Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Archive 2

message: ===Intent===
My intent in proposing this policy is simple--to introduce an extremely simple (I tried to make the process as "stupidly basic" as possible) and hard to abuse system of peer review and oversight of people with administrative access. As it presently is, barring extraordinary and public abuse of their priviledges as an admin, it is extremely unlikely for anyone to be de-sysoped--for all intents and purposes, the simple act of passing an RfA is a lifetime appointment with little practical oversight and/or possible repercussions for misbehavior under current systems.
Notice how the certification process works: it's basically just RfC certification, but with an extra requirement on who can certify. The RfA recall vote is literally a forced RfA, where a support vote is an endorsement of desysoping. I have no ill will towards any admin, and this process and tool is for administrators as well as editors. Think about it: you need 1 filer, and 25 certifiers to justify that the community needs to reassess an administrator's standing, and the filer also has to state his reasons, justification, and evidence (to which the admin can reply). Then it goes to general community review a second time, and early closingare specifically forbidden and disallowed from this proposed process--to at all times give the admin being recalled the benefit of the doubt.
===Reapplication as an admin===
Any previous admin who was removed by the community is free to reapply as an administrator again at their own discretion, per normal application for adminship guidelines and the will of the community.
===Sample Timeline, explanation===
Just to clarify/expand on how it would work.
* Day 1: A user determines he should file an Admin Recall. He posts the above notice of his complaint with full basis/evidence sections on the admin's personal Talk page, to give the admin 24 hours' notice.
* Day 2: The user files the Admin Recall for certification.
* Days 2-9: Certification window
* Day 9: certification closes. If not met, Recall request closes. If met, within 24 hours the recall vote must be initiated.
* Days 9-30: Recall vote.
 rejected as formulated. -- nae'blis 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal notes

message: Just to clarify/expand on how it would work.
* Day 1: A user determines he should file an Admin Recall. He posts the above notice of his complaint with full basis/evidence sections on the admin's personal Talk page, to give the admin 24 hours' notice.
* Day 2: The user files the Admin Recall for certification.
* Days 2-9: Certification window
* Day 9: certification closes. If not met, Recall request closes. If met, within 24 hours the recall vote must be initiated.
* Days 9-30: Recall vote.
 rejected as formulated. -- nae'blis 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sample Timeline, explanation

message: In general, details of sufferage etc. still to be worked out. Please indicate if you are an admin or not.
===Users who support adoption of this policy/procedure===
#rootology (T) 14:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: #rootology (T) 14:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Users who support adoption of this policy/procedure

message: #Fan-1967 14:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Users opposed to adoption of this policy/procedure

message: #TheronJ 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Users neutral to adoption of this policy/procedure

message: * Tony Sidaway 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Voting is evil|Voting is evil]]

message: A solution in search of a problem.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please describe to me what oversight the community has with admins at this time that would not be served positively by having a transparent and fair process for removal of an admin whom the community collectively judges as unfit to serve? rootology (T) 02:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RFAr.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is fine, but subject to acceptance by a small group of individuals. This would grant control of the process to the community collectivly. rootology (T) 01:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A small group of people who have been put in their positions because of the support of the community.  Unlike this, which is a small group of self-appointed vigilantes.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So as an admin you consider the will of the collective community vigilantism, rather than oversight? rootology (T) 03:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:CREEP]]

message: Wikipedia has attracted a number of long term vandals that have periodically caused problems and returning to their vandalism after occasional sabbaticals.  Many of these vandals are known to create large numbers of sockpuppets and sleeper accounts to aid in their endeavors.  There are also semi-organized groups of editors who are more interested in advancing certain POVs than abiding by Wikipedia's policies.
This proposal's basis of performing a recall based strictly on numbers and without any other considerations of Wikipedia policy and practices means that any one of these vandals can remove an admin with the audacity to block blatant vandals by simply creating a stable of puppets, making a series of minor edits with each of them, and then waiting till the puppets have aged before beginning a campaign to have any vandal fighting admin de-sysopped.  POV pushers will have similar abilities against admins enforcing Wikipedia policies on content or user behavior.  Unless some form of reasonableness check is added to the procedures to filter out complaints about admins doing unpopular but needed actions all this proposal will do is reduce the number of admins willing to fight vandals, POV pushers, trolls, and other parties trying to advance a personal agenda over the good of Wikipedia as a whole. --Allen3 talk 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned below, the numbers required for someone to pull this off would be just insane. However, the numbers for the threshold for certification could always be raised a bit. What do you think? The RfA portion keep in mind is no more gameable than an actual RfA is. rootology (T) 06:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Who currently actually processes RfAs after completion? rootology (T) 06:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Any number you come up with can be overcome by a group or individual with determination, or else will be so large that there will be an insufficiently large pool of qualified individuals to make this a viable policy.  It is not the bored school kiddies that present a problem but the organized POV pushers and long-term trolls.  Accumulating a couple hundred edits takes a little effort, but not as much as you imply.  I have had days were I accumulated close to 500 edits doing simple maintenance and there are tools such as Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser make it very easy for anyone wishing to make a large number of main space edits to perform close to an edit per minute.  Your proposed suffrage requirements would remove the drive-by trouble makers but simply creates a minimum bar for a hardcore vandal, political campaign, business interest, or fringe group to pass before they gain an effective veto over Wikipedia's ability to police itself.  --Allen3 talk 11:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that there needs to a method by which the community and admins can police fellow admins without having to go through ArbCom in a completely ill-defined process as it exists now. Like I mentioned below to Amono, frivilous filings will be apparent, as their evidence will have no basis, and the RfA in all likelihood would reflect that. This bit--"organized POV pushers and long-term trolls"--is actually a troubling comment. No editor (admin or regular) is infallible. If an admin did something (action, course/trend of action, etc.) that made someone feel that they were due for recall, and took the time to file and certify, and the community at large agreed with them in the RfA recall vote that the admin should be recalled, wouldn't that be indicative of a good recall filing in the end? The filing itself is no different than an RfC: "I think this is a problem, here's why. Who agrees?" The issue to me is that--on the flipside--is 26 people went to ArbCom to file a complaint all at once about an admin due to perceived admin abuse, or if 26 people actually filed an RfC together against an admin due to perceived admin abuse, it would be a massive deal as so many people would be involved. That's why the threshold and values are there--26 users is a lot of people, but it's still just certification--the community at large in RfA actually makes the decision to de-admin someone, not that group. rootology (T) 16:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As described below by Sam Blanning, the problem with this proposal is not trying to determine the correct number of certifiers but instead showing that some number exists that is a correct number.  Tweaking numbers will not fix an intrinsically flawed system. --Allen3 talk 03:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Long term vandals can game the system too easily

message: "their removal should it reach completion must be approved by the Board of Directors.."
:The Board has, and should have, no role in decisions about adminship. This should be determined by the community or through community-determined procedures, such as arbitration. Wikimedia's Board is irrelevant to this sort of policy. Angela. 04:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That exclusion portion is specifically for arbitrators and beaurocrats only, as to get into those particular positions you have to be (I presume) extremely experienced, and at least generally accepted by the community. The reason a successful recall vote for one of them would get kicked up to the next level would be for review, and to not causes utter chaos--also, as ArbCom decisions can seriously piss losing ArbCom users off I'd imagine, it's to provide a modicum of insulation to the legitimate higher end people that run Wikipedia. They're still subject to the process, but given their position I think it should be a litter more involved. What do you think could should be done for this if anything? rootology (T) 06:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I just realized who you are--I was a bit slow tonight, just home from a show. Thanks for taking the time you did! rootology (T) 06:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoa! Angela Beasley.  I am honored.  You co-founded wikia, so do you know... I thought on outside of wikipedia, like in wiki farms and such (e.g. wikia, editthis.info, elwiki, etc.) that those with bureaucrat access could remove sysop access from others. Is it just a wikipedia thing that bureaucrats can't remove sysop access?  Anomo 06:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is the perception of there being a "hierarchy" (user, administrator, bureaucrat, arbitrator, steward, board).  This isn't how it works.  Attempts to deal with managing Wikipedia from a hierarchical standpoint are misguided and will inevitably fail. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This policy isn't intended to govern/oversee positions whose oversight is better left to people that are more fit to judge those positions--I wouldn't even consider wanting this policy to be applicable to people on the Steward/Board level; it's purpose to offer community recall/oversight over admins in general. If the board, or Office in however their bylaws were setup decied to oust someone from the board, I would think it would be best to do so on that level. This is strictly a counter-balance/other side to the RfA policy and process--no more, no less. rootology (T) 20:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  THat's one component of admin abuse is the thought that admins have more of a say in content disputes than "normal" editors.  Karwynn (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing to do with the Board 

message: Basically I think this should be redone where it purely lists evidence of abuse by an administrator and that is it.  No voting.  No popularity contests. No admins de-sysoped because of enemies whether vandals, regular editors, political groups, etc. Just like a big complaint pile. The admin only gets de-sysopped if there is sufficient real evidence, not 25 people who hate them.  I personally think it would be better to pile up evidence because on Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship I see admins being de-admined for single instances, which to me that's out of balance and de-adminning should be taken over the course of long term actions.  Also it would be important to require that evidence here remain viewable in histories and not deleted.
I also think this would save much time on arbitration and such.  If it's a mere voting thing, any admin that does something controversial will get 25 real editors voting to de-sysop them because they're unpopular (such as if they have to remove a Brian Peppers-like article for privacy reasons).  But if it's an evidence thing, then if people think an admin did wrong, instead of making a case, they ad it to a list of evidence under an admin's name.  If the admin is being abusive, then evidence will pile up.  Furthermore, if it's just evidence, then admins also have to be nice to newcomers as well as long-time editors. Anomo 12:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this were the case, however, it would be easy to de-admin problem admins and admins who have lost the trust of the community.  It isn't, and this is a response to that, and one of the better ones that have come along so far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're missing part of the structure of the Recall policy. 25/26 people cannot get someone desysopped. Period. 26 people are needed to validate, justify, and certify the merit of the complaint, at which point the motion is basically opened to a community census of the admin's performance--another round of WP:RFA for that admin. If the admin is good and has done nothing wrong, he's got nothing to worry about at all, and will breeze through as the basis of the dispute and the evidence will be right there for all to see. Having a "crap drawer" for admins is a bad idea in the way you describe, as it would be just that... a gargantuan record of complaints that eventually will be literally people flinging garbage whenever there is a disagreement. The filing process here and the time limitations will bar that right out, and as mentioned before any frivilous, without merit filings would be Very Stupid if you wanted to desysop an admin--the community is smart, and you'd just be giving the guy you dislike a 9 month vacation from your nonsense (plus tipping off the community to your bias). rootology (T) 16:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, how many fine admins are there that are not popular?  THe only popularity problem I see is that it will schew votes in favor of admins possibly.  Karwynn (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. rootology (T) 17:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay I just want to reassert that votes is a bad idea 

message: This is the current format
                Filing user: (name/signature)
                Administrator being recalled: (name/link to their User space)
                Basis of Recall: (description of why the recall is being filed)
                Evidence: (evidence--diffs, citations, etc.)
                Administrator response: (response by the admin)
                Those supporting creation of the recall: (signatures of 25 users--see criteria below)
Am I the only that thinks this is a bad format? First what is the point of having an administrator response? Wouldn't The admin give his response or appeal during the proceedings of each step. We also need to implement an appeal process during the first stage. 
Again Having an Administrator response in the filing, will delay the filing process. This should be the new format for filing.
                Filing user: (name/signature)
                Administrator being recalled: (name/link to their User space)
                Basis of Recall: (description of why the recall is being filed)
                Evidence: (evidence--diffs, citations, etc.)
                Those supporting creation of the recall: (signatures of 25 users--see criteria below)
That should be the new process.
::The response does not hold up the filing in any way. The procedure would be--lets say I'm filing vs. AdminX:
:::* 12am Jan 1st: I leave AdminX the above notice on their talk page.
:::* Anytime after 12am Jan 2nd: I can officially file to begin recall--I don't need to wait. The 24 hours is a courtesy to the admin to let them know I will be doing it; diligence is upon them to keep an eye out for it then.
:::* 7am Jan 2nd: Let's say I file here--the certification process begins, and shall run to 7am Jan 9th.
:::* The admin can enter their response anytime they want after I have filed--no different than an RfC. If you file RfC for something, you don't need to wait for them or even give them a heads up, beyond a courtesy message that the RfC has been filed. The 24 hour talk page notification for the admin is because Recall is a Very Big Deal, and to give them the oppurtunity to clear their heads and begin to prepare a response. The ability for an admin to have a response field is very important; Recall isn't intended to be a soapbox for me to go and say "Haha! AdminX sux!!" rootology (T) 16:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would be an abuse of the sysem based on the policy and a bannable offense for the admin--based on the policy as I wrote it. What do you think? Whats a better way? rootology (T) 22:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Format for Filing 

message: COuld you clarify for me and in the policy too:  Is 500 edits to "any" namespace edits 500 total across all spaces (like 300 main, 200 talk) or 500 to any one space?  Oh, and please email me if this proposition gets voted on so I can support it.  (I'm on break, but heard about this... elsewhere) Karwynn (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is 500 edits "total". So, if you have 300 main space edits, 100 Talk edits, and 100 Wikipedia space edits, you qualify, or if you have 400 Main, 50 talk, 25 Wikipedia, 25 Image. Any combination plus 5 months' experience. rootology (T) 16:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of edits 

message: Whats stops an admin from having a filing against them fail on purprose to protect them for the next 9 months? For instance admin A has person b and C file against them leading to a failure by lack of supprot protecting them for 9months after. Am I reading something wrong? What happens if they get into problems 2 months after defeating a recall? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's say Admin1 did this--gets another admin or editor to file a bogus complaint vs. him for "protection". First, a good admin won't need to do this. By your assumption of this, it would be done by a hypothetical "bad" admin, or one which was extremely concerned about their standing in the community. If Admin1 did this, and he was really perceived as that bad of an admin or unpopular enough to be concerned about something like this because of their tone, actions, whatever you'd like to list, a "protection" filing would be a tremendously bad idea as it would open them to the community review process--there is no guarantee the certification or RfA would "fail" to their benefit. rootology (T) 17:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about all certifiers at the end of 7 days are counted as support votes.  Or the first 25.  That makes it a little risky.  Additionally, if it's apparent it can be taken to RfC or RfAR for WP:DISRUPT.  Karwynn (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really rather the certification process be kept isolated in this way from the vote process. When I wrote this I saw certification as community agreement that yes, this guy is doing something wrong, and it needs to be looked into further--just that. The actual RfA recall vote is the community decision based on the admins actions, evidence, history, actions during the Recall process, etc., of whether they are meritous to continue serving as an admin. rootology (T) 17:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one of these fails to be certiied, does it reset the 9-month cycle?  Karwynn (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The filing does not, a "dead" filing/vote stays archived just as old RfCs/ArbCom/RfAs do. However, a 'new' good faith filing can be brought after nine months' time if a situation warrants it. The nine months is to stop idiots from flooding the system with a zillion bogus Recalls. rootology (T) 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Abuse

message: FIrst of all, major applause to this proposal now that I've read it in full.  Very, airtight, good benefit of the doubt, and increases accountability.
This confusion of voting "support" or "oppose" - perhaps it would be in order to add that at NO time may ANY user change the vote of another user, even in cases of apparent confusion.  For example, if I said - 
:Support, So-and-so is a fine admin
CLearly I don't want yo desysop this person, but my vote would count as a vote for de-sysopping, and someone might change it because I was confused on the support/oppose thing.  So we should say that you shouldn't change the vote for them, you should message them on their talk page and tell them to do it.
The reason I bring this up is not for the above case, but for possible confusing votes.  Like,
:Support - poor administrator and incivil WP:BITE violator - not sure desysopping is really in order though
That could be hard to judge.  I may very well be "unsure" about desysopping, but vote to desysop anyway.  SOmeone could say "Oh they were confused" and change it though.  The policy should take a step to prevent that.  Karwynn (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about if votes were--instead of support/oppose, labeled as Recall or Remove and Keep. Recall being desysop, Keep being keep as an admin. It can't be more clear than that. rootology (T) 17:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THat's actually a better idea than mine.  Just like MfD votes sort of.  Ooh, speeking of which you may want to add that they can't be subjected for consideration for speedy deletion, unless you already did.  Karwynn (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My wording as basically "...or anything related." Basically, none of these can be deleted per the policy's wording unless Jimbo, Danny, or Brad say so. rootology (T) 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote confusion 

message: A thought more than a suggestion:  what about saying no admin who is voting to support de-sysopping can place a block on said admin ( the 2-day, 5-day after block)?  The only problem is, you'd have to say that if THAT happens, no admin who OPPOSES the desysopping can UNDO that block, but then no admin who SUPPORTS it could undo THAT, etc.
Basically, this policy has some room for wheel-warring, maybe no involved admin should be able to take any administrative action on the "recall subject", and cannot take any action to undo any block placed ON him or BY him on another user.  I don't know... confusing.  Karwynn (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since blocks are undoable by anyone, and I'd (hope) everyone had faith in admins in general to do things right, I wasn't even worried about this aspect--I block is just a block, there's no reason another person can't undo one if it's in good faith and per the rules. The time based block for abuse of recall process--I'll add a note to this effect--should not be reduced by anyone. The rules as they are written are pretty explicit: the admin under nomination is not to game the system or use his administrative tools in regards to the filer or certifiers. It takes just a moment for someone else to be brought it, or a ten second post on WP:AN or WP:ANI; doing so is *not* a great burden on the admin under nomination or the admin community. I'll add a modification now. rootology (T) 17:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wheel warring in this sense is now covered. Say Karwynn the admin is nominated. You mess twice with the process, using two admin actions. 48+120 = a 168 hour block for flagrant abuse. I see this, and unblock you or shorten the block. Another admin undoes my action and reblocks you for the remaining duration and warns me. I do it again. I'm now blocked for 48 hours. I come back, do it again. Now I'm blocked for 120 hours. Basically, the same remedy applies now in the wording to prevent this. Basically, the system <I>should not be gamed by use of admin tools.</i> rootology (T) 17:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPecify for wheel warring 

message: This is becoming an extremely complex proposal.  We already have a way of dealing with abusive administrators--arbitration.  The Arbitration Committee can settle such cases expeditiously (in as little as six days where speed is desirable).  More urgent cases can be dealt with summarily by steward powers (for instance, Jimbo's occasional summary desysoppings).  --Tony Sidaway 18:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, it's actually a very simple proposal; I simply broke down the level of detail for maximum clarity and discussion. Do you feel that the community should not have the ability to undo it's own previous decisions? rootology (T) 18:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ArbCom route means the issue is settled by only a small group of editors who -- let's face it -- pretty much know each other and constitute a sort of "insider" group, mostly. Human nature being what it is, what guarantee do we have that personal feeling might not intrude. Herostratus 14:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason that it's becoming so complicated is that there are an incredible number of "what if" objections.  I piss people off all the time, will step down if six people ask me, and have yet to have even _one_ person suggest I do so.  The "trolls" must be able to smell fear, because I'm not even slightly worried about them and that is keeping them away. - brenneman {L} 14:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any "what ifs" that you feel are not already answered in the policy?  Additionally, this isn't just some casual "let's get this guy desysopped" thing, it's not something a lot of admins will have to worry about.  If no one  has ever adked you to step down, it probably means you're a good administrator, thus it would be unlikely this policy would ever affect you.  However, not all admins are as well trusted by the community.  All the "what ifs" are designed to root out trolling and gaming, and even though this isn't my proposal, I think I'm right when I say that bringing up any specific "what ifs" that you think the policy doesn't satisfy would be very helpful.  Karwynn (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're not even on Brandt's list of admins so you're clearly a good admin.  I don't judge admins, though, I just see what people say.  I think this policy is more for the same ten admins everyone complains about on wikipedia review and places like that.  Anomo 14:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This policy has nothing to do with any one admin, it has to do with the hole that exists in current policy. Admins and editors, if they find the person they previously RfA'd in is not the same person they supported, and no longer feels he is right to serve them, have no means without this new policy adoption to change that. rootology (T) 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If it isn't broken, don't fix it

message: This is a space for simple, small suggestions, just outright yes or nos basically.  I only have one now, but that's only because I forgot the others.
:I think the notification 24 prior to filing should be required to link to WP:RECALL.  Maybe a wholly standardized message even, but that's just a thought, not a suggestion yet.  Maybe even a notice on their userpage?  Although that could help or hurt their chances, that last one might be going a bit far.  Karwynn (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small suggestions 

message: Is ArbCom really overloaded with de-sysop requests that we need to create a policy such as this one? My main issue with it is that there's nothing to stop an admin from being stripped of privileges simply because a majority of users don't like the admin. Other than that I think there's a lot of thought in here. Fagstein 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ArbCom is not overloaded as such, but the process for ArbCom will (from reviewing previous issues) only remove privs based on massive or extremely flagrant issues. The problem with the system as it exists now is that it's--in all honesty--extremely easy relatively to get admin privs. But, once appointed, the same community that made the decision to give those powers has no ability to reverse that same decision if the community has decided they no longer support the ability of that admin to serve. It's a one-way street at present; this makes it a true function of the community collectively deciding who is fit to serve as an administrator. It's fine that it's basically easy to get admin privs--it should be, as if the community has faith to give someone the buttons, it should give it to them easily. This process makes people jump through some pretty intensive community support hoops to take away those same buttons, twice, in a very streamlined fashion. Right now, if 50-70+ people decide you should be an admin, odds are you will be. This requires a minimum of 26 people to approve the request that you should be reviewed. If a clear concensus majority then decides that you shouldn't be an admin afterwards, based on your evidence and career, that is exceptionally fair. rootology (T) 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removes the human factor 

message: Is it my imagination, or is a huge portion of this proposal devoted to specifying penalties for the admins who are, it would seem, expected to try to dishonestly interfere with the process? Fan-1967 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those were additions today to address concerns raised by comments here on the talk page. Those need to be stripped down. rootology (T) 19:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Look now, specifically at Wikipedia:Admin_recall#Prevention_of_potential_admin_abuse_in_process rootology (T) 19:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fan, there's no harm in addressing the possibility.  If they don't interfere with the process, those provisions won't apply to them.  NO reason not to hae a safeguard.  Karwynn (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assume bad faith? 

message: Based on comments above, to just ensure that nothing untowards may happen, I added this with the intent of having a very simple, prescribed remedy for the unlikely event that anything like this might happen (retribution, etc.). What do you think of this section? What might be changed? rootology (T) 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention of potential admin abuse in process 

message: Please take a look now. rootology (T) 21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, the entirety of the "policy" is now contained here. rootology (T) 21:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signifcantly simplified 

message: Looking back over this, the current version does not have the nine month exclusion. This worries me, as it might invite trolling and/or abusive usage of this system. Granted, if someone filed repeatedly, it would be clear disruption, but it could also be a problem if multiple users starting chaining these vs. a given admin. On the other hand, if an admin were to draw that level of apparent level community ire--that it was certified each time--it might be a sign that they are not fit to admin. I don't know. I am inclined to include the nine month window again, or least a six month one. Admin abuse during the window--should it occur hypothetically--could still be addressed via AN/I, RfC, and ArbCom. Thoughts? rootology (T) 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time delay/exemption window 

message: === Appeal Review Committee ===
This committee will be in charge of reviewing appeals made by the admin, during all procedings. )Read Section appeal to understand this next part.) Say an admin gets voted off as an admin by the community. He may file an appeal as any defendant can after a criminal trial to suggest that his proceeding was either an abuse of power by the members on the Admin Recall Committee. That the members of the committee were unfair, seemed to side with on side of the issue, or violate any wikipedia policies. You may also file appeals against the filers or supporters of the persons on the admin, for these reasons.... If your rights, policies, abuse of power,  misrepersentaion of the facts, or ruining the admin's reputation (delibritly), can be on the grounds of an appeal. So back  on the example, The removal of the admin won't  intiate until the Appeal Review Committee makes a decision on the appeal. If they pass the appeal, the committee will take in consider that there was a community vote, and they will move to have a vote on wither the admin should be removed or not knowing that there was an abuse of power or any of the other grounds for an appeal. --Zonerocks 01:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zonerocks's long suggestion

message: This committee will be in charge of reviewing appeals made by the admin, during all procedings. )Read Section appeal to understand this next part.) Say an admin gets voted off as an admin by the community. He may file an appeal as any defendant can after a criminal trial to suggest that his proceeding was either an abuse of power by the members on the Admin Recall Committee. That the members of the committee were unfair, seemed to side with on side of the issue, or violate any wikipedia policies. You may also file appeals against the filers or supporters of the persons on the admin, for these reasons.... If your rights, policies, abuse of power,  misrepersentaion of the facts, or ruining the admin's reputation (delibritly), can be on the grounds of an appeal. So back  on the example, The removal of the admin won't  intiate until the Appeal Review Committee makes a decision on the appeal. If they pass the appeal, the committee will take in consider that there was a community vote, and they will move to have a vote on wither the admin should be removed or not knowing that there was an abuse of power or any of the other grounds for an appeal. --Zonerocks 01:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal Review Committee 

message: The grounds for an appeal are:  f your rights, policies, abuse of power,  misrepersentaion of the facts, or ruining the admin's reputation (delibritly), can be on the grounds of an appeal. Of course there has to be documentation and evidence and can't be off a n opinon. --Zonerocks 01:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal 

message: The First step of the procedrual process will be as the timeline of 7 day period of meeting. The review procedure will endure  The First step of the procedrual process will be as the timeline of 7 day period of meeting. The review procedure will endure interviewing the filier and the admin. Discussing evidence etc. Then on the 7th day period the committee will take a vote on the filing. If it passes by a majority, it goes to the next step. --Zonerocks 01:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedrual Process: Review Process 

message: The Administrator will be able to testify and give his aguments to claim. The Chairman of the ARC will be in charge of the procedrual schedule during that time. the evidence will be discussed by the filier and Admin. Then after three days of this, a poll will be takin during a seven day period. After that the votes will be tallied and revelead. --Zonerocks 01:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedrual Process: Voting Process 

message: It looks like this proposal is quickly being strangled with red tape.  Filings, certifications, votes, reviews, appeals, committees... this is quite ridiculous; in my opinion, it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of achieving consensus—or of actually working if it does. Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Someone losing their adminship is a big deal. That's why ArbCom handles it. They're not overloaded with de-adminship cases, and while having community control over adminship would theoretically mean a policy like this one to take that away, in practice this will be used almost exclusively by users with gripes against administrators, while people with real, serious complaints will still go to ArbCom to have it dealt with more quickly. Fagstein 16:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It would perhaps be taken more seriously if you stopped engaging in monumental assumptions of bad faith like that one. Kirill Lokshin 18:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If we don't trust Arbcom to deal with bad admins, then I think we have a serious problem with Arbcom and need to deal with that instead. Fagstein 19:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's the heart of this proposal. I'd like to see a detailed explanation of why the existing system is flawed, and why a new one is needed. Does the author of this proposal feel there's an admin who needs to be removed that Arbcom hasn't addressed properly? Fan-1967 21:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Where is all this bureacracy?  There are two steps: getting 30 or however many people to certify, and then putting it to a vote.  THere are applicaple time periods - one week for certifying, one week for voting, nine months for re-submission.  And that's it.  Karwynn (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bureaucracy 

message: Can those supporting this proposal point out any Arbcom cases where they felt that an administrator who deserved desysopping wasn't? This proposal is clearly not going to pass the way the discussion is going, so there's not much point in politely refraining from naming names at this point. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may help here if editors take a look at the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests.  Each completed case is listed, and there is a summary of the parties and remedies, and a link to the case page with full details. --Tony Sidaway 21:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: One sysop who was de-sysoped for using sock puppets combined with their own sysop account to win edit wars.  That sysop did a lot of damage before finally being caught.  I'm sure a lot was even now not found out.  Anomo 12:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No-one knew what he was doing until he was caught, and when that happened he was summarily desysopped. Admin recall wouldn't have been able to do anything. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling his name turned up people complaining about him off-wiki that went back many months before he was de-sysoped.  It was message boards. Anomo 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Naming cases would be an insult to the admin in question, so that's not a good idea.  Plus, another perceived problem is that there are times when an admin needs desysopping, but doesn't even GO to ArbCom in the first place.  Karwynn (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sam, what if you have a situation where a good sized group of admins and editors all come to the conclusion that "Admin X" is not fit to be an admin anymore, but the scale of evidence isn't something that ArbCom would act on--but they see a trend of let's say continued behavior for a hypothetical situation, based on which they would not have passed this person on the original RfA. What then? It's not the sort of thing that ArbCom would ever remove someone for, but based on their behavior they would in all likelihood have difficulty passing an RfA. What if these admins and editors feel this person based on their actions shouldn't have the tools? They just have to sit on it? Live with it, because they made the decision once to empower this person and now their behavior is completely different than previously? rootology (T) 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean small abuses over the long term instead of a single large instance? Anomo 14:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the only chance I can see to get this close to achieving consensus

message: This is far too strict, biased towards inertia and admin power, and so unlikely to be used a worthwhile amount that it isn't worth wasting time on. My suggestion:
:All administratorships run for six months. Three months after a period as an admin has expired a former admin may apply for a futher stint. 
That should put an end to administrator arrogance and the development of an invidious oligarchy. This proposal is just windowdressing. Sumahoy 21:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep it civil. Expiring duration adminiships would be a bad idea--can you imagine having to rerun a thousand RfAs every six months? Or 2000+ in a couple of years? This process is only to enable the community to remove adminship from one of their peers that the collective community no longer feels should be an admin. rootology (T) 23:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with the original poster, the 2000 edit limit severely hinders the proposal's effectiveness.  There are times when a harmful admin simply wouldn't affect that many people, but would still deserve desysopping.  I think it ought to go back to 5 months, 500 edits.  Karwynn (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Total waste of time as currently framed

message: This should instead be a process of recalling administrators by their peers.  If you can't even pass RFA yourself it doesn't make sense that you should be able to get admins kicked out.  Generally fellow admins are much better at knowing which admins are acting badly than the larger editor population does.  Admins face lots of problems and situations that the general editor population just doesn't understand, and they might take it out on an admin who didn't do a thing wrong; it was just poorly perceived by the people who were affected by the actions.  Other admins will understand this, however.  --Cyde Weys 03:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds dangerously like the argument where I tell a music snob that I don't like (insert shite prog rock band here) and he asks me if I can play as good as them, then says "you shouldn't criticise if you can't do better". Or "how can you consider yourself qualified to support this article's deletion when you know nothing about the subject". I don't think the judgement of a given admin is necessarily more reliable than a given user with the same edit count and length of experience. There are plenty of sensible users who understand Wikipedia policy that, for various reasons, don't become admins, including lack of time, being unable (or unwilling) to maintain the necessary standard of civility or simply not wanting to be an admin, and taking or appearing to take an elitist attitude towards adminship should be avoided. It should be repeated at this point that I think any admin recall process is unworkable and unnecessary. By the time we actually did want to recall a fellow admin, one of us would file a request for arbitration. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What an inviation to back-scratching and logrolling, Cyde. Non-admins are not necessarily dolts. Herostratus 16:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Cyde, there is already such a provision within the proposal - three of the certifiers must be active administrators. Therefore no admin who has the support of his (or her) peers will be subject to a recall. Cynical 23:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to echo Mr. Blanning's statements: I'm not really taken with this particular proposal, but it bears repeating, again, that adminship should be "no big deal." It's primarily a janitorial assignment, and while I have a great deal of personal respect for the people who take it upon themselves to carry out those tasks, I firmly oppose any attempt to reinterpret it beyond those boundaries. Additionally, I worry that this kind of rhetoric is profoundly counterproductive, leading to the perception that administrators are elitist and "out of touch" with non-administrative editors. Whether or not you personally believe this to be the case, that perception does exist. The fact that we're having this discussion now is testament to that. I see no reason to fan those particular flames. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recall by peers 

message: How can you go from 5 months 500 edits, to 10 months 2000 edits. It makes no sense. It is a big jump. Also i have a probelm with 31 signatures. I wouldn't think one case could be filed with a needed 31 signatures. In fact I would object to 26. I say 15. --Zonerocks 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: suggested a better idea of 300 unique days with edits.  That's real hard to fake. Anomo 07:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too hard to track, Anomo. --Zonerocks 07:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it would be easy if you use an automated system to do it.  Already that's what people do to count edits.  Anomo 12:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy to hard to file 

message: What if you have a situation where a good sized group of admins and editors all come to the conclusion that "Admin X" is not fit to be an admin anymore, but the scale of evidence isn't something that ArbCom would act on--but they see a trend of let's say continued behavior for a hypothetical situation, based on which they would not have passed this person on the original RfA. What then? It's not the sort of thing that ArbCom would ever remove someone for, but based on their behavior they would in all likelihood have difficulty passing an RfA. What if these admins and editors feel this person based on their actions shouldn't have the tools? They just have to sit on it? Live with it, because they made the decision once to empower this person and now their behavior is completely different than previously? That is what it boils down to. ArbCom will nuke me as a rougue admin if I directly abuse the tools, but that is not the only reason for removing someone. As for the police comment above--does the community decide who is a police officer in their community? Actually, yes, they do. They fund them, they finance them, and there are grievance processes. In any community which was not corrupt in it's support of it's officers, if 31 people were to sign an affadavit expressing extreme concern about the actions of a given officer, WITH recorded evidence of the officer's actions, you can bet your butt that same officer would be hauled in front of a review committee of some sort. That's the problem. The community gets to install admins but then that's it. The man or woman they install a year later, two years later, might not be anything of what they DID approve, and the community and their admin peers need a way to rectify that.
:Nothing in this policy requires evidence of abuse, nor is any provision made for dismissing frivolous petitions. And I would certainly hope that police officers where I live would be subject to a vote if people sign a petition against them. Fagstein 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the filing clearly has an EVIDENCE section in it. And based on the merits of that, the certification either happens or it doesn't. If it doesn't, Recall closed, see you later. The community and the admin's peers (3+) decides if it's frivilous or not.rootology (T) 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't the whole point of this policy to remove admins who are unpopular? Fagstein 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the point is to give admins and their peers a form of oversight over each other without having to wait for ArbCom to decide whether or not to take action. ArbCom covers in theory 'anything', this is specifically "part 2" of the RfA. Basically, the point is that if someone presents evidence that someone is not a good admin/fit to admin, the community decides (certification) if that evidence and cause is worthwhile. If the community and the admin's peers agree, then it moves to a long RfA to allow the community to weigh all the evidence and evaluate it. rootology (T) 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posted to Sam up-page, but for everyone 

message: I hear people saying "oh what if willy on wheels does this" and I think the danger is actually of false ones is more of if people don't like each other.  SeeWikipedia_talk:Admin_recall#not_vandals_that_can_game_the_system.2C_but_cliques.  I don't think 25 admins or long term editors should be able to use this to gang up on someone.  So I'm just proposing that a good idea is a requirement on evidence.  A lot of the criticism on message boards found with a simple googling isn't a big incident, but small stuff.  Just as an example, it would be always assuming bad faith.  If an admin always assumes bad faith about people, well it's bad.  So why not put into the requirements that a page of evidence needs to be up.  It would be a certain required number of evidence of breaking policy, even WP:BITE before this can start.  The important thing is, even newbies should be able to provide on one of these, even if they don't meet the criteria to vote.  The evidence needs to be able to hang around--staying up forever--until enough gets gathered and someone should review it as enough solid proof before the 25 can vote.  Let's say maybe there's 100 evidence of things like assuming bad faith, personal attacks, WP:BITE, etc. before anyone can do that vote.  What do you think?  Anomo 15:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean a numerical value? I.e., admin has to have x number of policy violations as a condition of filing? There's already an evidence section by the way that has to be completed for filing (really, this is just a VERY streamlined combination of RfC, RFA, and an ArbCom type filing). rootology (T) 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like an opening of the floodgates of wikilawyering.  The current proposal leaves little or nothing to interpretation.  With this addition, there will be little discussion on the merits of the admin and much bickering about what counts as evidence and what doesn't, what is a legitimate policy violation, and it will all spiral, as all things critical of admins seem to do, into a contest to see who can find the meanest way of calling the other side a pack of trolls.  I think this is a bad idea.  If there is no credible evidence of abuse, it will be very difficult to find people to certify, and even harder to find enough people to get a 60-70% consensus to desysop.  In short, meritless recalls will speak for themselves and fail, protecting the "targetted" admin for 9 months in the process.  Am I overlooking any of your concerns, Anomo?  I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything you're saying.  Karwynn (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What Karwynn said. I really tried hard to make this idea of a system 1) as simple as possible; 2) as user-friendly as possible--it's literally just a few steps from end to end, but each step is increasingly difficult to get passage through; 3) as hard to abuse as possible. The initial version was any 25 users plus certifiers, with 3 months/300 edits each. Now its 1 file, 30 users (3 of them admins), with 10 months/2000 edits each. Basically, if you're here 10 months and have 2000 edits odds are you know a thing or ten about wikipedia, and the requirements as laid out make ambush recalls impossible--admin HAS to be notified. He doesn't have to accept or confirm, or he'd just never do that. Then he gets a WEEK to address whether or not there should be a recall RfA. Then he gets THREE weeks in the current revision to display and explain why he should remain, during RfA. Fairness across the board. rootology (T) 15:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new requirement idea 

message: People keeping saying the process is too complex as written for a reason to not support it, and I'd like to address your concerns. What is too complex? Short version:
* 31 people (3 of them admins) with at least 10 months experience and 2000 edits (i.e. veterans with assumed knowledge of WP) agree by signing on that the admin should be recalled, over one week.
* Recall RfA--same as an RfA, but to desysop.
* If not Recalled, admin is immune to this process for nine months to discourage frivilous filings.
Thats basically "it". What is too complex? rootology (T) 18:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe some of the users are perplexed by the rules of this proposed policy. Anyway, I don't find anything complex in this. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My concerns are not over complexity, they're over the chill this would put on administrators who make controversial decisions. Fagstein 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some of them need a chill?  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Why should admins worry more about being popular than doing their jobs? Fagstein 19:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats the thing--admins with the support of their peers even in something like this would have really nothing to worry about it. Especially with the addition of the 3-admin support requirement, it's pretty much you need to be removed by a vast, vast majority of your peers for it to ever come about. The point basically is just to empower the community to fully oversee itself. rootology (T) 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where this "vast, vast majority" comes from. You need 31 users. After that happens, unless at least eight users come to your rescue, you lose your privileges. Fagstein 19:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complexity concerns--why? Please read. 

message: Three admin certifiers isn't nearly enough.  It should be something like fifteen.  Off the top of my head I can easily think of three whacko admins who I trust less than most regular users who would be incredibly happy to leap onto any such call for admin recall.  --Cyde Weys 19:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be able to comfortably support such a process and vouch for it with additional certification criteria similar to this? Remember, my goal really is to introduce a fair other side to the one-way street that RfA is for the community to be able to exercise. rootology (T) 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde, would 7-10 admins make you comfortable? rootology (T) 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that iff you assume bad faith on the part of the certifiers like this, then it could just as easily be 15 "whacko" admins that could sign.  There has to be a reasonable limitation.  This policy shouldn't be formulated based on the fact that admins are outright not to be trusted.  Also keep in mind that any bogus recall would get the smackdown when it came down to the vote. Karwynn (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...let's keep it on topic a bit moreso if we can. rootology (T) 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Do we discount trolls, cliques, or cabals from current RfA? The certification process is the measure designed to weed out the crap from the good filings. rootology (T) 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course they would, just like on normal RfAs.  THe "danger" is the same.  If Wikipedia policy were formed based on your idea of the threat posed by trolls, we'd never get anything done.  Karwynn (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually if we gave trolls no attention just like they deserve we'd get a lot more done.  --Cyde Weys 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so how do you distinguish between processes that would be taken advantage of by trolls (such as this proposal) and existing processes that seem to do fine (AfD, RfA, RfC, etc.)?  Karwynn (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RFC is extensively used and taken advantage of by trolls.  Stop kidding around.  --Cyde Weys 20:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde is right, RfC as it's formed is a joke for anything beyond to document legitimate issues historically. But he's right: thats abused. rootology (T) 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's kidding around, Cyde.  FInd a more civil way to express yourself.  And what about RfA and AfD then?  Karwynn (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Voting is evil.  Kelly Martin (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RfA *is* a vote. :) rootology (T) 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If voting is evil, what alternative system do you propose for ArbCom to make decisions? Tyrenius 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin certifiers 

message: Another proposed amendment: all of the bad stuff brought up about the admin in the recall reasoning would have to be from the past month.  This is to prevent people from trolling through years worth of admin contributions and cherry-picking out all of the "bad".  Also, this means that if someone sees a serious admin infringement they will need to get on it right away; if they actually bother to wait more than a month they're either trying to manipulate something or they didn't think it was that important, it which case it shouldn't be eligible for a recall.  --Cyde Weys 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about in a case where an admin (or several) wish to demonstrate that one of their peers has a history of x, y, or z? The thing that might be bad about this--what if some admin were to take an unsuccessful Recall as a license to do x, y, or z ongoing? The principle of this is Good, and I like this idea. How would you word the change? rootology (T) 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh, I had thought that in a previous draft it was supposed to be about a single issue or type of behavior, not just trolling for anything worth noting (unless it fits in a category of behavior, like issuing bad blocks). -- nae'blis 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A previous version might have had the wording like, "Evidence/basis is for xyz issue, but you can cite additional supplemental evidence". Which is not a bad thing--people do that in RfA now all the time, as in "Such and such did This, which is Bad, and has a history of blah blah..." rootology (T) 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That seems rather counterintuitive, as I would think that we would want to avoid making spur-of-the-moment decisions based on isolated incidents, and instead reserve something like this for cases where an administrator might have an extensive history of unacceptable behavior. Kirill Lokshin 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spur of the moment is bad--people can and will say stupid things on talk pages like "I'LL RECALL YOU OVER LOL blah blah," but unless they file its no more meaningful than saying "UR BLOCKZ SUCK". rootology (T) 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly, RfAR cases about admins and non-admins are about patterns of behavior.  Desysopping is a serious step, and should not be based on a month's worth of transgressions.  Because, sometimes concerns ARE brought up immediately, but are ignored until a later time.  Karwynn (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Stupid processlawyering comment, then: If an admin confines their behavior to small, low-impact "badness" that is spaced out to every 32 days, would they be immune to this process under Cyde's amendment? -- nae'blis 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that's not very likely.  Karwynn (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The less conditions the better. Let an admin's whole record be available. The real problem is not an uncharacteristic moment of bad decision-making, but a pattern of long-term abuse which many users have been at the receiving end of (something I trust which does not apply to any of our present admins). Obviously if something from a year previously is cited and nothing of the kind has been repeated, then this is likely to be discounted, just as it would be in a conventional RfA. Let's base things on the existing model, and have some faith in the community's common sense. Tyrenius 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After the Sean Black re-RFA I am seriously lacking faith in the communal common sense.  --Cyde Weys 21:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, because he was re-sysopped? Tyrenius 05:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For better or worse, anything below Foundation level is the will of the people though. If his RfA was a bad idea, and there is cause/grounds to show it, this would be a good avenue for that to Recall. rootology (T) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Sean Black would have gone all the way through the recall process (as the proposal is currently formulated), but wouldn't have been recalled in the end.  Something like 14 admins voted oppose, and more than 31 total users voted oppose who had 2000/10months.  I think that admin accountability is rather important, and I think that admins should be respectful, but I don't think that recall is the right way to encourage respect/civility by admins.  If recall is formulated to address anything beyond specific actions that obviously hurt the encyclopedia, then recall would encourage admins to think about politics on a day-to-day basis, and that wouldn't really be productive for the encyclopedia (janitors should spend their time doing janitorial work, not trying to look good). --Interiot 03:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * Cyde, does it occur to you that the "community's common sense" is what gave you the sysop rights?  How can you trust them on the one hand, but not on the other? - brenneman {L} 05:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: ...and you've just revealed a major component of the problem. That "some" admins are "better" than others, at least in the perceptions of the Cabal. I was practically waiting for someone to say such a thing, and your response of this nature to my suggestion of basically giving every admin a free pass vs. the idea of Recall against any past activity is telling--I raised the ante in a fashion of which the policy will basically only apply to anything you do against policy <I>going forward</i>, and your response in turn is that "Oh, Jimbo will crush this, my friends are too special." Thanks for not helping too terribly much, and cementing many people's perceptions that certain admins would never do anything to put their lifetime appointments in the hands of "lessers". rootology (T) 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde, look at how many people vote in RfAs.  Several have never interacted much with the candidate, but support anyway.  If a ridiculous Recall is filed, will it not be voted down?  Getting through 5 admins and 25 other certifiers and then getting a supermajority is not going to be an easy process.  People will leap to the defense of TOny, Kelly or many other respected admins.  This is not a "only trolls can vote" thing - everyone will have their input.  As far as your general attitude, I think rootology is right, you seem to be opposed not to this process, but to greater accountability for administrators.  Karwynn (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Side comment: Haveing the policy only apply to acts after implementation might not be an bad idea if this was a code of conduct, since this is merely a process for cutting back on abuse, I don't think that owuld be necessary.  Karwynn (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me get this straight: over 50% of the "voters" would need to vote "I do not support this user as an admin".  So it wouldn't the 75% thing we have with RFA currently, correct?  --Cyde Weys 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's spefically an 80%+ concensus. I.e., out of 100 "votes", on the Recall itself, a desysop will not happen unless its 80-20-x or higher. No ifs, ands, or buts. It's not meant to be easy to unseat an admin by any means under this policy, and the certification is totally seperate from the RfA by design, to insulate admins from bogus filings... which I keep going over again and again. So, basically, if all 31 certifiers vote "Recall", all that has to happen to squash the whole thing is 20+ people to vote "keep", over the course of TWENTY ONE days. rootology (T) 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't look like the numbers have been worked out yet.  (I personally would go for 2/3, or 70% to round it off.)  Karwynn (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just curious, would you agree that people are more likely to vote "Opose RfA" than "Support recall", making it a little tougher to get sysop revoked once given?  Karwynn (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't want to call it this, because that's the height of Bad Faith, but my suggestion of effectively giving what some might call "Amnesty" for previous actions as the initial basis of dispute/Recall, plus the time limitations, plus either 5 or more admins signing on to certify the Recall, is basically the height of fair play--to be honest, based on ALL of these conditions, an admin would have a better chance with a Recall RfA than they would dealing with ArbCom if they actually did something wrong. Literally, the whole point is to just give users/editors/admins the ability to undo with cause an RfA they feel should not be appropriate anymore. rootology (T) 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statute of limitations 

message: Posting here as I asked Cyde on his talk page for input but no answer as of yet...
"This idea has me intrigued. Do you think RECALL would get needed support to become policy if there was such a thing that said "basis of dispute/primary evidence" must be from AFTER the time the policy is implemented? I.e., say you (hypothetically) did something vile and probably worthy of Recall x days, weeks, months, or years ago. What if the policy specifically said under Limitations "Diffs as evidence for basis of dispute must be dated after 10/01/06, the date this policy became effective. Older supplemental material/background material may be older.""
Thoughts? rootology (T) 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and you've just revealed a major component of the problem. That "some" admins are "better" than others, at least in the perceptions of the Cabal. I was practically waiting for someone to say such a thing, and your response of this nature to my suggestion of basically giving every admin a free pass vs. the idea of Recall against any past activity is telling--I raised the ante in a fashion of which the policy will basically only apply to anything you do against policy <I>going forward</i>, and your response in turn is that "Oh, Jimbo will crush this, my friends are too special." Thanks for not helping too terribly much, and cementing many people's perceptions that certain admins would never do anything to put their lifetime appointments in the hands of "lessers". rootology (T) 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyde, look at how many people vote in RfAs.  Several have never interacted much with the candidate, but support anyway.  If a ridiculous Recall is filed, will it not be voted down?  Getting through 5 admins and 25 other certifiers and then getting a supermajority is not going to be an easy process.  People will leap to the defense of TOny, Kelly or many other respected admins.  This is not a "only trolls can vote" thing - everyone will have their input.  As far as your general attitude, I think rootology is right, you seem to be opposed not to this process, but to greater accountability for administrators.  Karwynn (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Side comment: Haveing the policy only apply to acts after implementation might not be an bad idea if this was a code of conduct, since this is merely a process for cutting back on abuse, I don't think that owuld be necessary.  Karwynn (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me get this straight: over 50% of the "voters" would need to vote "I do not support this user as an admin".  So it wouldn't the 75% thing we have with RFA currently, correct?  --Cyde Weys 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's spefically an 80%+ concensus. I.e., out of 100 "votes", on the Recall itself, a desysop will not happen unless its 80-20-x or higher. No ifs, ands, or buts. It's not meant to be easy to unseat an admin by any means under this policy, and the certification is totally seperate from the RfA by design, to insulate admins from bogus filings... which I keep going over again and again. So, basically, if all 31 certifiers vote "Recall", all that has to happen to squash the whole thing is 20+ people to vote "keep", over the course of TWENTY ONE days. rootology (T) 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't look like the numbers have been worked out yet.  (I personally would go for 2/3, or 70% to round it off.)  Karwynn (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just curious, would you agree that people are more likely to vote "Opose RfA" than "Support recall", making it a little tougher to get sysop revoked once given?  Karwynn (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statute of Limitation, my revision

message: There's a delay of 6 months for filing these and 9 months in between.  I think a year statute is fair, although still short I think. Anomo 22:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to call it this, because that's the height of Bad Faith, but my suggestion of effectively giving what some might call "Amnesty" for previous actions as the initial basis of dispute/Recall, plus the time limitations, plus either 5 or more admins signing on to certify the Recall, is basically the height of fair play--to be honest, based on ALL of these conditions, an admin would have a better chance with a Recall RfA than they would dealing with ArbCom if they actually did something wrong. Literally, the whole point is to just give users/editors/admins the ability to undo with cause an RfA they feel should not be appropriate anymore. rootology (T) 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More

message: * 1 filer, 30 certifiers, 10 of which are admins (10 month/2000 edit requirement remains)
* Basis of dispute/reason for recall is based on actions in past 60 or 90 days (based on diffs/time stamps).
* Evidence section may include previous diffs/history to establish patterns, behavior, etc. 
* Keep the nine month ime limitation to eliminate harassment.
* 24 hour notice remains, but if unfiled is just so much hot air, and the named admin can just delete it of course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by rootology (talk • contribs) . 
----
Well, first let's get it accepted, then worry about the details. But (aside from 30 certifiers being maybe a bit high), the ten admins requirement is a red flag. Naturally admins watch each other's backs, that's only human nature. Plus obviously it's not in the interest of any admin to certify. Have you never heard of Omerta or the Blue Wall. They exist for a reason: mutual self-protection. Besides that, admins are a social group, always chattering away on their private IRC channel and what have you. You certify, you're going to be running into the guy at the next admin cookout or whatever. No, if you must keep raising the bar, how about X number of certifiers must have some given higher edit count/longer service than a regular certifier. Not that I'm suggesting that, but if you must. Herostratus 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll never happen.  An admin would have to go completely bonkers for this to be fulfilled, bad enough that an ArbCom case would actually be more likely to close first.  That many admins would never certify.  Karwynn (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hero, what do you think would be a good and fair threshold in your opinion? Keeping in mind that this policy is intended for admin use as well as regular editors? rootology (T) 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Herostratus, the amount of bad faith above is kind of staggering. You don't think that 1% of admins would be willing to certify on a bona fide recall petition? Cyde above just intimated that 0.3% of admins are whackjobs, which is a different sort of problem, but the point remains...you can't get something approved until at least the basic details are worked out. How many certifiers of each category will be needed is certainly a basic detail, in my world... -- nae'blis 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the dark, where's the bad faith?  Karwynn (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be no requirement for any admins. The community appoints. If they wish, let the community take away. Experienced users of good standing is all that is required. Tyrenius 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The comments about the Blue Wall/Omerta (codes of silence), assumptions about self-serving admin motivations for behavior, and "Naturally admins watch each other's backs, that's only human nature" are what I was referring to, specifically. Anybody who's watched WP:AN/I knows there's vigorous disagreement amongst admins. -- nae'blis 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So why ten?  Why not three?  How are 10 admins any more or less likely to be "whackos"?  ANd if the recall has little credible evidence, wouldn't it be voted down anyway?  Karwynn (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This starts to differentiate admins as a special class, instead of trusting and empowering the community as a whole. I very much doubt that any recall would find 30 users of good standing (a  key  qualification in this proposal) in 7 days so easily were it not merited. Just because someone has been blocked does not mean they would wish an admin de-sysopped, if they felt general respect for that admin. Besides which, the final result is dependent on the whole community anyway. I think there is a fear of the unknown here, rather than a real need for fear. Tyrenius 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The certification would be listed on both RECALL and RFA for the full week of it's shelf life--you don't think it would get enough attention/traffic? I also specifically put nothing in to say "You can't tell people about this..." the same as there is no such limit for RfC, RfA, RfAr, etc., as that would be biased. rootology (T) 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Five is a better number.  I'd prefer 3, and 25 certfiers too, and a decrease to required edits (why not 1000?) but oh well.  Karwynn (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2000 edits is a good value and I think 30 as well. Removing an admin shouldn't be as easy as becoming one, and 2k will also weed out a lot of the stupid stuff. rootology (T) 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change based on Cyde's idea 

message: If the supporters of this proposal are truly serious about making this into policy, there needs to be a discussion about which admins it would have affected. It's great to talk about this proposal in theory and using generalities, but I think it's time for specifics. This proposal is designed to address admins that the ArbCom won't deal with. Which admins (excluding ones already desysoped by the ArbCom) would have been desysoped by this policy? A previous discussion posed this question, but the answer was essentially sidestepped. Is it possible to name 5 admins who would been desysoped by this policy? Aren't I Obscure? 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of my support stems from the fact that I've seen a general lack of accountability for administrators, both in practice in attitude.  There have been specific cases that have been particularly frustrating for me and, I believe, disruptive to Wikipedia.  Of course I'm not going to name names, there's no reason for me to insult administrators like that.  Karwynn (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I'm looking for someone to name names! There's enough generalities on this page to choke a horse, but virtually no specifics about who it would actually affect. I want someone to show the case of a specific admin who would have been desysoped by this policy, but the ArbCom never acted. I'm not looking for an attack on this admin, just a rundown of why he/she should be desysoped and how this policy would suceed where ArbCom failed. Can we start with just one example? Aren't I Obscure? 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at what I wrote below. As for the RfA side of things that's an unanswerable question--might as well ask what would happen if I ran for RfA in a year. rootology (T) 21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thing is, we can't say they would have been because we don't know what the votes would've been after 3 weeks.  Additionally, you won't be likely to find anyone willing to name names, being as ther is often a fear of massive retaliation from said admin(s), as is my belief for my case(s).  Besides, it's the general lack of accountability that drives me personally, not so much individual admins.  Karwynn (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: EDIT: Recall with a 5 or 10 admin threshold had the policy existed when these events occurred. As to whether the community would have then desysopped, who can say. But it would have certainly reached RfA in some of these. rootology (T) 21:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Those are all bad examples because they refer to cases that ArbCom did deal satisfactorily with.  We're asking you to name people who you think this proposed policy would've taken care of who haven't yet been taken care of by ArbCom.  Also, I dispute that this policy would've taken care of Guanaco ... he was very popular at the time, because he was one of the pro-userboxers.  I'd much rather have the ArbCom dealing with these; they look at actual abuse, rather than merely turning it into a popularity contest.  --Cyde Weys 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, in some cases, the community could have dealt with the situation faster than arbcom.  Consider HOTR, for example.  I honestly don't follow the Israel stuff so I don't know all the ins and outs of the personalities there ... but I've got to think that the community would have long ago supported a de-sysoping there whereas, if I am reading this right, ArbCom has decided to do nothing. BigDT 22:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia Review complains about anyone who hasn't sieg heiled at least twice before they pour their Cheerios in the morning. Anyway, I thought this whole thing was about accountability, but you want the people who sign these petitions to be unaccountable? In my view that isn't consistent. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The whole point of this--I don't know if some admins think I'm going for this--is NOT to crucify people who may or may not be "annoying" to their peers. It's simply to provide admins and users together the ability to undo a previously successful RfA which they feel, with cause, to be no longer appropriate to keep in force. Those Brandt sites are a poor example. rootology (T) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia review is just easiest to find.  There are many complainer places, but they're scattered.  I don't know whose complaining achieves notability.  [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1549132/posts Here's another] Anomo 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Anomo, who has been indefinitely blocking people for not signing their name?  Have you heard of the Arbitration Committee?  I think they'd take a dim view of such silliness. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I expect that someone frequently protesting the fact that their MPOV was being suppressed decried all and sundry as 'rouge admins', it stuck in JzG's mind when he wrote WP:ROUGE, and since then it's been the only acceptable spelling. From playing roguelikes a lot I can tell you that it's one of the most frequent misspellings in English. Who and where made it here, I don't know (if WP:ROUGE gave an etymology it would spoil the joke). --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Aaron is correct, of course. And the only reason they would be on the chopping block is for annoying certain groups of people, which I don't consider a powerful argument for desysopping.  All admin decisions are reversible and it takes a hell of a lot of effort to actually be a bad admin.  --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. An outside view on Kelly's current RfC calling for her desysopping has a grand total of zero endorsements, indicating that people aren't particularly willing to actually put their money where their mouth is. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth, I would not certify KM based on what spawned her RfC2. rootology (T) 23:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think that the lack of certification has more to do with the reality of the current dead-minning process than on community consensus.  If we think if adminship in terms of giving rather than taking away do we have any real expectation that any of these individuals would pass a request for adminship that happened now? - Aaron Brenneman 23:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aaron, please present any case for desysopping any of the three you have named to the arbitration committee.  Your tireless and unceasing low-level personal attacks on administrators, which span almost the entire tenure of your time on Wikipedia, have not gone unnoticed. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You say low-level personal attacks, I say healthy scepticism. Let's call the whole thing off until one of you wants to actually take it to a forum where people care. This page is about some paddling skeeball process or something. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err, did I actually do anything wrong there? - Aaron Brenneman 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing at all, but you haven't completed the job.  File your arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 11:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that Aaron didn't even say he would certify them, just that he thought those three would be first on the block. I'd have to say he's probably right, which is not to say that it would be a correct decision. -- nae'blis 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Kelly Martin has some RFC and complaints and I've read through them and can't figure it out.  It's more complicated than that whitewater thing.  I just can't figure out what Kelly did wrong.  Well, basically I hear one name, starting with an S, mentioned here on every single forum with people saying she's the head of the Cabal, worst admin, blah blah.  I've not actually seen S do anything myself, but I see complaints like mad.  The complaints I see are less than 20 admins actually.  Anomo 00:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure they did that on wikibooks a while back, or maybe they didn't (debates tend to take m-u-c-h longer over there). --SB_Johnny | talk 00:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ick. Just had a look at that forum... they sure are angry! I wonder if Bobby Boulders monitors that. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to name names 

message: This is an attempt at summarising the discussion at Archive 2.  Please correct any errors I may have made. - brenneman {L} 12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since this is all now in both places, it's odd but please do still add to the summary to help avoid repeating arguments ad naseum. - brenneman {L} 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previously, on Wikipedia talk:Admin recall 

message: I've hacked and slashed my way though the existing proposal as much as possible without actauly changing anything.  Following this and a rest and some food, I'm going to start to summarise the objections/comments from above.  I'll also probably merge Dmcdevit/Proposal for desysopping into this, but that's going to be a serious change of intent ans well as language.  Lucky this is a wiki, eh? - brenneman {L} 08:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal view is that the 80 percent threshold is very high, and necessarily high, to prevent abusive attempts at removing admins on popularity grounds - and I honestly don't think that, in practice, it would ever be reachable except in cases of egregious admin abuse. But in such cases, I think the ArbCom would act far faster to stop those abuses. Thus, this proposal is, IMO, unnecessary. However, I think something like this might improve the perception of adminstrators and remove an excuse to hate the evil rouge admin cabal. Of course, the problem is that given the high threshold, it would be just as easy to say "this is just a whitewash, it's still impossible to remove the cabal." Damned if you do, damned if you don't? I also believe any adminship review process should be required to cite specific alleged policy violations - not just "I think this admin is doing a poor job," but "This admin uses his blocking tool abusively here [1] and here [2]." FCYTravis 09:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually proposed to even before this to be able to make a list of such abuses and not have the page deleted or the people who ad to it banned. Anomo 09:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a line between alleging abuses in a professional and dispassionate manner and screaming "THIS ADMIN SUX LOSER ROUGE SEE HERE [1] HE BANNINATED ME THE BASTARD [2]." One is fair comment, the other a lame personal attack. FCYTravis 09:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant the professional and dispassionate manner. Anomo 09:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right - and such discussions are already extant in RFCs, thus I don't see any particular danger of having said pages deleted or contributors banned, as long as the discussions are kept civil. FCYTravis 09:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That fails to state that there must be a policy violation - "reasons" aren't enough. Otherwise we're going to have people run through this gauntlet for the henious crime of validly deleting someone's vanicruftspamvertisement page, even if said deletion was entirely within process and based on WP:CSD. This must be about admins who violate policy, not admins who have pissed someone off. FCYTravis 17:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THose recalls will fail, so no harm done.  THe admin in question will also be protected for 9 months.  Detrimental to the filer's objectives.  Karwynn (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write 

message: Commenting on this thread again, I know. The clean-up I made was reverted. complete with spelling mistakes.  Karwynn, you appear a little bit excited and more than a little bit agressive in the editing.  I'm a one-revert-per-day boy, and I've now done one on the talk and one on the article in like fifteen minutes... I think that's a first for me.  You've expressed several things that betray that you're not terribly familiar with actual practices and the impacts of actions (e.g. your comments regarding archiving) so I'd like to ask, as nicely as possible, that you slow down just a little bit? - brenneman {L} 14:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Afraid not.  You're not going to nuke this proposal's discussion down and expect me to just sit back and take it.  You have disrupted this discussion and all you can do is ask me to slow down and just accept it.  THat's not something I'm willing to do.  Karwynn (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're both SO getting recalled for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Fagstein 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's kinda weird, really. I'm sure Aaron is acting in good faith and wants only to give this proposal a chance of making it work (and he has done some excellent work on that).  Please, Karwynn, don't accuse Aaron of wanting to nuke the idea.  That really isn't what he's trying to do. --Tony Sidaway 22:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: As initial author of this I support Aaron's idea to strip it down and rebuild. The ultimate goal is simply to empower the community to undo a previously granted RfA, for the express purpose of removing an admin who 1) has lost the support/trust of his peers; 2) is not trusted by his peers; 3) peers are both regular editors and admins. My number-based criteria was simply an attempt to Troll Proof it from the get-go. rootology (T) 20:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I say go for it, Aaron and everyone

message: Make it even simpler.
#When a groups of editors in good standing feel an admin should be desysoped, they write a petition on the merits and sign it.
#The admin in question responds.
#After that, a week talk page discussion to get the feel of the community.
#Vote by the ArbCom on the merits.
End of story. (Arbcom has the right to kill frivolous petitions in any stage).
This might result in two or three desysoppong events as soon as it becomes implemeted. It is clear, it can nt be highjacked by a group of trolls or so, and it leaves the power with the ArbCom (where I think it should remain).-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative

message: You really shouldn't be archiving discussions which were active just last night.  User:Zoe|(talk) 18:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archival