User talk:Barneca/Recall procedure

Note:Comments from any and all welcome

Moving discussion originally on Lar's talk page

Hi Lar,

I've been mulling over how admin recall should work for a while, ever since I saw a thread about it at WT:RFA half a year ago. I'll probably try another RFA in a month or two, and have started thinking about how I'd like to handle it myself. With that in mind, I've put a draft of my own criteria together, at User:Barneca/Draft recall procedure. It's much less restrictive than yours, and you've obviously put a lot of thought into your process, so I'm curious what your opinion is, particularly on two issues:

Aside from the possiblity of wasting everyone's time by allowing possibly frivolous recalls (due to requiring only two users with almost any standing to start the process), are there any other problems with having a very low hurdle that you can see? In particular, I'm curious if you have any simple additions I could make which would weed out obvious chaffe, without making it hard for legit complaints to get through.
We've taken very different paths on the simplicity vs. airtight continuum. Curious what lead you to take your approach.

Absolutely no rush on a reply, but if it interests you, mull it over and let me know (on my user talk page, or on User talk:Barneca/Draft recall procedure, so I don't watchlist your talk page long term) if you have any comments. Thanks, (and by the way, a little late, congrats on your stewardship). --barneca (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support... your criteria are very interesting. Short and sweet! If you look in the history of mine you'll see they have gradually gotten tighter and more specific and the process more elaborated (not more elaborate, just better specified). I'd have to think about "obvious chaff" prevention. There is something to be said for requiring the editor to have some standing... lots of metrics there to think about... time on wiki, number of edits, number of mainspace edits, number of blocks, etc. As to why I've gotten more airtight processwise, see User:Lar/catmsg for why. I am leaving that message on all the category member talk pages, a few letters per day, but basically, I see a trust shortage due to recent recalls not having clarity of process.

Feel free to link your stuff into the table referenced there even if you're not yet an admin, you can note they're draft in the notes section of the table. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clarity of process certainly isn't a problem with mine! The main problem I see with my approach is I might be sacrificing wasting the community's time in frivolous recalls for the sake of simplicity. I think I'll tweak my introduction, and then add my criteria to the table, in a non-misleading way, to get some more input. I'll probably cut and paste this section of your talk page to User talk:Barneca/Draft recall procedure, with your permission :) --barneca (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free... It's a wiki :) but thanks for asking. :) I do find a bit unclear... a standard RfC isn't really a majority thing... that's why I call mine a "modified RfC" and say "call it what you want if that bugs you". ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rats, that's a good point, but I can already feel my simplicity slipping away... --barneca (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]