User:Indubitably/Recall

	Good judgment comes from experience, and often experience comes from bad judgment.
- Rita Mae Brown

If you believe that I have abused my administrative privileges^[1] at least two times in a six month period, please bring your concerns to my attention via my talk page. If, after one week of discussion, the issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may submit a request for my recall on this page.

How to file a request

Criteria

Any auto-confirmed user in good standing may initiate the request.^[2] It must then be certified by five others. For those five, I have the following criteria:

At least one must be a bureaucrat.^[3]
At least two must be administrators.^[4]
All others must either have at least 500 mainspace edits and three months of consistent editing, or have been on the project for more than one year.
All certifiers must be in good standing with the community,^[2] and cannot have had prior disputes with me unrelated to those that are the focus of the recall request.

Process

Certification

To initiate the request, a detailed statement that clearly expresses all concerns should be submitted on this page. A link to the discussion on my talk page should also be included. Once the request is submitted, either the initiator or myself shall place notices on the administrators' noticeboard and the bureaucrats' noticeboard. If the request has not been certified after exactly five days, the issue will be considered resolved.^[5]

Modified RFC

Upon certification, I will appoint a clerk — an administrator from either the mediation cabal, mediation committee, or an ArbCom clerk — to ensure the process runs smoothly.^[6] Two questions will be asked:

Should I retain my administrative privileges?
Should I resign my administrative privileges?

Anyone qualified to certify may sign under either of these two questions and add any comments they feel are relevant. Those not qualified will have their signatures and comments moved to the discussion section. Any other sections created will be removed by the clerk, as well as any additions considered to be violations of our civility or no personal attacks policies.^[7]

At the end of exactly one week, the modified RFC shall be over and the clerk shall carry out a tally of eligible commenters.^[6] If a simple majority to retain exists, I remain an admin.^[5] If tied, or if a majority does not exist, I shall resign my tools via request on Meta. Resignation shall be considered to have been "under a cloud",^[8] and if I wish to regain my adminstrative privileges, I will submit a request for adminship.

Grace period

Any major changes to this page will not go into effect for two weeks from the time of edit. Any request submitted during such time shall be on the previous terms.^[9] 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. If I decide at any point that I no longer want to be an administrator open to recall, I will put a notice on the top of this page that shall remain in place for one month. At that time the page will be deleted and I will remove myself from CAT:AOR.

Notes

^ Administrative privileges are limited to the use of block, unblock, protect, unprotect, delete and undelete functions, the granting or removal of user rights, any responsibilities regarding sensitive information visible only to administrators, as well as the use of "administrative weight". Any disputes of actions unrelated to the use of these tools should go through the traditional request for commment/user process.
^ ^a ^b Good standing, in this case, means they are not the focus of multiple recent threads on WP:AN or WP:AN/I, and are not the current focus of a RFC/U or Arbitration case, and have no sanctions currently placed against them.
^ Must be a bureaucrat on en-wiki.
^ Must be administrators on en-wiki and must also be open to recall themselves. The latter is only required to certify, not required to vote.
^ ^a ^b No double jeopardy. Once this process concludes, all concerns raised during any instance of this process will be considered resolved. I will not honor a second recall request regarding the same concerns. If however new matters arise, the community is welcome to initiate another recall.
^ ^a ^b If it becomes necessary to appoint another clerk, this may be done at any point during the process. In the case of two clerks, the first appointed will determine the outcome.
^ Participants who are deemed to be disrupting this process shall first be warned. Should disruption continue after warnings, the offender(s) may be blocked for the duration of this process.
^ This is the colloquial term for what is more formally described as "under controversial circumstances". In such cases, former administrators are not afforded the luxury of requesting their tools back from a bureaucrat but must instead seek approval from the community.
^ The initiator has the right to waive this if they prefer the new terms.

I designed this process by taking those of EVula, SirFozzie, and Lar and smushing them together. :D

Request for certification

Statement of concerns

Initiator: Clearly detail your concerns, including diffs of the disputed administrative actions as well as the link to the talk page discussion for which is a prerequisite to submitting this request.

Those certifying this request

[1] Administrative privileges are limited to the use of block, unblock, protect, unprotect, delete and undelete functions, the granting or removal of user rights, any responsibilities regarding sensitive information visible only to administrators, as well as the use of "administrative weight". Any disputes of actions unrelated to the use of these tools should go through the traditional request for commment/user process.

[Good-2] Good standing, in this case, means they are not the focus of multiple recent threads on WP:AN or WP:AN/I, and are not the current focus of a RFC/U or Arbitration case, and have no sanctions currently placed against them.

[3] Must be a bureaucrat on en-wiki.

[4] Must be administrators on en-wiki and must also be open to recall themselves. The latter is only required to certify, not required to vote.

[Jeopardy-5] No double jeopardy. Once this process concludes, all concerns raised during any instance of this process will be considered resolved. I will not honor a second recall request regarding the same concerns. If however new matters arise, the community is welcome to initiate another recall.

[Clerks-6] If it becomes necessary to appoint another clerk, this may be done at any point during the process. In the case of two clerks, the first appointed will determine the outcome.

[7] Participants who are deemed to be disrupting this process shall first be warned. Should disruption continue after warnings, the offender(s) may be blocked for the duration of this process.

[8] This is the colloquial term for what is more formally described as "under controversial circumstances". In such cases, former administrators are not afforded the luxury of requesting their tools back from a bureaucrat but must instead seek approval from the community.

[9] The initiator has the right to waive this if they prefer the new terms.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]