Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:21, 22 October 2009

Introductory note: Please feel free to edit this draft as you see fit, including adding any new propsoals and !voting just to see how it goes. Any such expression of support/opposition will be removed prior to the RfC going "live". Begins:

This is a draft RfC concerning a proposed process for Administrator Recall.

Purpose

The community appoints administrators through a process known as RfA. A number of recent discussions and a lengthening list of Former administrators who have laid down their mops for one reason or another suggests that some process for recalling admins who do not meet expected standards is overdue.

Advocates for such a process argue that since the community grants the access to admin tools, the community should also have some process for revoking that access. At present there is no such process and ArbCom are reluctant to take on this issue, some members seeing it as falling outside of their brief. It may also help (some) administrators to gain a clearer understanding of what is expected of them.

Please note that this idea is not the same as Administrators open to recall, which is a voluntary process.

Summary

Recall proposals generally consist of the elements:

• Initiation when some objective criteria is reached (such as requiring X number of uninvolved editors, X number of admins, X number of arbs, or Arbcom as a whole)
• A period of time in which the community provides feedback by the form of !votes (akin to RFA)
• Closure by a trusted authority (such as a bureaucrat, arbitrator, or arbcom as a whole)

The key to a successful process is likely to be finding a way to

a) enable the community to discuss and where necessary enact an admin recall where there is a broad consensus that this is appropriate, whilst

b) avoiding frivolous or malicious requests.

It should borne in mind that some editors take the view that administrators "look after one another" and use their knowledge of the system and previously good track records to avoid sanctions that might fall on less experienced editors. Some also believe that whilst this does occasionally happen, it is a relatively infrequent occurrence when weighed against the volume of work undertaken by administrators.

There is also another side to the coin. Many administrators take on duties that by their very nature are likely to disappoint or anger some editors. If closing controversial discussions or attempting to enforce agreed sanctions turns into a recall process on a regular basis, few administrators will wish to take these tasks on, and indeed fewer editors may wish to become administrators.

Options

Option 1: Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship

Drafted by Roux (talk · contribs)

Easy to understand

Threshold for commencement - a single user

The RFDA must then be certified by any two administrators

A single Bureaucrat makes a determination

Note: Contains a list of previously "Proposed processes"

Option 2: User:Tony1/AdminReview

Created by Tony1 (talk · contribs)

Most complex proposal

Threshold for commencement - a single user "who was involved in the incident"

A "Managing Coordinator" (who must be a non-admin) determines whether a complaint is accepted for investigation.

Detailed management of procedures

Details expected Admin behaviours

Determination: The Managing Coordinator and an additional coordinator. If they do not reach agreement on the decision and recommendations, the case moves to a review by all available Coordinators, who make a determination by simple majority.

The Coordinators are elected by popular vote for staggered terms of 12 months.

Option 3: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin RFC draft

Per Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)

Clear statement of purpose

Easy to understand

Threshold for commencement - a single user

"Any previously uninvolved administrator"makes a determination

Option 4: Misplaced Pages:Community de-adminship

Devised by Uncle G (talk · contribs)

Very clear about what the recall is NOT for.

Mirror image of RfA, so easy to understand

Threshold for commencement - either by Arbitration Committee or by "10 editors in good standing"

Adds to Arbcom workload

A single Bureaucrat makes a determination

Option 5: The status quo

That is, no formal admin recall process

Pros:

Requires no action at all to enact

Cons:

Does not address the presenting issue

Opinions

Please express your support for ONE of the options described above in the appropriate section below. You may also express opposition to ANY NUMBER of the options. By all means add a sentence explaining your view. Longer statements should be made on the talk page.

Note that we have (exceptionally) made a distinction between admins and non-admins below. This is because, whilst not appropriate in most Misplaced Pages dialogues. There is very little purpose in attempting to enact a new recall system that has strong support from the community as whole if administrators are largely against it (or vice versa).

If a clear consensus emerges this will be followed by a detailed policy proposal (not immediate enactment of any particular system).

Option 1 (Devised by Roux)

Support

Admins

Other editors

Oppose

Admins

Other editors

Option 2 (Devised by Tony1)

Support

Admins

Other editors

Oppose

Admins

Other editors

Option 3 (Devised by Breeblebox)

Support

Admins

Other editors

Oppose

Admins

Other editors

Option 4 (Devised by Uncle G)

Support

Admins

Other editors

Oppose

Admins

Other editors

Option 5 (Status quo)

Support

Admins

Other editors

1. wetbehindtheears (talk · contribs) I have no problem with admins running amok.

Oppose

Admins

Other editors

1. stillverycrossaboutthatspeedy (talk · contribs). All admins should be recalled asap.