Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

Previous discussions

• 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

Talk page archives

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)

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

I've moved the archives, and fixed the one link referring to an archived page, other than two redirects to archive 2 and archive 3 (which are no longer used, after I fixed the one link).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)

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

Outstanding questions

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree. It's not yet certain that there will be a second election, and if there is the intervals between elections I can recall seeing suggested vary from monthly to yearly. I think everyone would agree that if there is a nomination period open at any point within the 30 days, a recalled admin who stands in that election (and doesn't withdraw) would fulfil their obligation even if the voting and/or results fall outside the window. Beyond that there are too many open questions that we simply cannot start to answer yet - e.g. what happens if there are too few candidates for the election to run so it gets postponed (I've seen 5 suggested as a minimum; we want to avoid penalising the recalled admin for things outside their control where we can) or too many candidates so some get transferred to the subsequent election (keeping it strictly nomination order is potentially unfair to the admin, prioritising the admin is potentially unfair to the other candidates). Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Listing of all current petitions?

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

When can petitions be closed?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Template:Admin recall petition

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

+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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

 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)

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

What if a petition subject is also a Bureaucrat?

(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)

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)

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)

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)

resignation

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

A month is too long

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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 ${\frac {\mathrm {time\ there\ can\ be\ a\ petition} }{\mathrm {time\ there\ can't\ be} }}$. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

    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)

    @Newyorkbrad on de-wiki it looks like that's just how it rolls, and people live with it: de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl. -- asilvering (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

    dewiki has a different culture. —Alalch E. 10:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It is happening after all, as I had originally expected... —Alalch E. 10:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The admin should be able to shortcut the petition stage

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)

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)

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)

As I understand it, they already can. If Graham opened a RRFA right now, the petition would be closed with a link to the RRFA, and that process would occur under the 50-60% thresholds. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the policy explicitly says that though (yes I know there's great irony in the petition partially being about me playing fast and loose with policy and then I come out and say this. I think that in this particular situation it's best for me to wait until the current administrative elections are over before I even think about starting a new RRFA (this process is probably already sucking oxygen from the latter elections). Some would consider it uncooth for me to be the one saying this, but I feel like in the general situation it's like making a choice between Chinese water torture (the admin recall process) and stoning. (any type of RFA). Graham87 (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to think that this is a responsible thing to say, and I could be wrong: Signatures will almost always be trickling in, as they are now. It's hard for me to imagine that the petition won't succeed. That would mean that there isn't anything you can do to cause the RRfA to not be required, and you can only do nothing when the petition passes, which will, broadly speaking, cause bureaucrats to follow the policy instruction to desysop you. You wouldn't even have to write out your entire RRfA page yourself and someone could nominate you with you accepting. So this isn't "Chinese water torture or stoning" it's more of "how much Chinese water torture would you like before the stoning?" But I agree that the policy doesn't explicitly say that shortcutting the petition stage is an option, so maybe that's something to keep discussing here. —Alalch E. 10:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Graham87, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#Can admins voluntarily stand for RRFA? seemed to conclude that an admin may voluntarily stand at any time. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The closest thing to any conclusion was the observation that standing reconfirmation is a thing and remains a thing. But the relationship between the petition stage of admin recall and standing reconfirmation is unclear. —Alalch E. 14:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not see why petition stage should have a relationship with standing reconfirmation. Some admins may rather not wait for full 25 votes, and decide to RRFA early. We cannot and should not stop them from it, in the name of common sense and WP:NOTBURO. By similar logic, the most that a petition can achieve is an RRFA; so there's no further outcome to be had if someone is already going to do it.

I do not see how any other outcome is possible if we start with "Standing reconfirmation remains a thing" based on the discussion above Soni (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Standing reconfirmation doesn't have a 60% threshold. A petition is a prerequisite for an RRfA per the current text. We agree on how it should work. This detail should be added to the policy. —Alalch E. 22:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Advertising recalls

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)

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)

(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)

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

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)

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

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

Three technical problems

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Grandfather clause?

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)

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)

While the format is new, we are discussing whether the administrator's actions were consistent with the policies at the time. The discussions were conducted at ANI. The outcome was to admonish and wait for an improvement in the conduct of the admin. That should be sufficient as a consensus of the community. If the community back then saw it as a break of trust, they would have proposed, pushed, and supported for a move to have arbitrators to look into it. Why didn't they?

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. There lies the issue, if the trust of the community wasn't demonstrably broken at ANI, what makes it different from this petition? – robertsky (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

There lies the issue, if the trust of the community wasn't demonstrably broken at ANI, what makes it different from this petition? Because ANI (and ArbCom) are not for measuring the trust of the community in using the tools, but for deciding whether a user's behavior should be sanctioned. The two have completely different purposes and outcomes. A user could have committed no ArbCom-worthy offenses and still have the community not believe that them keeping the tools is still a positive. And, conversely, a user could have committed offenses that deserve sanction, but have these sanctions be completely unrelated to adminship (which they should, because again, Super Mario effect).

I'm not denying that the fact that all serious issues were pre-ANI seriously weakened the case. But it is for a different reason, namely, because users could reasonably assumed in good faith that Graham corrected his behavior since the ANI. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I was very unimpressed with our first recall attempt and think the process has some more ironing-out to be done, but @Chaotic Enby, these are very good responses and I endorse them. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Assuming without deciding that "double jeopardy" actually exists on Wikipedia, Graham87 was never truly at jeopardy of losing his tools as a result of the previous ANI discussion because ANI could not (and still cannot) take away admin tools. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's true as far as it goes but ArbCom has always been available (and remains so) when desysopping is necessary and plenty of ANI threads which have surfaced concerns about admins' conduct have been referred to ArbCom. At no point were any of the threads on Graham referred to ArbCom and in my opinion it's unlikely a case would have been accepted and extremely unlikely that it would have resulted in a desysop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's controversial to say that this is why the recall process exists in the first place - ie, that the "ANI to ArbCom" desysopping process was seen as insufficient. -- asilvering (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

ROPE is an essay. Nowhere did I say Graham87 is not acting in good faith, nor do I disbelieve that. Inaction is the weakest form of consensus. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Subscription to discussion

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)

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)

Yep, that worked. I'll add it to the template too. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Maddy from Celeste! Confirmed I was able to subscribe. Star Mississippi 14:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Sorry, I changed some subsection levels to match the template (from 5 to 3), can you tell me if that didn't accidentally break your subscription? – 2804:F14:80F1:A901:B8E8:7496:E69E:DCD8 (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As long as there's a level 2 header at the top it should be fine. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed I'm still seeing changes. Thanks for checking, IP2804 and confirming, @Maddy from Celeste. Star Mississippi 21:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Avoiding a long month of drama

 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)

Clarification on opposes

I'm fairly sure I'm correct when I say that opposes to the recall petition don't affect the outcome of the petition. No matter what, if 25 ec editors sign a petition, it passes and moves into an RRfA. From what I'm reading, many people seem to think that opposes do affect the outcome of the petition (which I'm certain is incorrect). So what I'm asking is that there should be clarification somewhere (anywhere) that states opposes don't affect the petition.

I'm not saying opposes should be disallowed, just that they don't change the outcome.

To clarify, I know some editors already knew. I'm not talking about them, I'm talking editors who potentially don't know that opposes don't affect the result. fanfanboy (block) 14:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I knew. But I was hoping I could convince others by arguing against the petition anyway. And I did ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Well then I guess all is well. :) fanfanboy (block) 16:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I opposed with the knowledge that opposition does not affect whether or not a petition can proceed once 25 signatories endorse it, and with the feeling that it should affect the legitimacy of a recall petition. (Uninvolved in original RFCs) Folly Mox (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Edited my message because it seems I misjudged what I read. fanfanboy (block) 16:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Aware that it doesn't impact proposal, but hope that by sharing my input it helps others make their decision - whether that be to support it or not. Context to complement that of the proposer is always helpful. Star Mississippi 18:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the opposes were invaluable in me making my own decision -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Petition withdrawals and early closes

Thinking past Dilletante's IAR close of the most recent petition, we really ought to put a word in as to if withdrawals or closes at the petition stage will be allowed in the future, and if so how. Some options include

1. Not allowing withdrawals at all if anyone besides the nominator has signed. This is the standard for XfDs at WP:WITHDRAW
   • Petitons withdrawn in this way should not count towards the 6-month cooldown
2. Allowing withdrawals or early closes if there appears to be overwhelming opposition
   • Even though this is pretty much what happened now, I really dislike this as a standard. This makes the petition stage partially redundant with RRFA, and detaches it from its intended goal of just seeing if there's a chance an RRFA would be competitive. We should try to have the system be such that weak petitions are allowed to expire; if that means shortening the petition window or restricting discussion, so be it
3. Allowing withdrawl (but not third-party closes) if the petition fails to reach a certain threshold by a point before the window expires
   • If we're keeping the 30-day window, this is my preferred option. <=10 supports after two weeks could work. This may be unnecessary if the window is shortened.

Mach61 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

someone reopened while I wrote this, heh Mach61 17:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you comment on option 2, opposes should not affect the outcome of the petition, that's what the RRfA is for. However, the first option is something I can get behind. As for option 3, even if we keep the 30 days, I don't think closing early would help because it could prevent some users who planned to sign from not signing (though this scenario may be unlikely). fanfanboy (block) 17:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

To me this feels like a case of "bad cases make bad law." Suppose there's an admin who's well-liked in a particular topic area, but has a history of personal attacks. There's an AN/I thread about them personally attacking someone, and it's inconclusive, so someone starts a recall petition, and 20 people from that topic area show up to say it's the worst idea ever—maybe canvassed, maybe they see it at AN/I, maybe they watchlist the admin's talkpage. Meanwhile recall-supports trickle in slowly because there's a much higher social-capital cost to supporting rather than opposing. In that situation, you might have a silent majority of the community that favors desysop, and the point of this process is to create an RRfA so that silent majority has more of a chance to be heard.

Some kind of early closure mechanism seems prudent, but I think it would need to be based on more objective measures than "eh a lot of people oppose this." Allowing withdrawal if all supporter(s) agree seems commonsense. Allowing a bureaucrat to close a request as procedurally invalid if it doesn't cite an ongoing issue and failed past attempts to resolve it, would remove some potential vexatious requests, although I'd say the current petition against Graham just barely skates past that line. As to SNOW, I don't think oppose levels should be used to gauge SNOWyness, but support levels could. Maybe some rule like "If, at any point after at least one week has passed, it seems very unlikely in the judgment of an uninvolved bureaucrat that the petition will reach the required support threshold". Although in any such case we'd also have to decide what happens with the 6-month cooldown period. Simply prorating based on time elapsed would be one easy approach (so if 30 days = 6 months, 10 days = 2 months). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If someone starts an unfounded petition and it fails to gain support so it is closed early, personally I don't think the admin in question should have a shorter respite period than one who came close to gaining sufficient support for a petition to pass.

I don't think trying to forecast the outcome early is a more objective measure. If we were to go this route, I think I'd prefer intermediate milestone metrics that should be passed. If the petition period is shortened, though, that may no longer be necessary. isaacl (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with your first paragraph. I think some of this could be fixed quite simply by just reducing the amount of time petitions stay open. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Dilletante's IAR closure was good here - we reached the point where Graham had a snowball's chance in hell of being desysopped by the process. There is no need to bureaucratically carry out the full remainder of the process. Close it early, full immunity/cooldown period. Similar philosophy for future cases, although reasonable people can disagree on numeric thresholds. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

People can of course withdraw their own signature (even if it's the first one), but I think that's where it should stop. This is a "petition" with a set expiry date, not a consensus-building discussion, and so the idea of an early close per WP:SNOW doesn't really make much sense. Letting a discussion run its course doesn't do much harm (it's a little hard on the subject, but presumably the stress will lessen considerably when they see it doesn't have a chance of succeeding) and has the benefits of a) making sure that everyone can see that there the process was followed and the signatories had a fair shot and b) giving this process a chance to succeed against popular but objectively detrimental admins – exactly who our current admin accountability processes have struggled with. – Joe (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• I strongly support option 1. Once the petition is started, and another valid editor signs it, the petition belongs to the entire community and is not owned by the originator of the petition. Other editors may have their reasons for signing the petition, which may or may not be in alignment with the originator, and while I may believe that this specific petition would have failed if it went to an RRFA, I don't think the number of opposes should gauge whether a SNOW close is appropriate. --Enos733 (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I fully agree. It is supposed to be a community recall process, not an individual challenge. Who started the petition should have zero effect on what happens later. In dewiki, almost all admins except for a few exempt ones (e.g. those who recently passed an election) have ongoing rolling recall petitions ongoing all the time. There is no need for these to create much drama unless the quorum for a new election is met. —Kusma (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• The idea of allowing withdrawal is silly. This process isn't a discussion, it is a threshold event: 25 signatures regardless of cause or rationale. End it early for any reason will disenfranchise all the editors who wanted to support the recall but wait until day 29 to avoid drama being thrown at them during the month. The whole policy is farse as written, but if you are going to have it, you can't end the process early (unless a sock started it, etc) and you surely can't withdraw, as the close doesn't reset and you can just do it again next month to harass the admin. EDIT TO CLARIFY: allowing changing of !votes to support is perfectly fine, but not a withdraw of the entire process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• It is reasonable to assume that most people who participate in a petition will also participate in a subsequent RRFA, and there is no point in starting an RRFA when the evidence is that it has no realistic chance of failure. It would just be a waste of everyone's time. At a minimum, I suggest this: at the end of the 30 days, a bureaucrat may decide that the opposition to the recall was so strong that an RRFA is pointless. Zero^talk 10:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  It seems to me that this would cause the maximum possible level of drama, rather than reduce it - since opposers would be motivated to make as much noise as they possibly can in advance of the bureaucrat's decision. -- asilvering (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think opposition to a recall petition should even be a thing. We should do away with the discussion section and only count whether the number of petitioners reaches the quorum, then have a binding new RfA. All parts except the final RfA should be made as low drama as possible. —Kusma (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Strongly opposed to this idea, which would just turn the petition into the RRFA. Levivich (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I have the same concerns as the editors above, all this will do is cause more problems. fanfanboy (block talk) 14:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is WP:RECALL a policy?

 There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Is WP:RECALL a policy? regarding whether or not this page is a policy. Soni (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Potential issues to be addressed

Just collecting up a list of things that may need tweaking. As is usual with any new process, things that may have seemed like a good idea in the conceptual stage do not always turn out to be good in practice:

• Announced only at WP:AN. Announcing petitions at an admin noticeboard could give the impression that this is a matter primarily for other admins. WP:CENT is for everyone and is transcluded in numerous other pages.
• Thirty-day certification period: Many users have expressed that this seems excessive and arguably worse than being dragged to ArbCom, perhaps it should be shortened.
• Discussion during certification: Normally when gathering signatures for a petition, the petitioner presents their case, and signatories can sign under it if they agree. That's not what is going on at the current petition. The actual discussion of the fitness of the admin to retain the tools is supposed to take place at the re-RFA, but with this format, it is taking place at the petition. Petitions are not generally about discussion.
• If the discussion section is kept, there could possibly be some controls or rules. When a desysop case request comes before ArbCom, all parties and commenters have rules they must follow, i.e. no threaded discussion, word limits, etc, and comments which stray outside of these expectations are handled by arbitrators or clerks. There are no such controls here and therefore, outside of comments that otherwise clearly violate site policies, no manifest or implied authority for any sort of control. In other words this might as well just be done at ANI.

Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• For me, the biggest problem with the current model is the duration (point #2). I supported 30 days at WP:RFA2024 because it was the middle-ground option, but now the policy is being put into effect I really do believe that it's too long – depressingly and demoralisingly so for someone being petitioned against. There's no fairness in keeping someone in suspense like this for a month. I think it should be reduced to 7 days. 25 signatures is quite a low bar, and if there's enough strength of feeling against an administrator, I doubt it would take weeks to reach that figure. One week aligns with the RfA/RRfA/RfB duration as well. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Maybe I was reading more into the description than is fair, but before the first one took off, I thought this was being sold as more of a straw poll, with very little discussion. If there were 25 supporters, then actual discussion would happen at the RFA. If that was going to be the system, then 30 days is reasonable, as people trickle in. If people are going to argue, with threaded discussion and oppose votes, then a much shorter time needs to be used. It's crazy to have this live for 30 days ... followed by another 7 rehashing of everything at an RFA. Even then, it's kind of crazy to fight for seven days, followed by another 7 day fight. Personally, I'd prefer the former: a straw poll, with limited to no discussion, limited to no accusations, just seeing if you can get to 25 people. If we're going to have this level of arguing, then there's really no benefit to having a 25 person trigger. This is nearly the same as having a recall RFA with a 1 person trigger. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Support announcing at WP:CENT, support shortening to a minimum of 7 days (between 10-14 is my preference), support removing discussion section which is similar to what I voted for during Phase II. fanfanboy (block talk) 19:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that a shorter petition period is better (7-14 days, lean towards 7). However, I do think that discussion is important. Without discussion, the petition statement for why privileges should be revoked would essentially go unchallenged, with no place to respond to the complaint. --Enos733 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The free-for-all we're seeing now though, seems undesirable. Something more akin to what hapoens at request for arbitration could possibly work better, user can add statements in their own section, with less of the PvP action we're seeing now. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• It might indeed be a good idea for editors to take lessons from the experience of this first petition, and create a revised process for community discussion. But I'm also strongly inclined towards a much simpler next step: having an RfC to revoke this trainwreck, and mark it as historic. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• I maintain that CENT isn't enough. It's transcluded on a lot of pages, but how many of those pages do people regularly visit? (Even WP:AN isn't a great example, because it's way below the fold). It should be a watchlist notice, similar to RfAs. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• I'm going to go with the opposite approach - it should be mentioned nowhere (other than on the list of recall pages itself), and the idea of the petition is to see if enough people independently discover problems with the admins' conduct to hit the 25 signatures without notification then it goes to a re-RFA which is notified everywhere. I think that mindset is what the one-month period was trying to encourage, and it only isn't working here because of course the first instance of a new process gets lots of community attention. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  I know I kind of jinxed that idea by arguing vociferously in favor of Graham87 from the very moment it started, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is why the first recall petition is not representative of recall petitions and should not be the basis for changes to the recall process. Just 48 hours into the first step of a process that took nine months to develop, and we already have a half dozen pages where we're discussing ideas for how to change or jettison it. Same thing happened with the other RFA2024 reforms: discussion-only period and admin elections also had people immediately calling to put a stop to it. It's ironic how resistant to change a wiki can be. Patience, folks. Levivich (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well said. There are some people who need to dial back their overreactions. Many of us have long considered community recall to be a desirable reform. What we have right now is brand new, and it will take some time to iron out the details; the process doesn't need to be perfect immediately. Let's see what happens before we assume the worst. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I fully agree with this. Recall petitions should only be officially announced at Wikipedia:Administrator recall and perhaps also at the administrator's talk page. Only after sufficiently many people agree and the quorum is met should discussion start. Remember, we need the process to be easier than ArbCom and less drama than the old-style mob with pitchforks and torchesWP:RFCU. Otherwise it is doing more harm than good. —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! Similar ideas have been discussed on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), and a RfC is being workshopped there (for both shortening the certification period and limiting discussion). People here are free to join, or even move the RfC workshopping here if it is more appropriate. (I hope this doesn't count as canvassing as it is just to workshop the RfC rather than to take any binding decision although if it is, feel free to remove this comment) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• If we're discussing what needs tweaking, personally I think the threshold of 25 is too low. I think 50, given our user base, would have been more reasonable. I think it'd be pretty easy to reach 25 supports on a number of admins who don't deserve to be desysopped, especially considering we regular have RfAs that pass with that many opposes. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

One per year

Assuming this process doesn't get removed during the next few weeks due to its shaky start, I think we should add a rule that says any individual can only start one recall petition per year (i.e., against anybody).

Consider the editor who believes that admins must be extremely active, but cannot get the community to change the WP:INACTIVITY rules. What's the next logical step? The editor could individually nominate each less-active admin. Dredge up a couple of past disputes to get a few folks to agree with you, and point out how inactive the editor is to get another handful. It's easier to get a little group to say "lost our trust" than to get a big group to change the official rules. (For comparison, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements had ~250 people commenting on it.)

Consider, too, the grudge-holding multi-blocked editor: Five admins have blocked me for personal attacks and edit warring on CTOPs, so off to recall they all go! Even if the petition doesn't succeed, I'll still get to punish them all with a month of stress.

A simple rule of "no more than one petition every 12 months" should be an effective way of preventing both of these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There was consensus against something similar, though it only applied to individual editors. I oppose one petition per year, but perhaps the discussion I linked to can be reopened. fanfanboy (block talk) 20:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

So Plan A is that foreseeable problems won't happen, and Plan B is to block or ban individuals who violate unwritten rules. That's not IMO a good way to organize a dispute-related process, but if that's what we've got, then we'll work with it. We can always add the rule after a round or two of drama. In the meantime, if anyone wants to find a source, then "I'm not going to tell you that I told you so" should be given as a classic example in Apophasis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• In reply to WhatamIdoing: With both of those scenarios, I'd like to think that the wider community would see the frivolous and vexatious recall attempts for what they are, end them early, and sanction the petition starter appropriately if they won't stop. But the policy is brand-new and its potential for WP:GAMING remains unclear. Limiting people to one petition start each year may be too much, but I worry about the possibility of weaponisation. For example, in the policy as written, there's nothing to prevent repeat petitioning by the same starter against the same administrator at six-month intervals. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that seems to be Plan B: we'll punish people for violating unwritten rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

we could just revoke extended confirmed in such cases. We have the technical means.©Geni (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We could do lots of things in response to problematic behavior, but don't you think it might be worth reducing the risk of the problematic behavior being displayed in the first place? At least some editors might not start multiple recalls if they saw a note saying "BTW, doing multiple recalls in the same year is against the rules. Either find a friend to start your second one, or wait until next year". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• How is this any different than an editor systematically bringing every single person in a topic area to WP:ANI or WP:AE? If someone is bringing requests that are clearly malicious in intent and have no hope of success, that would be blatantly disruptive behavior that would get an individual sanction for abusing the process. This is true whether they bring one or twenty, in any case, though bringing a bunch of terrible ones at once would be WP:ROPE in the sense that it would make their abuse of the process more obvious. --Aquillion (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  The difference is that AE says "If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I really would have preferred something like the dewiki process. Basically, petitions against all non-exempt admins should be open at all times, with no discussion until a quorum of something like 25 editors in a single month or 50 editors in a single year is reached (and then a RRFA). The quorum size can be tweaked to prevent your group of people who want to hunt down inactive admins from dominating the process. —Kusma (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"RRfA" term is just doesn't fit well with the process

"Re-request" gives the impression that someone has stood in RfA for a second time, because they have failed the previous one or because they were desysopped for some reason. Indeed, these search results in WP:RFA's subpages prove the point: [1], [2]. Since the proposed RRfA is essentially a retention discussion, something along the lines of "Request for Adminship Retention" could have been more specific. Sorry, I'm aware that I'm late to this discussion, real life prevented me from entering this part of Wikipedia when all the major decisions were being taken, but thought I'll share my two cents anyway. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We already have something with the acronym WP:RFAR. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, "Retention Request for Adminship"? It keeps the RRfA acronym but is more specific than "re-request". —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 00:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

"Confirmation" is better than "retention". Zero^talk 08:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "confirmation" or "reconfirmation" RfA sounds good to me. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally I've been using "reconfirmation RfA". -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how re-request implies the first request was unsuccessful? It's just a second (or third or fourth etc.) request. Your search is obviously constrained to what people talked about before this process existed, when a subsequent RfA was almost always because of a failed prior one or a desysop. – Joe (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Basically "re-request" gives the impression that it's a normal RfA, but not the first one of an user. Not that it is a different process with different pass/fail criteria. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It is the same process, though. I think that's the main idea behind calling it RRFA (whatever you want the R to stand for): to emphasise that we're not creating a new test of whether someone should be an admin, just a new way to trigger it, and e.g. all the rules that apply to RFA also apply to RRFA. The pass threshold is a bit lower but that's really just giving different guidance to the crats when closing them, not fundamentally changing the process. – Joe (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

"reconfirmation RfA" is certainly a better fit than "re-RfA" Leijurv (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)