Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review

Phase II format

I've just closed proposals 16 and 16c as successful but requiring further discussion of specifics in Phase II. What's the format for that going to be? – Joe (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I'm going to open a subpage, probably at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall. If I'm reading your close correctly, there is consensus that the community should be able to force an RRfA, but no consensus as to the initation threshold or the RRfA pass threshold? Of the six points in 16c, which have by-default consensus (pending amendment) and which have no consensus? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

No, my reading is that there is no consensus for how to initiate an RRFA at all – just that the community should be able to do it somehow. 16c has support but I don't think it amounts to a consensus yet. It also seems likely that now people know that it's going to happen, there will be more ideas about how it should happen, so I'd suggest leaving the door open for new (sub)proposals. The general sentiment across all three discussions was that quite a bit more workshopping is required. – Joe (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Subpage created; I'll open it once prop 13 is closed, since that's the only one that looks like it needs heavy-duty refinement before possible implementation. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I would very much prefer some discussion period before going all in on Phase II. Probably a free discussion week or so? We possibly might need to have a poll on every suboption of the proposal, but I am concerned this approach will result in passing the most watered down aspect for each subproposal. Soni (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll think about it? It might be good to let people have a place to shake out some of the knucklehead ideas first, but that sounds like it could pretty easily be a low-trafficked page and then we lose a week on it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll be frank, I am not convinced you should be the sole authority making structural decisions about how proposals are made and implemented. I love the progress we've made, but ultimately this should be a community thing. I think there's value in at least having open discussion, to gauge out people's initial ideas. Soni (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think opportunity for discussion should be included at the start of phase 2. I think having some open discussion will help lay the groundwork for better proposals, before a list of support/opposes are made that make it harder to evolve proposed changes. Having this discussion on the phase 2 page will avoid dissipating interest. For better or worse, though, concrete proposals focus people's attention. So although personally I would like participants to take more time with workshopping ideas, I acknowledge that most people will want to get to the support/oppose period sooner rather than later. isaacl (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll add to this part of the discussion a quote from Joe's closing statement: "Phase II of this review should therefore consider specific proposals for RRFA initiation procedures and further consensus should be sought on which, if any, is to be adopted." I think it's self-explanatory, and should be the way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure; all I'm saying is that it would be good to provide some time to allow for discussion and refinement of specific proposals before starting to collect support/oppose statements, as those tend to lock people into particular positions and can thus hamper finding an acceptable middle-ground approach. isaacl (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I just wanted to cite that passage from the close, but it was more in response to multiple comments above, than to yours. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's up to the closer of course, but in my opinion prop 13 contains plenty of detail and could be implemented quickly after this RFC. In fact I would prefer it skip phase 2. All the essentials are in there: the suffrage requirements (same as ACE), the # of days to discuss (3), the # of days to vote (7), the frequency of the elections (6 months), the software to be used (SecurePoll), the pass threshold (70%), etc. It's all detailed in the proposal. Will let the closer decide if there's a consensus that X detail has to be fleshed out or X detail is too vague, but from where I'm sitting, I see a complete, detailed proposal that is ready for implementation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I would agree, except you were pretty clear at the outset that In my opinion, this RFC should only be to determine if community consensus exists to try some kind of admin election / secret voting system. The technical details should be worked out later. Xaosflux said in the discussion that ACE suffrage would be time-consuming, scrutineering and election location haven't been worked out, and I think the threshold is too high. An idea was passed, and the community should have the chance to workshop and concretize it before a test run. If the closer wants to fill in blanks, that's great, but no, I don't think skipping phase II is fair. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The threshold question is probably more ripe for post-test run questioning, so I can see the implementation of prop 13 being much more informal than prop 16, where Joe basically threw out most of the proposed details. I do want to give everyone a chance to iron out some kinks, though. By the way, I was also thinking about putting myself in the first test run of prop 13 to have a non-binding control group... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I originally stated The technical details should be worked out later because of what happened in RFA2021, but I have completely changed my mind about it because support for prop 13 was so strong in RFA2024. Just now I have struck my original comment so that this is clearer.

I agree that the suffrage requirements could be a pain for the WMF person that sets up SecurePoll, but we could always RFC a simplification of that after the first admin election, when we are armed with WMF feedback, better data, and experience.

Not sure what to do about the scrutineers. Maybe just copy ACE for the first election, then RFC a simplification after the first election? It's actually a bit strange to me that SecurePoll involves proactive checkusering of everyone. It may be the only process on the entire website where the checkuser tool is used so proactively. The reason for this should be explored, and maybe we will end up deciding that the suffrage requirements are secure enough that we only need to do random scrutineering or no scrutineering. Not sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I also think further RFCs will be MUCH more worth our time after we do one election cycle and see how it goes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that any plan needs to recognize and handle the following which I think is the case with many of the passing proposals:

1. There is consensus for the idea in general. So it's time to move forward from that and not revisit that question. And avoid changes that would effectively negate or deprecate the initial result.
2. There was recognition that there will inevitably be flaws in the initial proposal, and it was pretty clear at the time that details will be refined and a good portion of the support was conditional on that.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

What North just said is exactly my understanding, as well. When in doubt, discuss further, and Phase II would be the logical place for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 14 close

@Joe For Proposal 14, is the consensus to restrict voting in RFA to "Extended Confirmed" or to "30 days and 500 edits"? The former can be manually added to users based on a request, the latter cannot. I don't know if that matters in 14, but it was a non-insignificant factor for discussion in #25 (Nominees should be EC) Soni (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't explicitly discussed. Most people used the phrase "extended confirmed", so that's the wording I added to WP:RFA. – Joe (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2 close

@Nagol0929: In your close, can you please address the related issues brought up in Proposal 9b, as discussed above in #Is phase 2 a good idea? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I did try to address said issues in discussing the oppose arguments and then mentioning at the end that all oppose arguments were rebutted. But if there is a specific way you would like me to word it, I am open to discussing that. Nagol0929 (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You found consensus that diffs are required for things that are not policy violations. But the 9b discussion found the opposite. And most of the 2 discussion took place before that later discussion at 9b. If we have two different proposals here coming to conclusions that contradict one another, that's a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

To hopefully clarify further, Nagol0929: Based on reading your close I think that your intent was to find that there was consensus for a reminder of civility on the RfA page in some fashion but that a Phase II discussion is needed to iron out the wording. If that's the case, I'd advise amending the close to make that clearer, and that should address Tryptofish's concerns. Even though you make mention there isn't much agreement on the wording, your close gives the impression that there is consensus for the reminder as written by the proposer. This has conflict with 9b due to the wording of "Editors may not make allegations of improper conduct without evidence.". Now, if you believe there is consensus for the wording as written, then Tryptofish is asking for clarification as to how proposals 2 and 9b are going to be reconciled as they appear contradictory. —Sirdog (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel the summarizing statement leaves an impression that there is consensus for the proposed text. The first two sentences are I find that there is consensus for this to be implemented at RfA. However there is not a clear consensus on what the actual message should say. isaacl (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

My intent was indeed to conclude that there should be a reminder of civility in some fashion. I also wanted the community to deliberate on the exact wording of the reminder. I’ll make it more clear when I am able to access a pc next. Nagol0929 (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to clarify that. And thanks to Sirdog and isaacl for clarifying the issue. Sirdog explains my concerns very well, and I agree that making it clearer that there is not consensus for a single, specific wording, but there is consensus for, as you put it, "a reminder of civility in some fashion", is what is needed. Such a clarification, which I see as necessary, will address my concerns. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

How does this sound? I find that there is consensus for there to be a reminder of civility implemented at RfA. However there is not a clear consensus on the exact wording of the reminder. The exact wording of the reminder shall be discussed in phase 2. Nagol0929 (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

+1 —Sirdog (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would address my concerns. Thanks for listening. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

note

All discussions are now closed. Toadette^Edit! 22:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

With the understanding, per the discussion immediately above this one, that 9b that you closed, must be discussed further in Phase 2. (I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but people seem to keep overlooking this, and it's important.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with tryptofish this needs to be discussed in phase 2. More specifically in collaboration with the discussion of proposal 2 as the wording of the reminder could impact proposal 9b. Nagol0929 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Phase 2 - Designated RfA monitors

Note - This section was originally on the talk page of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors before being moved here. Soni (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I am thinking of the old-fashioned RfC format where people state a view and then editors sign underneath it? CC @SchroCat, Theleekycauldron, and Sirdog. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I like that! Depends on if we do one subpage for open discussion or many, so let's see what other people think about that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the CC . I'm not the most experienced with structured discussions, but this idea seems fitting given the specific proposal. —Sirdog (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. It’s a method that we know works well. - SchroCat (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

As I am the blame for the suggestion, would it help if I roughed out a few points on the page that were in my mind when I made the suggestion (and that came up in phase one), which could be used as the starting point for people to agree/disagree on - it would, at least, get the ball rolling and get people thinking about potential pitfalls, processes etc? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, SchroCat :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't too sure exactly on the formatting you wanted, but I think the points outlined are the main ones I thought about or that people threw up in phase 1. Two options on the formatting: one (less likely) and two. Feel free to suggest a different form if you want and I'll try and put it into that form. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• HouseBlaster, Just a query on the opening text, which currently reads "Following the passage of proposals 16 and 16c, providing for community-based recall of administrators by petition": is that germane for this page? Shouldn't this be pointing to proposal 17? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @SchroCat: that would be a botched copy/paste job.  Fixed and thanks for pointing it out! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Beginning phase II

@HouseBlaster, Reaper Eternal, Thebiguglyalien, Soni, SchroCat, and SportingFlyer: Hey everyone! Congrats on getting a proposal passed at phase I :) y'all's proposals are going to need to move to phase II before implementation. I'm thinking that we should open Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II as an open discussion phase (broken down by proposal) to get a rough idea of how we want to answer the open questions before going to proposal-specific, more rigorous subpages. Anyone have thoughts on how they'd like their subpage to look, or if they want to skip open discussion entirely, etc.? Let me know your thoughts :) Also going to draw up a list of questions each proposal needs to have answered before implementation. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Works for me :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like 16-16C to have an open ended discussion approach for the first few days (probably 7?). It might help with a "vibe check" for how the community prefers 16/16C get tweaked.

As for pages, I think it might be good to just start some subpage structure, and let people modify it before making Phase II "live". I don't have specific plans yet but we'll probably have a decent starting page from that. I know Phase I had a bit of a "wing it as we go along" issue to figure out. Soni (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: works for me. I know that you and HouseBlaster are working on subpages; if open discussion is gonna be on the communal subpage, do you have a draft of a more structured discussion for your proposal? Or would you rather that the 16c subpage have its own open discussion? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Whichever works. A starting point to consider is just.. Default to open discussion split by sections, and then shift to structured subproposal page 7d later. And either close the main open discussion for 16-16c, or move it when that happens.

As for draft, I do not. I will first start with an open ended question, and then create the subpage/adapt your subpage linked above accordingly. It's not clear to me what structure 16-16C's phase 2 would benefit most from (Every subsection is voted on in parallel, Base proposal + every amendment is a vote, Every proposal is wholesale and has a Y/N vote). So I'm waiting for more weighing in during Open discussion. Soni (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think keeping the discussion pages separate will help avoid the need for a running archive, like we needed for phase I. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Then let's get separate subpages ready, one-week (can be extended if needed) open discussion phase on each. HouseBlaster, I think yours and 9b should be the same subpage – the open questions look pretty much the same. 17 and 24 will happen separately, I'll draw up those subpages hopefully tomorrow. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: subpage for 17 exists at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors. I will add the 9b language to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA come tomorrow. I have been getting to bed in the day I woke up in for the last ~week and it is glorious, and I am not going to break my streak now :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have updated Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA to incorporate discussion surrounding 9b. If there are no other issues, I think we are ready to start phase II. CC @Theleekycauldron and Soni. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

For 16/16C, I have done a pass at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall and am happy with sending the page as is. Tagging @Thebiguglyalien in case you have preferences.

Unrelatedly, do we want each subpage to have it's own talk? If not, I prefer moving all discussions from subpages here and redirecting. Soni (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Whatever works. As far as I'm concerned, I'm just the guy who brought it up and it's the community's now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A running list with all proposals slated for Phase 2.

• 2 and 9b - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA
• 16 and 16c - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall
• 17 - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
• 24 - TBD

Soni (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Mentoring related to the RfA process. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the best way to note this, but generally speaking, creating more mentorship options doesn't need a broad community consensus to proceed. Anyone can start an initiative and run with it. It is of course a good idea to have more discussion to try to figure out what might have a better possibility of succeeding. But the stakes are somewhat different with proposals for optional initiatives: as long as there's no community consensus barring them from happening, volunteers are free to drive them forward. isaacl (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I left that proposal with just a general discussion section. I think that bundling it with RfA reform generally will (hopefully) encourage more people to participate in molding the process to be the best it can be. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for getting these set up! I've been so swamped, but going to start pushing buttons to get this thing going now. Stay tuned... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Got most of the messages written out; I'm gonna proofread in the morning and then we'll launch :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Voting for specific options on Admin Recall Phase 2 is now open

The Phase 2 of Administrator recall has closed the "Open Discussion" segment and is now open for !voting. Everyone is encouraged to !vote or discuss specific sub-provisions of recall there; or give feedback at #General_Discussion.

Pinging everyone who commented during the "Open Discussion" segment - @Alanscottwalker, BluePenguin18, Chetsford, Dilettante, Draken Bowser, Giraffer, Hammersoft, HouseBlaster, Isaacl, Joe Roe, Just Step Sideways, Kusma, Levivich, LindsayH, Mach61, MicrobiologyMarcus, OhanaUnited, Pppery, QuicoleJR, Rchard2scout, RoySmith, S Marshall, Soni, Suffusion of Yellow, Tazerdadog, Theleekycauldron, Toadspike, ToBeFree, and Tryptofish: Soni (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is addressed anywhere, but what happens to the page in the case of non-rolling petitions? Is it deleted, blanked, kept, or is the fate wholly up to the user in question? and does that vary based on whether it meets the threshold? The obvious argument for keeping is that it makes determining suffrage for petitions easier. The obvious argument against is that keeping a list of an admin's detractors is demotivating and easy to abuse. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I would personally suggest blanking as it's an easy balance between "keep records" and "list detractors".

But we do also have a #Finer Points section in case something can't be easily resolved from discussion. There will be a lot of simpler questions that don't need a full "close" (Should Designated RfA monitors also apply to RRFAs, say), with the section being an option if it's not clear enough as is. Soni (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

To keep the discussion in one place, I suggest continuing to comment on the administrator recall phase 2 page, rather than this one. isaacl (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Most "detractors" are quite fine with their opposition to a specific admin being listed as publicly and irremovably as possible, and the opposition comes with practical immunity against further administrative actions from that administrator against their vocal critic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Should this discussion be linked to more directly on WP:CENT? Riht now it just says that Phase II of RFA reform is open, but not that there's an active RFC for community admin recall, which is what I'd expect to see for a RFC this potentially impactful.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Anyone can revert or wordsmith but Tazerdadog's suggestion makes sense to me. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Phase I voters to Phase II

Sorry if this has already been discussed, decided, or done... but are we planning to ping the editors who voted in a relevant Phase I section to the related Phase II discussions? Any thoughts on doing/not doing this? Levivich (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

There were notifications on user talk pages, e.g. Special:Diff/1222314878 (using mailing list: Special:Permalink/1218650058). I assume that the list was aggregated from users participating in Phase I discussions. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes! Thanks. Levivich (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Make Phase III the review of trials instead of Phase II?

It would be confusing to have Phase II close and then open again for the ones that passed and are just being evaluated. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC tag?

Should phase II have one? It would trigger WP:FRS and list this at WP:RFCWP, maybe bring in some new participants. Levivich (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Phase IIA is a more complex wonkish phase, needs like another 5 people to dive in deep here to workshop ideas. Not sure how to do that but RFC might not be the way. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not know how to add the RFC tag, but it will be a good idea. We've already listed Phase II under Watchlist and CENT notices, so if RFC tag brings more attention, that is good. Soni (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of putting {{rfc|policy|prop}} (or whatever categories) on top of the phase 2 page (or wherever is appropriate, maybe on the four subpages), and then a bot does the rest. Levivich (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the more participation, the better, so I support anything, including RfC listings, to make that happen. Although it's not clear to me what the "RfC question" would be in each case. Whether Phase II is a workshop, or a poll to determine policy, is very unclear to me, but it seems to be all of the above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

c.f. The three blind editors and the elephant RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If it was one RFC notice, I'd just crib the nutshell at WP:RFA2024:

{{rfc|policy|prop}}

2024 Requests for adminship review Phase II (WP:RFA2024) is open for discussion! Participants are invited to contribute towards improving and refining the proposals for a reminder of civility norms at RfA, administrator recall, designated RfA monitors, and RFA mentoring process. RFC notice posted ~~~~~

If it were four RFC notices (one for each of the four Phase II pages), I'd crib from the top of each of those pages:

• {{rfc|policy|prop}} Discussion about refining proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and require links for claims of specific policy violations. RFC notice posted ~~~~~
• {{rfc|policy|prop}} Discussion about refining the implementation details of proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 for community-based recall of administrators. RFC notice posted ~~~~~
• {{rfc|policy|prop}} Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to have named admins/crats to monitor infractions. RFC notice posted ~~~~~
• {{rfc|policy|prop}} Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 which called for better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process. RFC notice posted ~~~~~

Anyone should feel free to cut and paste :-) Levivich (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

With thanks to Levivich,  Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 13 (admin elections)

How is it being taken forward? Sorry if I've missed something. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: WP:AELECT. I'll add that link to the main RFA2024 page. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I had tried WP:ADMINELECT, WP:ADMINELECTION, and WP:ADMINELECTIONS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I just created that first one, I agree it's an obvious guess. Levivich (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:Adele redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Adele, but WP:ADELE hasn't been taken yet. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I remember a failed proposal to have the article Adele redirect to the name article instead of the singer. The way it is now is like having the Eddie article point to singer Eddie Money's article. NYC Guru (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Though I'll admit I haven't edited as I used to, I think these changes (delaying the support-oppose comments and applying the arbcom vote process) will make the experience better in the long run. I look forward to partitpating the the first RfA under the new reform. NYC Guru (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

My thanks also go out to the editors working on this issue. I, too, look forward to participating in Numberguy's request. A lot of discussion has already taken place before the actual process actually begins. Which is good. I assume the level of interest is increased by the pings that went out as a response to proposal 3b (2 day discussion period). From personal experience I can attest that the request for admin can be a chilling and deflating process. I am sure we have lost many quality editors over the years as a result. Protecting the process while protecting the nominee should be a mainstay in whatever comes from this trial period. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 14:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts on the 2-day discussion period

Apologies if this isn't the right place to put this - I'm not hugely familiar with RfCs.

Now that Numberguy's RfA has passed, I wanted to share some thoughts about the 2-day discussion period. Personally I felt it made me much more involved in the process, although I couldn't tell you why. While the RfA itself wasn't exactly typical, I do think at least some of the increase in optional questions was linked to the discussion period, but we'll see if I get proven wrong in the next RfA. Just from this one RfA, personally I like this new system. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 08:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of the discussion about this seems to have ended up at WT:RFA—you may want to participate there. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Suntooooth, since 30 May 2024, there's also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Closing Phase 2

The 4 proposals that initiated Phase 2 have now been open for more than a month

• Reminder of civility norms at RfA
• Administrator recall
• Designated RfA monitors
• Mentoring Process

Note - The remaining phase 2 discussion (Discussion-only period) has been open for ~15 days now.

I think it might be worth trying to close them now. Some of these proposals definitely had enough discussion that is now petering out. Perhaps a posting in Wikipedia:Closure requests will help? Soni (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The mentoring process discussion has no proposals to evaluate and few opinions; it's just an open discussion with a small handful of contributors. Personally I'd suggest just letting discussion reach a natural end on its own, with no consensus evaluation needed. isaacl (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I was more focused on recall or monitors, which were structured and impactful enough that a formal close will be good for next steps. I am not sure what should happen for mentoring, or anything else that ends without a concrete change to suggest. Perhaps some of them should be closed eventually anyway, if only to not make Phase 2s last forever?

Tagging @Theleekycauldron as well Soni (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

For the mentoring process discussion, I suggest at some point just adding a note that Phase 2 has come to an end and suggest that further discussion take place as a new thread elsewhere, rather putting the discussion into a box and saying, no more comments. isaacl (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Made a post at AN for the first three :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

As I previously suggested, I think the best way forward for the mentoring process discussion is to add a note saying that its phase 2 discussion has come to an end, and suggesting that further discussion be held in a different venue. Since it's an open-ended topic that doesn't need consensus to proceed (for any voluntary mentoring initiative), personally I don't feel that discussion needs to continue under the scope of phase 2. Is there any other suggestion on how to proceed? isaacl (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrator recall, phase II

I'm really sorry to say this, but reading it all through now, I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall has trainwrecked.

I tried to make it very clear in my close of the the first phase that there was consensus for admin recall in principle but not for any specific process. Therefore in Phase II Soni's proposed dewiki-style process was supposed to be presented as just one option, with the possibility that it and/or another option would achieve consensus, or no option at all would. And phase II initially started along those lines, but then just three days after it opened for comment, Soni hatted (and later collapsed) all discussion not related to his proposal, and replaced the page with a list of polls about the implementation details of his proposal. I missed it at the time but I'm really quite stunned that you thought that this was appropriate, Soni.

I just cannot see how a genuine consensus can be said to come from a process like this. After the first three days, participants were presented with a fait accompli—Soni's proposal, which to reiterate had not yet obtained consensus even in principle—and asked only to vote on numeric thresholds and minor procedural details. They were not invited to suggest alternative ideas or given the option of objecting to Soni's proposal as a whole. It's as if instead of asking, "we decided to get some fruit, what do you want: apples? oranges? something else?", we asked "we decide to get some fruit, how big should the apples be?" This was also discussed at some length by Tryptofish, theleekycauldron, Levivich, isaacl, and I, on the phase II page, but again at the time I didn't notice that Soni had closed all other discussion, otherwise I would have strongly agreed with Trypto and reverted it.

In that thread I also missed this reply from you, theleekycauldron, to me:

Soni wanted the chance to direct how this proposal was going to be structured – I think that they've done a fantastic job getting it this far, and I agree with their reading of the close that 16c being a "starting point" does kind of lend itself to the setup we've seen so far.

Obviously just because I happened to close the first phase it doesn't mean I get to say how the second one goes, and maybe this is my fault because the "starting point" phrasing was unclear, but let's go back to the important thing, which is what participants in the first phase actually said. I hope that it is plain to see that there is nothing like a consensus there to take Soni's proposal, fiddle with some of the knobs, and then run with it. At the end of the day only 25 people indicated support for that proposal even in principle, which is far short of what successful proposals in that RfC got, and only a hair over the number of people that opposed recall of any kind. On the other hand, a very significant number of people said that their support for the idea of recall was conditional on there being significant further discussion of the details. I don't think we've allowed them that.

The only way I can see of salvaging this is to take whatever precise version of 16C got the most support and present it as a straight support/oppose RfC. It's risky because Wikipedians hate not being given the opportunity to bikeshed, but yeah, I can't see how this process is going to have any legitimacy as it is right now. People might be largely ignoring this discussion now, but imagine what will happen the first time it looks like an admin might lose their bits because of it? They'll tear it to shreds. It's a shame because phase I really did indicate strong support for recall. – Joe (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Joe, I'm as surprised as you are at the gulf between what you seemingly intended to communicate about phase II and what actually happened. You found consensus that "the community should be able to compel an administrator to make a re-request for adminship", which is language only used in proposal 16c – you did claim that proposal 16 also focused on initiating an RRFA, but that wasn't an accurate reading of the discussion. If, when you said "the process(es) for initiating an RRFA needs to be worked out in more detail before this is implemented" and that proposal 16c should be the "starting point", you somehow meant that "we should not be relying on the petition process, the only proposed process to initiate an RRfA, as a framework for the discussion", that was wholly unclear. As for legitimacy, that's up to another closer to decide. If no consensus is found here, I would be happy to coordinate putting together a full proposal. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

the community should be able to compel an administrator to make a re-request for adminship – this was intended to summarise the consensus in proposal 16. If the wording was similar to that of 16c, it's purely coincidental – probably because 16C was freshest in my mind when I started writing. My understanding was that proposal 16 did indeed propose a (non-specific) RRFA process, because its title was allow the community to initiate recall RfAs. What's inaccurate about that reading? And didn't you consider challenging it at the time?

I'll take full responsibility if it's my poor writing that caused this. However, I did foresee the potential for confusion there, and tried to emphasise that 16C was not to be considered the only or favoured framework by saying there is also a consensus that the process(es) for initiating an RRFA needs to be worked out in more detail before this is implemented. Phase II of this review should therefore consider specific proposals for RRFA initiation procedures and further consensus should be sought on which, if any, is to be adopted. (note the plurals throughout). And I repeated this point several times in the initial stages of phase II. – Joe (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"Recall RfA" is distinct from RRFA, at least as Soni devised it at the time. RRFA stands for re-request for adminship, meaning that the administrator is already desysopped or facing desysop pending a new RfA (which is the RRFA). Thebiguglyalien's "recall RfA", as I understand it, refers to a discussion on whether to remove an admin's tools, not restore them. In a recall RfA, the admin keeps their tools unless there is explicit consensus to desysop. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not a distinction I recall seeing anyone in the discussion make. "Re-request" was actually my phrase, a little wordplay on the fact that people were calling it variously a recall or reconfirmation RFA. – Joe (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've put into words how I've felt about the process since phase I closed; I couldn't put my finger on why but I've felt like I missed a step in the process where we decided to only talk about how we would implement dewiki's admin recall process, when there was definitely still more to discuss with other proposals. But I don't think it's as fatal to the process as you - this process was always going to have to start somewhere, and proposals unlikely to gain consensus were always going to drop off. I've been looking at this entire process as brainstorming towards one concrete proposal which will then be put to the community as a support/oppose RFC; it would be absurd to think that this sort of straw-polling process could possibly represent consensus for such a monumental policy change without testing it specifically in an RFC. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

As I discussed in the phase 2 discussion, I think a checkpoint is desirable. If a consensus on the different aspects is determined to exist, then list the entire proposal with all of the points in place, and identify if the interested parties are amenable to the net result. I think it's easy to miss interactions between the different considerations when considering them piecemeal, and think looking at a consolidated view would be helpful in establishing an overall consensus. isaacl (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think I've much to say to this other than what I've already explained.

I understood the close and tried to implement the "starting point for the discussions" comment of the close best I could. This draft was put on #Beginning phase II just to make sure the author of 16 (and anyone else) could adjust and suggest accordingly. Then once this (Aka the "Open discussion" stage) began, people suggested two-three different proposals, and a bunch of other unassorted ideas. I tried to incorporate those into Leeky's originally written structure and put some mock ups of the actual voting structure on Process section. Once I suspected the open discussion started petering out, I implemented said structure and let others apply it as they see fit.

Even with that seek-everyones-input, you suggested that I was too close to this and I should step back. I did, and mostly tried so Leeky (or any other interested person) could step in and tweak the structures if needed. And now another few weeks later, you would rather take the entire structure down after I've done exactly as you suggested.

I do not think there is any set of actions that I can do better here. Perhaps the 3 day open discussion was shorter than it should have been, but hindsight is easier. At that point, it was a fairly real concern (to me) that the 2nd half of Phase II would have little engagement and just die out. Other than that, anytime an editor has shown an interest in editing the structure of this or come with new concerns (like you did the last time), we've adjusted things. This just feels like an exhausting revisit of the same question again.

Sure the process could be better, especially now that we're finally parsing what your original close was intended to mean (versus what it ended up reading as to others). But in my opinion, it's not the same as being "unsalvagable" or as unilateral as you paint it. Every step so far was considering all the opinions said till then; those opinions just didn't differ enough. Soni (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that you stepped back and it's totally my fault that I didn't see your hatting/collapsing at the time, or I would have specifically asked you about it. It's that really is the issue now, as I see it. Examples of people bringing new things to the structure would be adding a "Proposals for other RRFA mechanisms" section or Hammersoft starting a highly relevent discussion of how the dewiki process impacted their admin core. Both these were initially admitted, but then closed and hidden away after three days. That's the problem. The effect was that most participants (after the third day) saw a fixed list of options and no indication that suggestions that deviated from the 16c framework were welcome. – Joe (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No indication that suggestions that deviated from the 16c framework were welcome, except for the Something else (specify) option appearing 8 times. Also, options were added to multiple sections. One of those added options was Option G: Petitions should not be used as part of the recall process which is a significant deviation from the 16c framework. Full and Strongest Possible Oppose to any Community Initiated Administrator Recall Process was one of the bolded votes; that voter didn't feel constrained by the options. Then there are all the Find a consensus votes, which is a strong indication of support for a recall process regardless of what color we paint the bikeshed. On top of all that, I see a lot of consensus in the individual sections -- some are near unanimous. I have no concerns that the process is invalid because of how the options were set up. Like all RFCs ever, the options evolved as people participated. And I see a lot of participation, and a lot of agreement. I don't think it's a problem. I would just let closer(s) close it; maybe the closer(s) will say there isn't sufficient consensus on all parts of the recall proposal; maybe the closer(s) will say further discussion is needed on some parts or a confirmation on all of it; but my 2c is let somebody who is so-far-uninvolved review the whole thing and draw what conclusions they may. And then we can move on to the next phase: inevitable close challenge. :-) Levivich (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not really the same as offering the 16c framework as just one option amongst many, is it? Anyway, it's done now, there's not much value in going over the format. My main point is that I don't think the result here can be implemented without one more round, which most people appear to have expected anyway. – Joe (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The 16c framework was not the only option offered, and anyways it was successful, and I don't think most people expected another round. In fact, I remember discussing that and coming to the opposite conclusion.

Joe, your comment on this page, way up top:

I've just closed proposals 16 and 16c as successful but requiring further discussion of specifics in Phase II.

After Phase 2 ends months later is too late to reverse that, IMO. Levivich (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As the person who started the trend of "Please don't trainwreck this" !votes, I think this discussion at minimum partially trainwrecked. In my opinion, the best way to close this would be for an uninvolved closer to go through the discussion and assemble results from the discussion that are likeliest to find a broad consensus. Then that result needs a straight up or down RFC. It's impossible to tell from this discussion if someone who was aligned with consensus in almost every subdiscussion, and dissenting from the consensus on just one feels that one is a dealbreaker for the entre process, or alternatively if someone who dissented on a lot of specifics still feels that the overall idea is a net positive. The only way to determine that is an up or down RFC, where we propose the sum of consensuses from this discussion, and ask people for an up or down vote, with tweaks possible only through a separate discussion after the up or down RFC instead of proposed throughout the middle of it. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Joe. I've been warning this would happen (and, folks, there are comparable issues with the discussion about the civility notice), and have felt until now that not enough people were listening. Seriously, the idea that Phase 1 established consensus for something, so whatever would come out of Phase 2 would have automatic consensus, has been nonsense all along. (Every time I've seen Phase 2 comments that the closer needs to "find a consensus", my mind has gone to Trump telling the Georgia Secretary of State to "find me some votes".)

Bottom line, as other editors have already pointed out, is that there needs to be some sort of specific proposal presented to the community, with an up-or-down RfC. And I'll repeat my previous advice that care should be put into devising the RfC proposal, and into providing a well thought out rationale for why it is worth adopting. Nothing has consensus until such time as a well-advertised, site-wide RfC results in that consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit odd to keep dismissing "Find a consensus" votes based on your personal preferences when they're fairly well articulated what they stand for, "I support all outcomes that lead to broad consensus". Just because you disagree with their phrasing does not automatically make lesser the !vote itself.

Nothing has consensus until such time as a well-advertised, site-wide RfC results in that consensus. I will note that both Phases of this process have been well advertised and site wide RFCs (RFC, CENT, Watchlist). So really what we're talking about is just "Is there consensus" which I think the closers of Phase II have to weigh in on.

I completely understand (but not necessarily agree) with those who prefer an up-down vote at the end of this process. If the closers think we need them, I'm happy with it. But I have been concerned at some comments in this section attempting to de-facto overturn consensus based pretty much on personal preferences. Soni (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't my personal preference. It's existing Wikipedia policy. The personal preferences were on the part of editors who tried to sell the argument that a "consensus" should come from a WP:Supervote. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish about the path forward. If every section of this RFC had resulted in a very clear consensus I could envision a closer getting frisky, sewing them all up together, and implementing it. As is, that did not happen. The only practical way forward in my opinion is for a closer to examine the discussion and come up with the set of parameters that seemed to have the broadest consensus while being mutually compatible, and closing the discussion as requiring an up or down RFC on an admin recall process with that set of parameters.

Addressing the "find a consensus" !votes, my intention when I cast mine was certainly not in anything like the context of "find 11k votes in Georgia" - it was meant as "I don't care which color we paint this bikeshed, but I do care that we resolve this question and move on" If a discussion ends with 20% "paint it green" 20% "paint it red" and 60% "find a consensus", the correct closure is for the closer to look for any difference in the strength of the green and red camps according to level of support and policy, and if they cannot find a preference there, simply close with the color they prefer. This is NOT a supervote, because the admin is closing according to consensus based on the 60% of !votes instructing them to do just that, in addition to the 20% of support from whatever color they pick. A supervote requires that they ignore consensus or the lack thereof to impose their preference. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I was in agreement with you, thanks, until I got to the last part. I want to clarify something, and I think it's important. When a discussion (such as, in my opinion, the Phase 2 discussion about how to initiate the recall process) has a wide range of opinions, with similar numbers of editors choosing (for example) A, B, C, or D, it may be appropriate for the closer to determine that the arguments in favor of A were policy-based and unrefuted, unlike those for B, C, and D, in which case it might be reasonable to find a rough consensus for A. But when there isn't much difference in the strength of arguments, and the numbers are widely distributed over the available options, "finding" a consensus for A, when the sum of B+C+D is greater than A alone, would indeed be a supervote. In my opinion, a lot of editors just expressed a preference for some options, and didn't try hard to figure out how to come to consensus with similar numbers of editors who expressed different preferences. (This also happened with the discussion about the civility notice.) I hope that the process of putting together an up-or-down RfC will prompt editors to finally do that hard but important work. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog I think we're both overall agreeing, just having slightly adjacent views on the path forward. I am completely fine if what you just described happens. I just do not like the idea of us trying to dictate what closers should or shouldn't do before anything happens. That effectively sounds like us trying to pseudo-close the RFC ourselves when involved, which I am hard against.

This is especially important to me because there are takes here that are effectively trying to supervote, intentionally or otherwise. We had nearly a hundred participants in this RFC. A couple vocal ones loudly saying "All find a consensus votes are invalid" should not automatically make it so. Similarly, while I personally think Phase 2 "could" be enough as is, no up-down vote needed, I would prefer not to externally force the hands of any closers. Soni (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Soni that I don't think we should pre-determine that did not happen. Once someone goes through the work of evaluating the discussion, then we will have a better picture of what agreements were reached.

I appreciate why some feel it very important to go through everything that they think an evaluator might do wrong in their view. But... I think we need a better approach than bringing it up at the start, during, and at the end of every discussion. Perhaps we need to develop more guidance on evaluating consensus. isaacl (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

When you refer to editors "bringing it up" repeatedly, it would not have been necessary to have done so, if those administering the discussion had listened the first time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Those administering the discussion (*) aren't responsible for how evaluators evaluate the result, so it's a bit of a non sequitur with regards to my comment. However if you are thinking about concerns about the discussion's structure, I raised my concerns too. However...

(*) For better or worse, English Wikipedia's tradition of deciding everything by consensus means even administering discussions is decided by consensus. It's hard enough, though, to get people to focus on the topic at hand, much less on the metatopic of how to discuss the topic. It's a difficult problem to resolve as the community really likes empowering anyone to start a request for comments discussion, and certainly history has shown that some carefully planned and structured RfCs have gone astray, while others that were started very loosely have reached definitive results. isaacl (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Nobody ever goes for this, but I'd once again mention the format I developed for Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012. It is designed only for exactly this type of situation, where multiple previous phases failed to achieve a clear result. The framework is simple:
  • Mutually exclusive options are presented
  • Each user must pick one and only one to support
  • No additional proposals are allowed
• It isn't something we should do often as it is a very restricitve format but I think we've reached the point herer where this, or something very much like it, is the only way forward. I'd also reccomend recruiting a panel of admins or other experienced users in advance to administer the RFC and do the close. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• I'd add that we also used some fancy tricks with transcluded subpages for each position, to cut down on edit conflicts and make navigating the main RFC page easier. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick question​: I like this idea, but what would the options beyond this dewiki-based proposal and no RRFA be? Would we have a short duration (one week–one month) where any user is welcome to write a proposal? Sincerely, Dilettante 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Having already had two phases, I think any completely new proposals should be left for a future RfC. A better use of time and effort would be to fashion a single best version out of the discussion from Phase 2, and it either passes or fails. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, at this point it's either this or back to the drawing board. – Joe (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagree now, as I did last time we discussed this some months ago. Levivich (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly worth trying. This process is starting to look like the pending changes level 2 discussions, which in a sort of "phase I" achieved consensus to enable the feature if implementation details could be worked out, followed by a trainwreck of a "phase II" in which people kept adding new proposals that were mostly just minor tweaks to earlier proposals, and none of them were ever close to consensus, partly because everyone had a favourite proposal and opposed the others, and partly because it was a frustrating process that editors gave up on and stopped participating. It took four years to finally decide it just wasn't going to happen. That's the space we've been in with RFA recall for many years already: broad agreement that it should be done, zero progress on how. At some point we have to stop brainstorming, use feedback from the earlier discussions to create a fully-developed process, and put it to a community support/oppose vote. If it passes, great. If it doesn't, then we can go into another round of proposals and comments to refine the process and take it back to a vote later. The way we've been doing this will never get to consensus, we'll just keep talking about new proposals until the end of time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

At least a trail run.

After reading this entire discussion, I think that we should just cut off the addition of new proposals. The current proposals we have now are enough for a at least a trail run. Adding anymore will just complicate the process and extend the length of it. Fanfanboy (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Post close discussion

Voorts has closed the remaining sections. Looking at the above discussion, the next and final step most seem to support is to consolidate everything into clear instructions at WP: Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator Recall and have a simple support/oppose !voting system with no alternative proposals allowed. However, on their talk, voorts has said My two cents are that the close in Phase I stated, Phase II of this review should therefore consider specific proposals for RRFA initiation procedures and further consensus should be sought on which, if any, is to be adopted. Since consensus has been obtained, I think we're done. If editors want an up-or-down vote on the entire package of adopted procedures, they can start a new discussion at the appropriate forum (probably the talk page) as to whether that's needed Sincerely, Dilettante 14:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

"Most seem to support"? I don't think so. Levivich (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m replying off memory so you’re probably right. Sincerely, Dilettante 14:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This was said with my closer hat off, so don't take it as gospel. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Putting the pieces together, here's the overall process:

• Petition
  • Cannot be launched until 12 months have passed since the user has successfully requested adminship or bureaucratship, re-requested adminship, or become an arbitrator.
  • Open for up to 1 month.
  • Notification is posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
  • 25 editors must support the petition to trigger the re-request for adminship process.
  • The format allows for discussion and reasoning to be explained.
  • To support a petition, you must meet the criteria to participate in a request for adminship. You must not support more than 5 open petitions. There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition.
  • If a petition for a given admin fails to gain the required support, another petition for that admin cannot be launched for six months.
  • Support statements can be stricken based on the same criteria as for requests for adminship.
• Re-request process
  • A bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. The admin can request a delay of up to 30 days. If the re-request does not start by then, the admin can have their privileges removed at the discretion of the bureaucrats.
  • The re-request can also take the form of participating in an admin election. (Not clear what the consensus is regarding the need for the election to fall within the 30-day window).
  • For either a re-request or an election, the following thresholds apply:
    • below 50%: fail
    • 50–60%: Bureaucrats evaluate consensus
    • 60% and above: pass

isaacl (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Was just about to say I've created a tentative draft at Wikipedia:Admin Reconfirmation. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dilettante, I would change the title to "Administrator reconfirmation" since we generally prefer sentence case and for consistency with "Administrator elections". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Sincerely, Dilettante 21:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The phase 2 discussion used the term "re-request for adminship" (coming from the closing statement in phase 1) and personally I like it more than reconfirmation, perhaps because it parallels request for adminship better. But it's just a personal preference; I don't know how the community generally feels about it. isaacl (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I was just going off what the original proposal said. "Administrator Reconfirmation" is my preference, but I think we can hold off on name changes till the page is more finalized. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Moved per WhatamIdoing's comment on VPI. It's best to be clear about the contents should there be an RfC to approve it. Once it's finalized we can have an RM if anyone cares. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dilettante: it would have been helpful to have made a permalink in your edit summary to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 60#Feedback on WP:Admin reconfirmation requested rather than having left me to waste too much time searching for it. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I'll keep it in mind. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I get a very different vibe if I read this discussion section from the top (the main section header), or just from the point today at which the close was noted (the sub-header). The most recent comments, from today, present a fairly enthusiastic view that contrasts with the more nuanced tone of this discussion section as a whole. I realize that closing discussions, especially ones that have been contentious, is a thankless but praiseworthy enterprise, so I don't want to be too harsh about it, but I would caution that the "consensus" found today may not really be that strong a consensus. From the close of the most critical section, the Initiation Procedure: There is consensus for option B. Numerically, the first choices for editors were options B, C, and D, with many editors !voting for a subset of those as their first choice or ranking one of the others as their second or third choice. I did my own, very approximate, totaling up of the comments, and (within the limitations of comments that can be interpreted in various ways), I'd say that there were 31 comments that were supportive of B (often along with others) and 25 that oppose it either explicitly or implicitly. That's approximately 55% support. It's certainly a majority, numerically, but it's not a strong consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That's approximately 55% support. It's certainly a majority, numerically, but it's not a strong consensus.

1. Closing discussions is not a mathematical exercise; discussions are not a vote.
2. As you yourself quoted, I said there was a "consensus for option B" not a "strong consensus for option B". If I assess there to be a strong consensus, I explicitly say so—for example, in the following sentence: There was strong opposition to options A, E, and F and a strong consensus against adopting a petition period longer than one month (emphasis added).
3. If you believe that my read of the discussion or reasoning was incorrect, I would be happy to re-evaluate.

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and thanks for doing a, well, thankless task. As I see it, there's a decision between finding the consensus that you found, or deciding that it was "no consensus". There's a reasonable case for how you closed it, and there would also be a reasonable case for "no consensus". And I totally agree with you about not-a-vote. My reason for quoting from your close and then presenting some rough numbers was in the spirit of not-a-vote, in order to put some context on what you called " Numerically, the first choices...". In a broader sense, my comments are intended to remind everyone of how this talk section began, and I personally believe that it would be a good thing to have an up-or-down RfC about the consensus here – putting that another way, I'm OK with saying that there was a consensus here to put a proposal based on option B to the community for an up-or-down RfC on whether there is consensus to implement it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the need for another RfC. The gist of the arguments for an up-or-down RfC on this talk page appear to be that the discussion was a trainwreck and that because proposals were !voted for section by section, it's not clear whether editors would think any single aspect was a deal-breaker. I don't find those arguments persuasive:

1. A trainwreck would be a situation where a no consensus close is the only reasonable outcome. You state: There's a reasonable case for how you closed it, and there would also be a reasonable case for "no consensus". Given that my assessment was reasonable, this was definitionally not a trainwreck.
2. Regarding the second argument, I don't remember seeing any !votes saying that a certain outcome for one of the proposals would be a deal breaker (except, arguably, rolling petitions and very long petition periods). Had editors wanted to express that, they would have.

voorts (talk/contributions) 00:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

If that's your individual opinion, fine. But if you are making "no RfC" part of your close, we have a problem. You would be saying that it was not a "strong consensus", but that it was a consensus for implementation. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Didn't voorts already state that his opinions on the next steps are independent of the close? (I don't think it's the place of the closing editor to determine next steps on his talk) Sincerely, Dilettante 00:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, this is all being said with my closer hat off, and I'm obviously now involved in this follow-on discussion, so I won't be closing any subsequent implementation discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. That's fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll also add that generally, when a proposal is closed, it is implemented without need to establish a further consensus. I think it would be outside the norm to give those who might be opposed to a successfully closed proposal a second bite at the apple. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not "a second bite at the apple". I've previously explained why (and I'm not the only one), so I won't repeat myself here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I get a very different vibe if I read this discussion section from the top (the main section header), or just from the point today at which the close was noted (the sub-header). Those who are most invested in a specific certain outcome are most likely to continue discussing a topic no matter how actionable it is. It's adjacent to why WP:INVOLVED is a Wikipedia policy; we are obviously blind to our own biases and much more prone to make generalisations and conclusions that hold to our own point of view.

Caution is well and good, but I will object once again to you attempting to decide what the close should or shouldn't be. But if you are making "no RfC" part of your close, we have a problem. Comments like this (as well as your past comments before any close happened) make it clear you favour one outcome (having the process require another RFC). But I do not appreciate your insistence that that is the only way forward (especially even before a closer had determined any consensus, and continuing after). At worst, it appears to be an involved supervote, something we'd all be better off avoiding. Soni (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what "involved" is about, and you don't seem to know what a "supervote" is. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'll reiterate what I said above which is that I think that any consensus in the phase II discussion, very unfortunately, is fruit of the poisonous tree due to the heavy involvement of the original proposer of the dewiki-style process in structuring the discussion to assume that outcome and close discussion other options after just a few days. This wasn't in keeping with the consensus in phase I which, to summarise again, was "we should have an RRFA process, maybe like the dewiki one", not "we should adopt dewiki's RRFA process after we've tweaked some dials". The simplest way to resolve this problem and ensure that this RRFA process has sufficiently broad consensus would be a final, straightforward yes/no RfC. If we don't do that, my prediction is that the first time that this threatens someone's admin status, they will immediately question the basis of the process and it will end up being ArbCom that decides. – Joe (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I do not think a final yes/no RFC is necessarily problematic, which is why I requested clarification from voorts on the same at their talk page. But please stop mischaracterising my attempts to help structure the RFC.

  You brought up the concerns above, and I replied adequately with explanation for each part. I was very much trying to best follow your Phase I closure to the letter. You realised that you intended something slightly different 2 months later, you clarified it, that's completely fair. But that's not necessarily a flaw of the process as implemented; more caused by the inherent ambiguity in Phase I's closure (Again, not a problem, but should be not a dealbreaker). Even after the Open discussion was closed, you participated in later discussions, only to bring it back up later; that just assuages your own concerns at the expense of everyone else who participated.

  Again, I do not mind if we do one more up-down RFC to settle this, nor do just proceeding with recall (which I prefer, as well as voorts in their unofficial non-closing capacity). I just request editors to understand good faith attempts at consensus, as opposed to how this discussion has been. Soni (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is no point in continuing to discuss whose fault it is, Soni, which is why I didn't name you personally. But I'm not mischaracterising anything: what your edits did was create a fait accompli outcome for a dewiki-style process, even if that is not what you intended; just like my close apparently created the ambiguity that made this appear justified, even though that's not what I intended. That I personally didn't notice what happened until too late is neither here nor there. It happened, now we have to deal with the consequences. – Joe (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I understand, this just has been an incredibly frustrating discussion over the last few weeks as people bring up things that were seemingly resolved long ago. Like you said, it happened, now we have to deal with the consequences. I just object to "Now they need to be re-resolved in my preferred way" being presented as the only option. To me, that risks a slippery slope where every editor who disagrees could bring up "I did not see X in the last RFC, so we should up/down vote RRFAs again". I do not mind going with up-down anyway, it should just not be assumed true. It's why I preferred Phase II's closers suggest the path forward, we'd have clarity to move along. Soni (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  If it helps clarify, in my opinion a yes/no RfC is the only option that will avoid the (undesirable) outcome I predicted above. Ploughing ahead is just delaying things, because if you think this discussion is frustrating when the outcome is still more or less hypothetical, just wait until someone's bits are at stake. I think the scenario you describe above does happen (RfC outcome is invalid because power user X didn't see it) and is deplorable. But it's not what's happening here. Most of arguing for another RfC did participate in the first two—quite extensively in several cases—and are doing so based on the specific procedural problems discussed above. – Joe (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see a procedural problem here. If someone actually was objecting to the specific proposals put forth, they should have objected via their !votes or proposed alternatives on the phase II page, as some editors did in fact do under particular sub-headings. Procedural objections on the talk page that are rooted in the (now incorrect) assumption that this would result in a trainwreck is insufficient to defeat consensus. I'm worried that doing an up or down RfC will actually result in a trainwreck and require us to redo this whole process. We have a process that gained consensus; why upend that? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  We do not have a process that gained consensus, that's the point. It come close but failed to gain consensus in the first phase but, in the second phase, instead of being asked "do you want this process", people were asked "how exactly should this process work". In very basic terms, at no point has a sufficiently broad set of enwiki editors agreed "yes, we want this process". That is what we are looking to get in a third RfC. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry to say this, but what you've been saying lately really contradicts what you wrote in your close. "It come close but failed to gain consensus in the first phase" contradicts "there is a rough consensus that the community should be able to compel an administrator to make a re-request for adminship". "Rough consensus" is not a failure of consensus. You yourself wrote that there was consensus, consensus that there should be an involuntary recall process of some kind. You then further wrote, "Phase II of this review should therefore consider specific proposals for RRFA initiation procedures." That means, "how exactly should this process work" -- that's exactly what you said we should do when you wrote your close -- figure out how exactly the process should work, not whether we should have a process at all, since there was already rough consensus, you said, that there should be a process, it's just a matter of how that process should work, exactly. I don't get it, Joe, you're arguing against your own closing statement. Levivich (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that's a fair criticism. He already explained that in his opening post above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you. But phase II didn't ask how the process should work, it stated that the process should work like dewiki's, then asked participants to fine-tune some implementation details. Basically, I think the sequence of questions put to the community should have been like this:

  1. Should we have a desysop process?
  2. What should the process be?
  3. How exactly should that process work?

  But what happened was that after #1 was answered "yes", we skipped straight to #3. – Joe (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand the difference between #2 and #3? Also, was there ever a point at which somebody suggested some proposal and this proposal was not permitted to be presented? There were proposals made (by multiple people) that were voted on, and additional options added to those proposals, but I don't recall any options or proposals being removed, closed, hatted, or otherwise shut down? (It may have happened and I just may not be aware of it or forgotten it.) What you linked in OP under "hatted" doesn't look to me to be an example of this, it's just closing the "open discussion" section after a few days in order to move the discussion to specific proposals (from a general "open discussion"). I just re-read the discussions on this page from the beginning of Phase 2 (scroll up, they're at the top), and looked at the early (first few days) of diffs of the Phase 2 page, and I don't see any problems, so I'm curious what I'm not seeing that you're seeing. Levivich (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm actually not following Joe's 1, 2, 3 list, either. It appears to me that what has happened is actually:

  1. Should we have some sort of desysop process (details to be determined later)? Answer: yes.
  2. What should some of the details be? Answer: Option B, etc. Hatting aside, Joe pointed out in his OP that "participants were... asked only to vote on numeric thresholds and minor procedural details."
  3. Did (1) establish consensus for Option B, etc. to be implemented now, as is, or is Option B, etc. what the community should now determine whether or not to implement?

  --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  In response to your question, I think the former. Other than rolling petitions (which was rejected), there were no !votes that I saw that expressed "this one is a dealbreaker for me". Additionally, nobody here is really raising any substantive objections to the RRFA process that emerged from phase II. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  At this point, I've expressed my take on that repeatedly, and you've expressed your take on that repeatedly. But I think it's obvious that there is not a consensus here, in this talk page discussion, that there is a consensus to implement, and also, that there are substantive objections that have been raised as to how the Phase II discussion was conducted, in terms of it having been sufficient to finalize implementation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  You know, something else occurs to me, based on that. As I said, I've made my opinions clear. But I never attempted to make any closing statements. In the last few days, you also have made your opinions clear, including that you want to implement Option B etc., as is, now. But you took it on yourself to close that discussion, as "consensus for B", and not as "no consensus". It no longer looks like you were really an impartial closer. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  I was impartial when I closed the discussion. I had no preference amongst the various options when I closed the discussion, and I still don't. I also have no strong opinion on whether we should even have admin reconfirmation. If I had found that there was no consensus, I would have been perfectly fine making that call. I started having an opinion on the implementation after this discussion started. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  To respond to your other post, I agree that both of us have made our positions and opinions clear, and I think a neutral closer ought to figure out next steps based on this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• I am concerned about this piece "A bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. The admin can request a delay of up to 30 days. If the re-request does not start by then, the admin can have their privileges removed at the discretion of the bureaucrats." While I am not convinced that consensus existed for this option, this is not very workable. Either a re-request for adminship starts immediately or an admin can request a delay. In general, we recognize that not all editors participate in this project daily (or even weekly), and since petitions could close very quickly, an administrator may not even know that a petition was started before a bureaucrat starts the re-request for adminship. If a admin has the right to request a delay, there needs to be some time allowed for the admin to be contacted, acknowledge the petition, and consider their options --Enos733 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I had similar thoughts.

  How about a template (yet another!) a 'crat can post to the admin's talk page stating the petition has reached the minimum number of signatories and they can choose whether the RRfA starts soon or later? The RRfA wouldn't be posted till the admin has replied.

  Don't think we'd need consensus for such a minor detail, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I can agree with this. - Enos733 (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'm confident that the bureaucrats will implement the process in just that manner, and don't think it's necessary to spell it out. (Whether or not they want to create a notification template is up to them; I don't personally see a need but of course it can help ensure nothing important gets accidentally left out of the message.) Assuming the re-request will essentially use the same template as the current request process, there is a section for the admin to acknowledge that they approve of the re-request proceeding, so the re-request can't proceed until the admin gives their go-ahead. isaacl (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Simple solution that does the job. That's exactly what we need right now. fanfanboy (block) 18:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think the crats can be trusted to give an admin reasonable time to request a delay. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I trust our 'crats to do the right thing, but I don't want the community to think immediately means immediately. And what is written in the final writeup matters - Enos733 (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  And what is currently written in the draft works well. Thank you. - Enos733 (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Summarizing opinions here and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Administrator_recall#Making_the_case_for_need:

  Joe Roe — The discussion is flawed because of the involvement of the proposer of 16C. An additional RFC is needed to prevent railroading.

  Theleekycauldron — Another opportunity for the proposal to fail if we find consensus for each part (which we did) is a bad idea.

  IvanVector — Similar to Joe Roe, the process needs another RFC because strawpolling for such a massive change doesn't work.

  Soni — Stated they're fine with another RFC and have rebutted people's arguments, but I think prefers not having another one.

  Levivich — Another RFC is unnecessary because we're refining on what was decided last RFC.

  Tazerdadog — An up-and-down RFC is needed because this is partially broken because some people have opinions contingent on one facet, whereas others disagreed with the majority often, but still support the whole process. The closer should find a consensus, prioritizing one most likely to pass.

  Tryptofish — Consensus to do something does not mean consensus for anything. Another RFC is needed.

  Isaacl — Another RFC is needed iff we continue with the format that doesn't allow much dissent or alternative proposals (which we did).

  Just Step Sideways — Adopt a format similar to the Pending Changes RFC.

  Voorts — An additional RfC is not necessary because there was consensus for each option, and none of the sub-RFCs resulted in an outcome that a significant portion of users consider a dealbreaker.

  Chetsford — Agrees with Tryptofish.

• By my count, that is 6-4 in favor of another RFC. I also support another, putting it at 7-4. I'm obviously highly involved and biased, so feel free to correct me if you feel I've mis-summarized your or someone else's opinion or missed a crucial detail. It's worth noting everyone here, except voorts, stated their opinion prior the close, and stuck with it. The way I see it, we have three options: ask some uninvolved people, probably at VPP or similar, whether we need another RFC; hold another RFC, which is what most people seem to think we should do; or not host another one and wait till the community,arbcom, and/or an administrator decide whether or not to respect the proposal. If I'm correct on all counts (unlikely), we should probably host another RFC on Talk:Administrator Recall and notify CENT, the pump, etc. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  You've not summarized my viewpoint accurately. As I stated previously on this talk page, I feel a checkpoint is desirable where the entire proposal is described. I have created this description and it is available for feedback. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I linked the wrong page, but would WP:Admin Reconfirmation work? Sincerely, Dilettante 18:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't understand what wrong link to which you are referring. I don't think the talk page of the admin reconfirmation page is the best place for a checkpoint at the moment, as it feels more like the result of establishing consensus than a place to establish consensus. I think the best place would have been on the Phase 2 page for the recall process, since it would be most likely to reach everyone who weighed in. But failing that, I just put the description here, so any unforeseen interactions amongst the different parts can be considered. isaacl (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have trouble recognizing what I said in this very odd summary: "Consensus to do something does not mean consensus for anything." So I'm another editor who does not feel like my viewpoint was accurately summarized.

  But really, I don't want to get bogged down in that. Nor do I want to get bogged down in Soni's objection's to Joe's (accurate, I think) description of what happened. Nor, for that matter, do I want to have a whole new discussion of what the Crats will or will not do. The real question now is what happens next with WP:RRfA. And I agree with those who are saying that the time has come to polish up that page and then do what it currently says in the template at its top: "[reach] the process of gathering consensus for adoption." In other words, put it up to the community for an up or down RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  My bad! I deleted my username and your summary by accident instead of my username and my summary. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please don't worry about that. It's not the primary issue for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• What does it mean for a 'crat to initiate an RfA? Is it a blank nomination statement linking to the petition or is there a summary of the admin's merits and flaws too? Does the 'crat just create a templated page and it's up to the admin to fill it in? Sincerely, Dilettante 20:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  My understanding of the petition process is that it is effectively a vote; 25 valid signatures within one month leads to an RRfA. The 'crat's role of opening an RRfA is a ministerial act; it does not involve evaluating what the consensus of the admin's merits or flaws were at the recall phase. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think there is a larger question here, what form does the RRFA look like (i.e. is this a continuation of the petition, so there are 25 opposes to start? are editors using the same form as RFA? if not, are there required questions like an RFA? does the lead petitioner have a privileged place to make the case for recall? do other editors have the right to ask questions?)? Other than the reconfirmation threshold, I don't think these issues were considered during this review process. - Enos733 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's the same as an RFA, except with a lower pass threshold. These issues were definitely considered--I mean, most of Phase 2 was about whether/how a re-RFA should vary from RFA. 25 petition signatures in 1 month = you have to do another RFA, but with a lower threshold. Levivich (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think we should think through this some, as some of the process for an RFA may not make sense for a reconfirmation RFA. Also, if it is supposed to be the same, we should not refer to "RRFA" since one does not exist.

  A normal RFA has:

  1) Nomination statements (is the potential recalled admin expected to find 1-2 people to nominate them? would a self-nom be seen as problematic?)

  2) Questions for the candidates (Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? [appropriate?] What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?) Are these the right questions?

  An RRFA has:

  1) No place for the petitioner (or others) to articulate why recall is warranted, except in the oppose section (or even a requirement that the page point to the recall petition), or through the optional 2 question section (which is supposed to be for questions, not statements).

  2) (I think) a higher likelihood for active monitoring, as this could get more personal like AN.

  Again, I am trying to think through some of the real-world implementation pieces, and I think an RRFA should be similar to, but not identical to an RFA. - Enos733 (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think the same base goal is true: the requester is presenting themselves as someone the community can trust to hold administrative privileges, and the community is evaluating the requester's characteristics to determine if it does trust them. In the case of a re-request, the base questions allow the administrator to present their case of why they can be trusted, and an opportunity to address feedback from the community from the petition or other discussions. There's no shortage of locations for the community to discuss the administrator. I don't think those who signed the petition need any special spot to state their views. I'm not sure what difference is made by more monitoring. isaacl (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I doubt it would be controversial to place a link to the petition directly at the top of the RRfA page; any editor can go read it, see what the rationales were, and weigh any evidence presented. Oppose !voters can provide their own rationales and link to diffs. The burden shouldn't be on an administrator or 'crat to write a statement in opposition, and getting at least 25 editors to agree on a statement would be tough. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  We just spent 7 months thinking this through:

  1. RFAs may have, but are not required to have, nomination statements; same with RRFAs
  2. RFAs have questions, including the standard questions, and people are allowed to ask 2 optional questions; same with RRFAs
  3. RRFAs are not the place for petitioners to articulate why recall is warranted; that's what the petition is for
  4. The issue of monitoring was specifically addressed in Phase 2, the answer is "same as RFA"

  RRFA is just a second RFA. The point of the petition is that the admin has to run a second RFA. The second RFA is the same as the first RFA except it has a lower pass threshold (and must be started within 30 days of the petition closing). Instead of a second RFA, the admin can choose to stand for admin elections. If they do, same process as any other admin election, except a lower pass threshold. Levivich (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  As per the phase 1 proposal from where the phase 2 discussion began, A RRFA will be identical to any RFA, but with lower thresholds. isaacl (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  The way I'm reading this, then, is that the bureaucrat is a rubber stamp and creates the page, essentially stating the votes appear to be valid, but does not start the RfA timer. That's the only way "A bureaucrat ... open[s] an RRFA immediately after a successful Recall petition" with the admin in question still being able to answer questions, request noms, and do whatever else is typical of an RfA. Sincerely, Dilettante 22:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  We elect 'crats based on their ability to handle complex and unique situations. We should not try to micro-manage the situation; I'm sure they'll figure out something that works. RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  +1 voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  They're collaborative editors just like you: they'll talk to the admin and work out the best approach within 30 days. isaacl (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• I echo the calls for a yes/no follow-up RfC on the draft policy, WP:Admin reconfirmation. Consensuses about individual aspects of a policy – which are what Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall yielded – don't automatically translate into a consensus about that policy as a whole. I think it would be reckless to assume, just because it's been put together based on the these discussion outcomes, that WP:Admin reconfirmation has community consensus. It doesn't. We need a yes/no RfC to determine that. The policy is more than just the sum of its parts; it's a sweeping change to en.wiki adminship – in effect, realising one of the perennial proposals – and accordingly deserves wider community input. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
• I'm seeing some editors asking here about things that remain unclear to them, and I also see that editors who support the proposal are worried about an RfC going badly. My advice to the editors who want to get consensus – and please hear me on this, because I'm very sincere and I'm speaking from experience – is that the best thing you can do now is to do the hard work of really making the draft policy page as well-written and as bullet-proof as you can make it. Consider every detail, and get it pinned down. Don't fall prey to the easy assumption that support in Phase 2 was all you needed. If editors are still asking questions now, they'll still have even more questions when an RfC goes live. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  So far, we've had a decently sized group of users giving feedback on the wording of the page, but all are involved in some form. I'll to post it to VPI for fresh eyes to take a look. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 60#Feedback on WP:Admin reconfirmation requested. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator recall

Should we create a new page about the new approved recall process? It has been suggested since 2006. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 13:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. Ignore the massive discussion above. SerialNumber54129 12:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Less flippantly, I created it at WP:Admin Reconfirmation. It's currently up in the air as to whether the proposal needs another RfC. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dilettante: I think you picked the wrong title for the page. The process is not called "admin reconfirmation" or "re-request for adminship," it's called "recall," hence the RFC was called "Administrator recall." The page that describes the process should be WP:Administrator recall, like the RFC. Levivich (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have round-robin abilities, though I notice you do. If you think that name has the highest chance of success, feel free to move it. A bot will come around to fix the triple redirects I think. Sincerely, Dilettante 04:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Re-request for adminship seems like it could be a bit ambiguous. For example, that could mean someone who had a failed first RFA and tries again. For that reason, I think admin reconfirmation or administrator recall might be better. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll create a section on the name tomorrow and ping everyone who's weighed in on the name to rank the three. Sincerely, Dilettante 04:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No, this isn't something a few people can decide now on this talk page. The thing already has a name, it's had a name for 20 years, it's the same name that was used every time it was proposed, it's the name used in the RFC, both rounds, that had consensus, and the name is "recall." "Reconfirmation" is something else (as has been pointed out), so we can't use that name for recall. "Re-request for adminship" is also something else, it's a sub-part of recall, so we can't use that name for recall, either. I'll do the round robin swap tomorrow. Levivich (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I have used RRFA and recall pretty interchangably so far, so have no strong opinions on name. As long as it's clear to the community precisely what is proposed, it should not be a big deal. We should probably move pages like WP:Admin recall to something like WP:Admin recall (2006 proposal), there's a lot of failed proposals from 2006-2008 which might be in landing spaces we expect Soni (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

To illustrate your point, there's already a WP:Administrator recall (2006 proposal), lol. Aside from the pages we've mentioned, we also have Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. In the WP:ADMIN policy, it's called WP:Administrators § Administrator recall. There's a whole index at WP:DESYS. But recall and RRFA aren't interchangeable. Many recalls will never have RRFAs. Levivich (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The title should clearly be WP:Administrator recall, which as of this writing is a redirect to Wikipedia:Administrator recall (2006 proposal). What is now Wikipedia:Re-request for adminship should get moved to WP:Administrator recall, with a hatnote ("for a previous failed proposal, see ...") pointing to the 2006 version. RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Although if there is sentiment to move it again, at that point we should probably consider an RM to discuss it a bit more properly/thoroughly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sparing me from having to do a round robin :-) Levivich (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there's the potential for some confusion with the previous incarnations of recall with this name (e.g. if individual admins still say they are "open to recall" with their own criteria), but it's not a big deal. – Joe (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I would hope that should this be enacted, all the "open to recall" with their own criteria statements will go away. I am curious, however; in the entire history of enwiki, has there ever been one of those recalls? RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests. Herostratus was the first user to undergo a second RfA as the result of a petitio. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the link. It looks like it was a lot more popular in the old days and then went out of style. RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Asking the recall question at RFA also ebbs and flows in popularity. When I ran a year or two ago, almost everyone was asked the recall question at their RFA. But I haven't seen it asked at all in the last few RFAs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Invite, then discard?

@Theleekycauldron: what is going on? You invited me to the discussion in a mass message, then immediately "archived" it saying I should re-discuss it on another discussion? — xaosflux ^Talk 10:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Xaosflux! What happened was that I was sure I'd already edited the discussion page to switch it from open discussion to structured, but that edit must have gotten lost in the shuffle before the mass message got sent. I've properly updated the page now, so you can reiterate your comment (which I've archived along with the rest of the open discussion) if you wish. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Question period?

What about a question period instead of a discussion period? This would allow candidates to focus on answering questions, instead of both answering questions and responding to !votes, with the benefit that a lot of questions would be answered before !voting starts. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to modify it. fanfanboy (block) 15:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I also think that could be a good idea. (Questions would, of course, have to be allowed to continue into the main !voting period.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Soni was confused

Questions would, of course, have to be allowed to continue into the main !voting period. That is explicitly against what the community voted on, so I am against just upending consensus on this. Discussion/question period is explicitly kept closed for the period of voting so candidates do not need to monitor their RFA page for too long. If we revisit that after the trial, that's good. Else I suggest not making massive changes by just talk page. I think a question period vs discussion period could be fine, but I believe we want to allow discussion to happen anyway. The community loves its discussions, and it'd be a completely different atmosphere if only questions were allowed but no discussion. So we'd be just changing the name of the period, which I am good with. Soni (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Neither Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 3: Add three days of discussion before voting (trial) nor Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial) specified that discussion no longer continues during the phase where support/oppose/neutral viewpoints are expressed. isaacl (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Oh. I misread what page I am currently on. My bad, I thought this was a suggested change for WP:AELECT which has similar enough names if I squint on my watchlist. Apologies Tryptofish/others. Soni (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like the trial we just finished, which I opposed renewal of recently at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is meant to be a suggested modification to that, which instead of discussing, you can ONLY ask/answer questions. Since trying to open that pages talk page leads to here, there was no other option but to make the suggestion here. fanfanboy (block) 17:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct. There would be no discussion, just Q&A. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you could add that as a proposal to the discussion? fanfanboy (block) 02:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I actually already had before it was mentioned here. It's gone over considerably more poorly there than it has here. —Cryptic 02:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Completely forgot about that to be honest with you. Still, it may be an idea worth considering. fanfanboy (block) 02:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)