User:Drcrazy102/sandbox/Reforms for Wikipedia/Admin Recall elections

Recall elections

A policy is needed for "sacking" bad admins – typically known as "rogue" admins – that, while not doing anything specifically disruptive, have lost community trust and/or the respect of the community because of their use of "the tools" or simply their interactions with editors.

A Recall election may solve, or at least alleviate, the problem since there are already Admins open to recall, but there needs to be a better way to deal with the Admins that decide to abuse their tools or have become a source of contention amongst the Editor Community. Needless to say, there would still need to be limits as to when this could occur due to Editors, possibly even other Admins, attempting to desysop "good Admins" that have made difficult choices or deal in problem areas such as WP:SPI, and/or contentious editing topics such as the Israel-Palestine area (WP:ARBPIA) or the Balkans.

One proposed solution is that every 10 years, a relatively long time on Wikipedia, administrators can be re-elected.. This could be in one of two ways;

1. Admins are temporarily desysopped at the 10-year mark, an election held on whether to re-instate the Admin and, depending on the result, the "mop" can be reinstated or withheld. In the case of a "no consensus", Bureaucrats would decide – based on the discussion and !Votes – whether the Admin will be re-instated or "retired" for a set period before the Admin can re-apply.
2. A "vote" can be put out on whether to "keep" or "retire" an Admin through the use of banner notifications, random mailing to user talkpages, etc. "No consensus" would be decided and interpreted by the Bureaucrats, just as in Option 1.

If any editors have alternative ideas, or wish to expand on the options above, visit this section's talkpage, here and start a discussion.