Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

Other discussions

• WP:REWORK - discussion of changes to the process
• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – index of previous unsuccessful proposals
• Wikipedia:Administrator recall/RfCs - index of RFCs and unassorted discussions related to this process

RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

Should the following text -- or text to the same basic effect -- be added to Petition section, at the end of the main text, right before the field to start a new page (or elsewhere):

As with any petition, all that is wanted is signatures. Any editor may and should remove any material found on a petition page except for the nomination and signatures. Any exceptions should be discussed and agreed to on the talk page first.

Yes or no? Suggestions of changes to the text are of course invited. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. (I would maybe add at the end something like "Discussion on the talk page should not be about the merits of the case" or something). Otherwise the talk page might just turn into a proxy for attack/defense and lemon-squeezing on the talk page instead of the petition page. But more hidden, so maybe better. And discussion can be enlightening. And I think there needs to be a way to bring in more info about the case, beyond the nomination... Tricky problem, maybe somebody has a solution... Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, except for a filer statement and candidate reply. Recall petitions aren't a good venue in which to discuss user conduct; that should be for AN, ANI, and related. (I think that an AN/ANI thread should be prerequisite to a petition being filed.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I do agree that this is premature. Also, if this does pass, third parties should be allowed to add more evidence (only in the form of diffs and threadlinks). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. As I stated at the phase 2 discussion, people will (and have) mistakenly apply the expectation that RfA opposers explain their position. This doesn't make sense with a petition, a preliminary process that doesn't have a formal "oppose" mechanism, leading to a lot of screaming at the void. It's just meant to be a gauge of if an RRFA is warranted. Mach61 05:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• This RFC needs to be thought out better. See WP:VPI#Workshopping_the_RfC for preliminary discussion trying to do that, but there's too many nuanced positions for what should go where, and a binary choice between status quo and signatures only does not capture that. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ok, since we seem to be doing this no matter what, here's my opinion, with sympathy to the closer who has to figure this out. The main recall page should consist of a filer statement with a moderate word limit (500 words, 5 links), a genuinely optional space for the recalled admin to reply (hidden comment in the template) and signatures under a very strict word limit (15 words, 1 link). The recall talk page should consist of more detailed rationales by supporters who wish to leave them, and signatures with optional rationale by people opposing the petition. There should be no threaded discussion on either page. Sorry for wall of bold, but this is what I meant by nuanced positions that this RFC can't deal with as currently structured. It is important that people opposing a petition have some place to register dissent so that the recalled admin has a chance to gauge whether they've lost community support and should consider a resignation or whether they have solid support if they choose to stick it out. The threaded discussion is far more heat than light, and needs to go. A filer statement is needed to explain why we're all here, and the admin should have right of reply to that statement in the same location the statement is made. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the much more nuanced answer (which I would agree with more than with either extreme). Feel free to suggest it at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop in case we have to redo a more detailed RfC. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Recall needs to be low drama, not "trial by ANI" or similar environments conducive to mobs with pitchforks. —Kusma (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Also, I'd like to note ceterum censeo that we should have gone with dewiki's recall process. The current process (we first shout at the admin in question and each other at ANI for a while, then if somebody opens a recall petition we shout at each other at the petition page for a week to 30 days, followed by shouting at each other at the RRFA if the petition reaches quorum) seems to be significantly worse than just opening an ArbCom case. —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Do not change the status quo until the dust has settled after the first petition (and any subsequent RRFA) to allow time for a proper pre-RFA discussion that fully workshops the options and we can avoid vague statements like is presented here and overlapping RFCs (see also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Shorten the recall petition period?) in multiple venues. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This RfC is too soon. I don't understand the rush to change the process when the first recall request is less than half-over. This RfC is not going to have any effect on the current case, and making changes without knowing how the first case ends is premature. - Donald Albury 13:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No Allowing the nomination statement to go completely unchallenged during the petition phase as this would do is a worse violation of due process. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  "Due process" implies that adminship is a right instead of a community-bestowed privilege, which is the problem we're trying to solve here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• No Absolutely no. No explanation, no reasoning? It's already bad in that there is no ability to effectively oppose. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - I support this. The petition process was passed by consensus and does not need to be disrupted after the fact by people who don't like that a process now exists. Those who do not support it need to simply not sign it and if it gets 25 signatures they can go vote their candidate support in the RRfA. Discussion of the petition, as usually happens on Wikipedia, can happen on the talk page. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Too soon There have been other proposals being considered at WP:VPI#Workshopping_the_RfC, like @Tazerdadog pointed out, and a binary option might not allow us to make the best choice. However, if this RfC ends up going through, count my vote as yes, except for filer statement and candidate reply, per Leeky above. The petition is here to bring up reasonable issues, and, while the candidate should be given a chance to respond, it shouldn't be the place to argue back-and-forth on the merits to not turn into a mini-RRfA. Having no extended discussion to respond to will also likely make it less stressful for the admin to deal with. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No discussion is helpful to others considering the matter. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yea with leeky's amendment. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  The first petition has already seen disproportionally high stress for its signatories. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Some say the petition should allow discussion to not be an echo chamber. Why not use the re-RfA instead? There's basically the same amount of pressure on the subject either way. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  The purpose of the recall petition is to determine whether to open a discussion that actually determines the consensus. It's been proven that finding consensus for adminship (or not) results in cesspools. We can have the cesspool and determine the consensus during the RRfA, not the petition. IMO, that has been the goal of the process for a very long time. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC is how dewiki's recall as worked for a long time without much of the problems the opposers claim will happen. Unfortunately, since we don't appear to be discussing that, and seeing other petitions would result in a more conclusive decision anyways, I think this may need a SNOW close. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Was just about to list it at ANRFC. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  The latest Graham evidence would've been brought up at RRfA. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• No to further changes to the recall process at this time. We've had one petition which featured a flurry of activity for a few days and now has pretty well calmed down (and I don't buy all of the talk about how stressful it is for the admin given that most of the activity at the first petition consisted of editors speaking up in vehement defense of the admin in question). Despite the flurry of hysteria in response to this first petition, we have not yet seen any further petitions. There is no urgent need to make major changes to the process, and I urge the community to be sensible for once and to give the process that we already established time to work. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No, this is premature. For Pete's sake, we haven't even had a single recall go through yet. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Premature Seems odd to be having three separate discussions going on at the same time on different pages about different aspects when not even one case is concluded. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No, and not yet. We should be thoughtful about concerns about due process and allow editors to challenge the assertions made by the nominator (so other editors could have more complete information if they want to sign - or withdraw a signature). There are other ways we could organize discussion if the discussions become too much, such as not allowing direct replies. --Enos733 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. People who are opposing at the current recall discussion are bringing up very good points that some of the support voters may not have seen before. Besides, this is premature. We haven't even gotten through one petition. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • One more thing: having the oppose votes with rationale may give whichever admin who is the subject of the petition an idea whether or not their RRfA would pass or not. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No to original and TLC's idea. Opposition to a recall position is important. This shouldn't be a venue to just list admins you dislike with no evidence. Some may find new damning evdience and there shouldn't be a first mover's advantage. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  As an example, the latest evidence for the Graham87 petition would never have been brought up if others could not comment. If I (the nom) couldn't explain my reasoning, half the wiki would be left scratching their heads. Sincerely, Dilettante 03:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Premature like the other one - we are a few days into our first recall petition, too soon to know anything. Also, these variables -- the petition length, whether to have discussion, where to advertise petitions, the number of signatures needed -- are all connected. They were discussed and decided together in Phase II (in a process that took months); we are only going to mess up the system by deciding to tweak each one individually one at a time a few days into the first ever recall petition (rather than looking at them all together, after collecting some reasonable amount of data about performance of WP:RECALL in the field). One tweak I'm thinking of proposing is that the community recognize that all admins have COI with WP:RECALL and should refrain from trying to change the process (or even from participating in it in any way). It's hard to AGF that some admins (not all) aren't trying to sabotage WP:RECALL by making the process as chaotic and insufferable as possible. I'm probably being paranoid, but that is sure what it feels like from my perspective. Levivich (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. With the policy as currently written, I oppose efforts to remove or restrict discussion. Do we really want these pages to be little more than echo chambers, "the accused" left to be their own defence counsel, no differing perspectives or moral support allowed? That's not acceptable. I would only change to support if we brought in safeguards to prevent abuse of the process like those I outlined here. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • As a compromise between this proposal and the status quo – maybe continue to allow third-party discussion on the petition page, but disallow threaded discussion in the "Signatures" and "Response" sections. "Signatures" should be reserved for the signatories, "Response" should be reserved for the administrator, and anyone (including signatories and the admin) is free to comment in the threaded "Discussion" section at the foot of the page. So that the petition remains a true petition, signatories are neither expected nor required to participate in the discussion. Any misplaced discussion comments are moved to the correct section. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

    I could support that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Premature Per Asilvering and several others. RudolfRed (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No -- both premature and bad practice. Given that discussion was what revealed how this recall process as implemented actually completely lacks any serious semblance of widespread community consensus in the first place, we should be encouraging *more* of it, not trying to stifle it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. The proposed change will do nothing to fix the fundamental problems with this process, just paper them over. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and consensus is built on discussion. Those editors who sign the petition should have the option of saying what they want, about why they signed. And those who want to raise objections should be able to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. Reasoned discussion is the best way to make decisions. If we ban discussion, we'll get poorer decisions.—S Marshall T/C 00:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Good grief, no This "recall" process is already like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut and clearly unsound, and this further proposal is basically censorship (only those who agree with me about admin X get a say). If you add this to what is already a fundamentally flawed process, the whole "recall" thing will basically be a kangaroo court. The "recall" process currently underway has several serious flaws in the "facts" detailed by the OP, which have been exposed by comments from editors who examined the diffs. The idea that this should occur without comment from those who see major issues with the case is completely out of whack with the fundamental principle of procedural fairness. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, except for a filer statement and candidate reply. The actual discussion can take place after the petition has passed and reconfirmation RfA begins. Dramafests like Graham's recall adds unnecessary, premature stress that can be prevented by disallowing discussions. In its current form, the structure of recall petition is similar in form to the RfA process, replicating its enablement of toxicity. We should not be subjecting admins to what in essense are two RfA. For the sake of fairness, I agree with theleekycauldron that the filer needs to explain their reasoning and the candidate be offered a chance to explain. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• No but disallow 'opposes' and replies. People should be able to give the reason they support the petition so others may agree with it but allowing comments/replies just results in a bunch of petty irrelevant comments that should be saved for an RfA. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes except for a short explanation in signatures. This is a bit pre-mature though. fanfanboy (block talk) 13:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, it would prevent admins from circling the wagons and brigading the "discussion" as we have seen at the G87 page. SerialNumber54129 15:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• No Support votes in recall should ideally be accompanied by reasoning. I don't care about oppose votes or their reasoning. Move those to the talk page. What if a recall petition is submitted against an admin, and someone has a more grievous concern then what's present in the original statement of the petition? — hako9 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you don't care about opposes then can't you just ignore them? People opposing, at least in the first iteration, have given a rationale for why they did not believe the petition to be appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ignoring something and not responding never looks good. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu: I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Those who support the petition are under no obligation to respond to all of those who oppose in the general section, and it doesn't change the outcome except for trying to sway those who are undecided. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm fairly sure there was a policy somewhere that editors are obligated to discuss if they want to preserve their status quo, but I can't find it right now.

  are under no obligation to respond to all of those who oppose

  Well, that's not what I said. I said they are under obligation to respond to oppose arguments if they want to preserve/justify/make acceptable their stance, not that they had to respond to all of them. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just like in an RFA, where explanation for support votes doesn't make sense, hence is optional; in a recall, oppose explanation doesn't make sense either. The community has already decided the threshold for recall. I don't need to be pursuaded to "not recall" an admin. That is my default position. I want more admins. I need to be persuaded to support taking someone's admin rights away. — hako9 (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Hako9: This is actually the opposite of that situation from my point of view. Opposes matter at RfA but they pretty much don't matter at recalls. If it's not for you, in your eyes, simply don't read it. It's for those who want context for a situation and may help those who are undecided become aware of relevant information. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• No Discussion is essential to decision making.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• No: Discussion can be relevant to those unfamiliar with the situation, potential mitigating factors, or to call out an inaccuracy in a nomination statement. If you truly believe someone should be sent to re-RfA, it shouldn't matter if others believe something different and have been discussing it below. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• No people are going to talk about recall attempts somewhere. Moving the discussion to ANI (or insisting on a week where a bunch of people demand a recall election while forced to not give any explanation) will only make things worse. The discussions so far aren't perfect, but this change will not solve the problems; it is too soon to know what will help. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. This was already discussed and decided in the Phase II discussions. Although I supported some limits on discussion there, I supported (and still support) allowing petition signers to explain their reasoning. P.S. I love how the community suddenly woke up and realized that consensus matters. How about y'all actually participate in the discussion next time around, instead of waiting for things to blow up and then complaining about it retroactively? Toadspike [Talk] 02:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone arguing for removing discussion is "suddenly [waking] up and realiz[ing] that consensus matters." Aaron Liu (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. If any restriction is placed on comments, it is imperative to also say who is empowered to remove comments that violate the restriction. Zero^talk 03:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  In the idea lab discussion, the proposal was "anyone can" as this specific proposal is extremely objective. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• No. I would prefer not to do this for the reasons explained in the phase II discussion, and while I'd support it if it were necessary to save the process, we're not at that point yet, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. Wikipedia decisions are and have for a very long time been structured around a discussion aimed at generating consensus. Prohibiting discussion is the wrong decision. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  This. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• No - per several others above: consensus is a core principle in our dispute resolution processes, and you don't build consensus by prohibiting opposing views. If adopted, this proposal would make it hard to correct even basic factual errors in the nomination, or to offer any alternative interpretations that might influence "support" voters. That's not to Wikipedia's benefit and shouldn't be part of this process. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes with theleakycauldron's caveats. The appropriate venue for 'challenge' would be the re-RfA, if the process reaches that point. Allowing comments at the petition stage is IMO needlessly cruel and it seems appropriate to allow a petition to succeed or fail as the petitioner presents it. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• No - If there are issues with an administrator, the nominator should not be the only editor that is able to elaborate on those issues or explain the reason for their supporting the petition while signing. The rationales of others often provide different contexts or explanations for the same information, which may provide a more clear picture for other editors considering the merits of a petition. - Aoidh (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. If editors—including the admin themself—are prevented from discussing and objecting at the petition, they will find other places to do so. Keep it centralised. Also, Wikipedia is a discuss things kind of place; while not contrary to any rule, instituting a straight-up vote with no discussion would provoke resentment because it is contrary to the ethos. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Although there does need to be the oppurtunity to add evidence. Most of the comments on the first petition were by those opposed to recall, and therefore a bit off topic. If "oppose votes" are allowed, then it shouldn't be called a petition. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. The discussion on Graham87's recall page led to the discovery of fresh evidence that moved people to sign the petition. Even if discussion is "dramatic", it's useful and can lead to further understanding. Toughpigs (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, at least sort of. The filer should probably write a statement (one of that would be within a reasonable distance of WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:RFCNEUTRAL standards, but obviously saying why they think de-sysopping is warranted). The target should have a limited opportunity to reply. Everyone else should find some other place(s) to discuss it. The petition itself should merely be names. If you don't have a reasonably independent reason to distrust an admin yourself, then you probably shouldn't be signing a petition that says you "believe that the administrator has lost [your] trust", because if you don't already know how this admin behaves, then that admin actually hasn't lost your trust (yet). IMO the place to say you've been convinced by the evidence others have put forward is at the RFA, not at the petition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• No' as others have said whatever merits this idea seems to have had, the first recall have shown it makes sense to allow comments including from people besides the candidate and the opener. I mean yes, in theory people can discuss evidence for a recall somewhere besides the recall page so removing the right to do it there doesn't mean that anything new is hidden from everyone, but I don't think it's helping anyone to move the discussion elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  Also while I'm personally unsure whether all these don't recall etc type comments are useful, I'm somewhat reluctant to allow a situation where only people saying "this admin has lost my trust" can comment so don't know if there's any way to handle that which doesn't make things worse. I think it might be best just to led the process bed in a bit. Perhaps editors will adjust how they handle things and so the extremes of the first recall won't be played out so much in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• No, but. I think proponents of a petition should be allowed to add evidence to support their argument. I don't think threaded discussions like we've seen at the two petitions to date should be happening under the signature section. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with this. There should be a space for the nominator to list reasons, followed by pure signatures, followed by space for discussion. - Enos733 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes Miniapolis 22:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• No per above. Like any other process on Wikipedia, this should be consensus-based. -Fastily 22:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• No Consider petitions where the filer statement and candidate reply attract fewer than 25 signers because they were insufficiently indicative of loss of community trust, despite some signers having further evidence of misconduct. Prohibiting discussion on the petition will either encourage these disgruntled editors to shift their additional info onto the users' talk pages or begin planning for a new petition six months later. In other words, arguing that the RRFA is the venue for all discussion assumes that this RfC only concerns successful petitions. I agree with Mach61 that we should not require recall supporters to explain their votes at this stage, but they should be allowed to do so. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Arbcom forbids threaded discussion and limits statements in its proceedings to maintain good order. A petition is a formal document which should likewise be conducted in a dignified way. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• No Absolutely not. The discussion is absolutely useful to the process of moving forward. Without it, we undermine what we're supposed to be. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• No for the following two reasons: (1) The threshold of 25 signatures seems way to low in my opinion. I think the threshold should be much higher, perhaps 50 to 60 given that reconfirmation at an RRFA is guaranteed at 60% but still possible at 50%. It seems like there should be a way to figure out a better threshold using the stats from WP:RFAY. (2) There doesn't seem to be a word limit placed on comments made by those signing a petition. I think one of the problems so far is that some people feel the process is too one sided. Perhaps if the threshold was quite a bit higher and comments associated with signatures were brief, there might be less of a desire to respond to them. I did my fair share of posting in Fastily petition and did my part in mucking things up; so, I'm not claiming to be a saint and my apologies for that. Part of the reason for that, though, was because it seemed (at least to me) at the time as if those signing or otherwise commenting were being given an opportunity to express their sincere concerns, provide context and ask that others give them due consideration but also expecting others to not try to challenge, provide their own context or otherwise rebut them. Whenever someone provides context, you're kind of getting only their side of the story. Perhaps the process would go more smoothly, if someone just signed, gave a brief statement and then moved on. If the threshold is increased and word limits enacted and a moderator enforced them, I could see myself changing to "Yes". -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. In both recalls so far, new evidence emerged that was presented by later signers that turned the tide. Recalls should not be adversarial procedures where it is the filer vs filee with no community input. If we want to structure the discussion in a more meaningful way, that's something we can look into, but an outright ban is not warranted at this point. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. Editors should be allowed to present evidence during the recall period. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• No - I think similar to actual RFA, often times the actual reasoning for or against supporting the petition helps inform other users of the rationale and sometimes prompts valuable discussion during the process that can change consensus. Raladic (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Why should we hold RRfA twice for the same recall? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• YES. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Jéské Couriano I say this as a "yes" voter: what does Fastily's resignation and retirement have to do with discussion being allowed on signature pages? They haven't given any rationale for their actions, and based on timing I would assume that they either didn't want to go through another RfA, and/or didn't want to continue editing when they felt they lost the community's trust. Neither of those rationales have anything to do with this proposal. Mach61 17:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  The Fastily and Graham recall petitions basically became discount user RfCs where everyone against the admin's actions crawled out of the woodwork with evidence so old that it could charitably be called stale and using those to harangue the admin, basically turning the recall petitions into a much longer Hell Week. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't call evidence from during the petition, or within the past month, as "stale." Levivich (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes and no—I believe that there should be some sort of limitation on the character count of any comment accompanying a petition signature (e.g. 250 characters or less, excluding links). That way signatories can, if they choose, give a brief rationale for why they're signing it without taking up too much space. The "discussion" section is where evidence should be presented, whether it be in support or opposition towards the administrator under recall. Finally, I'd support a waiting period of 12-24 hours following the 25th signature to see if any signatories change their mind before the recall is marked as successful. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. As mentioned above, the bar needs to be higher, especially for admins who participate in high-drama areas such as WP:AE. In some areas all that would be needed would be to mention the admin's name, and dozens of people could sign up for the recall, regardless of whether the request was valid or not. As such, I have my own recall criteria here, at User:Elonka/Recall. So it's not just about getting a quantity of signatures, it's almost about getting some confirmation from senior Wikipedians, such as Bureaucrats and Arbs. -- Elonka 04:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• No - Per Hammersoft. Carrite (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• No - At Wikipedia we do things via consensus, which requires discussion. Also, support suspending the RRFA process given the discussions ongoing about amending it. FOARP (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• Strong yes. Per my comment in the discussion below. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• No Per most of the reasons cited above. The bar on RECALL is already far too low and the way it is designed is contrary to how we have always done things here, which is by consensus. Frankly RECALL should be repealed in its entirety w/o prejudice to working on a new guideline for better enforcement of ADMINACCT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• No This is going entirely in the wrong direction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• No but there should be a ban on discussion of the RECALL process itself. That should be taken to the appropriate forum. (ie here) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

The proposed text is on account of the of the situation at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87's petition which is active. Check it out if you haven't. Save discussion and oppose votes for the RRfA if there is one, I say. Let's not make the nominated admin (and us) go thru this twice. It's not supposed to be RfC/U.

The only useful action that can happen on a petition is for an editor to sign, or to withdraw their signature. That's it. Arguing for editors to do these in the body of the petition is clearly not working well. It is a mess. People who don't support the petition should go to the signer's talk page and politely ask the editor to withdraw their signature, presumably with cogent arguments. (For this exceptional process, I think editors should be allowed to spam multiple talk pages with identical messages. This is not going to happen very often, and editors are free to ignore or delete talk page messages.) I think this should be pointed out somewhere, but I wanted to keep the proposed text as succinct as possible. Maybe it could be added later if agreed to in a later discussion or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

While you're at it, the petition period should be limited to 3 days, consistent with the time allowed for discussion before admin elections. If you can't collect 25 signatures in three days, you don't have a strong case. Try filing a case request with the Arbitration Committee if you need more than three days to find out whether there is any need for action. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The old request for comment on user conduct process required a request to be certified within 48 hours with evidence that two users had attempted to resolve a specific dispute with the editor in question. I feel a petition collecting signatures serves a similar purpose: it's a list of users who have direct knowledge of behaviour which has caused them to lose trust in an administrator. In my view, it's not supposed to be a place where everyone weighs in based on what others say about the behaviour. It's a reality check that one person's concerns, based on their personal experience with the administrator, is shared by others who have also experienced undesired behaviour. Thus I think shifting as much discussion as possible out of the petition and into any subsequent re-request for adminship would better serve the petition's role as a certification process to proceed with a re-request. isaacl (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree: if you don't have direct knowledge of the behavior, then save your powder for the RFA itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Ideally anyone signing would be doing so based on "direct knowledge" of the administrator's behaviour. But the policy page doesn't say that. All it says is that "any extended confirmed editor may add their signature to a petition, with or without reasoning". By that rule, an empty signature motivated by petty grudge rather than serious insight into the admin's fitness (e.g. someone who feels slighted because the admin legitimately blocked them once, not having interacted with the admin since) is just as valid as an explained signature that actually makes the case for recall. Perhaps empty signatures can be taken as support votes for reasoning provided by other signatories, but what if the reasoning doesn't stand up to scrutiny? I can't see anything to indicate that the petition opener/first signatory is even required to give reasons; apparently they, like anyone else, can just sign their username and leave it at that. If the merit of a petition is questionable, there absolutely should be a space on the petition page for people to rebut it. It shouldn't be left unchallenged. That's why, unless this policy is radically changed in other ways, I oppose removal of the "Discussion" section. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with a few editors signing up for a petty grudge. They almost certainly shall only make a dent in the number, and the rRfA will find the actual consensus anyways.
If a petition doesn't have any reasoning, especially if the nominator and the admin are the only ones who may provide reasoning—as proposed by Leeky—then just let it expire. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

How do we know that people signing for no reason other than having an axe to grind would "only make a dent in the number"? It could be the difference between a petition passing 25 signatures, or not. Why should bad-faith signing be considered acceptable? In another setting, it might be called disruptive editing. As for "just let it expire" – I'm disturbed that you seem to be saying that unexplained petition starting should be treated as no big deal. That approach would give users the green light to start petitions simply for harassment, as a way of getting back at an admin they dislike. Users shouldn't be starting these petition pages unless they have solid reasons that they're prepared to explain. In the interests of basic decency and fairness, the policy should say as such. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The current rules already allow unexplained signatures. Just like with RfA, second-guessing every opposer's intentions sours the atmosphere for everyone. It is not our job to be the thought police. Either way, I think this part of the discussion is a bit out of bounds.
Thanks for your words, I would support something that requires nominator rationales. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, unexplained signatures, combined with lack of reasoning, are one of the policy's flaws. Comparisons with RfA don't really hold up, because whereas RfA is a two-way consensus debate about the proposal to grant adminship, recall petitions are, in effect, de-adminship requests that give power to only one side via numerical threshold. And I'd argue that barring criticism and discussion from petition pages does considerably more to "sour the atmosphere", because it leaves the pages utterly one-sided. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 08:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

successful recall petitions are always followed by a two-way consensus debate about the proposal to retain adminship. Recall petitions are not de-adminsip requests, they're pre-cursors to de-adminship requests. They are intended to be a simple statement that "the following people believe that $admin should have to initiate a binding reconfirmation of their adminship". The discussion, balance, pros and cons, etc. all come at the re-RFA stage. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I see things a bit differently. To me a recall petition is indeed a de-facto de-amidship request. Those initiating or signing a recall request are doing so because they feel the admin in question is not meeting what's expected of them by the community in a pretty major way. They're basically stating that this person is pretty bad at being an admin and needs to be seriously rebuked by having their adminship reassessed by the community. A recall is not a feel good moment in which everyone gathers around the campfire afterwards, holds hands, and sings Kumbaya; it's a bit of a nasty process in which toes get stepped on, feelings get hurt and lots of dirty laundry ends up being posted for all to see. This is pretty much how the process works out IRL and there's no need to think it works any different here. People don't recall public officials they feel are doing a bang up job or perhaps are in need of a tiny slap on the wrist; they recall people who they feel not only need to go, but need to go asap without waiting for the next scheduled election. People also don't likely try to recall public officials only to then turn around and vote them back into power; they want them out and are hoping enough people feel the same way so they do get kicked out. In a very real sense, at least in my opinion, it's a de-facto "Oppose" !vote to someone retaining their admidship. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

All that happens after the petition. The petition should be just "I think there is cause to have this discussion". Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Process-wise a petition and an RfA might not be the same, but in reality a petition is a preview of !voting to desyop someone. Once again, you don't recall an admin because you want to reward them for doing a great job; you recall them because you think they stink at their job and want them gone. Successfully recalling someone doesn't guarantee the community will play along, but people who say they want someone to be recalled yet still are on the fence as to how they will !vote in the following re-RFA aren't being totally honest in my opinion. Of course, this process is fairly new and there's only one person who's been successfully recalled so far and that process is still ongoing. Perhaps as more time passes and more of these take place a clearer pattern can be seen with respect to those signing petitions and how they !vote in any subsequent re-RFA. I'm pretty sure the rate of the those signing and then !voting oppose is going to end up being pretty high regardless of the ultimate outcome of the re-RFA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

A petition is literally nothing more than a request to have a discussion about whether to desysop someone. It is not somewhere to argue why they should or should not be desysopped, whether they are a saint, the devil incarnate or somewhere in between, or anything else, that's all for the re-RFA. It is not and should not be a discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

By convention, we accept simple signatures as supports on conventional RfAs, because they are understood to be equivalent to "per nom". But I come down on the side of seeing it as a potential problem here, because the possibility of someone signing a recall petition without explaining why, on the basis of a trivial grudge or some sort of trolling, is a real one. I reject the argument that this would get worked out at the subsequent re-RfA, because no admin should be put through that process simply because there were enough grudges to reach 25 signatures, and the community's time should not be wasted by that, either. This is yet another reason why this process is badly flawed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I watch too much TV, but a petition seems (at least how the two that have been started so far have gone) seems akin to a grand jury in that it initiates a process to determine whether there's sufficient support (i.e. evidence) to require an admin to go through the RRFA process again (i.e. go to "trial"). If a recall petition is successful, the recalled has to abide by their result and go through an RRFA or resign as an administrator; those seem to be the only options available. Even though the outcome of the RRFA is unknown, the groundwork for desyoping someone has already been laid and diffs of the admin's "inappropriate" behavior have been already introduced. Moreover, despite how someone might words their "signature", signing a petition is most likely a good indication about how the signee feels about the admin and how they will !vote in the RRFA because once again people don't typically sign petitions for something if they think that thing happening is going to be a bad thing. So, the recall petition essentially becomes a trial version of an RRFA where discussion takes place on whether this person should be an admin. It might not have been intended to be like this by those who are in favor of this, but that's what (at least in my opinion) seems to have morphed into. Something about the way this has been set up seems wrong to me when someone apparently signs one of these petitions not because they think the admin in question should be recalled but rather just because they want to speed things up to see what happens next. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Like you said, the petition (based on the dewiki process) was intended to only filter out bad discussions, not have the discussion twice; it's a "vote" on whether to have the discussion and not supposed to be a discussion. It morphed into what we have now by a slight plurality of editors who wanted to allow discussion during the process's Phase II. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No matter how good the original intent might have been, it doesn't seem like this was thought out very well. When you sign your name to a recall petition out in the real world, you pretty much sign and then go about the rest of your day. If you agree with what's being proposed, you sign but you don't need to then go into much detail explaining why. This is because, for the most part, the fact that you're signing is basically a private matter between you and the petitioner, unless you choose to let go public. That kind of thing seems impossible for Wikipedia because everything posted in automatically very public the moment "Publish changes" is clicked. There's no vetting process or pre-petition stage; someone decides an admin needs to be recalled for whatever reason and gets to post whatever "damaging" diffs they can find that they feel support their reasoning. They get to basically get to throw a huge glob of guck against the wall and make a nice splatter pattern for others to see. If others like what they see, they might sign and throw their own bit of guck against the wall. Those who don't agree might try to wipe off the stuff they don't like. For sure, all of those involved in the process/policy are most likely participating in good faith (i.e. aren't deceptive actors) and doing or saying what they think needs to be done or said for the benefit of the project; the process itself, however, is always going to be messy and nasty, and it is always going to morph into a quasi desyop referendum. Since purpose of the petition seems to be to present an admin with the ultimatum "get reconfirmed at RRFA or resign", it's not too hard to predict that any petition itself will generate heat and drama. A petition is, after all, not started to commend an admin on doing a good job; it's, for better of worse, the beginning of a process to try and tear an admin down. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no vetting process or pre-petition stage; someone decides an admin needs to be recalled for whatever reason and gets to post whatever "damaging" diffs they can find that they feel support their reasoning

What do you propose for the pre-petition stage? Another petition? Another slob of discussion and heat and drama and fighting as seen in the Graham petition? The petition stage was made exactly to avoid frivolous RRfAs. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the petition is to be the vetting process for ReRFAs. Do we really need to get consensus to have a vote to get a consensus? What about a vote to get consensus to have a vote to get consensus? Thryduulf (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Funnily enough, both of those statements are applicable to how we got consensus for ADRC. Sincerely, Dilettante 04:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not advocating that an additional process is need to vet petitions. I'm just pointing out that because there is no such process, the first place people get to discuss a particular petition is on the petition's page itself. Pretty much all of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes seem to follow a "resolve through discussion and establishing consensus" format before taking the next step. So, that's what many are going to expect from these petitions. You could hope that's not what's going to happen and that people will sit on their hands until the RRFA, but it will happen unless you set up the petition process to specifically work in a way that minimizes discussion for both sides. If you let one side post as much as they want, the other side is going to expect to be shown the same courtesy.

Finally, it was posted above and below that petitions are needed to eliminate frivolous and unwarrented RRFA to avoid wasting the community's time. What makes an RRFA frivolous or unwarranted? My question is a sincere one, not an attempt to mess with people. Is it one that has a really small chance of being successful? Is it one that has an overwhelming chance of being successful? I'm not sure how a petition is going to help reduce such things since a successful petition currently requires only 25 signatures (regardless of reasons given by those who sign) to move to the next stage (i.e. RRFA). People have pointed out the signing a petition doesn't necessary mean !voting "oppose" in an RRFA, but the recalled admin probably will assume that they need to make up at least 25 !votes going in. The brightline for a successful RRFA is 60% support, but even 50% can still result in reconfirmation. So, an admin could end up recalled, reach 50% in the RRFA, and bureaucrats could still decide to reconfirm despite the petition. What does that say about the petition in such a case? Is it a success because it got 25 signatures to move the process along even though it ended up being just ignored in the end? What does that say about the RRFA in such a case? Is it a success because it resulted in reconfirmation even though 50% of the participants opposed reconfirmation and was directly the result of a successful recall petition? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

it will happen unless you set up the petition process to specifically work in a way that minimizes discussion for both sides. If you let one side post as much as they want, the other side is going to expect to be shown the same courtesy.

And that's what this proposal does.

What makes an RRFA frivolous or unwarranted?

If it's one made to harass, attack, or josh around with the subject and with no actual reason, maybe besides having a grudge against them.
And to answer your last question, I think it's a success because it got 25 signatures. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to clarify things. I'm still not sure how a petition helps to avoid frivolous RRFA because a petition itself can be frivolous based on the definition you gave above. I guess in such a case, you might expect (hope) others not to sign it, but even petitions started with best of intentions could end up being hijacked in a sense by one or more people wanting to sign just as joke, just out of spite, or simply to see just what happens next. It also seems possible that a registered account who's concerned that signing might somehow have some blowback, logs out and signs as an IP per WP:GOODSOCK even though this might not be allowed/considered per WP:PROJSOCK. I know it was mentioned below that my comments on this page might be biased in some way, and perhaps that's true to some degree, but I really did post them thinking about petitions in general and not necessarily one in particular. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

If a frivolous petition gets 25 signatures within a month, it is not frivolous, IMO.
Good point on IPs. I thought that would be discussed somewhere but I can't find it right now. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Only extended confirmed editors may sign a petition. While that does not completely immunise against socks signing multiple times, it takes time and effort to get a sock to extended confirmed status and the risk of being discovered rises significantly with each one - and if any one of them are detected then all of them get blocked. This means that someone motivated to sock to support a petition would have to have invested very significant time and effort, in advance, and still hope that enough other editors also support a petition, and then also oppose the admin at reRFA. Remember that if either the petition fails or the re-RFA succeeds then the admin is in a stronger position than they were before the petition (they can't be recalled for at least 6/12 months). It's not a perfect defence against frivolous ReRFAs but it is a strong one. Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you can answer these Thryduulf but others are free to do so as well. In the most recently held petition there were a few signatures struck and one was even struck back. Are there any restrictions placed on who can close a petition? Does it need to be someone who hasn't signed the petition? Can anyone just close it as soon as it hits 25 signatures or is there an amount of time that needs to pass before it's closed just in case someone who has already signed has a change of heart? Is there a boilerplate notification that is used to notify the admin in question, or is just left up to ever closes the petition to notify the admin in their own words? I'm not find fault in anything here, just asking. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there any restrictions placed on who can close a petition? Does it need to be someone who hasn't signed the petition? There are no restrictions codified, but it should probably be treated as if it were an RFC and not closed by someone who has expressed an opinion on it or who is otherwise involved.

Can anyone just close it as soon as it hits 25 signatures or is there an amount of time that needs to pass before it's closed just in case someone who has already signed has a change of heart? the policy says Upon gaining 25 valid signatures within 30 days, the petition is closed as successful. but this something that will be discussed in the upcoming RFC (see WP:REWORK#Closing a petition).

Is there a boilerplate notification that is used to notify the admin in question[..]? No. Thryduulf (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

MJ, you're the #1 editor of Fastily's talk page other than Fastily, having made 339 edits to that page (the #2 editor has 98, by comparison) [1]; surely that is influencing your views on this recall process, as can be seen when you write someone decides an admin needs to be recalled for whatever reason instead of "someone shares their concerns about serious, longstanding, ongoing admin conduct", and gets to post whatever "damaging" diffs they can find that they feel support their reasoning instead of "and posts diffs that are examples of the concerning conduct", They get to basically get to throw a huge glob of guck against the wall and make a nice splatter pattern for others to see instead of "they ask others to review the diffs and investigate the concerns", If others like what they see, they might sign and throw their own bit of guck against the wall instead of "if others share their concerns, they might sign, and post additional diffs of examples of concerning conduct," and Those who don't agree might try to wipe off the stuff they don't like. instead of "Those who don't agree might try to convince people not to sign the petition."

In the real world, people either sign a petition or they don't. When people who oppose a petition stand next to the petition and argue with those who sign it, that's anywhere from "annoying" to "harassment" to "voter intimidation", depending on the specifics. As I read both the petitions we've had so far, it seems like 90% of the toxicity is coming from folks who oppose the petition, who are making the process much more unpleasant than it needs to be, who are casting shade at those who sign (as you have done in your comment here), and some of whom simultaneously lament that the recall process is so toxic (again, as you have done in your comment here).

FWIW, one of the things I noticed when I read Fastly's most recent user talk page archive, and part of the reason I signed the petition, is the stark difference between the way they responded to your messages (friendly, helpful), and the way they responded to new editors, especially those asking about deletions ("...repeated violations of this rule will result in loss of editing privileges.") I don't think my concerns about these responses to new editors are "a huge glob of guck", I think they're serious and real concerns, as are those of others at the petition and the ANI. I think those who oppose these recall petitions, and the recall process in general, are doing themselves (and the everyone else, especially the subject of the petition) a huge disservice by dismissing, belittling, insulting, etc., the concerns of other editors that have led to the creation of the recall process overall, and to these two petitions in particular. There is no doubt there will be more petitions; I hope future petitions are calmer and more respectful all around. Levivich (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I have, for sure, posted a lot on Fastily's user talk page, but that's mainly because he's one of the administrators who works in the file namespace and that's an area that interests me. I've also posted a lot on the user talk pages of other administrators who work in the file namespace, and also at WP:MCQ, WT:NFCC and WP:FFD as well as over at Commons at c:COM:VPC. Some of my posts on Fastily's user talk have been questions, but some have also been responses to file related questions asked by others. I also have posted a lot at WP:THQ and WP:HD. Anyway, my diffs are all there for everyone to see and assess. So, if you or anyone else feels they indicate some inappropriate pattern of behavior on my part, you (= collective you) can pursue the matter as you see fit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That xtools url is quite interesting. I never really thought about how much I've posted on a particular page before. It was surprising to see that I've posted 503 times here, 180 times here, 425 times here, 154 times here, 140 times here, 267 times here, 79 times here, 556 times here, 466 times here, 298 times here and 751 times here. What's really surprising though is how many times I've posted here and that I'm in the Top 10 on 9 of those pages (10 if you include Fastily's user talk). FWIW, I've even posted 4 times here though I'll admit I don't remember exactly why. Perhaps you're not totally off base about confirmation bias, though, and I would respond the same way if any of the other admins whose talk pages I seem to frequently post quite a lot on ended up getting recalled. Maybe, however, since you've brought it to my attention, I'll be more aware of it and be able to do better if there is a next time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

As you may remember from discussions about recall over the years, a key stumbling block has been how to avoid wasting the community's time on unwarranted recall discussions. Some proposals have delegated certification to a designated group; for better or worse, many of the editors who like to discuss these matters are wary of delegation. (*) The petition approach is certification by the community. There's only so much effort that can be expended during the certification process before it duplicates the actual recall discussion, and the goal of having a certification process is no longer met. (*) There is of course one group with delegated authority, the arbitration committee, which can both certify that examining an admin's behaviour is warranted and decide on appropriate remedies. Nonetheless, there is a significant number of people who supported a process where the community's comments would directly control both aspects. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Since we've had 2 recalls now, the issues with allowing discussion during the petition phase have become more apparent. I'd like to echo a few comments I've seen in this discussion:

• There's only so much effort that can be expended during the certification process before it duplicates the actual recall discussion, and the goal of having a certification process is no longer met. -@Isaacl
• Recall petitions aren't a good venue in which to discuss user conduct; that should be for AN, ANI, and related. -@Theleekycauldron
• Save discussion and oppose votes for the RRfA if there is one, I say. Let's not make the nominated admin (and us) go thru this twice. -@Herostratus

In my estimation, this is exactly why Fastily just handed in their tools at the end of their petition. They'd already been subjected to 11 days of extensive discussion over their fitness for adminship. That sounds just like an RFA, except it lasted 4 more days, and Oppose votes held no sway over the outcome.

The strongest opposition I've seen to this proposal is that during petitions, "reasonings are provided, new information can be brought to light, people's minds can be swayed" etc. But these are all true of RFA. Why we would require first going through a duplicate process (and imo, one worse at facilitating discussion), I don't know. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discretion

The wording "at their [bureaucrat] discretion" appears at the end of the second paragraph of WP:RECALL#Re-request for adminship. Similar wording was also used in User talk:Fastily#Petition passed. I'm not totally sure what this means; so, I'm wondering whether it needs to be clarified. Does it mean that there's still one final stage of the process to go in cases where a recalled administrator fails to respond within 30 days of the close of a successful petition? Could bureaucrats still decide in such cases that the recalled administrator's conduct might've been problematic but not to the level of desyoping? Would that mean in such cases that the process has finished and the administrator has been reconfirmed just as if they had been successfully reconfirmed through an RFAA? Please advise if it's better off discussed somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

😮 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the bureaucrats can summarily ignore a petition, but it allows the 'crats to give wiggle room in terms of the time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding because I didn't know what that emoji meant. A petition can potentially run for 30 days and a successful petition means potentially 30 more days before things land on the doorsteps of the bureaucrats. So, I'm not sure why additional wiggle is needed since I guess I'm assuming that at least some of the bureaucrats will know about ongoing petitions or at least successfully closed petitions and, thus, likely be monitoring things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It allows for things like the administrator starting their re-RFA a couple of days late due to (communicated) personal circumstances or waiting a few extra days because that is when the next admin election is scheduled. It also allows for the crats not to act if there is consensus the petition was not actually successful for some reason (or if discussion about that has not reached consensus yet). It's not discretion to ignore the community. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I do have a question though about the part of your post about there being a consensus that a petition isn't successful or an ongoing discussion about such a thing. WP:RECALL#Petition seems to imply that a petition is successful as soon as it meets the 25 signature threshold. It also seems that a petition can be closed and the admin in question notified as soon as the petition reaches that threshold. Is also seems that if 30 days pass and the threshold isn't reached, then it's not successful. There doesn't seem to be any consensus involved in either case. How does consensus come into play in determining whether a petition is successful? A consensus would seem to imply that there was a discussion taking place, but it's been pointed out to me before by you that a petition isn't and shouldn't be a discussion about admin behavior but rather just a way of requesting to have such a discussion. I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm just trying to understand what connection there might be a consensus and a petition. Can a closed successful petition be challenged by someone in some way other than RRFA? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree I could have been clearer there. I was thinking of scenarios where there is dispute about whether 25 signatures were or were not reached, e.g. if it got to 25 and then one was withdrawn, or one of the signatories (or maybe the filer) was subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet, or there is a dispute about who closed it or whatever (there is literally no limit to the things Wikipedians will argue about).

Can a closed successful petition be challenged by someone in some way other than RRFA? this is undefined. In theory any action (other than an Office Action) can be challenged, but that doesn't guarantee the challenge will be successful.

Also undefined is whether, if a petition is closed as successful and that close is challenged (for whatever reason) but not overturned, whether the 30 day timer starts at the time of the original close or the time the challenge was closed. For a frivolous challenge that's not going to make much difference, but for one that was contentious it might be a week or more's difference. In my opinion rather than trying to codify every possible scenario in this regard it would be better to just state that its up to the crats to determine what is fairest to all parties in the given circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

With respect to the above discussion though: "If this does not happen, they may remove the administrator privileges at their discretion." states in plain English that the bureaucrats have discretion over removing the tools at all, not discretion over the time frame. If that was the intent (allowing the crats time to consider any issues), the wording needs to be clear that the discretion only extends to when, not if. E.g. "If this does not happen, they will remove the administrator privileges as soon as they able to, subject to any extenuating circumstances." Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No one can ever be forced to perform a future edit or action. The "at their discretion" part is a bit superfluous though and could just be removed - the point is to ensure that it is clear this is an action 'crats may do, not that it is only discretionary. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Only in death I believe I was the one who introduced the "may remove" wording, and it was very much intentional as a catch-all.

RRFA is untested, but crats are not. If a petition is suddenly taken over by socks, or suceeds then fails due to withdrawals, or just the admin has IRL circumstances that keep them away for 2 months, or any number of similar circumstances... We want to allow flexibility for those cases instead of trying to write each of those into stone. WP:IAR exists, but this is a simple safety net, with crats explicitly given discretion to use. RECALL is still evolving and is supposed to help weed out the worst admins, not tie bureaucrat hands into doing an action no matter what.

RFA also operates similarly, and WP:RFA says discretion twice. Crat-chat is not mandatory below 75%, nor is 65% auto-fail. We have gotten admins below the lower range before, the discretion works fine there. So I see no harm in keeping the wording as is, we'll evolve community understanding of things and how far that discretion stretches, as and when the process gets tested. Soni (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of allowing for exceptional circumstances. Bureaucrats have not yet had to step in so far. I think the wording is fine. OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

BADNAC

Does what's written in WP:BADNAC also, in principle, apply to closes of petitions by non-administrators? This is related to a something I asked above in #Discussion about who can close a petition, and the response I got seemed to imply that it does. There's some instruction on how to start a petition and who may start one given in WP:RECALL#Petition, but there are no instructions given on how to properly close a petition or who may close a petition. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC); posted edited to add the word "one". -- 08:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

As this is an RFA related thing, I think it should be closed by the crats. YMMV. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything, but this whole process seems poorly thought out and prematurely adopted. Again, YMMV. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The first time we do something, we often discover things we overlooked or uncover faulty assumptions we made. It's unfortunate when the thing we're doing for the first time affects someone this profoundly, but I'm not sure there's a way to do a test run for something like this. A lot of people did their best to think of everything they could. Valereee (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• This was last discussed at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_50#Requesting_closure_of_Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Graham87 where the consensus was that there was no need for formality and requiring a Bureaucrat in closing the petitions itself.
  There is also an ongoing discussion/notification of the recent closure at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Fastily_has_been_closed_as_successful about the Fastily petition itself. If either of you disagree with the consensus as established for closure, that seems to be the spot to discuss. (Or discuss recall as a whole in Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop.) That would be more effective than litigating the argument each time in unrelated discussions.
  I am happy if we explicitly note down the consensus as established in the WP:RECALL page so it's unambiguous.
  Soni (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not disagreeing with the closes. Only mentioning that there don't seem to be any instructions given for closing petitions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

These petitions are in no way difficult or contentious closes. I don't see any reason why it even needs an experienced closer, much less a bureaucrat. Valereee (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The only thing a closer does need to do which is out of the ordinary is verify every signer is extended confirmed. This isn't hard to do, but can open a can of worms I'd like to keep shut if it's not done. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

There are so many people watching these petitions that it would be unlikely anyone would sign and no one would notice they weren't ECR. I suppose it's possible #25 signs and someone too-inexperienced jumps in too fast, but that's probably not a huge risk either. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it best that it is closed by someone uninvolved and not completely inexperienced (basically someone who could close it if it were an RFC), but hopefully that's common sense. Separately I'd prefer it not be closed immediately it hits 25 signatures, but that's something for the forthcoming RFC (see Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop#Closing a petition). Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I closed the last petition. I checked whether everyone is ECR and I read the entire signatures section to see what the signatories wrote to eliminate the possibility that any among them have simply misformatted their comment and left a numbered comment resembling a petition signature when the content of their message suggests that they had no intention for their comment to be a signature. —Alalch E. 04:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, @Alalch E., I don't think anyone discussing this thinks there was anything wrong with the close. Valereee (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Since I started this discussion, I just want to clarify that I don't think Alalch E.'s close was inappropriate; I was just asking a general question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. My thinking is that while it does take a bit of care, BADNAC should not be understood apply to this type of close. I don't even think that "closing" a petition is a close in the sense of WP:CLOSE because a recall petition really is a WP:PETITION and not a WP:CONSENSUS-based decision-making process. The closer, however, can get it wrong, but anyone should be able to correct the error. —Alalch E. 16:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

+1. Valereee (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

+1. Also WP:BADNAC is just an essay, not a policy, and it contradicts our other policies/guidelines about non-admin closes (such as WP:ADMIN). The entire notion that non-admins shouldn't close certain types of discussions is just some folks' opinion, it doesn't have consensus. Levivich (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware that the page is an essay; I'm also aware that essays are often brought up during discussions; even though a petition is technically not supposed to be a discussion, a discussion about its "close" seems possible based upon some of the things posted above in #Bureaucrat discretion. Anyway, I'm not suggesting that non-admins not be allowed to close petitions; only whether what's written in BADNAC could (or at least could be argued to), in principle, apply to petition closes because at some point someone is likely to try to do so. If, as Alalch E. seems to assert above, closing a petition is a "different kind of close", perhaps something along those lines could be adding to instructions for closing petitions. Similarly, who can close a petition and when it can be closed could also be added to such instructions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As part of the approval RfC, consensus was that a bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. It was overturned by LOCALCON. I still think that that decision robs the community of a voice, since we did agree to have a 'crat certify the results as valid (or at least as valid as possible without a checkuser FISHING). If we allow non-crat closes, we're blatantly bucking consensus. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any mention in the phase 2 discussion that a bureaucrat should evaluate the result of the petition. (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall § Desysop after Recall petition discused what should happen [a]fter a successful Recall petition.) isaacl (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The concern there was that two parts of the RfC contradicted one another. I don't think we can call that blatantly bucking consensus. It was more, "Oh, this part appears to be internally contradictory...what do we do?" and the decision was between solve the issue one way or the other, or start another RfC. Valereee (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

My point is that asking a 'crat to start the RRfA makes no sense. We should still have 'crat closes because there's consensus for something akin to that. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This is just about closing the petition, I think? Valereee (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that all closes of the petition are BADNBC (bad non-bureaucrat closures), but no-one who hasn't been following the process closely could know that so I don't fault Alalch E. We shouldn't overturn the two closes, but we should require all closes from now on to be done by a 'crat, if only because consensus at the most recent RfC is that 'crats should be involved with the certification. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a consensus for bureaucrats to close the petition. There was no mention of this in the phase 2 discussion. isaacl (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There was in the third RfC. We can't pick and choose which RfCs to listen to, just because one was poorly thought-out. 18:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Dilettante 18:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not finding a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator recall? Valereee (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_197#Administrator_Recall. Either way, I'm clearly in the minority here. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I searched that discussion to confirm what I remembered: there is no mention of bureaucrats closing the petition in that discussion, either. That discussion was about how to proceed forward with the results from phase 2, including subsequent discussions on this talk page, and not about further changes to the process. isaacl (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Reiterating my first post, there is a mention of bureaucrats starting the RRfA. My point is that having a bureaucrat transclude the RRfA doesn't work. However, there needs to be an equivalent action where they rubber-stamp the results i.e. closing the discussion. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I read it and previously responded to that point. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Then why ask? The term succesful is ambiguous as to whether it's been closed or merely reached 25 signatories. It's clear we disagree over whether 'crats need to be involved because the RfC was poorly planned and written, and equally clear I'm in the minority here. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Notification templates

There seem to be two templates to be used when starting a petition ({{Admin recall notice}} and {{Admin recall notice/AN}}), but there are no corresponding templates to use when closing a petition according to the question I asked above in #Discussion; so, I'm going to ask why this is the case here. Personally, I think it would be better to have some community agreed upon wording that could be used every time a petition is closed instead of leaving things up to the person closing the petition; this seems not only a good idea for the sake of consistency, but also to avoid any potential misunderstandings. Should there be boilerplate closing templates for notifying administrators who are the subject of a recall petition that it has been closed and for notifying AN that a petition has been closed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

See {{Template:Admin recall notice/certified}} and {{Template:Admin recall notice/AN/certified}} for the two rough drafts. I modeled them after the other two. As always, I encourage others to improve them. Sincerely, Dilettante 22:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

These seem fine to me other than perhaps the use of the word "cetified" (but that's being discussed in #Concerns about the word "successful". Whatever the final wording turns out to be, a boilerplate template seems to be preferrable to leaving things up to individual closer to decide. It's not that the notifications so far have been inappropriate, but it just seems better (at least to me) that any administrator recalled by this process receives the same notification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Technical implementation of RRfAs

Making a list of things that need to be updated/created

• Create {{RRfA}} –  Done, needs review
• Create {{RRfA/readyToSubmit}} –  Done, needs review
• Create {{RRfA/subst}} –  Done, needs review
• Update Module:Rfx – implemented
• Update Module:RFX report – implemented
• Update Module:RFX report/colour – implemented
• Update {{Recent RfX}} –  Done, needs review
• Update WP:RFA/SELFNOM to create inputbox –  Done, needs review
• others?

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think RRfA and its subtemplate should include the default RfA questions, albeit with Q 1 slightly modified. Graham87 opted to replace it with 1. Why are you interested in being an administrator?. I'll let others weigh in before I add that.Sincerely, Dilettante 22:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the default RfA questions are the best for a recall scenario. They're geared towards new admin hopefuls. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

i stand corrected, Fram and Graham both take the traditional route :) Floq didn't, though. Hmm. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Now that the first RRFA for a an administrator successfully recalled by petition has started, I'm wondering about the a couple of things. FWIW, I rarely comment in RFAs so I don't all the details as to how they work. So, my apologies in advance if some of these seem silly.

The user who nominated the recalled admin for reconfrimation mentioned and linked to the petition about the admin in their nomination statement. Was this just by chance or is it something that's required? It was also mentioned in several other comments, but I'm wondering if there should be an official link to the petition itself somewhere in the formatting for the RRFA akin to the "RFAs for this user" box near the beginning of the "Discussion section". Some other questions I have are as follows: (1) Can two RRFAs for recalled admins simultaneously take place? (2) Can the same person simultaneously monitor two RRFAs of recalled admins? (3) Can the same person be a nominator or co-nominator in two RRFAs of recalled admins simultaneously ongoing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: not at all silly! lemme take a whack at answering these:

• No, it's not required to link to the recall petition in the nomination statement.
• Yes, I would support adding a link on the RRfA page, we should add that to {{RRfA/readyToSubmit}}.
• Yep, there's no rule against as many simultaneous RfAs or RRfAs as are validly launched at the time.
• Yep, there's no rule against someone nominating multiple people at RfA/RRfA.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Just a few more questions if you don't mind. Each RRFA should in principle be about the admin in question, right? Do you as moderator get to "remind" people to stay on topic if they start to stray too far outside the lines? Does a moderator need to step aside if someone questions their impartiality? Can a recalled admin !vote in the RRFA of another currently recalled admin? Does it open the door for comments about them if they do, i.e. a WP:BOOMERANG kind of thing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Can a recalled admin !vote in the RRFA of another currently recalled admin? Does it open the door for comments about them if they do Yes and no. The only restriction on who can comment in a Re-RFA is that they must be extended confirmed, which all admins and former admins are. Outside of their own Re-RFA anybody standing at for Re-RFA (or indeed RFA) is exactly the same as any other editor - people may choose to agree or disagree with the rationale given in a (re-)RFA by someone currently standing for Re-RFA, just not because of who left the rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The "General comments" section for the RRFA for the first admin to be recalled via this process already sort of seems (at least to me) to be moving slowly in a direction that's less focused on the concerned admin and more focused on the recall process as a whole. Some have expressed concern that some support !votes are WP:IDL cast mainly in opposition to the petition process itself. Is this kind of thing (discussing whether a !vote should count, whether a policy which is referred to in the RFA should be changed, etc.) commonplace for a RFA in the "General comments" section. Is this where a moderator can step in and try to keep everyone focused on the RRFA/RFA itself and possibly suggest other venues for such a discussion? Can a moderator strike a !vote that they feel is inappropriate? Are WP:PERNOM !votes acceptable in this type of discussion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

If you look at the other currently open RFA (Worm That Turned's) you will see (as of the last time I looked) at least most of the opposes and all of the neutrals expressing opposition to the process (in this instance not just requesting the tools back at WP:BN). Personally I would suggest all !votes (of all flavours) that address the process rather than the candidate should be moved to the talk page, but that's not my decision to make. I don't see an issue with PERNOM votes, but then I have much less issue with them generally than many people (if you agree with what the nominator says and the reasons they give, why should repeating them using different words make your opinion more valuable than just saying you agree?). Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how moving !votes to the talk page could be made to work．I've seen !votes made at XFD discussions being stricken because of sockpuppetry, but I've seen !vote flagged as being made by an SPA account left to stand. Of course, it's perfectly within the discretion of the closer of the discussion to either ignore them completely or give them less weight. Who would get to decide what !vote needs to be moved to the talk page? The moderator? What happens if someone moves the !vote back? I'm not sure but it seem a !voter is allowed to modify and clarify their !vote after the fact, right? What if the !voter re-!votes by modifying their !vote to still mention their general concerns but also further clarify their position on the admin being discussed?

One of the things pointed out in the Fastily petition is that people wanting to sign should be able to do so without having their reasons picked apart or otherwise challenged. That's a fair point, but it would also seem to be something that should apply to any RRFA that is the result of a petition. Shouldn't people be allowed to !vote as they see fit, and then all the !votes assessed accordingly by whoever closes the RRFA once it has run its course. Perhaps this is where "bureaucrat discretion" should come into play. If anything, it seems to me that the "General comments" section of any RFA/RRFA is for more suited for the talk page than it is for the main page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could add the default questions hidden in comment tags with a brief message explaining why? I'll do that later today if no-one objects or has a better idea. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

On second though, I'm reading the rules about RRfA being identical to an Rfa with a different threshold as mandating the 3 questions. I'm adding them without any comment tag or input that hides them.Sincerely, Dilettante 21:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about the word "successful"

I have a slight concern about the phrasing of when a petition is "closed as successful", especially when notifying the admin who the petition is about. Telling them that the recall petition was "successful" to me seems rather crass: "congratulations, the petition to fire you was successful!" Is there a better phrasing we can use, or are we stuck using positive words for something most would view as negative? Primefac (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we need something less celebratory. Closed as requirements fulfilled? Valereee (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've asked about what makes a petition successful above in #Discussion, and one person responded that would consider meeting the threshold to be a "success". To me, though, things are a bit more nuanced than that. For example, a petition could be a success if it leads to the recalled admin deciding to resign, falling sort in an RRFA or even if it leads to a major changes by the administrator who passes RRFA but sincerely pledges to do better. In my mind, whether a petition is a "success" probably won't be known right away, which is why I agree with the suggestion to change the wording to something more neutral. Perhaps the best thing to do is to simply state what happened, i.e. the petition achieved the required threshold to move to the next stage of the recall process. FWIW, if the wording change to replace "success" maybe "unsuccessful" should be changed as well because an administrator subject to a recall petition could see it as constructive criticism and modify their behavior in a way that reflects the concerns raised even if the petition fails reach the required threshold of signatures. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe something like "the petition met its threshold"? But I agree that there has to be a better way to phrase things. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I like that. Valereee (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

(ec) In general, motions may be passed, carried, or adopted... a word along those lines might be appropriate. Dekimasuよ! 14:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thryduulf has been using the word certified, which is fairly neutral while still not wordy. I used it for the title of the recent templates. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

"Certified" works and is pretty standard, and probably more diplomatic than "successful." Levivich (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Certified works for me. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Though I'm uneasy about "certified" because it may be interpreted as though the statements in the petition are being certified, it can also emphasize that the objective of the petition is to find enough people willing to certify that there are significant concerns which, in their view, warrant a re-request being filed. isaacl (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

...that is the objective of a petition: to see if there are 25 people who agree there are significant concerns which, in their view, warrant a re-request being filed. The "certification" is the closer certifying that there are the sufficient number of editors who meet suffrage requirements to certify the petition and trigger the RRfA. Levivich (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understood this viewpoint. isaacl (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Not fond of either "successful" or "certified", the latter of which suggests that the closer is certifying that the concerns raised are justified; "met the threshold" seems neutral and informative. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

In US English vernacular, a petition is said to have "passed" or "failed". But that's my OR. BusterD (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Met the threshhold, passed, failed, certified...it's all good, man. Just not "successful". Valereee (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

+1, that about sums up my view, also. Levivich (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been using "certified" as a concise way of saying "the petition has met the threshold of signatories who agree that the admin should either resign or get confirmation that the community still has trust in them as an administrator". The certification being done is that at least 25 people who are eligible to sign the petition have done so. I agree with the concerns about "successful" but I don't like "passed" or "failed" either because that's unclear - did the admin pass because 25 people did not agree to sign their petition or is that a failure of the petition. At WP:CARP I wasn't planning on using "succeeded", "passed" or "fail" for the outcome of the RFA either, but something like "retained"/"revoked". Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

"Revoked" has punitive connotations to me. I appreciate of course that the outcome is indeed punitive, but personally I think using the same language as for requests for adminship would lessen the emphasis on that aspect. isaacl (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think "certified" would make sense to me if, for example, whether a petition meeting the threshold was confirmed either by an uninvolved admin or bureaucrat since "certification" does, at least to me, imply some kind of formal review/assessment. Even though it might be a bit wordy, I think something along the lines of "has met/achieved/reached the community-determined threshold for recall/a RRFA". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC); post edited -- 08:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Call me a pedant, but to certify is to make (a thing) certain [...] in an authoritative manner or to declare or attest by a formal or legal certificate,[2] which doesn't fit here. Usually the way out of these problems is to stop trying to be concise, as Clovermoss suggests above: "met the required threshold" or "gained the required number of signatures", etc. – Joe (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Successful Wikipedia administrator recall petitions and Category:Unsuccessful Wikipedia administrator recall petitions also need to be moved, per this discussion. Soni (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe why does make (a thing) certain [...] in an authoritative manner not fit here? The "thing" being that the petition has 25 valid signatures. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

"Adopted" was mentioned above. Maybe that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Ratified, perhaps? Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

good, but maybe has the same problem as "certified"... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

"adopted" is good, also "qualified"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

For me, "qualified" sounds too much like being qualified to be an admin. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't put my finger on exactly why but I'm not a big fan of either of them. I guess "Adopted" makes it sound like a policy proposal, it is a proposal (that $admin needs to reconfirm their adminship) but it doesn't quite sit right. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

+1 Adopted seems really unintuitive. If certified and ratified are problematic, 'passed' is the best word and 'met/reached the threshold' is obviously the best phrase. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

For now I've changed the "Certified" header at WP:CARP to "Threshold reached" (which I prefer to "Threshold met" for completely subjective reasons). That isn't the only place we need to use a phrase to indicate that status, but it is somewhere that needs to be concise, and is somewhere I'm unconcerned about being bold. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I like "threshold reached". It seems like the most value-neutral phrasing that we can use here. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If we reworded the petition as a motion, then adopted could fit, but it feels too parliamentary to me. I don't like qualified; usually people are trying to qualify for something, but no one is trying to qualify to file a re-request. isaacl (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no authority involved. – Joe (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Another possible term is enacted: Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Example has been closed as enacted or Petition enacted. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"met the threshold for..." is best, "passed" is acceptable. Petitions are not "enacted", "certified" or "adopted". Zero^talk 10:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I like "passed". It's pretty neutral and keeps the opposite ("failed") simple as well. Giraffer (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

My preference would be for the recall petitions and results to be covered as part of a table, with each row separated by columns under headers such as "Recall Page", "Date Submitted", "Signature Total", etc. Think along these lines:

Extended content

Caption text Recall Page Date Submitted Signature Total Result Additional Notes Hypothetique 6 January 2025 25/25 Recall threshold reached; re-RfA submitted on 26 January 2025, closed as successful (268/172/27; 61%) Bureaucrat discussion For the Sake of Argument 22 February 2025 9/25 Threshold not reached; recall closed as unsuccessful N/A TheNonexistentOne 13 March 2025 25/25 Recall threshold reached; user resigned adminship Later submitted successful RfA White Flag 2 April 2026 14/25 User resigned adminship during recall; petition closed as null N/A

Now obviously, the table that winds up being used should be better thought-out than the one I just threw together, but that's an example of how I think we should list past recalls. On the petition pages themselves, I think we should close them as "Threshold reached" or "Threshold not reached", with the former accompanied by an explanation of the recall's aftermath (e.g. "Threshold reached; re-RfA submitted"). Kurtis ^(talk) 20:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CARP where most of this already is, improvements are being discussed on its talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

...Well, there you go. Great minds really do think alike. 😉 Kurtis ^(talk) 10:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Waiving the 12-month immunity period after a successful Re-RFA?

Moved to WT:REWORK § Waiving the 12-month immunity period after a successful Re-RFA?

 – Levivich (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Potential changes to Wikipedia:Former administrators

I have two questions:

1. Should a new subpage of WP:FORMER be created for administrators who fail an RRfA (perhaps called "recalled"), or should that be bundled in with "for cause"?
2. Graham87 has indicated that he is considering withdrawing his RRfA (see Q18). If he does this and is thus desysopped, would he be included under "resigned" (since it was a voluntary decision to relinquish one's adminship), or under whatever subpage admins who fail an RRfA fall?

JJP_Master (she/they) 15:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there probably needs to be three separate categories for former administrators who are former due to recall: one for those who choose to resign without standing again, another for those who withdraw during a reconfirmation RFA and a third for those whose re-RFA does not result in them retaining adminship. What to call the third category may be best left until the discussion about "success" etc terminology above is concluded. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason this is useful? I'm open to it if so, but it feels kind of mean to call this out without a good reason. Valereee (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I would put both Graham87 (assuming his RfA fails) and Fastily in WP:Former administrators/reason/for cause. I don't see the need to subdivide further. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Same. —Alalch E. 20:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this works. The page already has a "notes" column where the recall/RRFA can be noted. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Update

Graham87 has now withdrawn his RRfA, and listed himself to WP:FORMER as having resigned. JJP_Master (she/they) 12:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I've moved both Graham87 and Fastily from resigned to "for cause". "Resigned" paints a far too rosy picture IMO. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery In principle I agree their cases are closer to "for cause", but a list like that page needs to follow consistent rules, and technically either of them could have won their RRfAs. Plus, Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/resigned already states that it includes administrators [who] resigned in recognition of the community's dissatisfaction with their activities. Mach61 17:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with placing them both in "for cause", especially Fastily. They resigned while their conduct was being discussed but without a consensus that they did anything wrong. It is a category that is neither "resigned in good standing" nor "desysopped for cause". Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Historically, I believe we've listed admins who resign "under a cloud" under the "resigned" category. I think Graham should be in "for cause" because that's exactly what happened--admins with an unsuccessful RRFA should be put under "for cause" whether they withdraw the RRFA or not. Fastily should be under "resigned", albeit under a cloud, which is where admins who resign during or after a (successful threshold-met) recall should be listed, along with other admins resigning under a cloud. If we're going to pull "under a cloud" out from the "resigned" category, we should do it with all admins who resigned under a cloud, not just Fastily. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the two comments above. The rationale for this whole process has been that the petition does not, by itself, establish anything equivalent to a "cloud". I've heard over and over again from apologists for this disaster of a process, that if a good admin gets a petition that reaches the threshold, then everything will be set right when we have the reconfirmation RfA, because the community will rally behind the admin, and the admin will pass the RfA. So Graham, whose RfA was unsuccessful, can be considered "under a cloud", similar to an admin who was desysopped by ArbCom and instructed that a new, successful, RfA would be needed in order to regain the tools. Fastily had a petition that reached threshold, and the process stopped there. The forecast of clouds was premature. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Disagree pretty much 100%. If there's an open petition and you resign during it: As long as there is one valid signature and as long as there was some prior dispute resolution meaning that the petition is not entirely premature or frivolous and very likely disruptive, bureaucrats should not restore adminship. —Alalch E. 20:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Graham withdrew his RRFA at 45% passing -- he was desysoped for cause, there is no doubt about this. Fastily had a petition that met the threshold and opted not to RRFA, resigning instead. He resigned "under a cloud." A successful petition is certainly a "cloud." A "cloud" does not mean a finding of fault. It's exactly analogous to an admin who resigns while there's an WP:ARC pending against them, or during an open arbitration case, or during an open ANI against them. Just as in those cases--e.g., an open ANI--there isn't yet a finding of consensus, but it's still "under a cloud." Levivich (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Since a petition can be raised without any reason being given for it at all, in what way is it, by itself, a "cloud"? FOARP (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I had no idea about this discussion until now. As the main maintainer of the former administrators subpages, I wasn't sure myself what to do and am OK with whatever changes others want to make. I put myself under "resigned" because I withdrew my RFA early, four days before it was supposed to end, thus cutting short my own adminship. But ... really, I see it as a distinction without a difference in this sort of case, because either way, there's no way I'll get adminship back without an RFA. Graham87 (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current re-RFAs

Moved from User talk:Raladic § Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current re-RFAs

 – Moving discussion to the Page talk page to see input from other editors. Raladic (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Raladic. You have created this page and transcluded it onto the recall page, but I have removed the transclusion. Namely, there's no need to advertise RRfA like this, because like all RfAs they are highly visible, and there's no need to mirror what was done for the petitions (transcluded list) which aren't advertised anywhere else; a list of RRfAs is already at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Closed petitions -- updating manually at an additional place is unnecessary and duplicative. This makes the page orphaned, so I believe that it should be deleted. If you agree that it should, G7 should still work. —Alalch E. 12:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

RFAs are advertised, but since these are RFAs as a result of the recall, I do feel that having them listed at the WP:RECALL page is worthwhile for convenience.

And another editor @Stephen helped fix the sentence case, which I take as agreeing that this sentence s a useful addition to the page.

Maybe revert your undo and take to the Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall page to see if other editors feel like it’s useful or not? Raladic (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Self-reply, I moved the discussion to the recall talk page myself to see input if others feel it's worth having.

For reference, Special:Permalink/1258352196#Current re-RFAs and the page itself Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current re-RFAs is what we're talking about. Raladic (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If we want to have something on the main recall page, I would probably just transclude Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Closed petitions instead of creating a new page just for RRFAs. We're not currently at a point where we need to discuss splitting stuff off. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. I've added it as a transclusion now. Since right now the list is short, this doesn't take much space, so it's probably a good compromise and achieves what I was trying to do, simplify navigation instead of people having to go to another page. Raladic (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) on the talk page I have floated the idea of making that a list of all petitions with relevant ones have a status of "Open". If the list gets long then we can also have a separate list of currently open petitions Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That was inherently what the new subpage was that I created, but it appeared no one else wanted it. @Levivich just reverted the transclusion.

So should we maybe break out the current open ones from the WP:Administrator recall/Closed petitions into two sublists, but on the same page, so we only transclude those active ones from it? Raladic (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with the status quo: (1) listing current petitions and RRFAs at /Current, (2) transcluding /Current to WP:RECALL, (3) listing closed petitions and RRFAs at /Closed, and (4) linking to /Closed from WP:RECALL? Levivich (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Current Re-RFAs are not listed at /Current, only the petitions that may or may not trigger one. So some people may not be aware that there is right now an active re-RFA ongoing, so for convenience, it seems appropriate to include it on the main page. Raladic (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

So what's wrong with listing current RRFAs at /Current? Levivich (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It's an order thing.

1) Petition for Recall open - /Current

2) Petition for Recall closed - /Closed petitions

3) ???

If the current re-RFAs are listed at /Current, then you'd have them out of order.

I was trying to solve this with the sub-page, but people seemed to thing another separate page requires more work.

So that's why @Patar knight then suggested to instead just transclude the /Closed petitions page, so that the re-RFAs are showing up, since they are already on that list. Raladic (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

1) Petition for Recall open - /Current

2) Petition for Recall closed, still within the 30 day window - /Current, status is "within 30 day post-petition period" or something like that

3) Petition for Recall closed, RRFA open - /Current, status is "RRFA pending" with a link to the RRFA

4) Petition for recall closed, RRFA closed or no RRFA - /Closed

How about this? Levivich (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The table in the /Close petition currently acts as tracking the progress from after petition closing.

So now instead, you'd have people have to update both the /Current and the /Closed to keep them up to date, which I believe is what people were primarily wanting to avoid with the separate page I created.

So I think instead we can have:

1) Petition for recall open - /Current

2) Petition for recall closed /Closed

3) Re-RFA started /Closed (in subsection to transclude)

Which keeps the workflow simple of current is just for current petion and keeps the /Closed page for closed petition, but active RFA. Raladic (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you just deleted your comment right as I was about to hit reply - you're saying rename /Closed petitions to /Closed recalls or so.

Since petition is just the first step and the current page title implies it's only about the petition state..

Sure, we could do that.

I do absolutely agree with your note in the edit summary that it shouldn't be a wall of shame, so I'm fully on board with just a partial transclusion, or as you now made clearer, a change on what the /Closed page should actually track.

So should we rename the /Closed page and add the notes for active RFA's to the /Current page? Raladic (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. (Sorry about my earlier comment.) Maybe name them /Current recalls and /Past recalls? Levivich (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Or just /Current and /Past? Levivich (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, that works.

No worries about your earlier comment, looks like we're trying to get to the same thing and were just talking past each other because of the slight confusion between petition and recall of the titles. :)

Any other users want to chime in here, before I go and WP:BOLDly make those changes? Raladic (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with the changes. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it makes sense. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Deleted as G7

MfD I agree that the page is not needed, so I will start an MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current re-RFAs. GTrang (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Why the extra red tape? I literally posted the above to see if others felt like it would be useful or not. Since it seems no, I am fine to just G7 it. It would have been better if you had just pinged me rather than just starting an Mfd.. Raladic (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC) I've listed the page for G7 to avoid wasting editors time with MfD. Raladic (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)  Done -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

withdrawn petitions

does the six-month moratorium on petitions after a failed petition apply to withdrawn petitions? if not, can we add that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Currently no. There needs to be some moratorium to discourage frivolously starting and withdrawing petitions, but 6 months is too long in my opinion - too long a moratorium will encourage gaming, and a good-faith but premature or poorly thought-out petition should not block a better petition for that long. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

huh? we already have a rule on disruptive editing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? Disruptive editing is only one of many reasons why a petition might be withdrawn, and we don't want disruptive editing to hamstring productive editing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

what even is a "withdrawn petition"? I'd assume it is a petition with zero endorses? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I assume leeky was referring to a petition whose author has indicated that they no longer support it. JJP_Master (she/they) 15:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose if they are the only author? Once anyone else joins in it becomes a community page. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I definitely should not be able to file a petition, withdraw it 30 seconds later after "changing my mind" and grant any immunity period for that admin. I also definitely shouldn't be able to open a petition, let it go for 29.9 days without attracting support, withdraw my support, close it, and immediately open up a new 30 day petition. We can probably cover this with our current rules on disruptive editing, but if someone has a clean way to formalize this, that's even better. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should distinguish between petitions that get no comments at all from other editors and petitions that get comments but no support. Certainly any petition that could be deleted under G7 (regardless of whether it is so deleted) should not grant immunity, but I don't think that is the complete set of such petitions. For example if the only comments are along the lines of "this is a complete mess" and "Your rationale is just gibberish" probably shouldn't grant immunity either, nor should ones from people who have clearly not understood what the petition is for. However petitions that get opposition on and/or detailed constructive examination of the merits probably should grant some immunity. I don't know how to formalize this, but if some withdrawn petitions grant immunity and some don't we need some way of figuring out which is which. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The way I'd phrase it is that petitions that result in "substantive community evaluation of the admin's conduct" grant immunity. The poor Bureaucrat who has to figure out if that happened or not in a gray area would probably be displeased with me though. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Your second sentence is why I don't like that idea.

AFAICS, there are only three ways this can go:

1. Petition is withdrawn before it gets any signatures beyond the first. These would not trigger immunity.
2. Petition gets more than 1 signature. These cannot be withdrawn.
3. The real weird scenario: petition gets multiple signatures, but later the signatories all strike their signatures, and the original petitioner withdraws.

If the third scenario triggers immunity, then it'll discourage people from striking their signatures, which probably isn't a good thing. If the third scenario doesn't trigger immunity, then it'll encourage people to strike their signatures when they think the petition won't be successful in order to avoid immunity, which also probably isn't a good thing. Between these two bad choices, I'm not sure which one I prefer. Levivich (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Could even go a layer weirder - if I see a badly argued petition for an admin I like, should I sign it to ensure that they get immunity when it fails? Tazerdadog (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Invalid petitions

I presume it is completely uncontroversial that petitions closed as invalid because they don't meet the requirements to start a petition should not grant any immunity from subsequent petitions, regardless of why it is invalid? This is currently stated for petitions begun against an inactive administrator, but the policy is silent on petitions closed as invalid for any other reason (e.g started by a non-ec editor, too soon after a previous one, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is completely uncontroversial; invalid petitions should be treated as void ab initio and have no effect on anything. Levivich (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I've now added a couple of sentences to this effect in what I think is the most logical place. Thryduulf (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The bar to opening a recall petition needs to be much, MUCH higher

Moved to WT:REWORK § The bar to opening a recall petition needs to be much, MUCH higher

 – Levivich (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Abolish Immunity Period + Require 100 Signatures

Moved to WT:REWORK § Abolish Immunity Period & Require 100 Signatures

 – Levivich (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Good-faith petition

Regarding this edit: I think it's unnecessarily verbose. Although the sentence before the first bullet list says The following are some rules of thumb for determining whether a petition is invalid as a bad-faith petition:, the first bullet point is not a rule of thumb. It's also redundant, since there is no closure criterion in the process based on viability of the petition. The other bullet points cover various reasons that a petition should not be considered bad-faith. As there are many reasons why this is the case, I think for conciseness, it's better to focus on the specific reasons why a petition may be in bad faith. I suggest removing the first bullet list, with appropriate rewording to the surrounding text of the second bullet list. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to restore some of it if you feel that some of the removed material is helpful. —Alalch E. 17:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't resist adding a little bit back in, explanation in the summary. —Alalch E. 19:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree and have removed it, pending further discussion. I don't think repeating parts of the linked guidance on good faith or personal attacks is needed. For better or worse, the more words used on this page, the more people look at it and think it's overly complicated. isaacl (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That's okay, the most important part for me was to switch the link and adjust wording a little to connect the text to the NPA policy which has the language "usually in the form of diffs and links", which is good. —Alalch E. 19:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping this page as absolutely short as possible per the principles of WP:CREEP and the general rule that the longer a page is, the less likely it will be read. Perhaps some of the longer explanations could be moved to a subpage? If WP:RECALL is a {{policy}} or {{procedural policy}} (remains to be seen), the subpage could be an {{information page}} or {{supplement}}. Levivich (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with the way it is now. You are probably not referring to the current state when referring to "longer explanations"? (This state: permalink.) —Alalch E. 19:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to be dismissive of the work you've put into drafting the language, but I think the current version is too long, and prefer this shorter version. Even that version is too long, I think this earlier version is even better. Instruction creep is the idea that we shouldn't try to explain or account for every single permutation or possible problem, etc. etc. So I think the additions/footnotes about "active" administrators, and what's "bad faith," and how long should you wait until after the previous ANI closes, etc. etc., all of that is instruction creep, in my view. Levivich (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I would not take as your being dismissive. Feel free to revert any additions you think are unnecessary or you disagree with. I'm stressing that if you remove the second paragraph ("how long you should wait...") I favor reverting to the even earlier version, before the paragraph about the invalid petitions, because if there's an explicit mention of "invalid petitions", and the only firm conclusion from reading the text is that petitions started at the wrong time are invalid petitions, that will not be helpful when looking for an explanation or guidance on when to close the petition when there's a problem with it. Better not to have a reference to "invalid petitions" then. So for me: current version yes, "shorter version" no, "earlier version" yes. —Alalch E. 19:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently intrigued as to whether this sentence in the lede can be wielded to fend off bad faith petitions "In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process outlined at WP:ADMINABUSE. Other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted before a recall petition is initiated." Perhaps add a few words to make that law? Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no law involved here. In my experience, an editor who is acting in bad faith isn't dissuaded by words. They ignore them and then argue about the literal meaning of them. isaacl (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't hope to dissuade bad faith editors, but to provide a clear enforcement clause, if the consensus is in favor of it. I'm boldly adding the phrase "after sufficient attempts at dispute resolution" before the phrase "if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community." Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There's already the sentence "Other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted before a recall petition is initiated" in the introduction and we're not even close to the point where the introduction is summarizing the entire page, so merely restating is redundant at this time. —Alalch E. 20:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, I took it back to the earlier version, taking out the parts about invalid and also active admins (I don't think it's likely anyone will file a petition for an inactive admin; if it becomes a problem, we can add it back in), but keeping other interim copyedits/fixes (combined diff showing what was kept from the earlier version); feel free to further revert/tweak. Levivich (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. - Enos733 (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do think we need some mention of invalid and bad faith petitions on the page, just not as extensive as what was here. It should basically "say petitions that are invalid and/or unquestionably frivolous or in bad faith may be closed by anyone other than the subject. They don't grant any immunity." We don't need to define everything, but we do need to give a couple of short examples. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's why I disagree:

• if the page says "invalid" "unquestionably frivolous" "in bad faith" can be closed by anyone, then people will close petitions that they think count, and then people will argue about whether or not that petition was invalid, unquestionably frivolous, or in bad faith
• but if a petition actually was unquestionably invalid, frivolous, or in bad faith, then everyone would know it, and would know that it could be closed by anyone, even without the page saying so

So I think it's a net negative to have the page say what to do with obviously invalid petitions: it creates something to argue about without actually giving any necessary instructions. Levivich (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't contested many of your previous revisions, because the discussion cost of building consensus can be high, and there is a lot of discussion ongoing already. But I agree with Levivich that, in my view, the guidance shouldn't have excessive detail trying to cover every scenario (I previously wrote an essay on avoiding specialized rules which is akin to this). isaacl (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The impetus for this particular change comes from Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop § Provisions for bad-faith nominations. Personally I feel it would have been better to discuss the change first (as I had suggested), but I appreciate others like to just edit boldly and wait for reverts or comments. I agree with trying to make commentary on bad-faith petitions as short as possible. I'm concerned that more wording included on this page only causes those opening petitions in bad-faith to hyperfocus on those words, rather than stepping back and understanding the overall concerns of the community regarding their actions. isaacl (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have invoked Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Back to discussion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the current state has reasonably covered bad-faith petitions. What about nonsensical petitions, perhaps April Fools ones or absolutely baseless ones? Treat it as vandalism? Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

These scenarios are already covered by existing guidance. We don't need to include discussion about all possibilities on this guidance page. isaacl (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I would treat frivolous petitions as attempts at harassment or weaponising process to remove ideological opponents, depending on the exact circumstance. I wouldn't characterise it as vandalism per se. April Fools' petitions, though, is something we'd probably discuss after the holiday season; there's enough here to debate as is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm also thinking about people submitting petitions to fine legacy admins that they think got it easy and won't pass today's RfA, perhaps because of grudges that they themselves must submit to a harsh RfA to become an admin today. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Nobody knows for sure what anybody's motivation is for anything. But we have a guideline: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

AGF provides for rebuttable assumption upon evidence and diffs. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is existing guidance on assuming good faith, so that guidance can be applied in the situation you raised. This guidance page doesn't need to try to cover every possible intersection of other guidance pages with this one. isaacl (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, I agree that no content on this is needed. If the perspectives on what exactly to do about bad-faith petitions really conflict as could be believed from Hawkeye7's statements, concrete proposals can be made in due course. The specific wording brought up in the reworkshop including construing Nominations that have no reasonable chance of passing as bad-faith petitions and closing them on those grounds is something I feel has no sticking power and can only hope that that is not what anyone really wants to add to the page. —Alalch E. 20:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I would consider an April Fool's recall petition disruptive on its face. Valereee (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Rules for April Fools. Rule 2 (humour must be explicitly tagged) at the very least would apply here. Rule 3 Jokes that are hateful, discriminatory, and/or intended to make others feel unwelcome will not be tolerated. could also apply. We don't need to spell anything else out here. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Serious question: What is the point of this talk page?

If we're not allowed to propose improvements to the RECALL process (that's apparently done here), and we're not allowed to even talk about the RECALL process without any specific improvement in mind (that's apparently done here), then what exactly is this Talk page for?

Besides that, the "reworkshop" pages have 46 watchers, the project page has had 4350 pageviews (in 30 days), and the talk page has had 850 pageviews. Whereas this page has 146 watchers, and 10300 pageviews. A discussion on this page will almost certainly get more engagement. Do we really have to police the creation and storage of simple, vague discussion threads?

@Levivich, since you relocated all those recent threads, I'd love to hear your opinion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This page, WT:RECALL, is for discussing WP:RECALL except for discussing/proposing changes to the recall process, which should be done at WT:REWORK (with future RFC questions listed at WP:REWORK). Levivich (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not ask what this page is not for. Outside of discussing the upsides/downsides of the process, what is this talk page for? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I answered that in my first sentence: this page is for discussing RECALL except for discussing/proposing changes to the recall process, which is at another page. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

When your description of what to include hinges entirely on what not to include, it's not a very helpful description. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Smh. Saying "everything except X" is shorter and more helpful than trying to list out everything except X. Levivich (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking for examples, look at the other threads on this page that haven't been moved. Those are examples of what this page is for. Levivich (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawn petitions

Does the six-month moratorium on petitions after a failed petition apply to withdrawn petitions? if not, can we add that? sounds suspiciously like a discussion about changing the process, yet it remains. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That's asking a question about the current process (and documentation of it), not proposing or discussing a change to the process. Levivich (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

if not, can we add that? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

that is documentation of the current process, not a change to the current process. Levivich (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There's inevitably some overlap between talking about a process and talking about changing a process. Yes, the "if not, can we add that?" could be placed onto either page. You'll have to AGF that someone who has moved a gigantic discussion hasn't done so for nefarious reasons. If you think a discussion ended up on the wrong page, move it. Or start/continue that discussion at the new page. But please AGF. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Planning for another request for comments is being done on the reworkshop page. The talk page for the reworkshop page should be about logistic details of the reworkshop (so I agree that proposals for questions to be asked belong on the reworkshop page). This talk page is for discussions about the recall process. For now, since an RfC is being planned and there is a dedicated page for it, ideas for changing the process are better placed on the reworkshop page. Once that RfC is done, the reworkshop page will become inactive, and discussion for changes can resume on this talk page. isaacl (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Now, a temporary staging area to prepare for some RFCs makes at least some sense.

Though, my point remains that this page has more watchers and sees more pageviews. If discussion happens here organically, and gets good input, must it be ported over to the other WP or WT page? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of sprawling discussion on multiple pages. For practicality, it's better to plan the RfC on one page. It could have been this talk page, but a dedicated page was created. This does help separate out discussion about the documentation for the current process in effect from discussion of proposed changes, which could be easily confused. isaacl (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Right now, it's, among other things that have been mentioned above, for any point of contention or confusion that does not need an RfC to solve. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § We need to fix the admin recall process

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § We need to fix the admin recall process. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Dilettante 20:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)