Misplaced Pages

:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators open to recall Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:12, 19 January 2008 editUltraexactzz (talk | contribs)26,830 editsm fixing table← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:00, 17 February 2024 edit undoTamzin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators69,283 edits so long and thanks for all the fish 
(163 intermediate revisions by 84 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This page is part of the overall voluntary and unofficial admin recall process and supporting material. It is a list of criteria developed by various admins who are members of ], as well as others interested in adminship who are not yet admins. Only the admin themselves should add their information to this table, as the recall process itself is voluntary, and so is making criteria or process information known in advance (although some would strongly encourage it). This page is part of the overall admin recall process (which is not a formal rule) and supporting material. It is a list of criteria developed by various admins who are members of ].

These are admins who have voluntarily, and of their own volition and with no external pressure, agreed to be subject to recall. They are not bound to this status in any way. Volunteers at any time and for any reason may remove themselves from this category or change their criteria or process.

Only the admin themselves should add their information to this table, as the recall process itself is voluntary. In addition to the criteria and processes developed by individual editors, a ] is available (and is assumed to be in effect if nothing to to contrary has been specified by the admin.)


== Criteria list == == Criteria list ==

===Current===

{|class="wikitable" {|class="wikitable"
|- |-
!Admin /<br/>Admin Hopeful !Admin
!Criteria !Criteria
!Process Descriptions !Process Descriptions
!Notes !Notes
|-
|]
|]
|]
|For now, I am committed to using the same process ] has laid out so meticulously at ]
|- |-
|] |]
Line 19: Line 21:
|from August 2006 |from August 2006
|- |-
|] |]
|] |colspan="2"|]
|A (hopefully) straightforward procedure aimed at promoting discussion. It allows for unlimited recall attempts based on any action or edit at any time.
|]
|Inspired by ] and ]. May simplify, but it'll do for the moment.
|-
|]
|
|
|I will relinquish the admin bit by request of five editors in good standing or one administrator who has earned my respect. ].
|-
|]
||]
|]
|Shame that something so simple has to be converted into "]", but so it goes.
|-
|]
||]
|]
|
|- |-
|] |]
Line 43: Line 29:
| |
|Firsfron's standards look good |Firsfron's standards look good
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Requires another admin subject to recall for a kick-off, while keeping the rest pretty simple. A tradeoff between broad accountability and avoiding unnecessary drama and process.
|- |-
|] |]
Line 53: Line 34:
| |
|I wish it could be simpler, but the 28 December 2007 page versions I've linked to in Lar's page detail the criteria and process for anyone wishing to ask me to stand for recall. Please check the ] version for any major changes - these will not apply unless I update the links here. |I wish it could be simpler, but the 28 December 2007 page versions I've linked to in Lar's page detail the criteria and process for anyone wishing to ask me to stand for recall. Please check the ] version for any major changes - these will not apply unless I update the links here.
|-
|]
| ||
|Let us keep the initiation of the process very simple: If one or more editors feel that I am consistently violating wikipedia policies or disrupting other editors' activities in the exercise of my admin tools, that editor or editors should consult ] and invoke it. Please don't start the process until ''after'' you have discussed things with me on my talk page. Thanks. (to be improved)
|- |-
|] |]
|colspan="2"|]
||]
|No brag, just fact (the sample criteria and process).
||]
|A straight-forward, three-prong description of my method.
|- |-
|] |]
|] |colspan="2"|]
|Based on Lar's criteria, with certain simplifications and changes, in particular looser eligibility for editors whom I know offline in reflection of my involvement in offline Wikimedian activities.
|]
|Inspired by ] fine work.
|- |-
|] |]
|] |]
|] |]
|Per ] for now while I continue analyzing what has and what hasn't worked in the past. Although, I must commend ] simple, direct approach.
|Pretty straight-forward, and gives the requesting editor a decent shot at having me de-sysopped if I deserve it.
|-
|]
|colspan="2"|]
|My recall criteria are the Amorymeltzer's 19 October 2019 version of their recall criteria
|-
|]
|colspan="2"|]
| Original system: Recall can be initiated if there is proof of abuse of admin access within the last 10 days. Recall must also be certified by 6 neutral Wikipedians in good standing, including at least two "senior" Wikipedians (Bureaucrats/Arbs/CheckUser/etc).
|-
|]
|
|
|Lifted from AGK: "file an RFC; if that holds that there are concerns, I will submit to a reconfirmation-RFA; and if that fails, I will resign."
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Using ]'s criteria & process for now.
|-
|]
|colspan="2" |]
|Amended from ]: 3 users or 2 admins complain within 61 days.
|- |-
|] |]
Line 74: Line 79:
|Keep It Simple, Stupid. |Keep It Simple, Stupid.
|- |-
|] |]
|] |colspan="2"|]
|Nutshell version: Start an RFC. Unless there is a consensus that I should remain an admin, I'll resign.
|
|Start an RFC-like discussion. If there is significant consensus that I've been misusing the tools and should give them up, that's what I'll do.
|- |-
|] |]
Line 83: Line 87:
|] |]
|Not as simple as I'd like. May revise soon. |Not as simple as I'd like. May revise soon.
|-
|]
|
|
|I agree with the process & criteria created by ]. I'd prefer something simpler but I'll anchor my process and criteria for now.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Will relinquish administrator status with 6 editors in good standing's requests in a period no longer than 4 months.
|- |-
|] |]
Line 99: Line 93:
|Includes elements from a few other peoples' recall criteria. |Includes elements from a few other peoples' recall criteria.
|- |-
|] |]
||] |colspan="2"|]
|Copied shamelessly from ], whose process was in turn inspired by ]'s.
|
|Revised long-standing accountability policy (which was initially based on Lar's since August 2006) in light of recent thinking. I will link to Lar's process; I don't believe it is a good use of our time for every admin to think up their own and Lar's is very good
|- |-
|] |]
||] |colspan="2"|]
|As I had agreed to do so on ]. Also, please buy me a ]. Thanks.
|]
|My recall page is pretty short but it does the job I think.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|]'s process seems fine for now. Should I find a better one, or a wider consensus emerge, I reserve the right to change my choice.
|- |-
|] |]
||] ||]
||] ||]
|Less liberal than before, based off of EVula's requirements. Still somewhat liberal.
|My policies for recall are very liberal; I subscribe to the "easy come, easy go" philosophy.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Very simple; the basic idea is borrowed from Shell Kinney.
|- |-
|] |]
Line 128: Line 110:
|] |]
|Unabashedly stolen from EVula while I think about it some more, but I don't think I'll change it much. |Unabashedly stolen from EVula while I think about it some more, but I don't think I'll change it much.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Based on Lar's and some others.
|- |-
|] |]
Line 133: Line 120:
|] |]
|Extensively revised in mid December 2007 to include detailed process descriptions, has ] page for comments and feedback. |Extensively revised in mid December 2007 to include detailed process descriptions, has ] page for comments and feedback.
|-
|]
|colspan="2"|]
|Via RFC
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Some novel ideas with widespread notification, check the box style reports, and BAG recalled folded in with admin recall.
|- |-
|] |]
Line 139: Line 135:
|I'm trying to keep this really simple. |I'm trying to keep this really simple.
|- |-
|] |]
|]
|]
|Modeled after ], with some tweaks based on ] and recent ] changes. Per statement on ], will of course be mooted if / when we have a proper community way to desysop.
|-
|]
|colspan="2"|]
|Mid-complexity set, requiring experienced editors but no admins, and a specific show of fault. Additional route to any Community-desysop method created. I select which of several given methods can be used.
|-
|]
| |
| |
|I'll be using the very well developed criteria and process written up by Lar, as well. (The version linked to applies.) |I'll be using the very well developed criteria and process written up by Lar, as well. (The version linked to applies.)
|- |-
|] |]
|See my user page
|]
|See my user page
|]
|Same as Amorymeltzer unless I changed it. (see my user page)
|Completely ripped from ]. Simple and sweet, no complications.
|- |-
] |]
|] |]
|] |]
|Made to be easy and simple. Let's hope I never go of the rails.
|I plan to write my own criteria at some point, but until then, I will use ]'s.
|- |-
|] |]
|] | colspan="2" | ]
|
|]
-
|Not as liberal as I'd like it to be, I'll try revising it in the coming days. Any feedback welcome :)
|- |-
|] |]
|] | colspan="2" |]
|]
|To the point I think.
|- |-
|] |]
|] |]
|] |]
| Simple and straightforward (and stolen from ]).
|The process and criteria will be listed by the end of January 18, Mountain Standard Time
|- |-
|] |]
|] |]
|] |]
|Using Lar's criteria for now, may modify later
|Short, simple, to the point.
|- |-
|] |]
|colspan=2|] |colspan=2|]
| Avoiding bureaucratic overhead so we all can focus on creating a good encyclopedia. | Avoiding bureaucratic overhead so we all can focus on creating a good encyclopedia.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Pretty basic stuff, I think
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Should be relatively simple...actually a combination of ]'s and ]'s criteria.
|- |-
|] |]
Line 193: Line 186:
|Will relinquish administrator status with five editors in good standing's request. |Will relinquish administrator status with five editors in good standing's request.
|- |-
|] |]
|] |]
|] |]
|
|Simple criteria and process.
|- |-
|] |]
|] | colspan="2"| ]
|] |Based on ]
|Will resign or start an RfC. Consensus will be judged by an uninvolved trusted user selected by the clerk.
|- |-
|] |]
|] | colspan="2"| ]
|Mix of a few different ideas - offers three options depending on speed and severity. Pretty straight forward.
|]
|According to the criteria at ]
|- |-
|] |]
|colspan=2|] |colspan=2|]
|I'll step down upon a request from 5 users in good standing. |I'll step down upon a request from 5 users in good standing.
|-
|]
|
|]
|My own distinct criteria and process. I will step down on the request of any three users in good standing.
|- |-
|] |]
Line 226: Line 212:
|] |]
|Follow Lar's processes of RfC or resignation. |Follow Lar's processes of RfC or resignation.
|-
|]
|colspan=2|]
|Fairly typical; involves RFCU
|- |-
|] |]
Line 238: Line 220:
|colspan=2|] |colspan=2|]
|Based on Firsfron and Y |Based on Firsfron and Y
|-
|]
|colspan="2"|]
|Fairly standard but a bit unique. Requirements may vary.
|}

===Archive===

Former administrators whose criteria are still available. Kept because some of them are referenced above, and to serve as a source of ideas for new criteria and processes.

{|class="wikitable"
|-
!Admin
!Criteria
!Process Descriptions
!Notes
|-
|]
|]
|]
|For now, I am committed to using the same process ] has laid out so meticulously at ]
|-
|]
| colspan="2" |
|File an RFC; if that holds that there are concerns, I will submit to a reconfirmation-RFA; and if that fails, I will resign.<small> (May 2008; updated Sept. 2012)</small>
|-
|]
|
|
|I will relinquish the admin bit by request of five editors in good standing or one administrator who has earned my respect. ].
|-
|]
||]
|]
|Shame that something so simple has to be converted into "]", but so it goes.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|For now at least I am going to using the same processes that Lar has described. In a well explained process I might add. Simple
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Pretty simple. An admin conduct RfC can escalate into a recall if 4 users in good standing indicate I should resign.
:Added an alternate process that I stole from Ed Poor's RfA: I'll resign if 4 of my RFA supporters request it.
|-
|]
|colspan="2"|]
|Admin recall should be a fairly simple process with minimal bureaucracy&mdash;i.e. not a big deal. Basic idea and formatting on my page is blatantly stolen from Shell Kinney. I hope I can simplify it further in the future.
|-
|]
|colspan="2"|]
|Inspired by SirFozzie's criteria & process.
|-
|]
|colspan="2"|]
|Home-grown, but ] was the starting point.
|-
|]
|colspan="2"|]
|Adapted from Alison (and, by extension, Lar and Fvasconcellos).
|-
|]
|]
|]
|I'll stand for a reconfirmation RfA if a user I respect advises that I should.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Pretty straight-forward, and gives the requesting editor a decent shot at having me de-sysopped if I deserve it.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Not to be abused.
|-
|]
|]
|
|Start an RFC-like discussion. If there is significant consensus that I've been misusing the tools and should give them up, that's what I'll do.
|-
|]
| colspan="2" |]
|RfC-based process with an initial talkpage phase.
|-
|]
|colspan="2"|]
|Based kinda loosely on Lar's - and I swear on pain of indefinite blocking that I shall abide by that process should it be started.
|-
|]
|colspan=2|]
|] ''(inspired by ])''.
|-
|]
| colspan="2" |]
|One initiator, two certifiers, and then a 2-week RfA-like discussion.
|-
|]
| colspan="2"|]
|Marked as "temporary" pending a formal arbitrator recall process, eligibility is from functionaries, supporters, or those who have made significant contributions to Wikisource, once 5 eligible ask, steps down as arb and stands for new RfA.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Designed by taking those of ], ] and ] and smushing them together. :D
|-
|]
|]
|]
|]'s process seems fine for now. Should I find a better one, or a wider consensus emerge, I reserve the right to change my choice.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Very simple; the basic idea is borrowed from Shell Kinney.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Simply using Lar's method.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Composed after reviewing the work of other admins in the category, but is especially based on the subpages created by ] and ] (whose in turn is based on ])
|-
|]
|]
|]
|It's simpler than it looks.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Like Pedro's but with a longer self-selected list of potential participants.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|I am comfortable with what Lar has put together, may customize my criteria in the future.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|I plan to write my own criteria at some point, but until then, I will use ]'s.
|-
|]
|colspan="2"|]
|I will voluntarily relinquish all administrative privileges if petitioned to by four members in good standing.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Not as liberal as I'd like it to be, I'll try revising it in the coming days. Any feedback welcome :)
|-
|]
|]
|]
|To the point I think.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Short, simple, to the point.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Should be relatively simple...actually a combination of ]'s and ]'s criteria.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Will resign or start an RfC. Consensus will be judged by an uninvolved trusted user selected by the clerk.
|-
|]
|]
|]
|Simple approach from Firsfron
|-
|]
| colspan="2" | ]
|My own distinct criteria and process. I will step down on the request of any three users in good standing.
|-
|]
|colspan=2|]
|Blatantly stolen from ] involving RFCU
|-
|]
|colspan=2|]
|Fairly typical; involves RFCU
|} |}


==See also== ==See also==
{{Misplaced Pages:administrators open to recall/See also}} {{Misplaced Pages:administrators open to recall/See also}}
----

<small> Note: this page was copy/paste moved from ] (because you cannot move a category page to a non category page). For the early edit history of this page, or for any GFDL related concerns, you should refer to that page's edit history. Admins should consider revalidating their listing by a null edit to this page. If that is done by all admins present when this was copy/pasted, that page can be deleted but for now it will remain a ]. </small>

Latest revision as of 17:00, 17 February 2024

This page is part of the overall admin recall process (which is not a formal rule) and supporting material. It is a list of criteria developed by various admins who are members of Category:Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall.

These are admins who have voluntarily, and of their own volition and with no external pressure, agreed to be subject to recall. They are not bound to this status in any way. Volunteers at any time and for any reason may remove themselves from this category or change their criteria or process.

Only the admin themselves should add their information to this table, as the recall process itself is voluntary. In addition to the criteria and processes developed by individual editors, a sample process is available (and is assumed to be in effect if nothing to to contrary has been specified by the admin.)

Criteria list

Current

Admin Criteria Process Descriptions Notes
Alex Bakharev criteria process from August 2006
Amorymeltzer criteria and process A (hopefully) straightforward procedure aimed at promoting discussion. It allows for unlimited recall attempts based on any action or edit at any time.
Audacity criteria process Firsfron's standards look good
Carcharoth criteria process I wish it could be simpler, but the 28 December 2007 page versions I've linked to in Lar's page detail the criteria and process for anyone wishing to ask me to stand for recall. Please check the current version for any major changes - these will not apply unless I update the links here.
Ceyockey Let us keep the initiation of the process very simple: If one or more editors feel that I am consistently violating wikipedia policies or disrupting other editors' activities in the exercise of my admin tools, that editor or editors should consult Misplaced Pages:Administrators open to recall/Default process and invoke it. Please don't start the process until after you have discussed things with me on my talk page. Thanks. (to be improved)
David Fuchs Criteria and process No brag, just fact (the sample criteria and process).
Deryck C. criteria and process Based on Lar's criteria, with certain simplifications and changes, in particular looser eligibility for editors whom I know offline in reflection of my involvement in offline Wikimedian activities.
Doczilla criteria process Per Lar for now while I continue analyzing what has and what hasn't worked in the past. Although, I must commend Firsfron's simple, direct approach.
Dreamy Jazz criteria and process My recall criteria are the Amorymeltzer's 19 October 2019 version of their recall criteria
Elonka Criteria and process Original system: Recall can be initiated if there is proof of abuse of admin access within the last 10 days. Recall must also be certified by 6 neutral Wikipedians in good standing, including at least two "senior" Wikipedians (Bureaucrats/Arbs/CheckUser/etc).
ErikHaugen Lifted from AGK: "file an RFC; if that holds that there are concerns, I will submit to a reconfirmation-RFA; and if that fails, I will resign."
Ev criteria process Using Lar's criteria & process for now.
Fayenatic london criteria and process Amended from User:James086/recall: 3 users or 2 admins complain within 61 days.
Firsfron criteria process Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Floquenbeam User:Floquenbeam/Recall Nutshell version: Start an RFC. Unless there is a consensus that I should remain an admin, I'll resign.
Fvasconcellos criteria process Not as simple as I'd like. May revise soon.
Hut 8.5 criteria process Includes elements from a few other peoples' recall criteria.
Josiah Rowe criteria and process Copied shamelessly from Hmwith, whose process was in turn inspired by Barneca's.
K6ka criteria and process As I had agreed to do so on my RFA. Also, please buy me a slushee. Thanks.
Keilana Criteria Process Less liberal than before, based off of EVula's requirements. Still somewhat liberal.
KrakatoaKatie criteria process Unabashedly stolen from EVula while I think about it some more, but I don't think I'll change it much.
Kubigula criteria process Based on Lar's and some others.
Lar criteria process Extensively revised in mid December 2007 to include detailed process descriptions, has talk page for comments and feedback.
MaxSem Criteria and process Via RFC
MBisanz criteria process Some novel ideas with widespread notification, check the box style reports, and BAG recalled folded in with admin recall.
Merovingian criteria process I'm trying to keep this really simple.
MLauba criteria process Modeled after MBisanz, with some tweaks based on WP:RFDA and recent WP:CDA changes. Per statement on my RfA, will of course be mooted if / when we have a proper community way to desysop.
Nosebagbear Criteria and process Mid-complexity set, requiring experienced editors but no admins, and a specific show of fault. Additional route to any Community-desysop method created. I select which of several given methods can be used.
Nightstallion criteria process I'll be using the very well developed criteria and process written up by Lar, as well. (The version linked to applies.)
Peter Southwood See my user page See my user page Same as Amorymeltzer unless I changed it. (see my user page)
Pedro criteria process Made to be easy and simple. Let's hope I never go of the rails.
Remember the dot criteria and process

-

Ritchie333 criteria and process
Roger Davies criteria process Simple and straightforward (and stolen from Shell Kinney).
SarekOfVulcan criteria process Using Lar's criteria for now, may modify later
SebastianHelm process and notes Avoiding bureaucratic overhead so we all can focus on creating a good encyclopedia.
SirFozzie criteria process Will relinquish administrator status with five editors in good standing's request.
Steve Smith criteria process
TheresNoTime criteria / process Based on User:EVula/opining/admin recall
TParis criteria / process Mix of a few different ideas - offers three options depending on speed and severity. Pretty straight forward.
utcursch criteria and process I'll step down upon a request from 5 users in good standing.
Warofdreams criteria process Using Lar's comprehensive criteria and process, for now at least.
Woody criteria process Follow Lar's processes of RfC or resignation.
Y criteria and process Will take to ArbCom or relinquish administrator status outright upon request of five administrators in good standing.
Yannismarou criteria and process Based on Firsfron and Y
zzuuzz criteria and process Fairly standard but a bit unique. Requirements may vary.

Archive

Former administrators whose criteria are still available. Kept because some of them are referenced above, and to serve as a source of ideas for new criteria and processes.

Admin Criteria Process Descriptions Notes
A. B. criteria process For now, I am committed to using the same process Lar has laid out so meticulously at User:Lar/Accountability
AGK process File an RFC; if that holds that there are concerns, I will submit to a reconfirmation-RFA; and if that fails, I will resign. (May 2008; updated Sept. 2012)
anetode I will relinquish the admin bit by request of five editors in good standing or one administrator who has earned my respect. Lar's recall disclaimers apply.
AnonEMouse criteria process Shame that something so simple has to be converted into "party of the first part shall be referred to as the party of the first part...", but so it goes.
Arjun01 criteria process For now at least I am going to using the same processes that Lar has described. In a well explained process I might add. Simple
Barneca criteria process Pretty simple. An admin conduct RfC can escalate into a recall if 4 users in good standing indicate I should resign.
Added an alternate process that I stole from Ed Poor's RfA: I'll resign if 4 of my RFA supporters request it.
Bigtimepeace criteria and process Admin recall should be a fairly simple process with minimal bureaucracy—i.e. not a big deal. Basic idea and formatting on my page is blatantly stolen from Shell Kinney. I hope I can simplify it further in the future.
Cailil criteria and process Inspired by SirFozzie's criteria & process.
Ddstretch criteria and process Home-grown, but Firsfron's simple criteria was the starting point.
Dppowell Criteria and process Adapted from Alison (and, by extension, Lar and Fvasconcellos).
Epbr123 criteria process I'll stand for a reconfirmation RfA if a user I respect advises that I should.
EVula criteria process Pretty straight-forward, and gives the requesting editor a decent shot at having me de-sysopped if I deserve it.
Fetchcomms criteria process Not to be abused.
Friday some thoughts Start an RFC-like discussion. If there is significant consensus that I've been misusing the tools and should give them up, that's what I'll do.
GermanJoe criteria and process RfC-based process with an initial talkpage phase.
Hersfold criteria and process Based kinda loosely on Lar's - and I swear on pain of indefinite blocking that I shall abide by that process should it be started.
hmwith process, criteria, & such Admin user conduct RfC (inspired by Barneca).
Jackmcbarn criteria and process One initiator, two certifiers, and then a 2-week RfA-like discussion.
Jayvdb criteria and process Marked as "temporary" pending a formal arbitrator recall process, eligibility is from functionaries, supporters, or those who have made significant contributions to Wikisource, once 5 eligible ask, steps down as arb and stands for new RfA.
Jennavecia criteria process Designed by taking those of EVula, SirFozzie and Lar and smushing them together. :D
kbthompson criteria process Lar's process seems fine for now. Should I find a better one, or a wider consensus emerge, I reserve the right to change my choice.
Kirill Lokshin criteria process Very simple; the basic idea is borrowed from Shell Kinney.
Kwsn criteria process Simply using Lar's method.
Luna Santin criteria process Composed after reviewing the work of other admins in the category, but is especially based on the subpages created by Lar and Alison (whose in turn is based on Fvasconcellos's)
Mtmelendez criteria process It's simpler than it looks.
Nancy criteria process Like Pedro's but with a longer self-selected list of potential participants.
Persian Poet Gal criteria process I am comfortable with what Lar has put together, may customize my criteria in the future.
Revolving Bugbear criteria process I plan to write my own criteria at some point, but until then, I will use Lar's.
RHM22 criteria and process I will voluntarily relinquish all administrative privileges if petitioned to by four members in good standing.
Riana criteria process Not as liberal as I'd like it to be, I'll try revising it in the coming days. Any feedback welcome :)
Royalguard11 criteria process To the point I think.
Sean William criteria process Short, simple, to the point.
Singularity criteria process Should be relatively simple...actually a combination of User:David Fuchs's and User:Husond's criteria.
Tbo 157 criteria process Will resign or start an RfC. Consensus will be judged by an uninvolved trusted user selected by the clerk.
Tim Vickers criteria process Simple approach from Firsfron
Walton One criteria and process My own distinct criteria and process. I will step down on the request of any three users in good standing.
WGFinley criteria and process Blatantly stolen from AGK involving RFCU
xDanielx criteria and process Fairly typical; involves RFCU

See also

Note: the above is not an exhaustive list.

Requests for comment

Note: the above is not an exhaustive list