User:Floquenbeam/Recall
 | I guess this process has been superseded by WP:Admin recall. It would be crazy to have an alternate approach when the new system is simpler and more likely to succeed. Keeping this for old time's sake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC) |
 | This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Getting rid of Floquenbeam - a how-to guide
The basic theory
If you believe I should no longer be an admin, discuss the problem with me first. If, after the discussion, you still feel I should not be an admin, file a normal WP:RFC/U or WP:RFC/ADMIN[1], and list as one of the desired outcomes that I resign my adminship[2]. If more than four editors in good standing[3] clearly support that outcome, I'll stop using any admin tools until the end of the RFC. If, at the end of the RFC, there's no consensus among editors in good standing for me to remain an admin, I'll resign[4]. No ArbCom case required. If I ever want to attempt to regain adminship, it will be via a new RFA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
A few details
- Since recall is voluntary, I reserve the right to modify this if I think I can improve it. But I promise not to fiddle with it if it appears a recall attempt is imminent.
- Since it is not unheard of to game a recall [link to a specific admin not included here to prevent drama]: to the extent that a bureaucrat is actually willing to do this, I authorize and request that any bureaucrat who thinks I'm not following this procedure in good faith go ahead and remove the admin bit without an RFC. If Future Me has sunk so low that I'd cheat to keep the bit, then Current Me doesn't want it.
The fine print
- ^ (following the normal rules and procedures for RFC's regarding certification, etc.)
- ^ The RFC does not have to be about my misuse of the admin tools; if I've lost your trust though non-admin behavior, that's a reasonable reason too.
- ^ "Editor in good standing" defined using what appears to be the de facto standard in these things: 500 edits outside their user space, and not currently blocked.
- ^ If there is no consensus, I'll still resign. If there's any dispute about whether there's a consensus or not (a meta-consensus, if you will), we can beg a bureaucrat to make the call; that's part of their job anyway.
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.