User:EVula/opining/admin recall

Here are my personal requirements to submit to a voluntary administrator recall. I am also open to recall as a bureaucrat. Content here may change at any time.

Please feel free to make comments and suggestions at User talk:EVula/opining/admin recall.

Initial request edit

Any request that I submit myself to administrator or bureaucrat recall (hereby referred to as just "administrator recall" for simplicity's sake) must highlight no less than three administrative contributions^[1] to Wikipedia which the requester feels are abusive or otherwise detrimental in nature. Any editor in good standing^[2] may make this request.

Diffs may be no older than six months. Also, there must be some form of dispute resolution^[3] for no less than two of the diffs; while I am open to recall, my stepping down should not be "step one" in the event that I make a mistake. No more than one of the diffs may have been used in a previous request for my recall as an administrator.

Requests for voluntary recall should be made on User talk:EVula. Requests made anywhere else are invalid. Requests that do not meet the above criteria are invalid.

Process edit

Once a valid request has been made, it must be supported by other editors. To make sure I cannot get ganged up on, here are my requirements for mini-consensus:

Two editors (non-admins), of the requesting editor's choosing, who are in good standing,^[4] and two administrators, also of the requesting editor's choosing.^[5]
Three editors and/or administrators of my choosing.^[6]

Requests to potential supports should not present the evidence, pro or con, for the recall.

The seven editors must be decided upon within a six day time period. If the requesting editor cannot find two editors and two admins to participate in the process, the request is null and void.

Once the seven editors have been chosen, discussion^[7] will occur on a subpage in my userspace (to be determined once the request is lodged). Only involved parties may engage in the discussion.^[8]

I will trust them to come to a majority rule of whether the provided diffs are evidence of administrator abuse.

If consensus exists edit

If a majority (4 out of 7) decide that I have been abusive, I will submit a reconfirmation RfA.

Reconfirmation RfA edit

If the reconfirmation passes (no less than 75% of editors think I should remain an administrator^[9]), I remain an administrator and the recall request is complete.

If the recofirmation fails (less than 75% of editors think I should remain an administrator), I will request the bit change on Meta.

If consensus does not exist edit

If a majority (4 out of 7) decide that I have not been abusive, the recall request is complete, and I remain an administrator.

Assorted notes edit

Citing these criteria edit

I may occasionally make modifications to this page, as I see fit, and without notice. Once a valid request is made, subsequent modifications to this page are irrelevant to the recall process until the process is concluded. If citing this page, please use the latest diff, which ensures that no modifications can take place.

Regaining adminship edit

In the event that I am removed from my position of administrator, I will remain de-sysopped for no less than three months before I may be nominated by another editor for RfA, and no less than six months before self-nominating myself.

I may not request my sysop be restored by a bureaucrat.

RfAs to regain my sysop bit should be treated as if it was my first RfA; that is to say, no deviation from the standards for promotion expected by the community (traditionally held to be 75%).

Footnotes edit

^ "Administrative contributions" is hereby defined as any deletion, undeletion, block, unblock, protection, unprotection, protected page move, bot flag application, user rename, user rights modification (administrator, bureaucrat, or rollback), or edits made to fully-protected pages (as I am well past the auto-confirmed date, edits to semi-protected pages don't count. Likewise, edits utilizing the rollback feature don't count either, as rollback is freely available to non-admins.). Basically, anything I cannot do as a non-admin qualifies. Regular edits made in an administrative manner are also valid evidence; such edits are block notices, unblock declines, administrative notes on various noticeboards, and administrative notes on "Editing abuse" noticeboards such as WP:AIV and WP:UAA.
Please note that evidence must come from the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org). Diffs from other projects where I am an administrator (see m:User:EVula#Mini-matrix for a quick list) are inadmissible to the recall process outlined on this page.
^ "Good standing" is defined as at least 500 edits to the main article space and 3 months consistent activity. Anon editors do not count.
^ Attempts at dispute resolution are defined as a message on my talk page, an RfC, an ArbCom case, or a thread discussion my actions on WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:BN. If such processes are closed with no sanctions made against me (in the event of ArbCom cases) or there is general consensus supporting my actions (in the event of a noticeboard topic), these diffs are no longer eligible for presentation as evidence.
^ In addition to the previous definition of "good standing", editors that I have blocked previously (under any username or IP) are not eligible for participation in this phase of the recall process, nor are editors who have contributed to pages I have deleted under a speedy deletion criterion.
^ I reserve the right to protest any one of the editor's choices, which results in an additional editor or administrator being chosen.
^ The requesting editor is allowed to protest two of my choices, in which case I will pick another two editors and/or administrators. This can be accomplished by the editor protesting one of my initial three and then my fourth choice, or by protesting two of my initial choices.
^ Discussion will be a presentation of evidence, followed by a rebuttal on my part, with an additional rebuttal on behalf of the requesting editor. The seven editors will be allowed one question each, asked to either myself or the requesting editor (or both, if it's the same question). This discussion phase of the recall will last seven days, with rebuttals and questions coming no later than the fifth day.
^ Uninvolved parties (ie: anyone who is not myself, the requesting editor, or one of the seven judging editors) may only post to the discussion's talk page (the "User talk:" namespace). Any edits made by uninvolved parties to the discussion page (the "User:" namespace) to influence or otherwise disrupt the process will be reverted promptly and the editors warned once; similar edits made after the warning will result in a block for disruption, lasting the estimated duration of the discussion portion of the recall request. Editors blocked in such a manner are also not allowed to participate in the potentially subsequent reconfirmation RfA (their names will be mentioned at the onset, and their !votes will be struck), though in the event of my demotion from admin, such blocked editors are freely welcome to participate in my future RfA(s).
^ This numerical breakdown does not include any opposition !votes that specifically cite a disapproval for the reconfirmation process on the whole. The point of the reconfirmation RfA is to determine whether I still have the confidence of the community, and should not be used as a soapbox for those that dislike the concept on the whole. As a result, when tallying the !votes, anyone that specifically references the process, versus my actual actions, should be discounted.

[admin_contrib_def-1] "Administrative contributions" is hereby defined as any deletion, undeletion, block, unblock, protection, unprotection, protected page move, bot flag application, user rename, user rights modification (administrator, bureaucrat, or rollback), or edits made to fully-protected pages (as I am well past the auto-confirmed date, edits to semi-protected pages don't count. Likewise, edits utilizing the rollback feature don't count either, as rollback is freely available to non-admins.). Basically, anything I cannot do as a non-admin qualifies. Regular edits made in an administrative manner are also valid evidence; such edits are block notices, unblock declines, administrative notes on various noticeboards, and administrative notes on "Editing abuse" noticeboards such as WP:AIV and WP:UAA.
Please note that evidence must come from the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org). Diffs from other projects where I am an administrator (see m:User:EVula#Mini-matrix for a quick list) are inadmissible to the recall process outlined on this page.

[goodstanding-2] "Good standing" is defined as at least 500 edits to the main article space and 3 months consistent activity. Anon editors do not count.

[dispute_resolution-3] Attempts at dispute resolution are defined as a message on my talk page, an RfC, an ArbCom case, or a thread discussion my actions on WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:BN. If such processes are closed with no sanctions made against me (in the event of ArbCom cases) or there is general consensus supporting my actions (in the event of a noticeboard topic), these diffs are no longer eligible for presentation as evidence.

[goodstandingadd-4] In addition to the previous definition of "good standing", editors that I have blocked previously (under any username or IP) are not eligible for participation in this phase of the recall process, nor are editors who have contributed to pages I have deleted under a speedy deletion criterion.

[editorschoicenote-5] I reserve the right to protest any one of the editor's choices, which results in an additional editor or administrator being chosen.

[myadminchoices-6] The requesting editor is allowed to protest two of my choices, in which case I will pick another two editors and/or administrators. This can be accomplished by the editor protesting one of my initial three and then my fourth choice, or by protesting two of my initial choices.

[diff_discuss-7] Discussion will be a presentation of evidence, followed by a rebuttal on my part, with an additional rebuttal on behalf of the requesting editor. The seven editors will be allowed one question each, asked to either myself or the requesting editor (or both, if it's the same question). This discussion phase of the recall will last seven days, with rebuttals and questions coming no later than the fifth day.

[uninvolved_parties-8] Uninvolved parties (ie: anyone who is not myself, the requesting editor, or one of the seven judging editors) may only post to the discussion's talk page (the "User talk:" namespace). Any edits made by uninvolved parties to the discussion page (the "User:" namespace) to influence or otherwise disrupt the process will be reverted promptly and the editors warned once; similar edits made after the warning will result in a block for disruption, lasting the estimated duration of the discussion portion of the recall request. Editors blocked in such a manner are also not allowed to participate in the potentially subsequent reconfirmation RfA (their names will be mentioned at the onset, and their !votes will be struck), though in the event of my demotion from admin, such blocked editors are freely welcome to participate in my future RfA(s).

[opposingreconfirms-9] This numerical breakdown does not include any opposition !votes that specifically cite a disapproval for the reconfirmation process on the whole. The point of the reconfirmation RfA is to determine whether I still have the confidence of the community, and should not be used as a soapbox for those that dislike the concept on the whole. As a result, when tallying the !votes, anyone that specifically references the process, versus my actual actions, should be discounted.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]