Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall (2006 proposal)

Archives

Rejected

I've marked this proposal as rejected, just like the other one, though my arguments for doing so here are not quite as strong. ~~anyway, due to the fact that it often produces more heat than light.~~

Unfortunately this exact approach has never been tried, so I can't say with 100% certainty how it'll behave. I can only infer from similar processes, which didn't really work out.

Kim Bruning 09:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. It seemed as though this was going in circles. I think several recent desysoppings might help convince people that the current system works at least okay. Grand master ka 05:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I don't think ti was a bad move per se just a bit previous. A pause to reflect is good, and an archive of the talk (with summerization) is forthcoming, but "rejected" was too strong. - brenneman ^{L} 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steady on

There's a ton of material in the three archives. While I'm going to summarise it all, that might take time. In the interim, please re-read all three archives if you intend to comment. This is a contentious issue that has been plauged with a great deal of repetative discussion, which has greatly hindered consensus gathering, including consensus to reject. - brenneman ^{L} 03:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin recall suggestion

I think there needs to be at least five signatures to start an admin recall petition. It should be demonstrated the admin has engaged in unprofessional conduct such as harassing editors, arbitrarily enforcing the rules/guidelines (meaning they expect others to follow the rules but not themselves), harshness with newcomers and partisanship.

All of these undermine Wikipedia's image.--Pravknight 04:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, that's been discussed. In the archives. I really better get on that summary, hadn't I? ^_^
brenneman ^{L} 05:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes. I was about to tag this historical since there appears to be a lack of interest in it at present. Perhaps advertising it would help. >Radiant< 08:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]