Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall (2006 proposal)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs) at 23:09, 10 August 2006 (Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussion

What do you think? rootology (T) 22:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How is this different or better than existing de-adminship procedures? Deco 22:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
We have an existing de-adminship procedure? (Other than ArbCom and Jimbo, that is?) Kirill Lokshin 22:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This is different, a simplified, transparent, and centralized approach. There is Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, but that requires going through ArbCom and Dispute Resolution, and is at best ill-defined. This is a simple community oversight approach that is intended to be crystal clear, and very hard to abuse. rootology (T) 23:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
(This is probably not the kind of reply you're soliciting, but I think the page should be moved to Wikipedia:Admin recall (i.e., without CamelCase).) — mark 22:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think their should be some discussion first before asking people to draw lines. If I thought there was a 90% chance that consensus would immediately be for or against this, then I might support taking a poll first to find that out right away. I don't think that is likely in this case, so I urge the "polling" section be removed for now, pending some discussion first. Johntex\talk 22:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    Good idea, I removed the poll. rootology (T) 23:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a troll's charter. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a proposed process for good faith oversight that has a many steps built into it as designed to prevent and limit abuse. rootology (T) 23:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There are procedures by which an admin can be removed from admin status. A policy along these lines could be manipulated too easily by malicious intent and external factors. Bastiqueparler voir 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Which parts of the first draft of the proposal from reading it do you think are most abusable? rootology (T) 23:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)