Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Re-request for adminship

What is a "Re-request for adminship", is an entire new process needed for this - or is it just going to use the existing RFA mechanisms, along with all RFA rules (including future rules), etc (with the only difference being the closing criteria and closing option of 'desysop')? Would an Wikipedia:Administrator elections suffice? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as per the initial proposal, A RRFA will be identical to any RFA, but with lower thresholds. As per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall § Reconfirmation by admin elections, passing an administrator election is a suitable method to respond to a successful recall petition. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this page should spell that out. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; the page is still under construction and that's good feedback. (The second point regarding admin elections is currently mentioned.) isaacl (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I continue to think that either a) we do not use the acronym "RRFA" if the process is the same as an RFA (but with lower thresholds) to avoid confusion (as the process is the same) or b) (preferred), we recognize that an RRFA is similar to an RFA, but not identical to an RFA (as there may be a desire to link to the recall petition or modify the nominations/required questions to better fit the circumstance of a referenda RFA). - Enos733 (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Standard question 1 doesn't really make sense for a re-RFA and question 3 is rather oddly worded in the context (a successful recall petition can't happen without there being some sort of conflict) Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

These aren't legal depositions; the administrator can answer in the spirit of the question with appropriate modifications, as has been done in the past when admins have voluntarily undergone a reconfirmation request for adminship (why do I want to continue to be an administrator?). isaacl (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Q1 can easily be repurposed from "what do you plan to do" to "what do you do", and Q3 will also be easy to answer at an RRFA :-) Q3 would be an opportunity (besides the nom statement) to respond to the petition concerns, so I actually think it fits quite nicely. Levivich (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

My personal preference is to avoid jargon and not use an abbreviation at all. Personally I think it's within the discretion of implementation to make some small tweaks to the RfA template, but I don't think there can be too much deviation, without getting beyond the scope of the consensus so far. I still don't feel that it's necessary to link to the recall petition in a specific spot. Editors are going to do it in the discussion or their viewpoint statements if they feel it is warranted. isaacl (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A story

Once upon a time, there was a Wikipedia where two admins got into a WP:WHEELWAR. One of the admins had a reputation for WP:RECKLESS, and he had recently survived a recall petition. The other one had never caused any particular concerns before. The first admin made a bold decision without community support. He refused to self-revert, so the other admin reverted his bold change. While the community was still discussing the situation, the first admin re-reverted to his preferred state.

From there, everything got worse.

When the dust settled a few days later, the community realized: They couldn't de-sysop the admin who started the wheel war for another six months, because the community de-sysopping procedure specified an immunity period. Every time they had a discussion about whether to desysop an admin, and then decided not to, they were effectively granting immunity from prosecution for the stated time period. As a result, the admins who cause problems the most frequently were paradoxically the ones most likely to be protected by the desysopping policy.

This seems like a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:WHEELWAR would be addressed by arbcom, not recall. Levivich (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A request for arbitration can be filed at any time, and a pattern of poor behaviour will make it more likely that a request will be accepted. isaacl (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

So two bites at the apple. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the point of this thread to reargue the entire recall proposal from Phase I of the RFC, or to reargue just the 6-month waiting period proposal from Phase II? Levivich (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

As a purely practical matter, if you want this to get adopted, then you're going to have to be ready to address the obvious objections.

For example: Any set delay means temporary immunity. Maybe this is the right balance, and maybe it's not, but we should admit that it does have an obvious downside.

For example: You say that WHEELWAR is ArbCom's job, but this proposal doesn't say that. Maybe it should mention it? Or maybe WHEELWAR should actually be something that the community can address directly, especially if it's not absolutely clear-cut that it's a True™ WHEELWAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't let the tag fool you, this is not a proposal, it's documenting the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall. Levivich (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Then again, do not be fooled into thinking that this page is policy that has already gotten consensus from the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I know you think we need to have a confirmatory up-and-down vote on the outcome of Phase II, but even if we do have one, it still won't be a proposal. We can't just propose whatever we want and put that to an up-or-down vote, we have to respect the consensus that was found in Phase II. So there is no point in trying to workshop details of how the system should work, since that was already done in Phase II. It's kind of funny because WAID said "two bites of the apple" and here we're talking about three, or maybe even four, bites at the Admin recall proposal apple. Levivich (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Even if we stipulated that every sentence on this page had already been individually and overwhelmingly approved by the largest group of editors ever, that would not prevent us from making changes later. It's perfectly normal for something to get adopted and later adjusted or clarified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The key word there is "later", as in after it's implemented, not before. Levivich (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, by design, a community-initiated recall process does not supersede the current arbitration policy that gives the committee the authority to remove administrative privileges. The discussion about having a respite between petitions covered your story. If there weren't an option to file an arbitration request, then the tradeoffs for having a respite period would have been different and perhaps a different consensus viewpoint would have been reached. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I see this process as more suited to tackling long-term admin conduct or loss of trust issues, whereas ArbCom is still better placed to take immediate action in response to serious misconduct. – Joe (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This. I thought OP was referring to a real event, until I realized, there was never a general community recall procedure in the past of any sort. So would the opposition to creating a community recall procedure really be the hypothetical prospect that (upon failure) it grants temporary protection from the community recall procedure? (I imagine there will be plenty who would not support such a procedure without some kind of mandatory cooldown period, just as with AfD and everything else here.) SamuelRiv (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right that there was never a general community recall procedure...at this Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

EC vote suffrage only as well?

Currently, RfA has the EC restrictions for voting. Would it be applicable here as well? – robertsky (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. As mentioned on the page, the same request for adminship process is used for re-requests, just with lower thresholds for passing. isaacl (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

New section at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

After we finish with drafting this, should this policy be added as a new section at WP:Requests for adminship as a separate section, similar to "About RFA" and "About RFB" and should a Re-request for adminship be a distinct category from "Current nominations for adminship?" - Enos733 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Not until there is a clear consensus to actually use this process, I think. See #When is this policy?, above. – Joe (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Petition signatures

I am not sure if this out to be spelled out, but I presume an editor can remove a signature on a petition prior to the petition closing. The reason I ask is that the draft says Any signature or comment may be struck based on the same criteria used during requests for adminship. The link goes to WP:MONITOR, which talks about a monitor striking votes, not an editor striking their signature. - Enos733 (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

They certainly can remove their signature. I don't think it's necessary to include that one can strike their comments, given that's an accepted part of any open discussion and that WP:RFA doesn't state that either. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Who closes the petitions?

Bureaucrats? Admins? Any editor? Is involvement an issue, given how cut-and-dry the result should be? – Joe (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A bot could do it. Petitions don't have to be closed because there is no finding of consensus: either they have 25 signatures in 30 days or they don't. A bot could determine that. And bots are never involved :-) Levivich (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to a bot since A) I don't expect there to be that many petitions and B) If signatory #25 is a sock, a bot auto-closing it make it so that no-one bothers to look at the account and see if it's suspicious. A human close, even if it's a NAC, ensures someone's looked at the votes, even if superficially. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I preusmed it would be a crat, since someone needs to make sure all the signatures are valid. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think involvement is an issue since it's purely a vote by signature. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be a crat to make sure signatures are valid; per Phase II, the clerking of petitions (including striking/removing invalid votes) is the same as the clerking of RFAs (which doesn't require crats). Levivich (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

When is this policy?

For the sake of argument, let's say no other RfC is needed. At what point do we decide, this page is more or less finalized (obviously CCC and minor tweaks will come up) and any EC editor may start a petition? Is it based on edits to this page per day/week, a barely publicized discussion here or on the previous RFCs' talk, or something else? Sincerely, Dilettante 20:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I would give more time for the discussion at the RFC talk page to continue, people may yet want to comment there. But I expect that nobody who is in favor of the outcome of Phase II will start a ratification RFC, and it's going to be up to someone who disagrees with the outcome of Phase II to start a ratification RFC (and vote against it). At some point, either someone will do that, and then it'll become policy if it's ratified; or if no one does that, it'll become policy by default. At some point either someone proposes the ratification, or discussion peters out and it becomes clear we won't have the ratification. I'm not sure how long we wait but we'll know it when we see it. I think the actual point at which this becomes policy is whenever it's added to WP:ADMIN. Levivich (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason why someone who is in favor of what is outlined here would not want to start such an RfC, unless they are convinced that the community will reject it. WP:PROPOSAL is how something becomes a proposal. It doesn't include becoming a policy by default. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFA2024 complied with WP:PROPOSAL. Levivich (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I find it troubling to think that editors who support this draft policy would refrain from putting it up for an RfC, on the grounds that they would prefer an opponent to do so. An RfC created by someone who opposes the proposal is one that would be criticized by supporters as being malformed, as being prejudicial against approval. Supporters should make the proposal, because they are best able to make the case for it. I would also be troubled by a situation in which this page just sits for a while, and then someone starts a recall petition. It would end up being contentious on procedural grounds, might well end up boomeranging, and would likely be unfair to the admin who was subjected to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I opened this section because I intended to start an RFC and was wondering what the alternative is. Levivich's implicit SILENCE argument isn't really enough to convince me not to try to gain proper consensus on such a sweeping change. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I want this to succeed, because a lot of editors have contributed to getting it to this point. But trying to get it accepted "by default" is going to make it less likely to succeed, not more. – Joe (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Dilettante. I appreciate that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I have been discussing with @Theleekycauldron how to best structure the next RFC. It's not clear to me, and neither do I have the time to start another RFC at this point. I assume there may be some appetite for further "Open discussion" just before going to yes/no, but I suspect just the latter might be simpler. Soni (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it should just be a barebones Support/Oppose/Discussion format taking place on its own page. IMO people should be given the option to support it becoming a full policy or for just a six-month trial, but I'm aware the idea of a trial hasn't really been discussed WRT recall. Out of curiosity, are the discussions on-wiki? Sincerely, Dilettante 19:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No, mainly out of the convenience of real time replying. For Phase II, I attempted to ask each subquestion onwiki, and it only slowed everything down and still let things have strife. So I preferred simplifying it further, focus things on the process and the main question.

I think if people want a trial, they can state so in their Support/Oppose/etc. But it seems prudent to choose the format of most simplification after how complicated Phase II was, so I really prefer just the Support and Oppose as major categories Soni (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

One can see the kinds of opposition one should anticipate at WP:CDARFC. I strongly recommend giving thought to how to respond to similar concerns about this new proposal, before starting the RfC. It might be a good idea to prepare some sort of information page, explaining why editors should support it. It's really important to make the strongest case possible. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Section on other methods of resolution?

WP:ADMIN has a short section that reads In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgment or conduct issues), or if dialog fails, then the following steps are available: Similarly, ANI and ARBREQ both suggest other measures to be taken first.

Would it make sense to add a section or even just a sentence suggesting one should raise their concerns with the admin on their talk page and/or try DR first? Sincerely, Dilettante 15:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I think it's a good idea to point readers to other steps that should be tried first. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea, yes. – Joe (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Dilettante actually added: In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process. Administrator recall is intended for when the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (blatant misuse of administrative tools, gross or persistent misjudgment or conduct issues), or if dialog fails. I think that is not a good idea, it's adding conditions that weren't part of 16c. The reasons for voting should be up to the voter Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Good point, edited. Levivich (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC

Whadya know, an editor (not me) has already started an RfC on adopting this proposal, even though no notice was placed here. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Administrator Recall. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

displayed shortcuts

I appreciate that are those who really like shortcuts with a small number of letters. Personally, though, I don't find ADRC or ADREC very meaningful unless I already know their destination (they sound like they're about advertising). I'd rather just publicize something like WP:Admin recall in the shortcut box and not a host of cryptic letters that will invariably become more jargon unwelcoming to the uninitiated. I know there are those who feel that part of joining a community is learning its jargon. I just think there is already enough jargon to serve that purpose that we don't need to introduce ones that look like telegram abbreviations. isaacl (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. You can remove them from the shortcut box, but my view is that we should have at least one for the whole page and RRfA should go to the subsection. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I forgot that for now, WP:Admin recall doesn't point to this page, so until that is moved and any links to it fixed up, it's probably better to wait before turning it into a redirect. I've changed the redirect for WP:RRfA. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I moved the older WP:Admin recall page to a new name and fixed up most of the links (I left a few that referred to the general concept, rather than the specific proposal), and changed it so now Wikipedia:Admin recall redirects to Wikipedia:Administrator recall. isaacl (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Redirect for Wikipedia:Admin reconfirmation

Given that admin reconfirmation is its own concept, I suggest that at some point Wikipedia:Admin reconfirmation should be redirected to Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations (and that its talk page be redirected accordingly). (It could be changed now if any existing links were first re-directed to the current page name.) Alternatively it could point to one of the past proposals for scheduled admin reconfirmation, but as there isn't any one single page covering that category of proposals, I think pointing to the list of past admin reconfirmations is simplest. isaacl (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I've redirected Wikipedia:Admin reconfirmation as proposed, after updating the links to it to point to the administrator recall page (except for the links on this talk page and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review). isaacl (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Make or start a re-request for adminship

I changed the language to An administrator seeking to retain administrative privileges must start a re-request for adminship. It has been changed to must make a re-request for adminship. I think the question here is whether a re-request for adminship is a process that needs to be started or whether it is a permission to be asked for.

My preference is for the word start since the close alludes to a process starting within 30-days and that we recognize that an administrator must start the discussion. I do recognize that the individual editors request additional permissions, but in the case of administrator privileges, the request begins a community discussion. I also think that "make" may add some confusion compared to "start" with regard to timing. - Enos733 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think both are valid ways to refer to the process: you start the (re-)request process, and you make a (re-)request for additional privileges. I agree that in the "Re-request for adminship" section, it's helpful to describe the process as starting within 30 days. So perhaps the wording could be something like "An administrator seeking to retain administrative privileges must start the re-request for adminship (RRfA) process within thirty days of the close of a successful recall petition." isaacl (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I, too, prefer the “start” wording. They are already an admin at that point, so they’re not really making a request. Toadspike [Talk] 07:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure they are. That's what the R in RfA starts for. If I request an extension to my deadline, it doesn't stop being a request because it's my tenth. – Joe (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but no 'start' is just ungrammatical. In English you make a request. You'd never hear somebody say "start a request"; that's just bureaucratese. If it's to be 'start' then as Isaac says the object should be 'process', not 'request'. But I think that's just making the wording more complicated for no real benefit; 'make' also clearly refers to the start of the process. – Joe (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The way I see it, "a re-request for adminship" is a process, so you can "start a re-request for adminship". "Make" gives me the feeling that they as soon as they make a request it's done, while "start" conveys that they're beginning a week-long process that they should be constantly engaged with. (Basically the timing point brought up by Enos.) My earlier comment, in hindsight, makes no sense. Toadspike [Talk] 18:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Can admins voluntarily stand for RRFA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initiating RRFAs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page archives

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

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

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

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

Outstanding questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listing of all current petitions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When can petitions be closed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Admin recall petition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I propose three sections:

• Signatures
• Administrator's response
• Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertising recalls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three technical problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grandfather clause?

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

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

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

I wouldn't necessarily agree, as this isn't "processing old crimes with new rules". While the format is new, we are discussing whether the administrator's actions were consistent with the policies at the time. To go back to your analogy, the court is newly established, but the laws by which we judge the crimes aren't.

More importantly, I don't think this analogy works to begin with. Adminship should not be a privilege given to some users that can only be retracted as a punishment for "crimes", but an extension of the trust of the community towards the person. If the community loses trust in the admin to perform their responsibilities, they should be able to recall the tools, just as they gave it. While a recall can of course be a consequence of misconduct, it shouldn't be seen as a punishment for the misconduct itself, which is a separate question (otherwise, the Super Mario effect comes into play). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Adminship should not be a privilege given to some users that can only be retracted as a punishment for "crimes", but an extension of the trust of the community towards the person. There lies the issue, if the trust of the community wasn't demonstrably broken at ANI, what makes it different from this petition? – robertsky (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification on opposes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscription to discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One per year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noindexed admin recall subpages

I have boldly disallowed indexing of all administrative recall subpages and talk pages at MediaWiki:Robots.txt. I have no immediate or short-term concerns regarding search indexing of my own adminship recall discussion, but I think blocking these from search engines would be the kindest thing to do in the long-term, especially since adminship and arbitration discussions have been blocked as such for many years. I've done this sort of thing before; I got the user talk namespace noindexed way back in 2008. Graham87 (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have also done the same thing for all subpages of Wikipedia:Administrator elections for similar reasons. I'll put a note at its talk page. Graham87 (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Notification: RfC: Shorten the recall petition period?

Wikipedia:Administrator recall has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. CNC (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Watchlisting note

It looks like most people have figured this out already, but just to be transparent: if you want to see new recall petitions on your watchlist, you need to watchlist Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current, not just this page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Potential issues to be addressed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Thanks a lot! Similar ideas have been discussed on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), and a RfC is being workshopped there (for both shortening the certification period and limiting discussion). People here are free to join, or even move the RfC workshopping here if it is more appropriate. (I hope this doesn't count as canvassing as it is just to workshop the RfC rather than to take any binding decision although if it is, feel free to remove this comment) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• If we're discussing what needs tweaking, personally I think the threshold of 25 is too low. I think 50, given our user base, would have been more reasonable. I think it'd be pretty easy to reach 25 supports on a number of admins who don't deserve to be desysopped, especially considering we regular have RfAs that pass with that many opposes. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Re. the role of discussion on petition pages: I oppose removing the Discussion section or moving discussion to the talk page. That would make the petition even more of a one-sided unpopularity contest than it already is. If potential signatories are put off signing because of the discussion taking place underneath – well, nothing is forcing them to keep reading the discussion. They remain free to add their signatures (no comment or any reasoning required) and move on. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• Things I'd like to see (besides reduction from 30 to 7 days):

1. Template:Admin recall petition should require the petition starter (the first signatory) to add their reasoning – either with their signature, or above it in the form of an opening statement. It shouldn't be optional. As the idea is that the administrator has "lost the trust of the community" (in the policy's own words), the reasoning shouldn't be hard to provide.
2. To prevent gaming behaviour: if a petition fails, the petition starter is not permitted to file against the same administrator in future. Each user is limited to one petition filing per administrator. They are still permitted to sign a future petition started by someone else.
3. To prevent frivolous and vexatious filings: if, after a set period of time (say 48 or 72 hours), the petition has only one signature, some mechanism for early closure if, in the opinion of bureaucrats, the petition starter has failed to show how community trust has been lost. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 00:20, 3 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)