User:Barneca/Recall procedure

Recall procedure
''I like the philosophy behind Lar’s process, but prefer something simpler, with a lower threshold. The whole point of admin recall is an assurance that a full-blown arbitration case isn’t necessary, and that multiple small problems that don’t quite rise to the level of arbitration can still lead to recall. As Lar points out, "clarity of process" is vital to making CAT:AOTR legitimate. So here’s my take:''

I don’t want to be an admin if I don’t have the trust of the community. However, I can’t have a reconfirmation RfA every time someone complains, and there is no reason to short-circuit normal dispute resolution methods already in place. My compromise:


 * If someone has a complaint about my misuse of the admin tools, they should try to resolve it with me. I won’t consider a recall request to be valid if people haven’t tried to work things out with me first.


 * If they’re still dissatisfied, they can open an admin user conduct RfC.  This requires one other person to certify they have tried to resolve the problem with me.


 * Once the RfC is certified, it will progress as a regular RfC, and I'll announce it on my user and user talk pages. The key to this whole process is that, unlike a typical RfC, if any four people indicate in the RfC that they think my admin tools should be removed, I will treat this RfC as a binding recall petition, and promise to abide by the outcome.


 * If the RfC escalates into a recall, I may announce it on WP:AN and/or WT:RFA to get broader input. I’ll add two sections to the top of the RfC: Barneca should resign his tools, and Barneca should not resign his tools.


 * If, 7 days after I've converted it into a recall, a majority (50% +1) of those registering an opinion in one of those two sections believes I should resign, then I will resign "under controversial circumstances". Note that this is a compromise between requiring a consensus to remain an admin, and requiring a consensus to resign.  I'll use the same criteria generally used at WP:RFA for what constitutes legitimate participation; i.e. sockpuppetry, SPA's (apparently created especially for the RfC), and IP accounts will not count towards the total.


 * I may, or may not, choose to go through a new RfA at any time after that.


 * If I decide this particular process seems unworkable, I reserve the right to modify it. However, I will never make it more difficult than Lar’s process, and will never modify it if it appears that a recall attempt is about to be made, or is in progress. --barneca (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternate, "Short circuit" recall procedure
If any four people who supported my last RFA ever tell me they think I should resign (at roughly the same time), I will do so. --barneca (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)