User talk:Friday/recall

Good thoughts here
I think this clarifies well how to handle the idea of recall sanely. I think a lot of people are nervous about it because we're under the impression that being in that category means that any six disgruntled users can demand a recall for no reason. Good on you for putting the time in to clarify what the point of all this is, and what it isn't. -- SCZenz 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. and based on what is here I see the outlines of Friday's definition of what good standing is, and will use it as a basis for clerking the current one, similar to how I did Crzrussian's and BunchOfGrapes (Friday has asked me to do so), with Friday having the final say on how things go criteriawise. ++Lar: t/c 04:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts
My thoughts on your points:

1. Admins also have much greater influence, even if they never use the buttons. At AN/I, for example, comments from non-Admins appear to be completely ignored, with only Admin voices being heard. This is completely horrid behavior on the part of the Admins, but is the reality, nonetheless. Thus, the abuse of this "Admin influence" is also a matter for concern. Threats, and implied threats, by Admins are also a concern.

2. Agreed. The recall process should be formalized and universal, however. We shouldn't have "Admins for life" here, that's a recipe for a two-class community.

3. Adminships should expire once a year.

4. That would depend on the mistake. Accidentally blocking the wrong person by mistyping a name, sure. But intentionally using Admin tools against your "enemies" in a way you would not against your "friends" is not a mistake which should be forgiven.

5. Without exact rules it will all be subjective, which doesn't build confidence.

6. There have been many discussions at AN/I, RFC, MFD, user talk pages, the Ref Desk talk page, etc.

7. I find the lack of Admin accountability appalling.

8. That seems rather short to me. How long do the ArbComm elections normally run ? That seems the right length to me. StuRat 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My thought is that you don't have the first clue how things work around here and are basically, at this point, an ignorable nuisance. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish you would ignore me, as you have often promised, since I decided to ignore you long ago. StuRat 04:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)