User:Amerique/Community recall: Difference between revisions

< User:Amerique Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:25, 17 July 2008 editAmerique (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers5,861 edits →Process proposals: added two other ideas brought up in talk, please edit as inclined← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:23, 28 July 2011 edit undoJenjenniffniff (talk \| contribs)1 edit →Rationale: This paragraph has nothing to do with the person or webpage cited as a reference.
(7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Proposed\|WP:COMREC\|WP:REC}}
	{{guideline in a nutshell\|This page outlines a process for ]ing an editor from a position of ] on Misplaced Pages.}}		{{guideline in a nutshell\|This page outlines a process for ]ing an editor from a position of ] on Misplaced Pages.}}

Line 5:		Line 4:

	==Rationale==		==Rationale==
	Reasons for initiating a community recall process can include a perceived lack of fitness, incompetence, or neglect of duties that has an ongoing, demonstratively harmful effect on the encyclopedia. As holders of ~~trust~~ positions may not see any actions on their part as contributing to a harmful effect on the encyclopedia, and as the ], the Arbitration Committee, or ] can't or won't act on all cases concerning the community's responsibility, a systematic and well-defined community recall process is necessary for the protection of the encyclopedia from otherwise unchecked abusers of positions of trust.<ref name="RSO">{{cite web\|url=http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/recallprovision.htm\|title=Recall of State Officials\|last=Drage Bowser\|first=Jennie\|date=2006-03-21\|publisher=]\|accessdate=2008-07-10}}</ref>		Reasons for initiating a community recall process can include a perceived lack of fitness, incompetence, or neglect of duties that has an ongoing, demonstratively harmful effect on the encyclopedia. As holders of trusted positions may not see any actions on their part as contributing to a harmful effect on the encyclopedia, and as the ], the Arbitration Committee, or ] can't or won't act on all cases concerning the community's responsibility, a systematic and well-defined community recall process is necessary for the protection of the encyclopedia from otherwise unchecked abusers of positions of trust.

	==Process proposals==		==Process proposals==
	~~Two~~ systems are currently under discussion on the talk page. Please add others for consideration. While this is in my sandbox I reserve the right to remove any that don't seem feasible or fair.		''Several systems are currently under discussion on the talk page. Please add others for consideration. While this is in my sandbox I reserve the right to remove any that don't seem feasible or fair. Also note that because a process is listed here does not necessarily mean I support it.''

	===Amerique's process===		===Amerique's process===
Line 14:		Line 13:

	====Motion to recall====		====Motion to recall====
	If a motion to recall is presented during the course of an RFC, the decision to initiate should be considered authorized by the support of at least 55 percent of the original number of supporters for the user at his or her last successful ], ] or other public election, within a two-week time frame from the moment the motion is time-stamped. If this minimum number is eclipsed by a ] of editors opposed to the recall, the process is prevented. If the trust position in question was appointed without community input, a "]" from the community would be considered effective if passed by a two thirds majority of respondents at the RFC level.		If a motion to recall is presented during the course of an RFC, the decision to initiate should be considered authorized by the support of at least 55 percent of the original number of supporters for the user at his or her last successful ], ] or other public election, within a two-week time frame from the moment the motion is time-stamped. If this minimum number is eclipsed by a ] of editors opposed to the recall, the process is prevented, and the numbers of the consensus in opposition establish a new minimum threshold for further recall motions against the user. If the trust position in question was appointed without community input, a "]" from the community would be considered effective if passed by a two thirds majority of respondents at the RFC level.

	====Recall petition====		====Recall petition====
Line 25:		Line 24:
	Uses the systemwide averages over the last three months for successful RFAs or other elections to establish an absolute minimum number to qualify consensus for a recall, and further attach a requirement of 75% of all respondents in support for the recall motion to pass. As he says, ''"If you need 80 supports that month to qualify it after 7 days, but fail, it gets shut down after 7 days as unsuccessful. If you reach 80 supports within 7 days, but after 7 days it falls shy of the current pass "rate" at RFA, then it's unsuccessful. However, if more people say that an admin has failed his role as an admin is no longer trusted, based on what the current RFA standards are, that's a "successful" recall. One shot, one step. Two tough but feasible thresholds to be met. It's a damning statement of failure on the party of any that fails two such tests of community trust within 7 days."''		Uses the systemwide averages over the last three months for successful RFAs or other elections to establish an absolute minimum number to qualify consensus for a recall, and further attach a requirement of 75% of all respondents in support for the recall motion to pass. As he says, ''"If you need 80 supports that month to qualify it after 7 days, but fail, it gets shut down after 7 days as unsuccessful. If you reach 80 supports within 7 days, but after 7 days it falls shy of the current pass "rate" at RFA, then it's unsuccessful. However, if more people say that an admin has failed his role as an admin is no longer trusted, based on what the current RFA standards are, that's a "successful" recall. One shot, one step. Two tough but feasible thresholds to be met. It's a damning statement of failure on the party of any that fails two such tests of community trust within 7 days."''

	===~~Jc37~~'s process===		===Geoff Plourde's process===
			1. Should the consensus at an RfC be that a official has violated the community's trust, such official shall be considered recalled. Determination of consensus may be made by any steward.
	Makes a ''"majority of admins to be able to discuss desysop of a fellow admin (same with bureaucrats). Though it would have to be a "majority" (RfA consensus determination would apply) of all active admins (987 last I looked, I think). I think that if (roughly) 670 admins out of 1000 decided that perhaps an admin should be de-sysopped, then that defininitely might at least be something worth discussing."''
			2. Upon any recall petition obtaining 10% of the total votes cast for that official, such official will be subject to a reconfirmation RfA (Variation of the California method)

	==Outcomes==		==Outcomes==

Latest revision as of 21:23, 28 July 2011

This page in a nutshell: This page outlines a process for recalling an editor from a position of trust on Misplaced Pages.

Community recall is a process by which editors with user access levels as administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversights, as well as members of the Arbitration Committee, are recalled by the community after having been determined to be abusive of their trust responsibilities.

Rationale

Reasons for initiating a community recall process can include a perceived lack of fitness, incompetence, or neglect of duties that has an ongoing, demonstratively harmful effect on the encyclopedia. As holders of trusted positions may not see any actions on their part as contributing to a harmful effect on the encyclopedia, and as the Wikimedia Foundation, the Arbitration Committee, or Jimbo Wales can't or won't act on all cases concerning the community's responsibility, a systematic and well-defined community recall process is necessary for the protection of the encyclopedia from otherwise unchecked abusers of positions of trust.

Process proposals

Several systems are currently under discussion on the talk page. Please add others for consideration. While this is in my sandbox I reserve the right to remove any that don't seem feasible or fair. Also note that because a process is listed here does not necessarily mean I support it.

Amerique's process

A community decision to recall an editor from a trust position should stem from a consensus determined at an RFC, based on an evaluation of evidence of policy violations presented against the user there. A motion to recall, if entered, should follow the discussion of evidence. No motion to recall should be entered preceeding a thorough evaluation of evidence.

Motion to recall

If a motion to recall is presented during the course of an RFC, the decision to initiate should be considered authorized by the support of at least 55 percent of the original number of supporters for the user at his or her last successful RFA, RFB or other public election, within a two-week time frame from the moment the motion is time-stamped. If this minimum number is eclipsed by a simple majority of editors opposed to the recall, the process is prevented, and the numbers of the consensus in opposition establish a new minimum threshold for further recall motions against the user. If the trust position in question was appointed without community input, a "motion of no confidence" from the community would be considered effective if passed by a two thirds majority of respondents at the RFC level.

Recall petition

The recall process itself would take place via a popular petition for that purpose, with a majority of at least two thirds required to determine the outcome in favor. It should proceed no earlier than one week after the successful motion passed at RFC, to allow any passions generated during the RFC to cool off, but no later than than one month following. After the prior steps are observed, the petition may be initiated by anyone in in good standing in the community. Once initiated, the petition should remain open for seven days, generally following the basic format of RFAs, and should be closed by a bureaucrat or steward. Unlike an RFA, however, it should be closed based on the numerical consensus. To keep drama to a minimum, the recall petition should be considered a straightforward "up or down" or "yes or no" vote. Comments in explanation of votes are not prohibited but not encouraged.

Everyking's process

"10 established users (defined as having at least 500-1000 edits and several months on the project) requesting recall within a defined period of time means that the admin in question is subject to a new RfA, even if the admin is not voluntarily open to recall. The admin must then receive a certain percentage of support (I'd favor 55 or 60%) in the RfA to retain adminship."

Rootology's process

Uses the systemwide averages over the last three months for successful RFAs or other elections to establish an absolute minimum number to qualify consensus for a recall, and further attach a requirement of 75% of all respondents in support for the recall motion to pass. As he says, "If you need 80 supports that month to qualify it after 7 days, but fail, it gets shut down after 7 days as unsuccessful. If you reach 80 supports within 7 days, but after 7 days it falls shy of the current pass "rate" at RFA, then it's unsuccessful. However, if more people say that an admin has failed his role as an admin is no longer trusted, based on what the current RFA standards are, that's a "successful" recall. One shot, one step. Two tough but feasible thresholds to be met. It's a damning statement of failure on the party of any that fails two such tests of community trust within 7 days."

Geoff Plourde's process

1. Should the consensus at an RfC be that a official has violated the community's trust, such official shall be considered recalled. Determination of consensus may be made by any steward. 2. Upon any recall petition obtaining 10% of the total votes cast for that official, such official will be subject to a reconfirmation RfA (Variation of the California method)

Outcomes

The result of a successful recall against an administrator or bureaucrat would be the loss of user access level privileges discussed in the initial RFC. A successful recall process initiated against a member of the Arbitration Committee would result in a symbolic "motion of no confidence" regarding the arbitrator on the part of the community to the Wikimedia Foundation, ArbCom and Jimbo Wales. Community recalls of user access privileges granted by ArbCom, such as checkuser and oversight, would result in a similar symbolic "motion of no confidence" directed to these agencies.

Misplaced Pages