Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

Previous discussions

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

What if a petition subject is also a Bureaucrat?

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

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

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

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

What if the petition subject was an admin who happened to be an Arb? BusterD (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing by default, since there's not even a rule against non-admin arbs getting elected right now. Per WP:Arbitration policy#Conduct of arbitrators, arbs can only be removed by a two-thirds vote of the rest of the committee, and changing that would require the lengthy amendment process for that policy.

I suspect, in practice, if an arb is recalled here the remaining arbs will vote to expel them too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Remember also that an arb is protected from a petition being started about them for one year after election. And if a petition is started late in the arb's second year and the arb chooses to run again, we might have a situation where an admin is standing for ArbCom and RRfA at the same time (actually, that could happen to an admin who isn't an arb). Get your popcorn and sit back. Donald Albury 19:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw the one year exemption. It's awkward to see how this plays out. Nobody looks like a popular candidate for recall yet, so that's a good thing. BusterD (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

resignation

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

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

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

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

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

And the candidate has been softened up with accusations in public for the preceding 30 days. So AfD RFA discussions are bound to be brief and questioning easy to embrace in good faith. 60% seems like such an advantage under those circumstances. BusterD (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@BusterD: Did you mean "RFA" where you wrote "AFD"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I did. Struck. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

A month is too long

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There's always the talk page. Also, you need to find 24 people gullible enough to co-sign the false allegations to even start the re-RfA, in which discussion is allowed. —Kusma (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The admin should be able to shortcut the petition stage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition withdrawals and early closes

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

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

Mach61 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Am I correct in my understanding that even if the 25 signature threshold is reached, the petition must still remain open for thirty days? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I certainly hope that's not the intent. Reading the policy a copyedit seems in order to clarify that a petition closes when the threshold is met. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7, what makes you think that? I don't see anything that implies that's the case on WP:RECALL. The way I read it, a confirmation RfA is required if 25 signatures are reached - at that point, there's no point in maintaining the petition any longer, since it has succeeded and the admin is forced to re-request or stand down. -- asilvering (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  "A petition is closed after thirty days. If it gains at least twenty-five valid signatures within that period, the administrator is required to make a re-request for adminship or be a candidate in an administrator election." That seems to indicate that it always remains open for thirty days. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that follows from the text. -- asilvering (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  It does follow from the text. A petition is only closed after thirty days. There is nothing about an early close. I do not know if that was the intent or not. Certainly, a confirmation is required once the petition reaches the 25 threshold, so piling on would not achieve anything. But if an early close is what is intended, it should be made explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  By my reading, Hawkeye7 is correct here. There's no early close option available, that I see. BusterD (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  In this first case, even the petitioner asking to withdraw the petition has had no effect on the duration. BusterD (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes Miniapolis 22:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• No per above. Like any other process on Wikipedia, this should be consensus-based. -Fastily 22:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• No Consider petitions where the filer statement and candidate reply attract fewer than 25 signers because they were insufficiently indicative of loss of community trust, despite some signers having further evidence of misconduct. Prohibiting discussion on the petition will either encourage these disgruntled editors to shift their additional info onto the users' talk pages or begin planning for a new petition six months later. In other words, arguing that the RRFA is the venue for all discussion assumes that this RfC only concerns successful petitions. I agree with Mach61 that we should not require recall supporters to explain their votes at this stage, but they should be allowed to do so. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Arbcom forbids threaded discussion and limits statements in its proceedings to maintain good order. A petition is a formal document which should likewise be conducted in a dignified way. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing stopping dedicated coordinated disrupters from recalling all admins at once

Based on what we're seeing today, there's no reason dedicated, coordinated disrupters couldn't put the entire admin corps up for recall right now. There appear to be no structural barriers in place to prevent such disruption. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If that happens, the chance of the petition(s) succeeding is unlikely. Editors can only sign to a max 5 active petitions at time, so the most 25 disruptive editors could do is take 5 admins to RRfA, where it will probably succeed because most editors will realise the petitions were disruptive. The chance of 25+ EC editors all working together to take down a few admins is already very low anyway. And if it does happen, they could be blocked for disruption. fanfanboy (block talk) 14:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing you haven't seen dedicated disrupters at work here. There are hundreds if not thousands of sleeper accounts queued up for such purposes. One blocked contributor could do it almost alone. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

How many sleeper accounts are EC? I don't like how this process is currently working, but anybody accumulating even dozens of EC sleeper accounts just to sign petitions to nominate admins for recall seems unlikely. Any long-unused account that suddenly turns up to sign up to five petitions (the limit at any given time) is likely to draw scrutiny. Donald Albury 15:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

There are disinformation tactics which could be used to get regular wikipedians to vote in good faith for such a petition. Haste is a big part of such tactics. Does nobody imagine consulting companies and intel agencies playing a long game here and acquiring EC accounts to affect our work? It's the commencement of a dubious recall which is disruptive, not the outcome. One dedicated disrupter could do a lot with just a few EC sleepers (saving them for just such a disruption). BusterD (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if you're right, the admin will still have to go through an RRfA. fanfanboy (block talk) 16:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If two or more sleeper accounts awaken and sign a petition in their first few edits, I'm confident that a sock puppet investigation will be opened. Accounts found to be sock puppets will be blocked and their signatures discounted on any petition. Why would anyone who has bought EC accounts risk throwing ttem away when they are so likely to be caught? Do you have any evidence for your claims? Donald Albury 17:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

My original point was that we had no obvious structural mechanism for preventing dubious recalls. You guys want me to 1) perform invented equations, or 2) point to active disruption. I'll deign not to enter either arena. If I used hyperbole, I was attempting to draw attention to a flaw in our new system. BusterD (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If you used hyperbole, you damaged your credibility by looking paranoid. How many admins have faced a petition for recall so far? I am aware of one, and he has a clear record of his conduct. Even then, it took two attempts. Admins also have a lot of power. They tend to be well known and have good knowledge of how wikipedia works. This allows them to defend themselves pretty well. I also think accusing opponents of being disruptive editors seeking revenge would be a pretty effective defence. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Touché. BusterD (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia has (rolling, up to a year long) recall petitions active against essentially all admins: de:WP:AWW. A lot of these have been signed only by the same three users and are unlikely to ever reach their quorum. Petitions do not have to be disruptive if we do not feed the trolls. —Kusma (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

There are no structural barriers to a co-ordinated group putting up all articles related to topic X up for deletion, or renaming. If it ever happens, the community will figure out an approach to manage it, and move forward from there. There's a tradeoff in making a process sufficiently resilient to misuse, while still making it effective. I agree that tuning this balance for the recall process is still a work in progress. I don't think we need to worry about all admins running re-requests for adminship at once, but it is certainly possible that there will continually be some recall petitions ongoing. Maybe at that point it turns into background noise, and the certification role of petitions will predominate. Alternatively, the community might find it overly distracting, and decide on a different certification method, or revisit the concept of the community requiring an admin to make a re-request. isaacl (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

In your example, if a coordinated group took on a content area, that would be disruptive to the pagespace for a time, but if a group targeted admins they wanted to peel off (say E. Dramatica folks, as an example which won't hurt anybody's feelings), a sudden slate of admin recalls would be a great way to disrupt the whole shebang for weeks. We'd be forced to accept such a slate as AGF. No rules against it. No structural barrier. Perhaps we might limit how many recall petitions could run at once. BusterD (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, the community can consider putting in restrictions for any process. When running your simulations, though, you get a sense of how likely a given scenario might be, and then you can weigh the tradeoff of mitigating it versus the additional cost. Given that community processes aren't laws, there are existing approaches to deal with being overwhelmed with submissions to any process – the community could, for example, defer the start of a process based on availability of volunteers. isaacl (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure wikipedians expected WikiProject Roads to go "on the road" itself, either. These first two recall petitions aren't representative of the threats I'm concerned about. We're about to watch two longtime sysops each go through 30 day gauntlets. Any LTA they've ever rousted, anyone they were forced to block might be one of 25 signers. Could be a payback time. In any event, 30 days is what we've agreed to, at least until one of the immediately filed tweaking RFCs closes. BusterD (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't brought about by a group of intentional disrupters, nor was it a case where structural barriers would have helped (sort of the opposite: fewer barriers in how the standards for having an article are determined might have kept that group interested in contributing). All I'm saying is that I think the extreme case of process overuse isn't that likely, while I do agree that discussing ways to avoid milder cases of overuse is reasonable. isaacl (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you're wrong in between concerned about this; admins active in WP:AE (especially in the ARBPIA area) would appear to me to be obvious targets of malicious petitions created and endorsed by sophisticated bad actors. Ideally, the community would figure out what was going on before any real damage could be done, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in whatever this one is. I'm not too worried about trolls or revenge petitions- I think those are easy to recognise for what they are and an even easier target for WP:BOOMERANGs. But to get back on track, other processes like SPI, AFC, and ANI can still be abused- I see no reason why recall couldn't be either. I also think I'd like to wait and see how it's being abused before figuring out what safety railings to install. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think AGF is a suicide pact. If a small group of people decide they need to dump a large slate of admins through the process at the same time, unless the issues that they bring up are blindingly obvious violations of ADMINACCT, they can get a warning or formal restrictions with or without a rule against it. Even if they were acting in good faith, doing something like that is obviously disruptive. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree. If a ton of sleeper accounts suddenly pop up to drown us in recall petitions, the assumption of good faith quickly flies out of the window. Same if it happened at AfD or anywhere else. We're not blindly committed to following a process if it has clearly been hijacked in bad faith. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure there is: WP:IAR. If this happened, we'd recognise it as disruption and respond accordingly. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Notification of new petition

There is a new admin recall petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Fastily. CNC (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I gotta be honest...

...fuck the recall policy. It has resulted in nothing but drama. Wanna take bets on how long before recall is removed entirely and we go back to ArbCom deciding on if admins get desysopped? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

BRB; busy commenting on a month-long process failing to have results after one week. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the recall process needs tweaks, but I don't think it's going away entirely. My personal opinion is 50 supports over 2 weeks would be more reasonable than the current iteration. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

50 over 2 weeks basically makes recall toothless. Better not have it then. — hako9 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Any recall process needs to be designed to be low drama. This one does not seem well designed. —Kusma (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This process has shat the bed straight out the gate. An open noticeboard thread with no consensus, no formal proposal for anything, and anyone can show up here and single-handedly launch the community into an unstructured, unmoderated, weekslong brouhaha of bickering and dirt-digging? With zero barrier to entry and no red tape to work through beforehand? It's near optimal for high drama generation. Folly Mox (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that this phase needs some major changes. There are implementation issues, as there are with anything that is new and untested. I don't think anyone is saying this is going prefectly, and it needs major corrections, but as of right now it is a real process that is being used. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And now we have a successful recall petition. First through the door is always brutal. BusterD (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

With zero barrier to entry and no red tape to work through beforehand? The issue is, the petition itself is supposed to be the barrier to entry for the RRfA to begin with. Which is why we're running into a structural problem: how to set up a barrier to entry which won't devolve into the same process as the one for which we're putting up a barrier to entry? Limiting the amount of conversation seems to be a good idea, although the practical implementation of this remains to be fine-tuned. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

We really need to hurry up and get rid of discussion in recall positions. That's where the drama comes from, not the signatures. A petition is not a consensus-building process, it's the prelude to one; discussion isn't needed. – Joe (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Early closure

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Requesting closure of Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Graham87 seems to have reached the clear consensus that the policy does not contain any provisions for ending a petition before it has run its course (currently 30 days, although that might change). Are there any scenarios where it should be allowed to close a petition early? Possibilities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following (not all of which are mutually exclusive):

1. The petition has reached 25 signatures
2. The petition has had 25 or more signatures for 24/48/72 hours
3. The admin has acknowledged the petition is successful, but has not indicated whether they will resign or file an RRFA
4. The admin has stepped down
5. The admin has announced their intention to file a RRFA, but not specifically when
6. The admin has stated they will initiate an RRFA at a specific time (e.g. "tomorrow", "Wednesday afternoon Pacific time", "in about a week")
7. The admin has initiated an RRFA
8. The filer wishes to withdraw the petition, and nobody else has signed it
9. The filer wishes to withdraw the petition, but other editors have signed it

This is a discussion not an RFC, do not add bold votes. There may be things I haven't thought of. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Per rule of lenity, the admin should have the final say. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that Graham87 indicated he wanted to file the RRFA as soon as possible, but I'd like him to take a month as a kind of probation and prove that he has changed his ways. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

1, 3 and 8 are obviously a yes for me. I see 4/5/6/7 as subcategories of 3, and don't want explicit points for each subpoint. 9 I think the community is against, and 2 seems to be too much bureaucracy. If the 14th vote for recall wants to withdraw their signature, they can do it at any time, waiting for the 25th signature is not needed. There's already enough bureaucracy in play that the simplest solution seems most logical (25 sigs -> close petition -> discuss with crat when they RRFA) without the need for further complications based on edgecases. Soni (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Soni's perspective. The simplest approach is to end the petition once the threshold has been reached, or the admin agrees that the petition is successful, regardless of the subsequent action they choose to take. As per process, they should discuss their plans with the bureaucrats on how they want to proceed. On allowing a filer to withdraw a petition that no one has signed: in practice, it's probably the easiest way to quickly resolve a petition that only one person supports. isaacl (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I also agree. I think it's clear that we should not do 9, and I don't think 2 is necessary. All of the others seem good to me, and I'm not too bothered over the degree to which the admin lays out their plans. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The second it reaches 25 signatures, I think it should be hatted by anyone with a simple closing statement such as "25 signatures reached. Moving to next stage of WP:RECALL." And I think the clock on the re-RFA should start when the close is made. Keeping it open longer seems like a recipe for drama and unreasonable candidate stress. I don't think I could ever support a recall process that forces an admin to be dragged over the coals for 30 days petition + 7 days re-RFA = 37 days. The shorter the better. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree, close at 25, start the 30-day clock. Levivich (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with 1, 3. Somewhat agree with 8. fanfanboy (block_talk) 21:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with 1 and 8. I would agree with 3 if the admin acknowledges the success before 25 signatures, on the condition that the acknowledgment be final (and considered equivalent to a successful petition). Either way, once the petition reaches 25 signatures, there's no need to keep the discussion open for longer to avoid a pile-on. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What if the admin pulls the pin and asks the bureaucrats for a voluntary de-sysop? This would qualify as under a cloud, right? And the petition could be closed early? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

That's what 4 is asking, which I support (as a subset of other points). I would also consider resigning during an ongoing recall petition as under a cloud. Soni (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not voluntary removal would be "under a cloud" depends on the strength of the reasoning the petitioners have given. If the reasoning is flimsy, or the petitioners don't give any – which the policy's current wording allows them to do – it wouldn't be fair to consider the voluntary removal "under a cloud". SuperMarioMan (Talk) 08:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It has to always treated as a WP:CLOUD situation even if the petitioners don't give any reason. The distinction is impractical to handle and no one can make the call whether it's one or the other. —Alalch E. 16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Cloud determinations currently are and should continue to be made when restoration of adminship is requested. The presence of a recall petition is strong evidence that a cloud exists, but it is not a guarantee. I trust the bureaucrats to make a judgement call in the cases where it's not immediately obvious that there's a cloud. I can construct situations where petition does not equal cloud, but they are rare. A note of the petition at the bureaucrat noticeboard when a de-adminship request is made is probably appropriate. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

(Forgot to add earlier that the WP:CLOUD question is decided before restoration, not upon resignation.) I disagree. It shouldn't be considered automatic; it needs to be assessed case-by-case. The wording of Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools is "serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator..." For WP:CLOUD to obviously apply, the petition would need to raise such questions. A petition consisting entirely of signatures and no reasoning doesn't do that. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

But if the petition is closed early, then it may not present a full picture of the situation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I see. (I was answering only on WP:CLOUD, I hadn't considered the early closure options.) That in mind, I think early closure should be limited to 25 signatures + 1 day (to allow time in case any signatories change their mind); the subject proceeding straight to RRFA; or the sole signatory withdrawing. So numbers 2, 7 and 8 above. If there are concerns about administrators resigning promptly to evade scrutiny – rather than the whole petition page being closed early, perhaps only the signatures section should be closed early and the discussion area left open for comments until the petition window closes. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, acknowledging that the petition is successful and resigning is acknowledging that, for whatever reason, you are choosing not to contest the views of the petitioners. I appreciate it kind of sucks for an admin who just wants to avoid controversy and step down quietly and then later wants to help out with administrative tasks again, but I don't think it's practical to try to resume the petition. So while I don't think it should be assumed there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation (from Wikipedia:Administrators § Restoration of admin tools), I think the resignation should be treated as one that relinquished the right to request restoration of administrative privileges without re-obtaining community approval. isaacl (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say a petition may be closed:

• By any editor after 30 days have elapsed.
• By any editor, after 25 extended confirmed signatures have been added.
• As successful at the request of the admin. This can be explicit (the admin closes the petition as having enough support) or implicit (they start a RRFA or hand in the tools)
• At any time if no valid editors are supporting the petition (someone withdraws their own unsupported petition, the initiator isn't extended confirmed, all the signers are socks, etc)

Tazerdadog (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the first three here, whatever that comes under (I assume 1 and 5-7 or original questions). "At any time" in the last bullet point is problematic, as some editors might think that within a few days of no signatures it'd be acceptable to close. If there are no signatures there should also be little to no issues/drama continuing the petition for the required time frame. CNC (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor It says no signatures, not "no new signatures". If there is no single (non-sock) editor supporting the petition, it should be closed immediately in my opinion. Soni (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to specify "any editor". And a reference to the petition failing is made further up in the text: If a petition fails ... —Alalch E. 16:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• See edit: Special:Diff/1255979006: fix clumsy wording falsely suggesting that a petition can't be closed immediately after 25 signatures have been collected -- see how the first recall [petition] was handled: Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87—Alalch E. 16:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  About early closure when the admin starts the RRfA, this should be stated explicitly on the page. This was discussed above: #The admin should be able to shortcut the petition stage (permalink) —Alalch E. 16:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  See edit: Special:Diff/1255982999: "If during the petition stage the administrator does the same [makes a re-request for adminship or becomes a candidate in an administrator election] prior to the signatures reaching 25, the petition is immediately closed as successful." —Alalch E. 16:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I support Tazerdadog's suggestions. --Enos733 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Tazeradog's phrasing is both clearest written and most agreed with everyone in this conversation Soni (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories

I have made Category:Recall petitions, Category:Administrator recall and subcategories to better organise recalll. Does anyone have any suggestions for what other categories should be created?

Perhaps Open petitions should be a category too? Soni (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that closed/open petitions should be sub-catagories. fanfanboy (block_talk) 14:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that open and closed petitions should be categorised separately. I also wonder whether the categories should have "Wikipedia" in the name somewhere, I can imagine people categorising articles about e.g. politicians who have faced recall petitions in Category:Recall petitions, especially if any individual petitions are notable (I have no idea if they are, but it's plausible). Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitely rename to include "Wikipedia". Probably if a real-world recall petition succeeds the article on it will end up being merged with that of the election it triggers. But I could totally see a failed recall petition becoming notable and deserving its own article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• We'll want to diffuse into successful recall petitions and failed recall petitions.—S Marshall T/C 12:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Do you think they should be subcategories of closed petitions, or should open, closed (successful) and closed (unsuccessful) all be at the same level? Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm thinking we'll want to be able to look in one place to know who's inoculated against RRFA because of a recently-closed RRFA, so we might want one single category for closed RRFAs, and then subcategories for the failed and successful ones?—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm, would making Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Closed petitions sortable by date not be a better way to do that? I'm thinking possibly tabulating it, e.g. perhaps

Petition	Initiated	Certified	Re-RFA	Result
Wikipedia:Administrator recall/ExampleUser1	1 January 2025	13 January 2025	Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ExampleUser1 2	Passed
Wikipedia:Administrator recall/ExampleUser2	10 January 2025	14 January 2025	Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ExampleUser2 2	Failed
Wikipedia:Administrator recall/ExampleUser3	25 January 2025	—	N/A	N/A
Wikipedia:Administrator recall/ExampleUser4	1 February 2025	14 February 2025	Pending	Pending

Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Works for me.—S Marshall T/C 13:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Reworkshop open

You are invited to refine and workshop proposals to the recall process at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop. After the reworkshop is closed, the proposals will be voted on at an RfC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to put all of these questions in one place, but many editors have already commented on these issues (and at least one RfC has started. I would not want those comments lost in a second (or third) discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand that – the point is not to debate the issues, the point is to hammer out what language will be in the RfC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Administrator recall has been nominated for renaming

Category:Administrator recall has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)