sure whether that would be a practical benefit or not. Kirill Lokshin 16:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly about the "no blocks" part. I was once erroneously blocked, because I was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet that was generating a series of personal attacks [1] (by someone who was later declared likely to have been using sockpuppets himself). I would hate to think that that error on some other admin's part, would be a permanent black mark on my record. --Elonka 18:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the "let each admin define what good standing means" camp. ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in that camp too. I would think if an admin ignored six good standing contributors, if there was validity to the claim there's a fair sized chance that six would become twelve, or it would go to rfc or arbcom, so I think it is it's own check. Hiding Talk 13:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with that. —Nightstallion (?) 11:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This would elimate me for goodness sake! ^_^
brenneman ^{L} 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And that's a bad thing because ??? GRIN. ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Then a likely scenario is the admin will interpret every supporter of his recall as un-established, bad standing user, which means this category has no meaning at all.--Bonafide.hustla 01:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent Idea

Kudos to the admins listed here -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

First recall request I've seen

User_talk:Crzrussian. Haukur 12:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just asked on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The rationale for blocking? for everyone to go slow and think carefully here. Crzrussian included. - brenneman ^{L} 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, someone started one for Merovingian, but it was withdrawn, and the only vote after that was "Refrigerator." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There was another recall request in a Mediation cabal discussion in June.[2] The recall did not succeed, but I felt that it led to some very useful discussion about the admin's behavior, and ultimately a resolution of the dispute. The way it seemed to work, was that for each user who added their name to the "support recall" list, the admin went into "horse-trading" mode, and then worked things out individually with that user, in order to make them happy and get them to retract their vote with a strikeout. And ever since, there have been no further problems (that I've seen) with abuse of admin powers by that particular administrator, so the process was a success, IMHO. In other words, the existence of this category definitely provided a useful additional tool in dispute resolution, between an admin and some non-admins who had concerns about the admin's behavior. --Elonka 04:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Grist

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2

While not in the category, this is another example of a "reboot" that was pretty interesting. Thoughts? - brenneman ^{L} 17:51, 7 August 2006

• • You remember this proposal including the discussion page, it may be worth looking at again. NoSeptember 18:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Recall standards

Um, can I have a comment on my standards for a possible recall scenario. I made this in light of recent events. Yanksox 22:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it 5 or 6? the wording seems a bit off somewhere. There's more process there than in mine User:Lar/Accountability but maybe that's good. ++Lar: t/c 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed typo, I'm willing to alter it if other users wish for such to occur. Yanksox 23:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Clerking

In what some are calling a test case (see above as well), Crzrussian is being taken through the process. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Crzrussian and [[3]] where I am clerking. I'm interested in feedback and corrections, but for here, the question is going to be (follow along the process, and answer at the end...) was clerking a good idea? did I structure it well, did it help, etc... ++Lar: t/c 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is clerking a verb? Giano | talk 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I work for IBM, it is if I say it is. IBMers will noun any verb and verb any noun. :) More seriously I think it is, I've heard it used tht way before... ++Lar: t/c 11:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it helped; it proved a neutral mediator to handle the numbers and procedural aspects, and yet left both CrazyRussian and the six objectors free to talk and act. It was very lightweight and unobtrusive, and I'd like to see a recommendation for something similar go into the instructions for how to be recalled. -- nae'blis 21:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it was beneficial but I'd prefer to leave the actual instructions as light-weight as possible. Everyone seems to like the "choose your own adventure" style of this, so having a mediator is another thing that people can decide for themselves. - brenneman ^{L} 00:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and that's why I said recommendation, not instruction. I'm of the firm belief that planning ahead of time means you don't have to think on the fly when that panic button is hit. Maybe just under a "see also" sort of section. nae'blis (not signed in)

Terrible flaws in this concept - urgent action required

As recent days have clearly demonstrated to me this cat now makes the best admins incredibly vulnerable to almost ANYONE looking to settle a score or harm them or wikipedia itself. Whilst I applaud the concept (and barely a day or two ago would have signed myself up to without hesitation), I sincerely urge every current member to urgently review their position on this. The more, *ahem*, (shall we say) aggressive users (or fellow sysops for that matter) are in a position of comparatively substantial power when a controversy flairs up. Consider this:

1. FACT: Administrators by definition will face opponents to their actions and thus themselves. As the ultimate person responsible for hitting the BLOCK USER or DELETE PAGE buttons this is a 100% certainty.
2. FACT: Whether any specific individual's "recall" basis is valid or not; whether the administrator being held up for recall has acted impeccably or improperly; and/or no matter whether the specific recall basis is a complete and utter farce or not; those users who feel they have in any way been done wrong by the "victim" of any recall WILL use that opportunity to get even - this process is literally the only chance they will have.
3. RESULT: any recall using the current "500 mainspace edit" format will fail. It is INEVITABLE based on the above. Think about this please: SB gave up the tools of his own accord, without recall, and look at the amount of opposition to his receiving them back, barely a couple of months later - (IMO) his RfA narrowly scraped through using current consensus guidelines, coming in under 75%... Then think about how many RfAs pass with fewer than 6 oppose votes... BEFORE the user has given a single block, made a single deletion, or had a chance to face one iota of controversy due to their sysop actions!

Personally, I do not see how this can be rectified without putting in place process guidelines that could resemble the RfC process, but I do know this: You guys are unquestionably the best administrators; quite simply any admin who signed up for this is one we cannot afford to lose. Suspend your membership herein or the entire cat itself and restructure, please? - Glen 06:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm... this has been up for quite a while and we've only had one instance of it being used. And the editors who played the card were some highly respected individuals. - brenneman ^{L} 09:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the sky is falling quite yet. I will reiterate that I am shocked that Crzrussian chose the third (worst) of the three options I outline here User:Lar/Accountability. As for criteria I am thinking of adding that if you are are an admin and not in the category yourself you don't get to call for a recall of me. Not sure yet, that might be a TAD controversial. :) ++Lar: t/c 11:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Per others' comments, I am not sure an RfC or an ArbCom case would have been appropriate outcomes of a successful recall, even though the text of the cat does not seem to preclude. I disagree with Glen - everything was fine. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• In case no one has said this yet, I'm proud as hell of Crzrussian. - brenneman ^{L} 12:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• So am I. His conduct was exemplary. I hope I'll be able to handle things as gracefully if I get a request for recall. Haukur 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you both, you kind words mean a lot to me at this time. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Me three. I've said I feel he made the wrong choice, but I think he's a mensch for standing by his word. I would be extremely proud serve with him again and plan to be clamoring at his door to submit the RfA as a (co?) nom two months to the day from his voluntary desysopping. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You see silly oppose votes on RfAs by highly respected individuals almost everyday :-) An RfC would have been the better option here, and a resignation only if the opinions were against Crz continuing as an admin. [Go for it, Lar ;-) ] Tintin (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. When RfAs routinely get 100+ voters, putting all this focus in the hands of just 6 individuals out of those hundreds makes no practical sense. At a minimum, one should allow every support vote to cancel out one recall vote, so you at least have to have a net of X votes for recall. NoSeptember 15:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. Recall petitions in other organizations are kickoffs of investigations, not elections. They need to be inititable by a minority, because they are not themselves the recertification election. THAT... sure, majority vote or whatever, but you need to allow a small minority (perhaps oppressed) to start the process of shedding light on the activities in a formal way. Hopefully most of the time it becomes clear there is nothing to the allegations (I say this having survived a recall in another organization, one for which (mea culpa) perhaps some feel I should have been turned out instead of being reconfirmed), but when there is, it's important that a majority not be able to suppress initiation. All IMHO of course. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It should certainly be initiatable by a minority. But the question is about the action to follow once we get six valid votes. What about always starting off with an RfC, and then based on the comments a third person (like Lar, who decided the valid votes this time) can decide whether the admin should continue or go for a confirmation/RfA ? Or is that as complicated as the ArbCom ? Tintin (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mandatory admin recall

I believe there needs to be a simple system, whereby all admins are potentially open to recall and that this should be mandatory. This should be something validated by experienced users capable of making informed judgements. I suggest the following:

At least 10 editors of good standing must ask for an admin to stand again for RfA. Good standing is both 3 months service and 3000 edits, in other words the sort of minimum qualifications you'd need to be an admin.

At least 10 such editors to ask for recall within 2 weeks of first editor asking. (If more editors oppose recall than support, it is the admin's choice whether to stand for recall.)

It then automatically goes to RfA (which is open to all editors) and is done on a simple majority there, i.e. over 50% either way.

If an admin is not suitable, then I think all the criteria should be met easily.

An admin is bound to have ruffled feathers by being a good admin, so it can't be seen in the same way as a new candidate on RfA.

All the above should be mandatory, and not optional.

Recall cannot be initiated within 2 months of previous recall initiation.

The initial request must be made by an editor in the standing mentioned.

Potential de-sysopping is a serious matter and should not be left to just a 5 editor request. The above criteria for de-sysopping are fairly stringent, but then it should be so, to allow admins the sense of security to carry on their work properly.

If the initial recall process is open to all editors, then I suggest 25 need to ask for recall.

Tyrenius 11:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure there is community support for a mandatory recall process at this time. ++Lar: t/c 12:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that there isn't—or at least that the admins who are going to get recalled as soon as something like this goes through (and we do have quite a few) will do everything they can to kill the idea, for fairly obvious reasons. Kirill Lokshin 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We have mandatory recall, it's called ArbCom. The community elects the jury, and the jury decides who gets recalled. We get to elect people to this jury (ArbCom) in another 4 months, perhaps the recall supporters should start working out questions for candidates about admin desysopping issues. NoSeptember 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you raised that issue. I hope we see some good candidates in the next election, maybe even some of the fine folks participating in this discussion :) Haukur 13:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, don't forget The Board of Trustees Elections while we're plugging things. - brenneman ^{L} 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means! We could use a broader field of candidates there. Haukur 14:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Candidates for election to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees should present themselves on this page before 23:59 August 28, 2006 (UTC)." Click here to register! Read the rules first, of course. - brenneman ^{L} 14:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be getting off track here. The foundation should not be much involved in desysopping admins except in extraordinary cases. Further, This issue is only a small part of what ArbCom is all about since desysopping comes up in only a small proportion of cases. That said, it would be fine to develop some questions about how ArbCom candidates think about adminship and how easy it should be to take it away involuntarily, because it would be useful to know how they think on this issue. NoSeptember 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant that it was importnat in general that's all. You're correct. - brenneman ^{L} 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting a community process, not just a few elected individuals at Arbcom. An admin would have to fail quite badly to be de-sysopped under my proposal. It would be interesting to get an initial response here. I think the existing criterion on this page of 5 users makes admins far too vulnerable. Tyrenius 18:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Support I support this fully! Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't a bad idea at all. I think that if there is regular administrator recall, it should be mandatory, as those who would get recalled would most likely not volunteer. I think its a little difficult to tell how this scheme actually plays out, but it seems like it would be generally difficult to get someone de-sysop'd, which is a good thing. I fully concur with your suggestions regarding the "good standing"-ness of editors involved in this voting process, as just going by straight numbers without taking into account where they came from would be no good at all. Anyways, I'd be interested to see how often this would actually get used. Does anyone here have a good guess on how often these criteria for recall would be met and taken to a vote? Wickethewok 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  I would give it, oh, a few hours after being put into place. Once the initial purge is done with, though, I expect it would settle down somewhat. Kirill Lokshin 19:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  If such a scheme were instituted, I think there should be a gap of say 3 months before it could be enacted, in order to give any errant admins time to clean up their act. Tyrenius 01:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Including a question on recall in RfA's

I disagree with Tyrenius' proposal as I think Recall should remain a voluntary undertaking. I would primarily like to see the process get more defined. I believe the perfect way to get all admin candidates to consider recall and to go on record with their opinion on how they would handle theirs is to add a question to the RfA template, as follows:

Q4: If promoted, do you plan to take the optional step of joining Category:Administrators open to recall and why? If yes, what course of action will you take if recalled?

Doing so will raise the profile of the recall process and will put a lot of peer pressure on candidates to volunteer - which I think is a net good thing (proceeding from the premise that recall is fundamentally a good thing, which could be debatable). Comments? If I get good feedback here, I'll take it to talk:RfA or wherever these things are to be discussed. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea (although I suspect some of the RFA regulars might bristle at it). Kirill Lokshin 05:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See my test-runs at RfA/Aguerriero and RfA/Alphachimp, both of whom are my friends, and who I hope will be able to forgive me for using them as guinea pigs. (In Russian we say, experimental bunnies. It's better - more urgency; bunnies are cuter.) - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well don't forget I've asked a (longer) variant on this question on quite a few RfAs already. several dozen if I am not miscounting. People are used to it. Whether they're used to it as a standard question would be a different thing. ++Lar: t/c 06:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the question is an important one, and I've made RfA decisions based on the response to Lar's question. Crz's shorter variant would make an excellent question 4. -- Samir धर्म 07:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mandatory Recall

(started a subtopic - ++Lar)

Voluntary recall is by definition self-defeating as a bad admin is not going to subscribe — because they're bad. It's only the best admins who are going to, and then they leave themselves wide open because of any momentary lapse. And does that benefit the project overall? I think not. If it is going to be genuinely voluntary, then there should not be a question about it on RfA, as this imposes an obvious pressure for joining, and removes what is stated to be a matter of free will. A candidate disadvantages themselves if they say they're not going to join, because it looks as though they're either worried their future conduct might lead them to recall, or they're not prepared to be accountable, whereas they might have other very good reasons for not joining, which an RfA does not give them a secure platform to expound. One very good reason is that it's an extremely flawed idea, which currently means, I understand, that the general workload has increased by 700 deletions a week. What's right for one is right for all, and if all admins were in the recall category, that would be fine — except the number of active admins might shrink rather suddenly. Tyrenius 08:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It will be very hard to convince many of the current admin crew to make recall mandatory -- Samir धर्म 08:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a different issue. Here we're simply examining the worth or otherwise of the idea. Tyrenius 09:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Worth is defined by consensus on wiki :) Consensus on mandatory recall will be difficult to achieve. I think it's noble to try, but any practical attempt at a recall strategy will have to be voluntary. Just my thoughts -- Samir धर्म 13:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, it seems it was only in April 2003 that the "process for gaining adminship by community approval" was adopted as a policy. Tyrenius 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose making the recall process mandatory at this time, or even suggesting it be made so. Ask me again when there are 300 admins in the category instead of 30. I'm convinced that offering oneself up for accountability is a good idea, but we are at 3% acceptance. We have a long way to go before this idea is widely enough accepted (assuming I am right that this idea can be made to work, recent events give me great encouragement but I could be wrong) for such a step. I also have concerns, as raised by others the last time this was mooted at talk:RfA, that it might be seen as chivvying. That's why I structured my question the way I did, and you'll see that I supported people who came out against it and opposed people who supported it (not usually but I did)... we have a lot of work to do yet. I want to avoid creaky topheavy structure, I like everyone chooses what it means to them, but I do think more examples or definitions might help. Without wishing any particular admin ill, I also think a few more examples (to show that this process does work) will help a lot too. If we get to the point where the majority of admins have embraced it, it will not be necessary to make it mandatory. If we never do get to that point, it will not, IMHO, be accepted as mandatory. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I agree. This category is a great idea, but the execution (pun intended) makes these folks more vulnerable, while doing nothing to improve accountability of those who feel they are above the rank and file. I have a real problem with any numeric-based system, as it cannot scale properly. -- nae'blis 14:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How many admins out of 1000 are actually here everyday doing admin work? I know great users with the admin flag and nary a deletion per day, and many others are simply absent. This is effective a lot more than 3%. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all admin work is deletion, of course. But my point stands: anything based in hard numbers will fail to scale properly. Where once we had 30 voters, now we have 100. -- nae'blis 19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the nature of Wikipedia, good admins tend to piss people off; particularly POV pushers, policy violaters, sockpuppeteers, etc. It's only if you completely abdicate your admin responsibilities (fly under the radar, avoid any controversy, don't block any editors, don't get involved in heated AN discussions etc.) that you end up pleasing everyone. There is already a process for recalling administrators - it's called the Arbitration Committee. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the question is to what extent good admins also tend to piss off the non-POV pushing, policy violating, sockpuppeting editors, and whether we're content to write this off as collateral damage. In other words: as far as I can tell, the ArbCom tends to go after concrete policy violators with rather more alacrity than after people who are dicks, but don't necessarily "break the rules"; the question being asked by all these recall ideas is whether there's some adequately forceful way to convince this latter group to alter their behavior, or whether everyone else is just going to have to live with it. Kirill Lokshin 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, dick is in the eye of the beholder. You'd rapidly see factions and parties forming; all the left-wing editors ganging up on and recalling the right-wing admins and vice versa, all the pro-whatever ganging up on the anti-whatever and so on. Factionalism would abound, and Wikipedia would descend to chaos. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Jayjg. There are very few really good admins I can think of who haven't made several enemies. Most admins would get far more opposition if they went up for adminship a second time than they did for their original RfA. AnnH ♫ 17:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like if WP:RFA had a subsection for ===Reconfirmation requests===, and the (discretionary) threshold there was 50% instead of the usual consensus, it might provide a better check against abuse. After all, if you can't even get 50% of the !voting population to support you, despite sockpuppets and trolls, there's likely a big enough problem to warrant desysoping. On the other hand, maybe that's too lenient. -- nae'blis 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I would SUPPORT that! :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

(poke) Maybe you should have thought of that before turning in your mop and bucket, sir. ;) -- nae'blis 18:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's too lenient. The threshold to stay an admin should be the same as the threshold to become an admin, in my view. Jayjg is right that in the course of their duties, admins sometimes upset people. But if an admin upsets so many people that they can no longer pass an RfA, something is wrong. We don't need to burden RfA with reconfirmation every time someone gets upset; instead, we wait until complaints reach an initiatory threshold. Currently, recallable admins can set their own thresholds, and choose what to do when those thresholds are reached—stand for reconfirmation, step down, etc. That's a great start, and I commend the admins in this category (and CrazyRussian!) for participating in this system and demonstrating their accountability and respect for the community which gave them their tools. Tim Smith 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The current system that exists is not one where power is placed with the community. The corollary is that the Arbitration Committee should appoint admins, but most people would find this unthinkable now. The notion of factions and parties forming does not show a great deal of faith in the community as a whole, and is the sort of vision that would anticipate the impracticality of wikipedia to start with. As the "call" process has not produced this phenomenon, I don't see why we should fear that the "recall" process should produce it. I'm not aware that most admins are so imbalanced in their views and judgements as to be easily identifiable with any particular faction anyway, and, if any are, that would seem to be a good reason for their recall, rather than against it. The descent into chaos would obviously be undesirable, but I feel may be overstated. "Dick", or perhaps better an abusive admin, is not merely in the eye of the beholder, unless we attribute no sense of jugement, justice or fair play to people. I think the community deserves more credit than that. However, there are always imbalanced individuals, and if the good admins have made several enemies as an inevitable part of their work, thus gaining them more opposition in a recall, that is an argument for lowering the threshold, not in itself for dismissing the process. As has been said above, if any admin could not gain in excess of 50% of the community's support, it means a lot of unhappiness trails in the wake of that admin. One has to question seriously what would have brought that about. Tyrenius 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully support making this category mandatory. Many admins have questionable conducts but no apparent policy violations. Note that admin open to recall is not telling the admins who are recalled to desysop immediately but instead to re-confirm the support of the community, which makes trolling, socks, and other vandals bringing an good admin down an extremely remote, virtually impossible possibility.--Bonafide.hustla 04:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideally all admins would be open to recall, but proposals to force de-adminship have a poor track record—see Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship#Proposed processes. Because it is voluntary, this category has so far avoided that fate. With only 33 out of 900+ admins, we are not in a position to mandate membership, and to do so would risk discrediting the category. Better for now to grow it gradually, in my opinion. I do like Lar's idea of discounting recall requests from non-recallable admins; that would protect members of this category and give others an incentive to join. Of the six users who recalled CrazyRussian, five were admins, but only one was recallable. Tim Smith 18:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• I like the idea of discounting requests from admins who aren't in this category. It seems like a clever solution with a nice symmetry to it. Does this mean that only admins would able to vote in a recall vote though? As it would seem silly to allow regular editors to vote but not admins who weren't in this category. Wickethewok 21:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  Not necessarily; one could make the argument that we'd be discounting only anti-recall people, but still allowing those who had never had the opportunity to formally make a choice. Having said that, this seems like a bad idea; the point of this category was never to "protect" the members. Indeed, anyone whose primary concern is protecting themselves from a recall would be better off simply not signing up. Kirill Lokshin 22:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  True, but since the category is not universal, recallable admins are more vulnerable than non-recallable admins, and whenever an admin is recalled, the proportion of recallable admins decreases. Discounting requests from non-recallable admins is a way to offset that proportional decrease, while giving those admins an incentive to join the category. (Of course, discounting requests from everyone would stop the decrease altogether—but then the admins wouldn't be recallable!) I'd weight reputable non-admins and recallable admins more heavily than non-recallable admins, but it's up to each member. Tim Smith 23:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for reconfirmation

Reconfirmation/recall requests are currently made on high-traffic administrator talk pages. Would it be better to handle them at a central location where they wouldn't be sandwiched between unrelated posts, and where they could be easily monitored? I've created a draft at User:Tim Smith/Requests for reconfirmation; the idea is that only recallable admins could be petitioned there, and that just as now, the admin being petitioned would decide how to respond—stand for reconfirmation, step down, etc. What does everyone think? Tim Smith 01:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like process creep I would personally rather do without, at least until such a hypothetical time that we are dealing with multiple recalls a week. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks good - but I think its existence would simply encourage recalls. Do we really want to do that? - CrazyRussian talk/email 01:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Tim for having taken the time to create this while nevertheless speaking out against it as something that's too process heavy, and that might well encourage recalls. I think (modesty not being my strong suit :) ) that the clerking I did is just the right level of process and would say that's the way to go again... I of course stand ready to do it again should it be needful and welcome further input (got some good feedback above). ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Related policy proposal

A related policy proposal is being discussed at WP:RECALL for those curious. rootology (T) 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've opposed there as being too heavyweight and not discussion oriented enough. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that the original "overweight" proposal there has had liposuction, a nose job, and running stilts surgically grafted on for better performance. Check it out! -- nae'blis 01:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Divisive"

*cue ugly CFD debate*

Well, if the category wasn't divisive before, it certainly is now! ;-)

(More seriously, I wonder if some other method of organizing this system other than a raw category might not be a viable approach.) Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh at the CfD. The "divisive" charge was raised on WT:RFA in may as well if I recall correctly. Just think if the energy expended there were expended here instead. That said, I'm not opposed to another method of organization than a category... (userbox, perhaps? Grin, duck, run) If the category is deleted i will still keep the text of User:Lar/Accountability on my userpage, with some tweaks to make it make sense without the category. What is the organziatoin we're looking for, though? One way to ask the question is, what value does the category have other than to know who's in it? Answering that might suggest another organization that was as good. ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Only one person has made the suggestion (since revoked) that it is the category that is the problem, and not the idea. It's not the organizing scaffolding that offends. Now, I think the discussion over there is unlikely to come to a consensus to delete, but if it were I think we would be very foolish indeed to attempt to keep the idea alive in some modified form. Even without consensus to delete, the CFD certainly raises penetrating questions: I personally do not think the notion is divisive, but if these good people think it is divisive, well, thus it becomes. I am tempted to suggest that unless if the consensus at CFD is to keep, we should all remove ourselves from the category on a voluntary basis. Of course, if the voices comes not from a cross-section of Wikipedia, but instead mostly from admins not in this category, that raises some doubts about the wisdom of that suggestion. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; looking through the comments, it seems that some people object to any admins opening themselves up for recall because... it legitimizes the idea of recalling admins!

Having said that, the only practical benefit of a category is that it provides a list of admins open to the idea, which isn't all that beneficial; the admins in question can be readily identified should the need arise—even if they make no explicit statement—by virtue of their response to a query about reconfirmation. It may thus be acceptable to allow the category to fall into disuse regardless of the outcome of the CFD; certainly, its presence or absence does not change what any particular admin would do if faced with a request of this sort. Kirill Lokshin 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the main devisive point is the way it is currently in some RfA. I think that if that is taken away, the whole issue will be off the table for most. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The debate over there also seems to be somehwat ill-informed, failing to consider that it's been used exacty once in almost three months. One of the key things I wanted to get out of this category was if there was any truth to the doomsayer's predictions that any community recall would be wildly abused. I think that we've at least put lie to that. Regardless of the CfD outcome, the current movement at WP:RECALL would probably be a more productive place to channel energy. It's a bit of a train wreck right now, but a good re-write combined with DMCD's ideas might be a goer. - brenneman ^{L} 05:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, mandatory recall strikes me as a non starter at this time and I don't think I'll be dumping much effort into that proposal. I'd rather try to address the objections to voluntary. KimvdLinde, I'm willing to avoid specific questions that give the appearance of promoting the idea but not avoid asking about it altogether. I think knowing whether someone feels that voluntary recall is a good idea (and why, that's the most important part) is a legitimate question, (same for ROUGE, and for "willing to make hard blocks")... but am willing to "promote" only after sucessful candidacy. Would that address your objection? Also I need to (or someone needs to) put together a comment on the CfD that succinctly summarises all the objections and acknowledges or addresses them. I think the idea is sound and will survive even if it means we all just put things on our talk pages like my User:Lar/Accountability and nothing more (no userbox, no transcluded image, no category). ++Lar: t/c

O yes, that would be fine with me. Along the same line, it should not be asked whether an admin would be a rouge admin, those are categories that can easily be asked afterwards. As for the many fear arguments, I do not see that those are valid (Good standing Trolls ???). As for a more general questions, should there be something as a recall procedure different from the ArbCom, I can see the value of asking admins, although I wonder how important that is for the functioning of the person as an admin.

As for my own ideas, I would do something along the line of a petition. A number of editors (5+) in good standing write down the rational to desysop someone, and sign it. The admin in question responds. One week talk page discussion. The arbcom votes on it (with the provision that they can kill the petition in an earlier stage when it is frivolous). No extended fluf with evidence, workshop etc phases, just straight foreward. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Having triggered the CFD debate, I probably ought to come here and try and make my objections plain. I consider this process inherently divisive because it creates two groups:

1. The admins who can be percieved as "good", "accountable", and "responsible".
2. The other ones.

It is that segmenting of the community that I fundementally object to. It would be like having the police and the "good" police. By marking yourselves with a label saying that you will be held to higher standard it is intrinsically (if presumably unintentionally) denigrating to all the other admins who might be just as responsible and accountable but for whatever reason have chosen not to join the club. The fact that one side is so easily percieved as "right" creates pressure for others to join, to say nothing of the fact that some people expressly want to pressure others into joining. It is a bad situation built upon a false dichotomy. If you want to have voluntary guidelines for recall, fine. If you want to create a recall policy for all admins, even better. (In the past I proposed reconfirmation if any three admins thought it was warranted, and would be happy support other reconfirmation proposals). But I can't support creating a club of people where the public perception will be that they are somehow better than the other admins. And especially not if new admins and candidates are going to be pressured into joining. Dragons flight 18:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the name of the category is the problem, though I confess I don't see it personally. Would Category:Administrators open to voluntary recall be better, to differentiate it from an eventual mandatory system? I do think it's coming, someday, but I'm not sure I agree about the divisiveness. I've got a much bigger problem with the gameability/prejudice toward recall of decent, community-minded admins that a voluntary system promulgates. -- nae'blis 19:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'd much rather not have a category at all. If you'd like to know my preferred approach, create a guideline titled: Wikipedia:Procedure for requesting admin recall. Spell out who can request an admin be recalled, under what conditions, and what an appropriate response looks like. At least for now, set it up so that actually being recalled is voluntary (i.e. at the admin's discretion), but also make it clear to the recallers that they could subsequently pursue Arbiration in an attempt to force an admin to be recalled if he refuses to step down voluntarily. Further, don't have a club of volunteers, but state that the procedures for admin recall can be applied to any admin. (Which would be a much fairer test of the process then having a group of volunteers pledging to step down.) I would be much happier with a process (even a voluntary one) that could be applied to all equally rather than creating a category or list of admins purporting to adhere to different standards than the rest. Dragons flight 20:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You might actually be interested in what's evolving near the bottom of Wikipedia_talk:Admin_recall#Workable_policy at Wikipedia:Administrator recall - there's a streamlined proposal (compared to the original!) for moving something like an RFC to the ArbCom's attention, letting them have final decision. Thanks for replying, I was just making sure I understood the breadth/depth of your objection to the voluntary system now in place. -- nae'blis 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC), modified 19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideally all admins would be open to recall, and we wouldn't need a category. But proposals to force de-adminship have a poor track record, as Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship#Proposed processes shows. Because we've lacked a community-based recall process for so long, we've accumulated unpopular admins, and they are likely to vigorously resist any attempt at mandatory or universal recall. Unfortunately, the probable result of implementing Dragons flight's proposal is that a slew of requests would be placed to recall unpopular admins, the admins would ignore them, ArbCom would cite a lack of severe abuse and refuse to desysop, and the recall process would be discredited.

Universal recall will be difficult to enact in the current climate. A more feasible approach, in my opinion, is to build support gradually by demonstrating that recall is a workable option. This category is a way to do that while minimizing the risk of being discredited by anti-recall admins. The greater its membership and the longer it exists, the more it shows the viability of community-based recall, and the easier it will be to gain consensus for a recall procedure which applies to everyone. I don't see it as a permanent divider between "good" admins and the rest, but as an interim step on the road to a more universal process. Tim Smith 05:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

---

• I'm somewhwat disheartened at the CfD debate, I feel people are raising objections that have essentially been refuted - such that this process will be used by trolls to get even with innocent hardworking administrators. Maybe we need a good FAQ? Anyway, even if there won't be a consensus to delete I think we'll have to take this seriously. We said we were going to be responsible to the community so if the community is telling us something we should probably listen :) Let's see how the debate develops. Haukur 09:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Waiting period

I share some of the concerns that people might feel pressured to join this if it is asked about during RfAs. Taking that further, they might feel pressured if we encourage it at all right after their promotion. And you know what? Newly-minted admins probably don't have enough data to know what being an admin is like and to decide whether being in this category would be a good thing or bad thing for them personally. Is it worth considering a mandatory waiting period? It might be reasonable to only allow people who had been admins for a couple of months to join. Yes, it might slow the growth of the category some. But it also might keep people from being forced into uninformed decisions. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CFD

moving forward from CFD

Okay, obviously there's lessons to be learned from the CFD discussion. On a first pass, I see:

• By far the biggest complaint seems to be summed up by pschemp: "The category is inherently devisive as it splits admins into two groups with the implication that if you don't join it, you aren't as good an admin as those who did."
• Mentioning it/pressuring RfA candidates to join it also was objected both there and on the RfA talk page, although Lar's already mentioned/agreed to changing this to after they win the sysop bit.
• And of course the concern that "The noblest admins will list themselves, thereby making themselves vulnerable to knee-jerk reactions, while any long term abusive admin (should one exist) wouldn't go near it.", as stated by Tyrenius.

What now? -- nae'blis 20:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the points there are moot. Someone seems to forget theres already a category that divides admins, and isnt going away either (Rouge admins of course). As for mentioning it on someones RfA: if they're that squeamish in the first place, why accept a nom (or self nom for that matter)? And as for the last point, its fairly obvious that no admin who is clearly abusive will be pro recall. SynergeticMaggot 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there is merit in taking stock of where to go next... how to structure that? ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see: it's divisive among admins. I think that's undeniable. The two questions that raises in my mind are:

1. How divisive, really? and
2. Is it divisive among the community as a whole? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt say so its so divisive that it shouldnt exist. Its almost no different then adding yourself as a male, female, or any other cat in my opinion. SynergeticMaggot 23:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Result of Bunchofgrapes Recall petition

Can be found at this diff. The petition has failed for want of 6 users in good standing to certify it. Now that my clerking has concluded I will comment: It is my view that despite some (good natured) sniping from those that wanted to treat this in fun, the process worked. A spurious recall petition failed and it was done in a thoughtful, civil manner. Could it have taken less effort? Perhaps, but by treating it with due process it is clear that the community is listened to, which is what we are trying to promote. I'm pleased with the outcome. ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire petition is also available at User talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive Recall Petition. I thought it went well enough. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving that. In hindsight I should have spawned a special page right from the get go so that the contributions could be retained in history. Those wanting to see history will have to look at your talk page archive. My bad for not thinking of it (not the end of the world but a lesson for next time) ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This actually reminds me a bit of the early RFAs: here, for example. Primitive, not a whole lot of comments, but a good beginning. Nice. I do, however, think a boilerplate template should be added to such archived Recall Petitions, because not everyone will pay attention to the bold type at the top of the page: a green or pink background, like what is used on *FDs might help keep people from voting after closing. Congratulations to Bunchofgrapes on surviving the Recall, and to Lar for the excellent clerking. --Firsfron of Ronchester 02:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I'm leery of creating a template as that seems process heavy. Even the notion of using a clerk, and how one does it... that all seems like it's imposing structure on people. I just made it up as I went along and I would not want to say anyone else who got recalled should feel free to ask for a clerk or not...(if they do, doesn't have to be me every time!) and should organise as they see fit. Maybe that's too loosey goosey? But I'd rather not impose structure if I can avoid it. Am I all wet? Is a template (or a set? one for the inital layout, and a pair for closes) needful? I can whip it/them in no time, believe me. BTW I note we crossed 40 members recently. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a template probably isn't needed. Even with 40 members, it doesn't seem like this will be heavily used, at least at first. I just suggested the boilerplate with a different color so we wouldn't get late votes. BTW, 40 admins open to recall... only 960 more to reach 1,000! ;) (Sorry, I'll behave now). Firsfron of Ronchester 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, needs some work

Phew! Just finished reading through all the comments on this talk page. When I read this category, I immediately had some thoughts about it, and see that most of them have been reflected somewhat in the discussion above. Here are the main things I would offer:

Wikipedia is slowly evolving from a dictatorship to a democracy, and that's a good thing. It would be great if, over time, Jimbo had less to do in terms of policing the project because it took care of itself.

Administrators, like judges and prosecutors, engage in inherently controversial decision-making, and should have some modicum of protection against ordinary disgruntlement. However, long-term, chronic drawing-of-ire can hurt the project, and there should be a way of addressing that, short of an Arbitration Committee action for specific misconduct.

This situation, though it should be rare, is inevitable, as administrators are imperfect (if lovely) human beings, and can fail us.

It makes senses to have a process that's voluntary at first, to test things out, and then becomes "expected" and finally mandatory. Sort of the evolution of the two-term limit for the Presidency of the United States.

So long as the process is voluntary, as a practical matter, admins can choose their own criteria for who is a credible petitioner/requester, and for what process they should use if their recall request is successful. Nonetheless, because the policy should eventually become an expected/required part of adminship after sufficient testing, there should eventually be consensus about both of these things.

Especially because recalls will be rare, it seems to be a bad idea to

With that said, I have some specific thoughts and suggestions about the proposed category/policy:

1. There should be a waiting period after any significant adminship action (by which I mean selection as an admin, prior unsuccessful attempt to recall, arbitration committee action, etc.), before a recall could be initiated. I would suggest a 3-month "cooling off" period, in between such actions.
2. There should definitely be specified limits on both the number of editors making the request, and the timeframe in which they make it. Six editors in any one month period sounds as good as any, remembering that the process could be renewed after the specified cooling-off period.
3. There should be criteria for who should be allowed to participate in a recall request, i.e. a "good standing" requirement, and it is reasonable to have the requirement be about 500 edits (whether to the mainspace or not seems like not such a big deal to me), and, say, 30 days on wikipedia. It also seems reasonable to have a person's block history be relevant to "good standing", though I would exclude blocks by the admin in question and blocks that are older than a specified time (say, one month).
4. The procedure for surviving actual recall should be no more stringent than for RfA in the first place, and perhaps a bit less, given the fact that good, active admins must necessarily make controversial decisions at times. I'm completely open to those who have more experience with the project, but a 50% (perhaps 2/3?) vote with a signficant suffrage requirement ought to do the trick, again, with an appropriate time limit. However, leaving it up to the embattled admin to decide the process seems unhelpful.

Again, great idea, and with some polish, could be even better. Thesmothete 19:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving it on

Okay, we're getting a good few people here now. I thought I might toss the idea of how the system might work. The way I see it, if a user gets six people who meet his criteria calling for their recall, then it's best to move over to either a Request for comment or better yet Wikipedia:Request for recall, give it a week to run and get a crat to close it. The crats have indicated they will consider doing this. That's how I figure I'll go if and when it comes up. Hiding Talk 13:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I indicated that if there were a consensus system for something like requests for de-adminship I would be willing to judge consensus on those requests just as I do RfA. Until there is a consensus system, I don't believe any bureaucrat should oversee a non consensus one. - Taxman ^Talk 18:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Taxman. If this proposed policy is adopted by the community, I'm happy to take part in implementing it. At this point, it appears to have been put forward as voluntary since there is widespread objection to making it policy. Since it is, at present, voluntary I would expect that those participants in it should voluntarily step down at their discretion when they believe a consensus and whatever other triggering thresholds exist have been met. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• So for arguments sake, if I asked either of you to close a discussion on whether I should be desysopped and declare a consensus, you wouldn't? Hiding Talk 19:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to offer an opinion on what the consensus was. I expect that most other users (bureaucrats or not) would do the same. What you decided to do with that information would then be up to you. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Uninvited Company. As long as this is a voluntary system, and not official policy (and it would have to be one where Bureaucrats are specifically empowered to act), we are not authorized to judge consensus on de-adminship authoritatively as we do with RfA, and even less so to decide effectively and peremptorily on the removal of access of any Adminstrator. As long as this scenario exists, we really cannot do it. Redux 23:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Fair enough. If the bureaucrats won't do it I guess we'll just close each others. Anyone is authorised to list someone for de-adminning as long as a consensus exists. Next step then will be either a list or a category of users prepared to close de-admin discussions, similar to this category and Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. Hiding Talk 19:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  You do realize that if it's not voluntary and there's no official policy making this discussion or vote a valid means for removing access, the Stewards will not carry out any de-adminning, right? And if it's voluntary, then it is really up to the Admin concerned to decide when there's sufficient consensus to justify his or her decision to request (again, voluntarily) de-adminning from a Steward, which in essence makes this non-policy procedure ineffective — if in the end the Admin decides not to go along with it for whatever reason. Redux 22:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • That's not my understanding of the policies describing how a steward acts, but I'll take it under consideration, thanks. As to policies and procedures and voluntary efforts and what not, since Wikipedia is a volunteer based organisation I think all our policies are voluntarily based, no? Let's let us volunteer to act as we will, and eventually we might describe how we act and call it policy. Hiding Talk 14:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

    Let me go into more detail, then: the Stewards have different approaches to projects under different circumstances. For the English-language Wikipedia, a highly developed project, with a local ArbCom and an extensive policy for conflict resolution, the circumstances in which a Steward will de-sysop anyone are as follows: (a) voluntary; (b) ArbCom decision (policy-based); (c) Executive decision from Jimbo Wales (who may de-sysop the user himself, using his Steward access); (d) an OFFICE decision by Danny (who may also de-sysop himself, since he too is a Steward — and also policy-based). That is it. Until (and if) there's a policy change (meaning: something is made into official policy), there's no de-sysopping in this project. If, under any circumstance, a Steward were to do it inadvertedly, this action would most probably be reverted, unless the Admin concerned were to validate it by requesting to remain de-sysopped (so again, voluntary). To be perfectly practical, the way to go here would be to work on making this into policy first, and putting it to practical use second, and not the other way around. Redux 17:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

    I think this discussion has run it's course, because nothing you have said contradicts my point. Hiding Talk 20:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, there was an example about a year ago of someone who "voluntarily" reconfirmed their adminship. I believe it involved User:Silsor. The reconfirmation (on RFA) didn't pass, and the stewards declined to act upon it. I can't remember the details but the whole thing was a waste of valuable think time. Ultimately, if I recall correctly, Silsor resigned his adminship voluntarily on m:Requests for permissions, and then asked for it back some months later at RFA and got it.

The point being, that as Redux and other have pointed out, the stewards aren't going to desysop anybody unless they request it themselves or it's requested by the arbcom or there's some sort of egregious immediate need to do so. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Like I said a minute ago, nothing here contradicts the point I was making a lot earlier, in fact you seem to have restated my original statement, so I think it's clear there's been some miscommunication here. Hiding Talk 21:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. We have had two recall requests already, both of which I clerked. Did those of you discussing this review them? They seemed to go smoothly enough and there was no question in anyone's mind whether there were or weren't "6 editors in good standing" to start the process. I'm also not clear on what stewards have to do with it, or what adoption by the community, et al is. This is a grass roots effort and the admins who voluntarily placed themselves in this category all have their own takes on what the process actually is or what happens if a recall is certified. SO help me out here!... especially if you are not yourself in this category, why would you be commenting on how it ought to go? I might be missing something, but remember, being in this category means that you WILL voluntarily resign if the outcome of whatever consensus seeking process you choose to execute is. (or face the wrath of the community for going back on your word, at which point you might well find yourself before ArbCom anyway) Thanks for clarifying this. (and note I am adamantly opposed to this becoming official policy. I'd rather that it just keeps growing grass roots style) ++Lar: t/c 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• well I was outlining what would happen if I met the six people criteria. I'd start an rfc, or a request for recall, ask a crat to close it and then take it from there, if the consensus was go, I'd go. The crat's seem to have misread this and it degenerated into a farce from there on in. I'm happy to let this grow as a grass roots effort, but I'm also naive enough to hope that this will eventually become an accepted practise, and therefore a policy, since that's all our policies are. The point about the stewards is a technical one. A request for desysopping has to go before the stewards, because they are the only ones with the power to desysop. Techinically the stewards can only desysop if a consensus exists or it's a self nom. They can't involve themselves in the politics of the issue, and they shouldn't desysop someone on the same project that they steward. Now the case with the english pedia is muddy, because arb-com are allowed to request desysopping, and no-one is clear on whether that means the community can or cannot desysop. However, that's a side issue, since, as everyone agrees, this is a voluntary category. Anyone requesting a desysop would be doing so voluntarily. the basic principle is that it operates somewhat like how Silsor did it, which some people thought was a waste of time. That this category exists indicates that other people do not. Hiding Talk 22:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Who else went through it by the way? I know bunchofgrapes did, you said two though? Hiding Talk 22:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • User:crzrussian went through it as well, before BoG did, actually... The outcome for Crz was that 6 people certified and he then immediately (based on his choice of process) requested desysop, which was granted. 2 months later he stood for Admin again via RfA and was confirmed. The outcome for BoG was that the recall failed for want of 6 editors in good standing to certify. (it was, arguably, a recall started in a way that gave the sense that the person starting it was trolling... or more accurately, had a dispute with BoG for things BoG did that were pretty widely supported). As for the desysop itself, I note that in a recent case, ArbCom introduced the notion of "under a cloud" (they found a better name for it) and stated that they felt sysops resigning that way could not just ask for their bit back as sysops resigining who were otherwise in good standing coul,d. I'd say that a desysop request made voluntarily as the outcome of this process would be "under a cloud" and I would have an expectation that 'crats would interpret it that way and not grant a resysop request. (unless the process itself came up with an outcome, consensed to, that the admin needed to take a break for x months but could then start again... and it was now X months later. That would be an odd outcome of the process, but I could see it, if the admin offered it as one of the possible things he would agree to voluntarily and the community chose it) Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • For the "under a cloud" piece, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano#Return of access levels. Snoutwood (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There have actually been (at least) four requests, two clerked and two unclerked. I've created a list here. Like Hiding, I hope that recall will eventually become an accepted practice, and one which applies to all administrators. We're not there yet, but the category's growth is very promising.

Regarding Steve's original post, my opinion is that the most suitable venue for reconfirmation is RfA, where there's already precedent for it:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seth Ilys (renomination)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sarge Baldy
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/moink

Seth Ilys and moink reconfirmed while still admins, but announced that if their reconfirmations failed, they would resign. Sarge Baldy resigned his adminship first, then reconfirmed. Either option is open to members of this category. Tim Smith 22:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. I remember Sarge Baldy's re-run, and I knew about the "under a cloud" arb-com thing, I actually opposed it because it contradicted what I'd been told earlier in that case, that arb-com could remove an admin's powers even though they had voluntarily given them up, but I guess looking at it now it amounts to the same thing, just without the strong language. Hiding Talk 18:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

who can bring process?

I think it might be prudent to suggest that six editors who have never been blocked by the admin in question should be necessary; users who have been blocked could, of course, suggest or support the process, but as it stands now, vandals who are miffed about being blocked count as "editors in good standing", which I don't think is a good idea. Allow them to suggest process, but it would be prudent to require six editors who haven't been blocked by said admin in order for the process to proceed. Thoughts? - Che Nuevara 22:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We could add more explicit caveats and restrictions but there doesn't seem to be much need. Contrary to the expectations of many who oppose admin recall, abuse of the concept hasn't occurred. At least not that I'm aware of. Haukur 22:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins are free to accept or reject individual requests. If a request would be improperly motivated, an admin could always reject - crz crztalk 23:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking ahead a little more -- I would like to see admin recall become more prominent ... perhaps even policy one day, as I feel that no admin should ever feel he or she is above the community opinion. If this were to progress to a standing process, perhaps even a policy, among the community, then the potential for abuse would exist. - Che Nuevara 23:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Haukur 23:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is ad hoc. Every admin has their own spin. I'm opposed to any mandated process that all who put their names in this category have to abide by, for they did so without regard to any particular mandated process, and cannot be bound by later changes. ++Lar: t/c 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to restrict the process. I want to amend the definition of "editor in good standing" to include less people -- I can't possibly imagine how any admin on this list would see that as adversely affecting them. I'm not trying to add anything that's not already there; indeed, I want to take a possibility away. - Che Nuevara 23:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Editor in good standing means what I say it means, if it's my recall being discussed. Or what Kyrill says it means, if it is his, and so forth. Anything else is restrictive in a wrong way, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)