User:NoSeptember/recall

I do not support the recall process, but if I did and needed to have recall standards, they would be something like this:

Recall process idea #1:
 * 1) The certified users asking for recall must have experience in the area that they perceive to have been mishandled by me.
 * 2) *If its related to blocking or unblocking, then they should have blocking experience (100+ blocks)
 * 3) *If its related to deletion, then they should have deletion experience (200+ deletions)
 * 4) *If its related to protection, then they should have protection experience (50+ protections)
 * 5) *If its related to discussions in a highly strung discussion environment, then they should be a regular participant in such highly strung discussion environments.
 * 6) *They don't necessarily need to be enwiki admins, admin experience in blocks, deletions, and protections can be gained at other projects.
 * 7) A simple majority of support from the community shall suffice to confirm community support to remain as an admin.
 * 8) *Since the very nature of admins is to pick up detractors in the normal course of doing one's job, a higher standard is impractical, and surprisingly few active admins could meet an artificially higher standard.
 * 9) *This standard is consistent with the ArbCom process, where you will only be desysopped if you fail to garner a simple majority of arbitrators to allow you to keep your tools (as it takes a majority vote to desysop you).

Recall process idea #2:
 * The open-to-recall admin selects a list of several admins or users that he respects the judgement of, but is not a close associate of, to be designated evaluators of any user's request for the admin to be recalled.
 * Users are welcome to challenge the choices made for this list to ensure that truly independent and neutral individuals are being selected (this all happening before any recall request has ever been filed).
 * When a recall request is made:
 * Acting as a judge or arbitrator, those selected to evaluate recall requests will ascertain whether there is reasonable cause to start a recall RfC based on the evidence and opinion supplied by the petitioners and other interested parties.
 * Commentary:
 * I have never liked the idea of saying "5 certified users may request a recall". In a project this big, a small number of users should be easy to gather by anyone who is particularly upset by the action of an admin. Some sort of neutral evaluation of the true validity of claims seems to be more appropriate.

Recall process idea #3:
 * Instead of a pre-selected group of judges (or jury), use a randomly selected jury to make the decision.
 * A designated neutral clerk selects random admins from the active admin list and asks them to serve. Selecting and asking continues until we get a jury of at least 5 to say yes. The petitioners and other interested parties would produce evidence, and the jury would decide if the complaint is worthy of starting a formal recall process or not.