User:Elonka/Recall

General definition of recall

Administrator recall is a completely voluntary mechanism by which an administrator (sysop) may agree to resign their access to administrator tools, if the community expresses valid concerns. Typically, these concerns would be generated because:

The admin has engaged in misconduct that is so serious, or so repeated, that a de-sysop is reasonable.
The conduct is such that no (or very few) reasonable admins could endorse it as appropriate.
The community's objections are broadly endorsed, not just by editors who have been engaged in a dispute with that admin, but also by neutral admins and users.
The concerns are shared by more senior members of the community, such as users who are under higher levels of scrutiny than admins: Bureaucrats, stewards, arbitrators, etc.

Not all administrators are open to recall. Of those that choose to be, each sets their own criteria. This might be as simple as "One user that I trust asks me to resign", or as complex as a multi-page legalistic document. The criteria might be based on anything from use of administrator tools, to unacceptable general conduct, or might be as simple as a system that says, "no specific reason, just five people asking me to resign."

Summary of my recall standards

My own standards for voluntary administrator recall are:

In order for a recall to be initiated, there must be proof that one of my administrative actions has recently been overturned by community consensus.
The recall must be certified by at least six neutral Wikipedians in good standing, including at least two senior Wikipedians.
If after one week of discussion, there is a community consensus that I should resign, I will either resign my access or stand for a reconfirmation RfA.

The details

Recall initiation

To begin the process, a formal request for recall must be made at my talkpage.

Since I am active in arbitration enforcement and areas where tag teams participate, I continually run the risk of frivolous recall requests. These are requests which are made not because I misused administrator access, but because one or more editors may be seeking retaliation, or to intimidate an administrator for political reasons. I have therefore considered whether or not to simply withdraw from the recall category entirely. However, I still like the idea of recall, so I am staying in it. To protect from frivolous requests though, I am setting standards that a recall cannot be initiated unless:

There is proof of questionable use of administrator access. This must relate to a community-overturned decision within the last 10 days.
At the initiation of the recall, a diff must be provided which shows either:
- A recent overturn of an administrative action that I have taken; or
- A recent consensus of community disapproval, at WP:AN or WP:ANI, of one of my administrative actions. For example, if I had misused tools by blocking my opponent in an edit war, and that block had already been reversed by another admin, it could no longer be "overturned", but a thread at one of the administrator noticeboards could show whether there was a clear consensus condemning what I had done.

Recall certification

Once initiated, the recall must be certified within 48 hours, or I may close it immediately. Certification must include:

Good faith endorsements from at least six neutral Wikipedians in good standing, including
At least two endorsements from senior Wikipedians

Recall process

If certified, other editors may then weigh in to offer their own comments, and indicate whether they endorse the recall, or oppose it.

If at the end of one week, there is a consensus that the community has lost confidence in my adminship, I will choose either to resign, or to stand for a reconfirmation RfA.

If there are six endorsements by senior Wikipedians that I should resign, I will resign immediately, regardless of the other comments.

I reserve the right to strike out any specific endorsements which are made by users who are not neutral and in good standing.

Definitions

Good standing

At least 1,000 edits in mainspace, meaning to actual articles
At least 10 article edits per month during the preceding 3 months
No (unoverturned) blocks within the last year
No ArbCom restrictions within the last year
No de-sysopped admins
No record of abusive sockpuppetry
No admin-issued warnings for harassment

Neutral

Not from an editor who has been warned by me within the last year
Not from an editor who has been active in articles closely related to where I have been issuing ArbCom discretionary sanctions
Not from an editor who has been engaged in an editing dispute with me within the last year

Senior Wikipedian

An active member of any of the following lists:

WP:ARBCOM
WP:MEDCOM
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats
Wikipedia:CheckUser
A steward who is active on the English-language Wikipedia

Administrative actions

Blocks and unblocks of users
Protecting and unprotecting pages
Deleting and undeleting pages
Banning a user from a page or set of pages
Imposing ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions

Note: When an administrator is working actively, it is to be expected that the occasional action may be overturned, especially in cases where reasonable admins may disagree on the best way to deal with a particular situation. For the purpose of a recall though, the issue is not simply whether admins disagree, but whether an action was taken which few if any reasonable admins would say was appropriate or in good faith.