User talk:Lar/Accountability

caution about transclusion
hmm... people are transcluding this but I'm thinking of a change.

one change is that to be "in good standing" you have to yourself be in the "category"... those unwilling to face this don't get to call for others to face it. thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 11:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

a complaint about transparency
wouldn't accountability need that one can see your actions as an admin, i.e. compile listings with what you did, be it good or bad? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Massive revision
I did a pretty big revision of this today. This section is for comments on it. I tried to lay out specifically how every part of the process would be executed. If you spot holes I want to hear about them and fix them. If you spot things you don't agree with, not so much. I'm still interested but it's my committment to the community, so I may take them on board or not, as I see fit. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The modified RfC process with majority decision is the key to these recalls, I think. the supermajority RfA standard for exisiting admins is not a good standard. I like your process, although allowing individuals to petition for recall 3 times a year each seems excessive - if you are making that many bad admin actions, there should be no shortage of other people to make the requests instead. See also my brief page on recall. NoSeptember  13:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As much registering an interest in this approach. I may steal Lar's but I like some of the NoSeptember notes as well. -- Herby  talk thyme 13:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback so far guys. I think NoSeptember has an interesting approach of tying standing to experience with the area(s) at issue. What would you do if the recall request was based on multiple areas of perceived malfeasance? Require standing in all? any one? :) As for my choice of 3 times, it was random but intended to be permissive. 1 and 2 seemed too restrictive to me. ++Lar: t/c 05:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * NoSeptember's restrictions seem to be on the "must be a chicken to judge an egg" theme, and would tend to limit requesters to be other administrators. I don't like adding yet more power to admins that ordinary experienced users don't have. If we trust experienced non-administrators to choose adminstrators, bureaucrats, and arbitrators, surely we should trust experienced non-administrators to propose to recall administrators. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to think about NoS's stuff more but I agree, I don't want to limit to just admins... that's sort of what the WP:AAA proposal does, at least for starters. It deviates wildly after initial certification or whatever, of course...

Hi Lar - You speak of the criteria for the petitioners. May I suggest that you put a time frame on that in such a way that it not only eliminates newbies, but also recognizes changes in behaviour in longer term members (e.g., no significant blocks for disruption in the past year, must have contributed x number of mainspace edits in past six months). Many currently well respected members of the community have had a bit of a negative history early in their career. There are also a fair number of editors who have been on our registers for a long time and may have participated actively in the past but now only on occasion. Thanks. Risker (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, let me think about that, I think it has merit. We should encourage reform and improvement so this really is a good point. ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed it to add "within the last 4 months" on the disruptive behaviour part. This acknowledges that yes, people do change. ++Lar: t/c 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mainspace edits
What's the use of the 100 "substantive article improvements"? Might this be too aggressive of a filter?  bibliomaniac 1  5  19:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally like the idea, if it means what I think it means. What I hope it means is real article editing (TM and R), something more than vandalism reversion or spelling correction edits. For example, for the last few days, I've been looking at my watchlist and it's been full of a fellow editor using AutoWikiBrowser to change - to — and similar things in quite a few articles on my watchlist; he does several a minute, and while I haven't counted, I suspect he would meet "500 article contributions" every 1 or at most 2 days. I suspect "recent changes" vandal fighters rack up similar numbers. Not to gainsay spelling correction or vandal fighting, they're useful or even invaluable contributions, after all, but what I hope we're really trying to get at is that the editor be at least a little "experienced" in what we are actually supposed to do around here, write an encyclopedia, and "500 article contributions/100 substantive article improvements" is sort of a measure of article editing experience. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone who has racked up a few edits vandal fighting across wikis I find this interesting. While agreeing with AnonEMouse I can see the clause effectively preventing me from being part of the process?  Lar's comments would be interesting here.  -- Herby  talk thyme 11:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very open to suggestions here. What I want to prevent is some ED Lulzer coming in and using AWB or other automation to do 500 short to long dash edits just to qualify, but also I don't want to rule out long term serious vandal fighters. I have a lot of sympathy with the notion that if you're not contributing somehow that your words well OUGHT to carry less weight (I won't go so far as to say unless you have one FA, I won't listen at all)... ideas? I don't want this to be TOO complicated. maybe qualify under A or B or C ish kind of thinking? ++Lar: t/c 00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe make it at least 1000+ edits (not hard), at least 500 mainspace, and at least two of the people endorsing recall need to have joined no later than a year after you did (19:08, 8 June 2005 it looks like for you), so two of them would need to have been at it since 8 June 2006. That would eliminate any games, wouldn't it? Lawrence Cohen  00:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

question
I followed this back from Mercury's new RFA. What would happen if an admin posted something on a recall page such as, "As of January 1 200whatever, I am open to recall per these standards. If I attempt to remove myself from this committed obligation, I pre-authorize the first Steward to see or be notified of this message with confirmation that I have removed myself from my recall commitment, to desysop me immediately, and I wave the right to get my admin tools back then by anything other than another full RFA." And if it then included some relevant diff linking to that statement. Would something like that even be acceptable? Lawrence Cohen 09:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this interesting. My matrix contains an "inactivity clause" (something I feel rather strongly about).  However when I put it in I did wonder whether I would ever "withdraw" it and whether I could or should put in a "this is binding" kind of rider - same sort of principle as I see it?  Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 11:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Herby: I think ultimately, this all is about your word. To yourself, and to the community. It's not about rules and laws and enforcement. Is your word good? Saying "I really mean it" doesn't mean you actually mean it any more than not saying it. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought about the idea of it either when Durova or Mercury first began their processes, and I asked then on one of their pages, but in all the chaos surrounding each I think it fell under the radar. If an admin did something like that, would it be completely binding, if wording to the effect of
 * "If I try to undo this, remove this, or anything else, desysop me later per this edit; I understand the consequences of it, even if I try to deny this later."
 * The real question I suppose is what would happen if the admin did try to deny it later--would that early authorization be compulsory, if they said it was? Would a Steward act on it? Lawrence Cohen  15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Would "my account was compromised when it made that edit" fall under the heading of "deny"?  -- Thin  boy  00  @182, i.e. 03:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a pretty thin argument, especially if the person made the posting during their RFA, perhaps? Lawrence Cohen  22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Cohen: I see where you're coming from with that clause. The idea has merit but I personally would not want to be held to this recall thing forever. I think it is a great idea but I could see some combination of circumstances possibly arising (that I can't name right now for lack of imagination) that would make even ME want to withdraw. I say I won't withdraw during recall or to avoid recall... not never. Someone else could make such a promise I suppose. One practical problem, though, (which you are already alluding to) is that in my considered judgement (as a newly elected steward), the clause is unenforceable (just as the mechanics of WP:AAA are) because it requires judgement on the part of a steward of something other than "did this discussion reach consensus that represents the will of the community" or "did this process adhere to stated policy"... something no voluntary thing ever can. Especially if it involves promises made at some point in the past. ++Lar: t/c 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Lar, I hadn't thought of it quite from that angle. I was thinking more along the lines of, why wouldn't a voluntary resignation of adminship ever be honored, and I couldn't imagine a case where it wouldn't be. It was basically an idea for a crazy person to put themselves permanently on the hook for that: "If I ever take myself out of recall, desysop me if I stand by that decision." So Stewards or the community in general wouldn't honor a self-made request like that? I honestly never thought of it being the case of it not being binding because the community decided it wouldn't be, since the community can't stop someone from laying down adminship (or so I thought!). Lawrence Cohen  00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I see this, it comes down to when do stewards remove permissions... there are three specific cases:
 * Someone reports that the community, following their defined and previously consensed on (hence "official") process (such as Commons:Commons:Administrators/De-adminship) has decided an admin should be a non admin.
 * A member of a duly constituted arbcom from a wiki that has one reports that the arbcom has decided an admin should be a non admin.
 * A person reports that they are an admin who wants to be a non admin.
 * None of those require anything like the amount of judgement a steward would have to apply to this situation ("well he said it back then and now he says he doesn't mean it but someone else says he said it back then so that counts more than what he says now"...). I won't do steward things here as it's a home wiki but I expect any other steward would not be willing to do that. (see Effeietsander's comments at Wikipedia_talk:Admin_Accountability_Alliance where I asked him to comment) 01:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is all fascinating. I never really imagined that a person couldn't make a binding decision, ahead of time, towards themselves in this manner. The third option you list, though--the person who is an admin asking for their permissions to be removed--so, in practice, this is only granted in general when the person actually makes a proactive request. If I were to write, here:
 * "I commit myself to the recall process as detailed at User:Lawrence Cohen/recall at the date and time of this posting. If I attempt to remove, cancel, or substantially change that process, I pre-authorize any Steward notified of those actions to summarily desysop me. Lawrence Cohen  22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)"
 * And then post a link to that above statement on my recall page, it honestly you don't think would be honored? I'm just trying to wrap my head around that, sorry. Lawrence Cohen  22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nudges
Some great discussion here, and I didn't notice right away. Sorry about that... if anyone ever thinks I'm not responding here feel free to nudge me on my talk after a day or two goes by :) ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeping a sense of proportion about this
I added a LOLcat to the page partly to remind myself that despite the maze of ifs, ands, wheretefores, the parties of the second part and so forth... that this is serious yes, but it doesn't have to be humorless. Tell me if you think that's detracting or distracting :) ++Lar: t/c 00:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

A stultifying read
Oh, my head, my beautiful head in ruins! I now remember why I've never asked what would be the specific process of admin recall: I hoped someone else would create criteria and methods for me. I read through your process and I blank out. Truth, I can't seem to follow yours from beginning to end at the moment. I absolutely agree that admins in this category need a delineated process to provide for an actual implementation and application of recall when necessary. And that it needs to be done and in place prior to problems with the admin. However, I think a uniform process for all admins would be preferable to everyone creating their own. I'm put in mind of those software EULAs or credit card agreements so complicated very few people read them thoroughly. Perhaps I missed it but is there a reason why a relatively firm set of criteria and a distinct process hasn't been ironed out for everyone who puts themselves in this category? Even a couple or three standards could be used, say "Admins open to recall using the "Lar Standard" criteria" or somesuch. "...using the Firsfron Standard". Yes, I know: if I want to use a simpler standard than this one, I'm welcome to do so. It just seems so... messy. I guess this is feedback. And, no, I don't have ideas for improvement. Helpful aren't I? Cheers, Pigman ☿ 05:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it's stultifying! I had a simpler one from when I first wrote it till about 2 months ago, but one that I thought was too ambiguous after what happened during Durova's and Mercury's recalls. So I started trying to nail everything down. Every time I said "and after that we have an RfC" or whatever I realised I had to explain what exactly that meant. By the time I got done, it was big. But I don't think it has any loose ends at all that I could find. Other people have simpler ones. I just worry that when someone gets to the "and now it's RfC time" no one will know exactly what that means. But I agree simpler would be more desirable. I think a few other ones are turning out to be used by more than one person as well, so that's a promising sign. Having one standard one takes things away from the "and it's voluntary" style Aaron and I were going for. Having a few standards might be good though. ++Lar: t/c 21:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about a compromise? Create a default standard and process which would apply unless the admin had specified otherwise prior to the recall attempt.  That way, admins like Pigman who hope someone else will create criteria and methods for them, and admins like Lar who create their own, can both be accommodated.  You two agree on the desirability of a relatively firm standard and process being in place for every member prior to problems.  But even after Lar has individually notified most of the membership, less than a fourth have added themselves to Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria.  A default standard and process would pick up the rest (who could still specify their own if they were dissatisfied), and thereby reduce potential controversy and increase the predictability of the process, while retaining much of its voluntary style. Tim Smith (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea except 1) we can't put a default in place and expect admins to adhere to it without notifying them at the least (I'd go further and argue we would have to eject everyone from the catgory, put the default in place, and then ask that they rejoin so no admin could say the wool was pulled over their eyes about what the default was, and 2) we would have to get the default right (and never change it ever again, see 1) :) ), and 3) I ain't gonna notify everyone again!... that was a lot of work and I'm lazy! :) Despite what may sound like major objections on my part, I think the idea merits batting about (but perhaps not here, this page is for feedback on my process, rather on the main discussion page for the category, Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall)... ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've posted there. Tim Smith (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied there (as you know but maybe others reading don't) ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Re-confirmation" and discretion
This page describes a process in which the recall subject may "choose to take the matter to ArbCom". When the arbitration case ends, or if ArbCom declines to take the case, "that concludes the matter as far as [the subject is] concerned". Alternatively, the subject may seek community approval at a modified RfC at which "no consensus == no change", and only users "qualified to vote in an ArbCom election" will count toward the total.

In my opinion, these scenarios are not fully in keeping with the spirit of the recall commitment. Administrators open to recall says that category members are 'willing to stand for "re-confirmation" of adminship if a sufficient number of editors in good standing request it.' The term "re-confirmation" is most naturally interpreted to mean a repetition of the original confirmation at RfA: having stood for confirmation of adminship before, the member is willing to do so again. Accordingly, although the venue for re-confirmation is currently "an open question, to be decided by the entrant", it seems to me that no matter what venue is chosen, the standard for re-confirmation should be the same as for initial confirmation. Then we can most justifiably call the result a re-confirmation.

To be clear: the recall process proceeds in two stages, petition and re-confirmation. In the first stage, petition, the recall subject is granted discretion over "The number of editors, their standing in this project, the good faith of the request, etc." This stage acts as a sieve to filter out insignificant requests, so that the community is not burdened with re-confirmations whose success is foregone. But once this initial hurdle has been passed and the re-confirmation stage begun, I would expect the standard, meaning particularly (1) the eligible participants, and (2) the threshold, to be that of RfA.

Specifically, regardless of the venue chosen for re-confirmation (e.g. RfA, modified RfC), I would expect, just as at RfA, that (1) any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to support or oppose, and (2) RfA-level support is required to retain adminship, and no consensus means no confirmation. Obviously, taking the matter to ArbCom, or undergoing an RfC where "no consensus == no change" and only users qualified to vote in an ArbCom election are counted, would not meet these expectations. While I acknowledge the discretion granted to category members regarding stage-1 criteria and stage-2 venue, I think the recall commitment is best interpreted to include a non-discretionary stage-2 standard tied to that of the original confirmation at RfA. Tim Smith (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with all that, but I have also been worried about that ArbCom thing. See, I suspect there is a non-negligible chance ArbCom may decide not to take the case, stating "this is not what ArbCom is for", in which case, what, the admin stays? At least personally, when I signed up, for me, it meant I would step down if the community no longer had confidence in me. While the ArbCom is a great place to decide if I misbehaved enough for me to take the mop away from me by force, I'm not sure if they're the best way to gauge community trust. For me, if six respected editors complain about me on my talk page, if I don't agree, I'll go to something like RFC or RFA, not ArbCom. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I don't find that argument persuasive, because I do not interpret "reconfirmation" the same way you do. There are many ways to reconfirm something besides the one originally used. Since it's a voluntary commitment, it's up to the individual admin to define (preferably in advance) what reconfirmation specifically means. The community as a whole will judge whether the admin has acted equitably by how they respond afterwards. ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you comment on the "ArbCom is not the community" thing? ArbCom can already remove our bits should they choose, by saying "take it to ArbCom" we aren't saying much by being in this category. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To my way of thinking, there is a significant difference between being dragged to ArbCom kicking and screaming, protesting that you did nothing wrong all the way, and initiating the case yourself, with full disclosure and willing cooperation, referencing everything that the recall petition said, arguing for acceptance of the case, and vowing not to contest any sanctions that ArbCom places. However I do also agree that it's not quite as "community" as a modified RfC or an RfA. Nevertheless it's a choice I prefer to give myself as part of the voluntary choices I voluntarily subject myself to under this voluntary process that I voluntarily decided to volunteer for. (did I work voluntary in there enough times do you think?) ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PS, maybe (not a committment, just an "I'll think about it") if arbcom declines, I could pick one of the other two instead of saying "well that's that." ... ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording to say that I would consider choice 1 or 3 if arbcom declines the case, but am not obligated. If arbcom takes the case the findings ought to be binding (to be exonerated by arbcom and yet still have people asking I resign anyway seems double jeopardy to me...). on reflection I think this is the choice I would be least likely to take, with the modified RfC most likely. That's about as far as I personally am willing to go. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Under a cload"
I believe "under controversial controversial circumstances" is the phrase the committee usually uses; see here. David Mestel(Talk) 16:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have clarified by adding a footnote linking that principle and the "controversial circumstances" wording. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well-written
Very well-designed, in my opinion. A long time ago I made a note in my sandbox for later reference, "User:Lar/Accountability well-written admin recall procedure"; but partway through my RfA I suddenly realized "Oh, no – I forgot to think about choosing a recall procedure!" Luckily nobody asked about it. In your procedure, I particularly like "If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable." (LOL!) and "Those that consider this not to be an RfC are welcome to give it whatever term they wish but these process steps will be used, and supersede standard RfC process where there is a conflict." ☺ I think you have a typo in the 2nd point of the recall petition process: in "as when the first eligible petition announces" I think "petition" should be "petitioner". (I was somewhat hesitant to be bold and edit the document myself.) Thanks for your help at Simple English Wikiquote! Coppertwig (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Well spotted. Fixed. And, you're welcome. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing one's mind
Based on discussion at User_talk:MBisanz/Recall in which the initiator of a recall is urged to withdraw the request of their own volition, I realised that my process doesn't have that. Needful? If so, how best to express it economically? ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nit needing picking
Just a detail; when talking about checkuser you refer to the Ombudsman; nowadays, this should probably be the Audit Subcommittee, shouldn't it? &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably either/both as it depends on context. but much more likely to be the audit sub, ya. ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"must have had no significant blocks for disruptive behaviour within the last 4 months"
Two (and a sub) concerns over this based on a current worthless request.


 * How about if 'only you blocked them for disruptive behavior?


 * How about if they were unblocked declaring the block to be invalid or lacking consensus?
 * How about if they were unblocked with comments like "user promised to be good" or "time served?"

Thanks for clarifing. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a judgement call. Everything is as how I would interpret it, others may do so differently: (and you should judge them on how they do :), part of being a good admin is showing good judgment I think. )
 * First, if they were unblocked because it was found to be invalid or lacking consensus I would clearly not count that at all, so I would direct the clerk to certify if they had not already done so.
 * If they were unblocked with comments like "promised to be good" or "time served" (especially the former) that's an acknowledgement there was an issue... I would count that as a significant block. If it was the person who started the petition, I myself would waive that requirement in that case. But not if it was just another certifier. That is I would direct the clerk to waive it at my direction, without prejudice to other certifiers cases, and then verify.
 * If I was the only person to block them, I would waive the requirement in any case (in a future version of this I should change it, but since Sarek didn't give a timestamped link I don't want to change it just now)
 * Hope that helps. Comments welcome. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

on grading recall criteria
Seperate and unrelated: "In the category" - Having now viewed some of the criteria "in the category," this is toothless. I suggest you change it to "in the category and with criteria that are, in (x) opinion, equal or less restrictive than these, and that have never been sucessfully recalled but chose not to resign." This prevents people from joining the category, getting recalled and saying "I'm recallable but this petition failed because recall is voluntary!" or joining the category with

"My criteria are that on if Jimbo Wales and any other user requests I resign the bit within 2 seconds of eachother then I will allow a poll of users, where only individuals with 500 edits to the Portal Talk namespace are permitted to vote. If that shows a 90-10 ratio of support/oppose taking all possible editors (including those who were eligible but chose not to participate as opposing), then I will submit to a modified RFC where all editors may voice their opinion. If in my sole opinion that RFC suggests I should resign my bits, I will place myself under probation for 60 days. If any new valid (in my sole opinion) complaints emerge during those 60 days, I will allow a checkuser active on Wikibooks to determine if I should relinquish my bits with the option to regain them via request at meta."

to request your recall. ConsiderHipocrite (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, can you read that over again and see if it parses for you? some of it didn't for me.... notably the first sentence... what is the quotation referring to, the category itself? But the gist, I gather is that maybe there should be some sort of evaluation scheme of criteria? Or notation that some are easily gameable by the admin? I happen to think mine are not easily gameable by either petitioners (who might want to spuriously cause trouble) or the admins who use them... I wrote them to be hard to wriggle out of, I think. But I guess we are about to find out aren't we? I think this is the first time mine, as is, have been used. LMK. (whether one COULD evaluate criteria for toothlessness is an interesting question, how would you do it? score on degree of difficulty? :) )++Lar: t/c 14:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, no. The point is "that if the user calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves have been in this category for at least two weeks." Many people in the category are in the category, but not really in the category. For example, one criteria I have reviewed basically says "If you ask me to resign, I might." Sorry, mind got ahead of fingers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. And here I thought you wanted a grading system (given that I once left everyone in the category at the time an admonishment to set up criteria... I could see that ) ... "Dear NotReally : your criteria have been graded and you get an F, they're not actually applyaboe. Please try to take this seriously, your pals, Lar and the Society for Consistent Accountability" ... "Dear TightAsADrum : your criteria have been graded and you get an A-, we spotted one thing we were wondering about..., your pals, Lar and the Society for Consistent Accountability"  something like that? Ahem.
 * Yes, I can see what you're saying and maybe in a future version some sort of verbiage about "and you have to actually mean it per my judgement" but that's too easily gamable by the admin being recalled to say (opposite of your concern)... "well you don't allow currently bannede users to certify so you're not taking this seriously" or the like.... hmm... dunno. ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Sarek clarified that he is using a specific version (it was the actual currently active page that lacked it not Sarek's main page, User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall criteria), so I'll be taking this idea (and the next one) on board and proposing some revisions for comment. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that, I got lazy when I wrote the initial page, and linked to the main page instead of the time-stamped one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification of others
(moved from Lar's talk page) It might help to indicate on the page above which method, if any, you think would be the best way to alert one's fellow editors regarding the recall petition would be best. I would personally think just the regular notification of an extant RfC and maybe an addition to the admin's talk or user page should be more than sufficient, but do think it might help to give some sort of indication as to how, if at all, the RfC is to be announded to the community might be helpful. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Feel free to ask this on the User_talk:Lar/Accountability page (I may move it there) Are you asking about the petition itself, or the modified RfC (if that option is chosen)? ... as far as petitions go, as far as I know there is not generally an accepted practice as to how to notify fellow editors that a petition (or recall request) has been started. I think using the regular RfC list might be looked at askance by some, not sure, what do you think? I suppose one could place a notice on WP:AN but that might bring folk who aren't necessarily really familiar with the admin. The modified RfC I would think is close enough to an RfC that using the RfC list would be OK BUT maybe some folk would object, not sure. (the other two options I don't think have any issues... in one the admin just resigns, and in the other, it's an RfAr, so it gets a fair bit of visibility on the RfAr page... ) Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 22:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want you to know that these questions are raised because of User:SarekOfVulcan's current rfa, and neither of us, so don't think this is some sort of threat OK? But, as other admins do seem to use this "template", it might make sense to add some information to it. I would have serious reservations about a regular RfC listing, and think that the AN notice would probably be enough, but it might be a good idea to have some sort of standard response indicated, so that in the future people don't question whether an admin is trying to game the system to his own benefit one way or another. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First I fixed a typo in your user ref, (and I think it's a RfRP (request for recall petition ) ) rather than RfA... Second, struck me as a legitimate question. Just one I don't have a quick answer for. I think it deserves some thought. I saw what Sarek said, that he's not going to go out of his way to notify/publicise about this. Can't say as I blame him, drama attracts dramafans. But on the other hand I do think keeping it hidden, or even having the perception that one is more interested in keeping it hidden than in having a frank discussion, is not good. Some balance there is needed. I'm open to suggestions as to what to add, but as I said just above, I don't think I'd want to add anything right now as Sarek is using an untimestamped version (hmm... maybe I should talk to MoP about changing to a timestamped version in the stuff there?) Thoughts? Especially suggested wordings? ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many recalls there are per month, but, personally, I tend to think that having all such recalls posted at the same time, say once a month starting on the first, might be the best way to go. It would probably draw attention from dramamongers, but it would also probably make it easier to detect them as well. I would like to see some sort of indication on the user's page, but in this case the "Recall" section of his talk page is probably sufficient for that. Regarding the matter of timestamps, I do think that having them there would be useful, but he also seems to be indicating at th(e bottom when the comments were added, so that probably gets functionally the same results. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the list of all of the recalls I know of (maintained by volunteers) Administrators_open_to_recall/Past_requests under this general framework. It's a pretty short list, so there may well be several months in a row with none. Still, a once a month gating is interesting. If someone is so egregiously off the mark that you can't wait, take it to ArbCom I guess? However, since this is a voluntary process, there's no way to mandate any such noticeboard. So that seems like more of a generic process than a voluntary one though. Are you aware of this current discussion, by the way: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Administrator/Admin_Recall ?? I suggested to MoP that they use a specific version of my page, which would allow me to incorporate the suggestions made without waiting. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

See above, Sarek is using a specific version. If you have a suggested wording change to make, please suggest it! :) I'm very open to this elaboration if a good wording can be found. It seems like a suggestion though. ++Lar: t/c 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I should act on this suggestion and some of the others... just a reminder to me :) ++Lar: t/c 14:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggested changes to your admin recall procedure.
(moved from User_talk:Lar)

Lar, Like you, I am an administrator open to recall. I have committed to using your procedure (thanks for writing that BTW). However, in my opinion, the events at User:Looie496/Recall reinforced the need for admins open to recall to review their criteria for flaws. I have a concern with yours, and am asking you to consider a change to avoid me making a fork of your criteria. In that specific case, only admins could sign the petition. This naturally resulted in some controversy and accusations of elitism. I state this as it is tangential, but related to my concern. Two of the admins who signed the petition hypocritically stated their reason for signing is that the eligibility criteria was flawed and the accused's fate should be decided by all, not just other admins. Yet these admins were not even open to recall. In other words, those two admins wanted all other admins to have their fate decided by all, but they will only allow their fate to be decided by Arbcom and Jimbo. There were others who signed stating this rational and were at least open to recall, but had recall criteria that were equally as vague or flawed, if even listed at all. I can also imagine a hypothetical, where admins who have recall criteria such as this: User:Chillum/recall, dogpile on a recall petition. For the record, I like Chillum and have had positive interactions with him; but let's be honest, that is not an honest criteria for recall.

As such I would like you to consider a similar change to the following suggestion in your procedure, "if the user calling for recall is an admin, the admin must themselves be open to recall and have committed in writing to a specific threshold for resignation based on the consensus or votes of peers at least 2 weeks before the incident that caused of the initiation of the recall petition occurred. This does not apply to non admins" What say ye? Dave (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable at first glance, yes. May I suggest further discussion (perhaps including moving this thread and leaving a pointer) at User talk:Lar/Accountability? ++Lar: t/c 20:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, move the discussion to whatever venue you feel is appropriate. Dave (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So the solution to one flawed recall process is to introduce a flaw into another? If Lar's process is open to all, which presumably is the intent, why would making it discriminatory make it better? Put another way, do you propose to bar from participation in a recall process those who are skeptical of the process (but could be convinced to enrol themselves if they saw actual working examples) solely because they are skeptical? Franamax (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see it that way at all. First, Lar's procedure already states that any admin signing must be listed at Category:Administrators open to Recall. This is a clarification to state the commitment to recall must be real, not just listing oneself. Second, I think it's a fair restriction. If you are an admin trying to recall another admin, you should practice what you preach. Dave (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dave, I don't think someone who isn't really recallable should be able to call for the recall of another. So I support Dave's idea, in theory. My concern is that a wording is needed that includes the spirit of what is intended but that isn't excessively "legalistic". Many who criticise voluntary recall in general, or my process particularly, point to some of the verbiage of my process as already being too complex/legalistic. Maybe something where it's a clerk discretion matter? ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, "admins signing the petition must have previously demonstrated commitment to administrator recall themselves, to be determined by the clerk" or something like that? Also, just in case my above statement wasn't clear, I have no beef in general with administrators who sign recall petitions and/or administrators who are not open to recall, especially given how easily lynch mobs can form in wikipedialand. My issue is to prevent what happened with two specific signers of that petition from re-occurring. Yes, I'm also aware that even had those signers been disqualified the petition still would have passed. Dave (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's in tune with my thinking... ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I forgot to read the small print, so let's say that I disagree with the existing small print too. Lar, if you want to have a process open to everyone who has a basic competence in editing, why are you putting up special barriers? Speaking as an admin (and I said the exact same thing in my RFA, it's my long-held view), I don't find the current voluntary recall process workable as something I would participate in as a subject. That's not to say that I don't applaud your own effort (see my RFA Q15). But why would you explicitly exclude me, just because our views differ? Why is my assessment of your fitness for adminship less worthy than that of a non-admin editor? Am I not still an editor when acting in a non-admin role? And of course I can drop the bit any time I want anyway, then ask for it again as "not under a cloud", so the clause is moot.
 * Moabdave, 'tis true that since Looie496 specified a discriminatory criterion, he should have made it more discriminatory by specifying that only AOR admins could be certifiers. It's also true that I disagree with the outcome of that process, and with the way it happened. But that is another of my problems with voluntary AOR, it's both an honest attempt to address the admin-for-life problem, and to a certain degree comes across as all of a dare, a justification and a holier-than-thou presentation. Franamax (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it could just be a basic philosophical difference... EDITORS in good standing (I think my criteria are fairly reasonable there) are welcome to recall me as they see fit. But if you're an admin, and you're not willing to be recalled, don't ask for my recall. Start an RfC, or take me to ArbCom or whatever. Doesn't mean I don't respect your viewpoint, just that you don't get to use recall against me. Feel free to drop your bit for the 3 or more weeks a recall will take, if you want. Wikilawyering, perhaps, but I'd let that slide. ++Lar: t/c 00:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, If someone defended their rationale as you have, I would probably waive that requirement and count that signature. Despite appearances, it's not about being elitist. However, if an admin signs a recall petition against me, stating "your criteria for signers is too restrictive, this should be decided by all. I'm going to be the voice of the little one; I'm going to speak for those who can't in this tyrannical process" Yet they have no commitment to their own recall when they made that declaration, I want to have grounds to to strike their signature. I'm only slightly exaggerating what happened in the above linked recall. And if I'm frank, I'm going to be fighting the urge to put something in the edit summary that would probably cause the petition to get 20 more signatures =-) Dave (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Upshot? I think this came to rest. I am going to modify the text to say something about this but I haven't decided what. More comment welcome. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the unlikely event someone initiates a recall between now and when this gets resolved, I have added a temporary disclaimer on my userpage. You're welcome to borrow it if you'd like. It's probably more specific than you'd like, but I want to have the bases covered. =-) Dave (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you made sure that there is no reference to cat:recall. I have, I think, some of the most open and egalitarian recall conditions (User:Martijn Hoekstra/Recall), but I'm not in cat:recall. Yet in case the people with the torches and the pitchforks happen to come running in, I want to be able to join them because I don't like you I mean I really like pitchforks and torches, they make me feel all rustic your recall conditions are probably the most influential on en:wiki, and people are likely to copy them, and who knows, maybe I want to chime in. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that listing oneself at CAT:AOR is meaningless unless a criteria for recall is also specified (the category page specifically says there is no default recall procedure; an admin's recall procedure could be convince Jimbo to take action and this is still considered "open to recall"). I consider you more open to recall more than most who are listed in the category. Dave (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

10 years since the last comment
My how time flies. The current RFC on adminship (Requests_for_adminship/2021_review )refers to the sample and alternative recall processes, which drew some stuff from this one. I haven't thought much about recall in a long time. But I also haven't done anything controversial in even longer. Do people still refer to this? ++Lar: t/c 20:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am still borrowing your criteria for my recall procedure. However, I'm not as active in Wikipedia as I used to be and I haven't done much with "the bit" aside from fixing messes I stumble across in my normal course of reading or editing in some time. Dave (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * that's me too, and I rather like it. Cheers ++Lar: t/c 02:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)