Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – index of previous unsuccessful proposals
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review – led to creation of this process
  • Phase I#Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Phase I#Proposal 16c: Community recall process based on dewiki
  • Phase II/Administrator recall
    • Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review § Administrator recall, phase II – discussion of the closes above
  • Village Pump RFC on confirming Phase II consensus – Resulted in making this page a policy

@Voorts: In your close of Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Administrator_recall#Desysop_after_Recall_petition you wrote that both options A and E found consensus. But as far as I can see, these are contradictory. Option E says that a bureaucrat will open the RRFA within thirty days (respecting requests for a delay from the admin). Option A says that if the admin does not open the request within thirty days, they'll be desysopped – but given option E, when would that ever happen? Also, what if the admin doesn't want to make an RRFA (i.e. resigns their adminship), does the crat still have to open one?

And Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Administrator_recall#Reconfirmation_by_admin_elections introduces another ambiguity. If the admin can stand in an election instead making an RRFA, what happens if the next election is not scheduled within the next thirty days? Can they retain their tools while they wait? – Joe (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Regarding the first one, I don't think there's a contradiction. Option E was presented as being in addition to another option and several editors supported both. My reading is that if an admin requests a 30 day extension, then they have 30 days. If not, a crat starts the RRFA.

My understanding of the election part is that the election needs to be in the 30 day period, so the sequence is request 30 day extension, stand for election during that period if there is one, otherwise start an RRFA. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

But option A says that the admin will be desysopped after thirty days. In what circumstance would that happen? – Joe (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

If the admin doesn't open an RRFA after receiving an extension, a crat can desysop in their discretion at the end of the extension. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

But Option E says it's the crat that opens the RRFA (delayed or not), not the admin. See where I'm coming from? – Joe (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) A crat won't start the RFA (削除ここまで) (追記) An RFA won't start (追記ここまで) unless the admin wants to run again. The admin can choose to take the desysop instead (and can run an RFA after the 30/60 days under the usual rules). Levivich (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

That makes sense to me but I'm wondering if it's already been discussed and agreed somewhere? It's not currently covered on this page. – Joe (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't love the "start the RRFA" being defaulted to 'crats - preferably the admin would do it so they can make an opening statement and acknowledge acceptance. If crat's open it will just say something like "per recall petition". — xaosflux ^Talk 17:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, Joe and xaos make a good point. All of the options except E in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall#Desysop after Recall petition explicitly said it's the admin who starts the RFA: If an admin does not start an RRFA within.... There is some contradiction there, because Option E is A bureaucrat should open an RRFA immediately after a successful Recall petition by default, but the admin may instead request a delay. I still think logically speaking it can't be anyone other than the admin who decides whether or not to initiate the RFA. You can't put someone up for RFA without their consent. Voorts is the closer of that section (and I'm involved of course), but my interpretation of E is that it's more about the delay issue than it is about who starts the RFA. It just doesn't make sense for a crat to open up an RFA for someone else--it's gotta be the candidate who makes that call of whether or not to run again. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

As I discussed in another location, I think the responsibility is shared with the bureaucrats and the administrator in question. The bureaucrats are co-ordinating with the admin to determine what approach they want to follow within 30 days: start a re-request with appropriate statements in place, be a candidate in an administrator election within an appropriate time frame, or not seek to retain administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hopefully the discretion will allow for some flexibility around the 30 day mark, e.g. an admin indicating they want to run in an election starting in 33 days time. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Bureaucrats are collaborative editors just like anyone else. They'll work out the best approach. (Note the approved proposal gave bureaucrats the discretion to remove administrative privileges, rather than mandating it on a fixed schedule.) isaacl (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

That's the reason it states the 'crat may desysop them, not that a 'crat should desysop them. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I've gone ahead and boldly reworded the section to reflect the understanding here, because the close as written doesn't make sense. – Joe (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The current text doesn't allow RRfA nominators (non-self-nominations) because of the wording: An administrator seeking to retain administrative privileges must start the re-request for adminship (RRfA) process ... "X must start" means that if X specifically doesn't start, there's no starting. Certainly, nomination by others needs to stay and work the same as with RfA. —Alalch E. 02:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

RfAs start at the moment of transclusion onto the Requests for adminship page. Who creates the page or when the information is filled in, such as the nomination text, isn't a factor. In any case, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so no one's going to complain if the administrator in question has to, for some reason, get someone else to do the transclusion. isaacl (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Can we just use language other than "X must start" because in the context of that section that describes the procedure, it means that if X hasn't started, we don't have a start. —Alalch E. 02:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

RfAs are typically transcluded by the candidate, even when they are being nominated by others. This allows them to control the exact timing of the start of the RfA process. So there's no difference with RfA. But in any case, the wording doesn't mean that the administrator must be the one to perform the transclusion. As long as the transclusion is performed by anyone (with the agreement of the admin), the admin has started the re-request process. isaacl (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

When has the admin started the re-request process if the nomination is by another editor and someone other than the admin performs the transclusion? —Alalch E. 02:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

As I stated, the process starts when the transclusion occurs. That's when the request is open for comments, and the clock starts. isaacl (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Does the admin need to sign the acceptance of the nomination or is it presumed? —Alalch E. 02:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I made a bold copyedit to "must have their re-request for adminship (RRfA) transcluded to WP:RFA within thirty days" to address this. Like RFA, nominating someone for RRFA without their consent is probably inadvisable (and unheard-of?). It wouldn't matter whether the transclusion was done by the admin or their nom, but it should be done with the candidate's consent, like any other RFA. Levivich (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The vast majority of admins who might have to make a re-request will have already gone through the request for adminship process, so they should be familiar with how the timing of the process works, as well as how to signal that they agree with starting it. Plus the bureaucrats will co-ordinate with any admin in this circumstance. So though I'm not opposed to the edit, I don't think it's really needed. isaacl (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks both. I think that the new language is more descriptive and the change is worth the cost of the few extra words. —Alalch E. 08:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

There's a spot on the request form for the candidate to accept the nomination. It's the same as the RfA process. As a collaborative community, if someone tried to initiate a request aginast the wishes of the person in question, it would get withdrawn. isaacl (talk) 03:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Should the currently existing archives for this talk page be moved to be subpages of Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall (2006 proposal)? Moving the archives would probably make them easier to follow for someone looking into the discussions of the 2006 proposals (there were at least a couple for which the related discussion was archived onto those pages). isaacl (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The archives definitely should be moved without leaving a redirect. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I've moved the archives, and fixed the one link referring to an archived page, other than two redirects to archive 2 and archive 3 (which are no longer used, after I fixed the one link). If an admin could delete the redirects – archive 1, archive 2, archive 3 – to make way for this talk page's archives, that would be great. Otherwise I can request a G6 technical deletion, which I believe is suitable. isaacl (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I requested speedy deletion and the redirecting pages have now been deleted. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

One of the versions of Phase I proposals included the intent that admins may voluntarily stand for RRFA even if not compelled by the community. I cannot offhand recall if any Phase II question asked that. Should admins be able to voluntarily stand for RRFA. But more importantly, will RRFAs still be binding if they fail it.

My answers to these are "I don't see why not" and "Yes". But I realise it probably wasn't explicitly confirmed anywhere Soni (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Admins have always been able to do this, though rarely have. See Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations for a list. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

It's been a while since an admin has voluntarily made a reconfirmation request. As I recall, in the most recent requests, some opposes were made on the basis that the requests were wasting the time of the community, which may play a part in reconfirmations being rare. Technically nothing compels the admin to follow the result, but they would face community pressure to follow through on their commitment. (In theory they could resign first, so whether or not they regained administrative privileges would depend on how the bureaucrats evaluated the outcome or any subsequent claim that they changed their minds about resigning.) isaacl (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Administrators may go through WP:RFA for whatever reason, yet the page makes no mention of it because it's pretty obvious. If there's no petition, there's technically nothing stopping them from RRfA'ing with a 1% threshold, besides how POINTy it'd seem. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Regarding this edit: personally, I don't think it should be inserted yet. As I recall, recent reconfirmations used the same threshold as new requests. I don't know if there is consensus to use the lower thresholds of the re-request process for reconfirmation requests. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

If the process is voluntary, why wouldn't an editor be able to choose to use the RRfA process with the lower thresholds, versus either the regular RfA process (or an election)? - Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The thresholds of the re-request for adminship process were evaluated by the community in the context of a recall petition mandating it, and not in the context of an admin volutarily requesting reconfirmation. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a re-request subsequent to a recall petition is likely to attract a disproportinate number of dissatisfied editors compared with a voluntary reconfirmation request, so personally I think a community consensus on using the re-request process for reconfirmations is desirable. isaacl (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Of course it's going to attract more editors dissatisfied with an admin. But adjusting all other thresholds up based on that would be more like trying to make all RFAs have, say, a 50% chance to fail. An admin who willingly chooses RRFA will have less detractors dragging them down, that is a feature not a bug. But I don't see any logical reason to "punish" said admin with higher thresholds for doing something of their own will (as opposed to via the community).

In my opinion, re-requests and reconfirmations have been pretty interchangeable. So having reconfirmations follow the same loosened threshold makes too much intuitive sense to me, even if we have to check with the community. I just am not sure if this process can/should be considered binding. Soni (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Sure, arguments can be made regarding whether or not the thresholds should be the same, including for an admin choosing to do a reconfirmation using an admin election. I do not feel, though, that there is an existing consensus for this, as it was not discussed by the community. From a practical standpoint, I think an operating recall process will pretty much make voluntary reconfirmations moot.

Whether or not reconfirmations are binding is a separate topic, which I've discussed in an earlier comment. isaacl (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I just feel it is intuitive. If an administrator wants to go through some sort of reconfirmation process, and since we created a process for re-requests, I start where Soni concluded - "why not" and "yes." I see no downside to allowing administrators using this process. I would suggest that the process should be binding on anyone seeking reconfirmation, as if 40%+ of editors do not trust the administrator, there is a problem. - Enos733 (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, I understand this point of view, but I don't see evidence that there is a community consensus for this view, and so I don't think it should be decided by two people. In a similar manner, past discussions on whether or not an admin's voluntary recall procedure is binding have reached consensus that it is not, so I think a broader discussion is needed to establish a different consensus. isaacl (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This all seems very hypothetical. As I said above, admins have had this option from the beginning and in twenty years only six have taken it – and only one in the last ten years. I see no reason to think that having an involuntary RRfA process will make people any more likely to use the existing voluntary one. It's not really worth discussing or adding to this page unless and until someone actually wants to do it. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

To me, the reason to add the line is because it is explicitly permissive - that this is a process that could be used if an administrator wants to use it. Also, adding the line does not cause problems for the underlying recall process. So, I see this as a minor addition that does not challenge the underlying consensus. - Enos733 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

It has nothing to do with recall. There's no consensus for it, it wasn't discussed, apparently no one's done it in ten years, I'm not sure it would be welcome these days if someone tried it, and we can't give permission for this just because we think it's OK. Let's not complicate things any more than we already have to. Levivich (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The recall process is two pieces (linked together because you need both for recalls to work). The first piece it the petition. The second piece is the RRfA process (which is based on the RfA process). The RRfA process itself does not necessarily need to limited only to a recall petition.

Second, we have numerous administrators who have indicated a willingness to be open to recall. Unless we explicitly state that administrators may not voluntarily ask the community for reconfirmation as an administrator, administrators will (may) look at existing procedures and processes and choose a process that could work. - Enos733 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This is what I mean about overly complicating: it's not two pieces, it's just one piece: the recall petition. RRFA is the same exact thing as RFA except with lower thresholds. We didn't create a second, new type of request for admission called "RRFA," we just lowered the thresholds for an RFA (and for an admin election) following a successful recall petition. It's simple. Levivich (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Maddy from Celeste has closed the RFC and (correctly IMO) states Some things remain undecided; in particular, how the 30 day limit should apply when an administrator elects to re-request through administrator elections. While some editors stated that unresolved questions impede the adoption as policy, most thought that any outstanding issues may be resolved through normal editing. Some editors also opined that, while there may be consensus for the individual conclusions of the review, the policy page written on the basis of these will need to be the subject of a separate RfC to adopt or not. Again, I see a majority of editors being of the opinion that the conclusions may be accepted as policy now, with any further issues resolved by normal editing. I'm of the opinion that we should allow some flexibility with regards to administrator elections (provided we continue to hold them). I don't think there's much dissent as to this interpretation.

Additionally, as Maddy mentions, this page should document the results of Phase II save having a 55% threshold for ADE rather than a 50-60%. I think that's done, but I hope other members beyond the few people who've already edited the page weigh in. 16:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Dilettante 16:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think this all falls within the reference in the policy to 'crat discretion regarding extensions. If the next election is within a reasoable period after 30 days (probably not more than 45ish days), I think they can IAR the strict limit to let the admin run. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Not sure what you want them to weigh in on: the page states If the administrator runs in an administrator election instead of initiating a re-request for adminship, they must obtain at least 55% support to retain their administrative privileges.. The original closing statement for phase 2 was incorrect; when it was corrected, the threshold was updated on this page.

Regarding re-requesting administrative privileges via an administrator election, the bureaucrats have the discretion to work out with the administrator about how long of a delay is appropriate. isaacl (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I've posted a note at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard regarding the task of ensuring that an re-request for adminship privileges or standing in an administrator election occurs within 30 days of a recall petition passing. isaacl (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

To be clear, I'm hoping others weigh in on whether the page has any inconsistencies with Phase II or any major loopholes. As I said, I don't think any changes need be made, but I'll see what the 'crats have to say. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

To me this also seems like the sort of common-sense, equitable call we elect 'crats to make. Some leeway past the 30-day mark in that situation, or for that matter in some unusual case like "I am going to have limited Internet for the next month and a half," seems appropriate, and the exact bounds may depend on circumstance. One could also picture a situation where an admin is asked to agree not to use the tools past the 30-day mark, or is provisionally desysopped between the 30-day mark and the start of the RRfA, again at 'crats' discretion. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

There isn't much to do with regard to recall and elections until and unless the community decides to continue the elections. Levivich (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Noting I've removed the part about not being finalized from Template:Admin recall notice and Template:Admin recall notice/AN since they've stabilized. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I was surprised to not see this on the page and think it would be good for interested people to know what they can sign. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 20:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, so far there aren't any. -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

When ones inevitably does open, where will it be listed? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I've added a placeholder section for them; feel free to make changes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Personally, I would prefer having a list on a separate page, so the history of this page doesn't get churned with adding and removing petitions. Perhaps the preload page, Template:Admin recall petition, can add a category so that all petitions can be easily located (though I imagine someone will organize them by year on a history page somewhere). isaacl (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

However we do it, it would be good to have somewhere one can keep on one's watchlist, in order to be aware of when a new petition comes into existence. I've lost track of all the discussions that I've seen about the various proposals and trials this year, but I have a vague memory of a previous discussion somewhere, where editors decided where these things should or should not be posted. Does anyone remember that? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Consensus was to announce at AN. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 23:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

An archive of petitions would seem to be necessary so that editors can make sure they're not doing a new petition in a prohibited period. Perhaps we can model it on the RfA archives. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I have boldly implemented a kind of subpage system for this. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The subpage can be found at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Should petitions be eligible for closure immediately after signature #25, or is there a need to wait the full 30 days? This page currently just says "a petition is closed after 30 days", which suggests the latter, but nothing like that was ever decided in any of the RfCs, I don't think. (If 25 people sign within two days, I don't think it makes sense to wait another 28 days for a closure just to start another 30-day waiting period just to start a 7-day RRfA.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The choices at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall § Initiation procedure were written when it was unclear if the petition would have a fixed time period, or simply collect signatures, with those in the last X days used to determine if the threshold is passed. With a fixed period, I think it's reasonable not to have a quick trigger to close the petition. The administrator in question can choose to short-circuit the process and initiate an re-request, stand in an election, or request removal of administrative privileges ahead of the closing time, or they can wait for the entire 30 days. isaacl (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

In practice this would mean that an administrator could retain the tools for up to 67 days after the petition requirement was satisfied. I find it hard to believe that's what the community wanted, and the proposal was worded as "within the last 1 month" rather than "after 1 month". Maybe Voorts could clarify what the consensus was? Alternatively I'd have no problem with a short (24- or 72-hour) cooling-off period to give signatories a chance to reconsider. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, as I stated, the options were written that way in order to accommodate a perpetual petition, as is done on German Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think you agree, then, that the option people !voted for envisioned a close once 25 signatures were reached (as is true in rolling petitions). The community rejected the rolling aspect, but this is a separate aspect that no one even mentioned, so I don't see where the consensus to reject the original wording would come from. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

My read of the Phase 2 RFC is the 30-day RRFA window starts when the 25th signature is posted. If it doesn't get 25 signatures in 30 days, then it's closed and the cool-off window starts. Levivich (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

That was my original viewpoint, but then I considered that when the options were written, the proposal was based on the German Wikipedia model with a sliding timeframe. Since then, with the consensus that there should be a respite between petitions, and a fixed time period, I feel that having a definite start and end, with discussion that can occur in between, is a better fit for the decisions that were made during phase 2. Personally, I would support an approach where 25 signatures would need to be in place for X days during the 30-day period. But I think that would be a significant change that would require a new consensus to be established. isaacl (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

A proposal may be based on something, but the proposal didn't say "like the German Wikipedia," and there is no reason to think that aspects of dewiki's process that were not specified in enwiki's proposals are nonetheless read into enwiki's proposals.

The relevant proposal was Initiation procedure: Which of these conditions should be sufficient to compel an administrator to run an RRfA? ... Option B: 25 EC editors sign a recall petition within the last 1 month. The close said There was limited argument regarding the precise number of editors required to trigger a recall, but also consensus that 25 editors is a sufficient threshold to establish that there is a loss of confidence in an admin. It's clear to me that this means when the 25th signature is posted, the recall is triggered. It's triggering condition is 25 signatures, not one month and 25 signatures.

The consensus for a fixed time period, aka against rolling, suggests to me that the community didn't want these things to stay open longer than they need to. There is no reason to keeping the petition open after the 25th signature, and this idea doesn't seem to be contemplated anywhere in the RFC. Levivich (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

As I said in the recent RfC, it's difficult to get the community to remain focused on working out implementation details, and so it's a job of taking the different consensus viewpoints and trying to figure out the central object that each viewpoint is illuminating from a different direction. In my view, based on English Wikipedia traditions for fixed-time frame discussions, there is an expectation that the discussion will run the full length, with the exception of when there is overwhelming agreement. However with a petition, only supports for recall are being recorded, so there is no measure of the opposition. Thus I feel that with the information we have, the most conservative approach is to have recall petitions remain open for thirty days. I feel that trying to short-circuit one early will cause more dissension than allowing it to continue until the end, unless a consensus is explicitly obtained for criteria to end the petition period early. It's not that I don't think there could be consensus support for an early closure, but that one has not been sufficiently established yet.

Like it or not, many people aren't hyperfocused on the literal wording of each option, particularly when multiple dimensions are being discussed in parallel and thus the interrelationships between the many different combinations can't be adequately covered. I wanted to have a reality check where the results were listed and examined for these types of issues. But in another example of how discussion drops off quickly as it gets lower down into the details, only a handful of people participated in that discussion, and so there was no consensus to do this. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the petition closes with the 25th valid signature. - Enos733 (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Question before asking a question - should I ask questions about this here, or on the talk page of the template? (Please move if in the incorrect place.)

Is there scope to alter this, to create a "Response" sub-section below "Nomination" ss but above "Discussion" ss header? I think it's important from a fairness perspective to allow both sides of an issue to be presented, and then discussion to occur below that separately. Otherwise, the recaller gets to paint their own canvass, and the recalled admin may have their justification or explanation potentially buried below the list of supports and within threaded discussion. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

i.e. this change (have self-reverted). Daniel (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think this page is the better location to discuss these, it's watchlisted more so easier to establish consensus.

The way I imagined this, there did not need to be a "Nomination" sub-section at all. Since the process is about how many editors lose trust in a candidate, nothing specifically makes the first editor's grievance any more important than the fifth or fifteenth. So I imagined just Support would do.

I do like the idea of a "Response" sub-section, but it should be clear it's optional. The admin would have to go through a recall petition and an RFA within a month, so anything that reduces the effort and drama on their end is preferable to me. Soni (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

If there's no "Nomination" section, then I'd agree there's no need for a "Response". But the template has one for "Nomination", and asks for a few sentences as to why the nomination is being made, so my view "Response" should be included if "Nomination" is. Agree it can be made clear that the "Response" is optional. Daniel (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This is also how I imagined it, but I also agree that a response section would be nice. I also agree with the above comment by Daniel. fanfanboy (block) 18:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Given Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87 has been filed, can we get this urgently actioned/agreed upon, and retrospectively applied to that one? Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I've invited Graham87 to create a section, if he wishes. It's unfair to force the admin and unfair to not give them the option. If you'd like, I can create a commented out sub-section and say "Remove the comment tag if you, Graham87, would like to make a statement". I specifically didn't do that, however, because I'm not sure how well comment tags work with a screen reader while editing. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think creating it and commenting it out would be a good temporary fix for the reasons you explain in the first sentence, thanks Dilettante. Daniel (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Sincerely, Dilettante 19:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. I boldly did this to the template, everyone feel free to tweak as needed. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I would also request removing the "Nomination" section altogether. It gives too much emphasis to @Dilettante:'s first complaint when the same information could just be presented as their bullet point of the "Support" segment. There will be no clear way to oppose a recall petition directly, so an RFC structure (or an RFA structure) of first presented statement should not apply. Soni (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

+1. The RfC never discussed a "nomination" or nomination statement. The first signatory can write their reasons if they want to when they sign it (as can subsequent signatories). The admin can respond to signatories if they want to. No need to have a nomination statement and (optional) response section. Levivich (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm fine with that too (ie. neither nomination nor response). The response proposal was directly linked to the nomination section being in the template. Daniel (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I propose three sections:

• Signatures
• Administrator's response
• Discussion

This avoids giving undue prominence to the initiator, but I do think the target's response, if any, should be made easy to find. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Having the section is tantamount to requiring the response; if it sat empty, it would look bad. I'd rather not have a separate section in the default template; if the admin wants to respond, they can, and if they want to set their response in a separate section, they can (the alternative is inline replies). Perhaps we could say this in the docs or in hidden comments? Levivich (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

That's a fair point. Leave it commented out by default, and mention it in the user talk notification template? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

That approach makes sense to me. Levivich (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I've implemented what I think is consensus here on the template. Should the open petition also be refactored accordingly? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. I think refactoring the open petition to conform to the template makes sense. Dilettante, what do you think about refactoring the petition so the nom statement is part of your signing of the petition rather than in a separate section? Levivich (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Not making any more edits today (and likely tomorrow), so I invite everyone to be bold and fix my formatting if they notice an issue. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

This it people: finally, our chance to vandalize her user page! Levivich (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

(I'm not sure this has been asked anywhere else.) Technically, a Bureaucrat doesn't need to be an Administrator as well. Nevertheless, it's sort of an unwritten rule that all Bureaucrats attain adminship first, partly because Bureaucrats are the ones who actually add and remove adminship and also because the pass standard at WP:RfB has long been higher than that of WP:RfA. If an Administrator who is also a Bureaucrat were to be recalled and then fail their RRFA – or for whatever reason not go through with one, and instead let their adminship expire – what would happen to their bureaucratship? The page doesn't address this. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 16e: Allow the community to initiate recall RfBs did not attain consensus support. Thus the existing processes as described in Wikipedia:Bureaucrats remain in effect (request to a steward, after establishing consensus on English Wikipedia; also see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Removal of permissions). isaacl (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

We don't actually have a policy about bureaucrats (WP:CRAT is an infopage), so everything done involving the permission is a matter of institutional knowledge and common sense. The infopage has been amended on pretty short notice in the past, and I imagine a situation of "admin failed reconfirmation but remains a 'crat on technicality" would warrant that. Alternately, it seems plausible ArbCom would intervene, just as they likely would for a CU/OS who were desysopped. Would it be better to have a clear policy now? Probably. Will any harm come from not having one? Unlikely. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I mean, we're talking about a tiny group of users, currently fifteen, that are considered suitable for this role because they tend not to do crazy or controversial things. In the rare event that one of them does go off the rails ArbCom would clearly be the appropriate venue. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Currently, the page reads "A petition is closed after thirty days. If it gains at least twenty-five valid signatures within that period, the administrator is required to make a re-request for adminship or be a candidate in an administrator election. Otherwise, the administrator is not required to do either." Should some mention be made that they can also simply resign at any point, effectively rendering the recall moot? I imagine this will be the case at least some of the time, it feels like it couldn't hurt to explicitly say as much. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I support that, and doubt that many people would disagree. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I feel administrators are already aware of this option. Plus, when bureaucrats follow up with the admin in question regarding their plans, the admin will be able to specify if they plan to make a re-request, run in an election, or effectively resign by doing neither. isaacl (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think we should be explicit that an admin can avoid the rigmarole of a reconfirmation by simply stepping down if they don't want to refute the concerns. And equally explicit that doing so means they can only get the tools back by through an RfA (or election if that becomes a regular thing). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Worth explicitly reminding folks in that language that the % support threshold for a re-RFA is lower than a new RFA. -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Think about it from an admin's point of view - assuming it doesn't get 25 votes straight away, that's four whole weeks (plus a couple of days change) of editing with this hanging over your head. That's really unfair on a human level. We have been saying that RfA is 7 days of awfulness for candidates hence the election trial, yet administrators are expected to deal with a process they didn't even nominate themselves for (unlike RfA) for up to a whole month?

I think 7-10 days is the sweet spot, everything can be sorted out in that sort of time period. If 7 days is good enough to hand out the tools, it's good enough to take them away. Daniel (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I completely agree. I realize that this finally became policy after quite a series of RFCs over several months, and probably those who helped get it this far feel it's a bit late in the day, but nonetheless this simply feels cruel. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

It hasn't even been two hours yet. I suggest we give it some time before we all share our opinions on it. No doubt tweaks will be necessary, no doubt our initial hot takes aren't as helpful as our cool-headed assessment of actual data.

I notice that in every single one of these reforms/trials, there are some who, right away, have a strong reaction. Let's all just give it a minute before making up our minds, sharing opinions, calling for changes, etc. It might turn out to be unfair or cruel, but there is no reason to think so after two hours. Levivich (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Plus, you could probably get 25 support votes for anything if you leave a discussion open for 30 days, especially if it's well advertised (at WP:AN, for example). So while I support the existence of a mechanism for the recall process, the current system looks like it could be used abusively. I agree with Levivich though; I'd give it time and see how this petition goes before proposing changes. Nythar (💬 -🍀) 21:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with giving things some time, but I also agree that a week makes more sense. Silver seren ^C 21:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Daniel: I agree, and do hope this is reduced sooner rather than later. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with both it probably being too long and giving it some time first. I do think we should consider whether, if we shorten the petition time, the minimum time between petitions should be reduced accordingly, or whether we want a reduced ratio of ${\displaystyle {\frac {\mathrm {time\ there\ can\ be\ a\ petition} }{\mathrm {time\ there\ can't\ be} }}}${\displaystyle {\frac {\mathrm {time\ there\ can\ be\ a\ petition} }{\mathrm {time\ there\ can't\ be} }}}. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Personally I don't feel the respite period should depend on the time spent on a petition. (On a side note, if it succeeds, the respite period will be start after the subsequent re-request or election.) I feel the idea is to allow the result to stand for a period of time, not to limit the percentage of time during which an admin is undergoing a petition (which is hopefully very low for any admin). isaacl (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Just to elaborate a bit, I think there's a case to be made that, with a 30-day petition, if new issues arise after a few weeks, there is still a possibility of redress, whereas with a shorter period, an admin could more easily "play it safe" and ride out a petition that maybe gets 10 or 20 signatures, then immediately be immune for six months. I don't really have an opinion on this yet, just spitballing. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

If the intent is to change the process for petitions currently underway, as an "ignore all rules" type of action, then I agree some more time should given to evaluate the progress. If the intent is for future petitions, then let's have a new RfC to talk about it. isaacl (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes. I would have voted against this purely because of the 30 day issue, I don't have any issues with the rest of it. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not sure I'd have voted against it, just because this has been overdue for years and I'm very pleased that we're doing something, but I agree that 30 days is too long. It's hard to argue that an admin has lost the confidence of the community if it takes 30 days to get 25 people to agree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Agree with you here HJ. I support this process in principle as badly needed, provided it is done in a way that isn't unnecessarily cruel or nasty to admins, and has sufficient checks and balances. The latter is close to the mark (some work on how the pages operate to avoid sprawling messes), but I think the former is a critical issue that needs to be resolved sooner rather than later so others don't need to suffer through this as guinea pigs before it's changed. Daniel (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I tend to agree with Levivich that we need to give ourselves time to evaluate these new processes before we make major changes, but I also think that shortening recall petitions to 7-10 days would probably be a wise move. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• I have no objections to changing up the format, but I would request holding off for at least one full petition (or until the outcome becomes obvious). I think most of us agree there's to be "some" changes to Recall if it should stick around long term than be revoked. I'd just prefer running things at least a bit so it's clearer where those changes should be. For comparision, Recall changed much more between Phase I and II than, say, Admin elections (which passed as is), and even that may undergo significant changes. My first reaction of Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87 suggests that this is unusually worse thanks to the wild-west discussions and everyone being not used to the new format, among other things. I would imagine that with some WP:MONITOR (or similar), we should be able to see simplify the strife out of petition discussions. I would prefer something like "No reply threads to petition supports, keep discussion in its section" but it's just too early to say for sure. Soni (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
  • The problem with imposing a "no replies or opposes allowed" format is that people could nominate an administrator for recall based on a questionable or even a patently false allegation and there would be no way to point this out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

    I completely agree. My suggestion was "No opposes in the same thread" not "No opposes", because I feel it's better for the discourse to not have back-and-forth rebuttals in the main support. Perhaps we'll find better solutions in time. Soni (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The petition stage won't take a month if 25 signatures are collected before that. I think that this will happen in about a week, at most. —Alalch E. 02:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Not if the admin still enjoys the confidence of the majority of the community. It's plausible that the petition could linger with a small number of signatures if there aren't 25 people willing to sign. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Agreed. I was thinking of the current petition. I had a feeling that the signatures would be trickling in hour by hour, but that is not happening. —Alalch E. 11:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think the admin should be able to press the "Okay, let's do this" button and cut straight to RRfA -- as long as at least three days have passed and there are some signatures (thinking 10), which just serves to ensure that the initiative isn't completely frivolous and so that the admin can't abruptly start their RRfA when there's no sign of a serious challenge of their admin status. The underlying logic is that the whole process is a dispute between the admin who does not want to resign and other editors, and as a side in the dispute, the admin has a natural ability to give ground and relinquish one of the protections afforded to themselves. This way, practically, the admin, if they're worried about the length of the petition stage, would be able to move things along to a stage in which the discussion is at least a bit more structured.—Alalch E. 04:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Based on how I imagined it, admins can always voluntarily stand for RRFA at any time; which includes if a petition is currently ongoing.

The petition process is just a question of "When is this not optional". Without that, some editors often resort to implied threats and similar, which I personally hope this will reduce ("Please resign/RRFA now, else we may go to X venue to force it.") Soni (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Let's say an admin starts the reconfirmation RfA during the signature gathering period. What happens to the petition (I would argue that nothing happens to it)? And what is the threshold to pass? I'm suggesting that the admin should be able to interrupt the petition-signing and go straight to RRfA with its 60% threshold if they want to. —Alalch E. 09:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

While on the subject of changes to recall, I'd suggest that if RFA has a watchlist notice, recall should have one as well.— hako9 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

In the RfC establishing the current policy, there was a consensus to only announce at AN. An eventual re-RfA would, I presume, be advertized in the same way as any other RfA. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

(edit conflict) If the petition passes the re-RFA will have one. At the petition stage there's no need for one because the idea is to see if enough people have independently discovered grounds for recall to warrant going through the re-RFA. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok. That makes sense. — hako9 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Are there any plans for advertising active recalls so other editors are aware of them? I see there was a message posted on ANI, but not everyone watches or visits that page regularly. Will there also be watchlist notices, or at least a message on WP:CENT? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@ARandomName123: See the comments just above (which I boldly moved into this section, for clarity) Soni (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh, didn't see that. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

• Who is responsible for starting an RRfA once 25 signatures are obtained? This page says "the administrator is required to make a re-request for adminship ...", but the notification template says "a bureaucrat will start an RRfA ...". This is a contradiction.
• The petition page does not (I think!) have a link to the policy, but it should.
• The petition page has a commented-out section for the administrator's response but how is the administrator supposed to know it is there? The notification template does not mention it. It should either be uncommented, or mentioned in the notification template, or (preferably) both.

Zero ^talk 04:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

The admin is responsible. The language in the template is outdated. The template is based on language from September (diff). —Alalch E. 04:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I have updated the template. —Alalch E. 10:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

To your third point, please see Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_recall#Template:Admin_recall_petition for how that outcome was reached. Now that the ability to provide a nomination statement has been removed, this section potentially could also be removed. Daniel (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I read it already. It makes no sense. The ability to provide a nomination statement has not been removed; it has just moved to the "Signature" section with an invitation to make a statement: "Replace this with your signature and, optionally, reasoning." The initiator's ability to make a statement is exactly the same as before. Zero ^talk 07:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

There is a sense of distaste with the ongoing Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87. What is apparent is that people are raking over old coals, taking old ANI threads that were closed with no further actions to be taken against Graham87, and already analysed actions to establish the cause of the petition. In real life, this is akin to 1. processing old crimes with new regulations/rules (see also: ex post facto law article); and 2. re-opening old cases (see also: double jeopardy article). It reeks of forum shopping, not giving rope, and not assuming good faith that on the assurances given in the previous cases and as such going forward, the admin cannot use their tools properly. It is not fair nor just to the admin in question when the questions of the old had been settled either by consensus or inaction before archival. I would have no issues if there's another ANI thread against Graham87 opened after this policy had gone live, and then a petition is opened if it is conclusion of the discussion.

We have been operating under some form of grandfather clause for most, if not all of our policies and guidelines. Whenever there is a change in policies/guidelines on Wikipedia, the change(s) made to address the issues they are meant for would be applicable to future activities. i.e. changes to WP:NSPORTS or any notability criteria generally resulted in existing content remain on the mainspace until the old content has been looked into and acted upon; changes to admin in activity criteria had been applied only for future considerations when desypop-ing inactive admins; when general or arbcomm sanctions are introduced or applied, they are applied on future activities. We certainly didn't sanction and block prior non-EC editors who had edited on Ukraine or Gaza wars related articles before the sanctions were imposed). I would have assumed that it is common sense not to apply policies retroactively, and here as well. But apparently not.

As such, I would strongly urge everyone to consider some form of grandfather clause to be stated explicitly on the policy page. – robertsky (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I wouldn't necessarily agree, as this isn't "processing old crimes with new rules". While the format is new, we are discussing whether the administrator's actions were consistent with the policies at the time. To go back to your analogy, the court is newly established, but the laws by which we judge the crimes aren't.More importantly, I don't think this analogy works to begin with. Adminship should not be a privilege given to some users that can only be retracted as a punishment for "crimes", but an extension of the trust of the community towards the person. If the community loses trust in the admin to perform their responsibilities, they should be able to recall the tools, just as they gave it. While a recall can of course be a consequence of misconduct, it shouldn't be seen as a punishment for the misconduct itself, which is a separate question (otherwise, the Super Mario effect comes into play). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! Is there any way on an active petition to subscribe to say the discussion section as we do with ANI and RfA so we don't have to watchlist it but can follow the discussion? I think they exist at RFA but can't confirm with none active. Thanks either way and kudos on all the work that has gone into this. Star Mississippi 13:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

I think adding a level 2 header to the top of the page will do that. Testing... -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Avoiding a long month of drama. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]