![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've been mulling over the concept of recall/reconfirmation for a while now, and wanted to set down an idea for discussion. The general subtext of those wishing such a process (especially a compulsory one) seems to be that there should be some requirement to maintain "community confidence" - that, were an administrator to act in such a way that confidence in their judgment is lost, they should have the tools removed even without evidence of the sort of misconduct that ArbCom would look for before forcibly removing them. I wanted to float a pretty general question: is there any sort of consensus as to whether we should require an administrator to maintain "community confidence"? Perhaps we could phrase this as: if it could be shown that less than half of the community still supported an administrator, should they lose the tools? Instead of requiring recall to show RfA levels of support - felt by many to be onerous and difficult to maintain once doing potentially unpopular but beneficial admin tasks - a simple majority is needed.
I don't propose at this stage to get into the question of what triggers an assessment of whether this majority support still exists, just to ask that conceptual question: do we think that an administrator is (or should be) required to maintain community confidence if they are to continue having admin rights? WJBscribe (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked to be recalled, I'm using the sample process, I have little doubt I'll get six signers and go to RfA. How often has this happened? What were the outcomes? Is this info gathered in one place? Just curious. Herostratus ( talk) 08:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This notice added seems to make this entire page not applicable, and actually, a disruption of site processes if it is to be attempted. The notice should be removed, as the page in its prior version stated an outline which was to be undertaken by the admin who wished to self-request to undergo the RFA process. Thoughts? -- Cirt ( talk) 03:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Given the lack of consensus, shouldn't this be labelled with {{ essay}}? I would use {{ notpolicy}} but it no longer exists. Other option is making a RfC and labelling it as "failed" or "historical" if it fails (again) to get consensus. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Revert warring about standardized tags in a situation which is unclear is unproductive. I've tried to instead summarize in a paragraph at the top of a page; happy to be reverted or to have the text edited, but let's argue about the way forward, not what template to slap on the page. Martinp ( talk) 14:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Martinp, I think your notice is better than Nihonjoe's was. It might be a bit redundant but... ++ Lar: t/ c 15:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Following recent comments, I've created an alternative to the sample process. Comments welcome. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This page is confusing as hell.
This seems nothing like an exercise in hypocrisy - pretending that one is willing to give up the tools while at the same time setting up the procedures which ensure that it never happens. It's a dead letter. VolunteerMarek 02:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Add: Based on this [4] I only see people being added to this category. I don't see a single person being removed, which is what would happen if someone actually was succesfully recalled. Hence, this means that a successful recall probably has never occurred (though maybe there might be someone who got missed). This further suggests that this page is only slightly more than a tasteless joke. I'm nominating it for MFD. VolunteerMarek 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looking through all the pages associated with this page, I do not believe that this process is of much worth as it was before. Rarely has this method to decide if an administrator should have their "bit" removed been used. AORs have only happened twenty six times since its inception. The most recent was made was in 2012, which resulted in it being failed. With a process that currently has roughly 180 editors taken part in this, according to this category, one would think it would be used a bit more often. Though with the details that the process is "voluntary and non-binding" and "administrators can change their recall criteria, decline participation in the process, or disregard the outcome of recall proceedings", there's a sense that there's a lack of it being impactful. Sure people have resigned in some of these recalls. But if the process hasn't been used for the past two years, how long do we wait for the next one to happen?
So this raises the question: Should Administrators open to recall be closed and marked historical?
There's a section entitled "confusing as hell" here.
The recall system is nearly a sham. The administrator makes up their own rules. Often, it's difficult to be hard to do.
Administrators should be responsive to concerns and accountable. To achieve that, I propose a standard set of conditions which administrators may agree to. Still, since they have to agree to it, it's not really fair to the community.
DRAFT 1
1. An administrator will be subject to a learning period of 30 days. During this 30 days, an administrator cannot be recalled except for the most severe misconduct.
2. An administrator can be recalled by one user if there is a violation of policy and there is not a correction to it within 7 days of a request for correction.
3. An administrator can be subject to a limited recall if requested by two users for serious violations of policies or repeated poor judgment or improper blocking. A limited recall would be suspension of administrative powers for 30 days. An administrator could be suspended for a maximum of 30 days per calender year. (In other words, even if ganged up upon, that administrator would retain powers for 11 months of the years.)
4. An administrator can be subject to a permanent recall if requested by 3 experienced users who have edited more than 500 edits and have edited for more than 6 months. If the complaining users are found to have started the recall in bad faith and without discussion and attempts of prior resolution, then they will be blocked for a period of 15 days.
EatingGlassIsBad ( talk) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria is wildly out of date. There are a number of users on there who are not admins anymore, some who aren't going by the same name anymore, etc. It kinda makes the whole thing look like a largely forgotten, unused process, which isn't far off the mark. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've been mulling over the concept of recall/reconfirmation for a while now, and wanted to set down an idea for discussion. The general subtext of those wishing such a process (especially a compulsory one) seems to be that there should be some requirement to maintain "community confidence" - that, were an administrator to act in such a way that confidence in their judgment is lost, they should have the tools removed even without evidence of the sort of misconduct that ArbCom would look for before forcibly removing them. I wanted to float a pretty general question: is there any sort of consensus as to whether we should require an administrator to maintain "community confidence"? Perhaps we could phrase this as: if it could be shown that less than half of the community still supported an administrator, should they lose the tools? Instead of requiring recall to show RfA levels of support - felt by many to be onerous and difficult to maintain once doing potentially unpopular but beneficial admin tasks - a simple majority is needed.
I don't propose at this stage to get into the question of what triggers an assessment of whether this majority support still exists, just to ask that conceptual question: do we think that an administrator is (or should be) required to maintain community confidence if they are to continue having admin rights? WJBscribe (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been asked to be recalled, I'm using the sample process, I have little doubt I'll get six signers and go to RfA. How often has this happened? What were the outcomes? Is this info gathered in one place? Just curious. Herostratus ( talk) 08:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This notice added seems to make this entire page not applicable, and actually, a disruption of site processes if it is to be attempted. The notice should be removed, as the page in its prior version stated an outline which was to be undertaken by the admin who wished to self-request to undergo the RFA process. Thoughts? -- Cirt ( talk) 03:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Given the lack of consensus, shouldn't this be labelled with {{ essay}}? I would use {{ notpolicy}} but it no longer exists. Other option is making a RfC and labelling it as "failed" or "historical" if it fails (again) to get consensus. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Revert warring about standardized tags in a situation which is unclear is unproductive. I've tried to instead summarize in a paragraph at the top of a page; happy to be reverted or to have the text edited, but let's argue about the way forward, not what template to slap on the page. Martinp ( talk) 14:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Martinp, I think your notice is better than Nihonjoe's was. It might be a bit redundant but... ++ Lar: t/ c 15:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Following recent comments, I've created an alternative to the sample process. Comments welcome. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This page is confusing as hell.
This seems nothing like an exercise in hypocrisy - pretending that one is willing to give up the tools while at the same time setting up the procedures which ensure that it never happens. It's a dead letter. VolunteerMarek 02:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Add: Based on this [4] I only see people being added to this category. I don't see a single person being removed, which is what would happen if someone actually was succesfully recalled. Hence, this means that a successful recall probably has never occurred (though maybe there might be someone who got missed). This further suggests that this page is only slightly more than a tasteless joke. I'm nominating it for MFD. VolunteerMarek 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looking through all the pages associated with this page, I do not believe that this process is of much worth as it was before. Rarely has this method to decide if an administrator should have their "bit" removed been used. AORs have only happened twenty six times since its inception. The most recent was made was in 2012, which resulted in it being failed. With a process that currently has roughly 180 editors taken part in this, according to this category, one would think it would be used a bit more often. Though with the details that the process is "voluntary and non-binding" and "administrators can change their recall criteria, decline participation in the process, or disregard the outcome of recall proceedings", there's a sense that there's a lack of it being impactful. Sure people have resigned in some of these recalls. But if the process hasn't been used for the past two years, how long do we wait for the next one to happen?
So this raises the question: Should Administrators open to recall be closed and marked historical?
There's a section entitled "confusing as hell" here.
The recall system is nearly a sham. The administrator makes up their own rules. Often, it's difficult to be hard to do.
Administrators should be responsive to concerns and accountable. To achieve that, I propose a standard set of conditions which administrators may agree to. Still, since they have to agree to it, it's not really fair to the community.
DRAFT 1
1. An administrator will be subject to a learning period of 30 days. During this 30 days, an administrator cannot be recalled except for the most severe misconduct.
2. An administrator can be recalled by one user if there is a violation of policy and there is not a correction to it within 7 days of a request for correction.
3. An administrator can be subject to a limited recall if requested by two users for serious violations of policies or repeated poor judgment or improper blocking. A limited recall would be suspension of administrative powers for 30 days. An administrator could be suspended for a maximum of 30 days per calender year. (In other words, even if ganged up upon, that administrator would retain powers for 11 months of the years.)
4. An administrator can be subject to a permanent recall if requested by 3 experienced users who have edited more than 500 edits and have edited for more than 6 months. If the complaining users are found to have started the recall in bad faith and without discussion and attempts of prior resolution, then they will be blocked for a period of 15 days.
EatingGlassIsBad ( talk) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria is wildly out of date. There are a number of users on there who are not admins anymore, some who aren't going by the same name anymore, etc. It kinda makes the whole thing look like a largely forgotten, unused process, which isn't far off the mark. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)