User:Deryck Chan/Accountability

I am an

RfC (no consensus == no change), or resign "under a cloud".^[2]

See below for processes for the petition and the modified RfC.

Background

Wikipedia is a fast-changing collaborative environment by definition. As an administrator appointed in 2007 (as of writing, 4 years ago, and Wikipedia was only 10 years old), I am sometimes unable to keep up with changes in policy and therefore may inadvertently misuse or abuse my administrator rights and privileges, either out of ignorance to policy or out of gross negligence.[3]
Under normal circumstances, an administrator may only be removed by an
ArbCom ruling, an emergency action by the Wikimedia Foundation, or due to long inactivity
. To ensure accountability of my work as an administrator, I decided to lay down this process in case it will be needed one day, which I hope it won't.
The recall process I detail here are copied from Lar's criteria, with modifications to simplify the process and reflect my participation in the offline Wikimedia community, in particular with reference to the petition eligibility criteria.

Scope

The petition for recall must be based on issues that concern the use of my admin powers on this wiki. If the issue does not involve my use of admin powers, please use the standard dispute resolution mechanisms. If the issue is about actions my at another wiki, please use dispute resolution mechanisms there.

Matters concerning my behaviour outside Wikimedia projects is strictly outside the scope of this recall process. Discussing my involvements elsewhere using this process will be considered as
outing
and will not be appreciated.

I am human and make mistakes. I won't try to strike down a recall petition but I encourage you to talk to me about the particular problem before initiating a recall petition.

The Recall Petition process

Eligibility

For the recall petition to take effect, it must be signed either:

By 2 editors whom I know in person,^[4] both of which need to have at least 1,000 global Wikimedia edits, 50 edits on this wiki, and 10 global edits within the two weeks preceding their signature on a petition.

By 6 editors in good standing. Editors meeting any of the 3 criteria below are eligible:
An admin who has been themselves be in this category (administrators open to recall) in the two weeks preceding their signature of the petition;

An editor^[5] with at least 4 months edit history under that username, and at least 1,000 edits on this wiki, of which 30 are made in the two weeks preceding their signature of the petition, and who has not been blocked within the last 4 months;

An editor who is eligible under criterion 1 above.

The editor initiating a petition must create a new subpage under my user page for the petition, detailing the reasons for the recall petition, and then notify me on my user talk page about the petition. All required signatures must be gathered within 5 days of the petition's initiation. If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice.^[6]

The modified RfC process

This is a possible "next step" after a certified recall. The modified RfC will be constituted as follows:

A page in my userspace will be created.

Certification of the RfC will be waived.

If attempts are made to delete the page, I will counter them to the best of my ability within the limits of policy and common practice.^[6] If the community ultimately deletes the page and it sticks I don't quite know what to do but will try to be reasonable.

A clerk of my sole choosing, but chosen for ability to be impartial, will be appointed to make sure that the RfC process itself goes smoothly, and to determine eligibility where appropriate.

The RfC will be started by referencing the entire text of the recall petition

Two questions will be included: Should I keep my adminship/Should I resign my adminship

Anyone qualified to vote in an ArbCom election, as construed in the most recent previous one to the initiation of the petition, or one then ongoing, whichever is more favourable (looser voting requirements), can sign under either of these two questions. Those not qualified will have their signatures and comments moved to sections that make it clear what their views are, but that do not count toward the total.

Any other sections desired may be added but will not have bearing on the outcome except to sway public opinion

At the end of exactly 5 days the modified RfC shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible commenters. If a simple majority to resign exists, I shall resign. Resignation shall be construed to have been "under a cloud"^[2], and if I wish to regain my adminship I will have to stand again via the normal RfA process.

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.

The conclusion of the RfC after the outcome is certified and my action is taken, if any, will conclude the matter as far as I am concerned, but the community is of course able to take whatever other steps they wish including starting a regular RfC, initiating an ArbCom case, etc.

Conditions

Grace period

Any change in any provision of this shall have a 2 week "grace period" before it comes into effect, during which any recall initiated will be under the old terms. Any change that is reverted or edited to a different version before it comes into effect should be interpreted as having never been made.

No Double Jeopardy

Once this process concludes for matters raised by petitioners during an instance of this process, I will not honor a second recall request regarding the same matters.^[1] If however new matters arise, the community is welcome to initiate another recall.

No vexatious litigants

No petitioner may initiate or support a petition for my recall more than three times in any 365 day period. This does not apply to participation in a modified RfC.

Severability

This is about my commitment to the community to be accountable, not about a category membership. Thus, the provisions of this page shall survive if, for example, the
CAT:AOTR
(or successor, whatever named) is deleted, renamed, listified. etc., and under any other reasonable circumstances. Only my explicitly stated withdrawal from this commitment itself will suffice.

No withdrawal

I do not intend to withdraw but that's an intent, not a promise. However, I promise not to withdraw to escape the consequences of this commitment. The only time I will withdraw from this category is if no recall is currently underway. This is subject to the same 2 week grace period as the eligibility or any other changes, so any withdrawal has at least 2 weeks to go into effect.

Notes

^ ^a ^b Remember, this is a voluntary action, and does not preclude an RfC or RfAr being initiated by others, should others feel they have no recourse.

^ ^a ^b This is the colloquial term for what is more formally described as "under controversial circumstances", see, for example this ArbCom principle

^ For example, if mistakes like this become the usual rather than the exception, it's probably time for me to step down.

^ This includes all editors whom I've met in person at Wikipedia meetups, other offline Wikimedian activities, and elsewhere.

^ This includes administrators. Administrators who are not open to recall may still be eligible under this criterion.

^ ^a ^b Lar, the original author of this process, comprehensively described the possibilities: "one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated but is not required as a condition of participation in the process. Arguing for deletion, however, shall cause that person's comments to be stricken or construed as favorable to retaining adminship, whichever is appropriate or more favourable to me, at my discretion."

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Deryck_Chan/Accountability&oldid=1045828513"

[RfAr-1] Remember, this is a voluntary action, and does not preclude an RfC or RfAr being initiated by others, should others feel they have no recourse.

[cloud-2] This is the colloquial term for what is more formally described as "under controversial circumstances", see, for example this ArbCom principle

[3] For example, if mistakes like this become the usual rather than the exception, it's probably time for me to step down.

[4] This includes all editors whom I've met in person at Wikipedia meetups, other offline Wikimedian activities, and elsewhere.

[5] This includes administrators. Administrators who are not open to recall may still be eligible under this criterion.

[delete-6] Lar, the original author of this process, comprehensively described the possibilities: "one recreate for a summary deletion, then I will work the MfD or DRV process as appropriate to argue for retention... assistance in arguing the case for retention by those participating would be appreciated but is not required as a condition of participation in the process. Arguing for deletion, however, shall cause that person's comments to be stricken or construed as favorable to retaining adminship, whichever is appropriate or more favourable to me, at my discretion."

[2]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]