Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall (2006 proposal)/Archive 2
Appearance
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. Bastique▼parler 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)