Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus against this specific proposal. Whether there might eventually be a consensus for a looser restriction is unclear; I would suggest options be discussed at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Right. I have to be honest and say I'm not a fan of the rather aggressive management of the discussion around this topic by some people. It seems to be pushing people down the road where this process is treated as a fait accompli that can only be amended, not repealed, simply because of the amount of time some people chose to spend on it. FOARP (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody is stopping anybody from starting a repeal RFC. Go ahead, see how it goes. Levivich (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  As a matter of fact, some of us (both proponents and critics) are drafting a recall repeal request for comment and you're welcome to join. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• No This is going entirely in the wrong direction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
• No but there should be a ban on discussion of the RECALL process itself. That should be taken to the appropriate forum. (ie here) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's what this proposal does.

What makes an RRFA frivolous or unwarranted?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's /Current supposed to be?

Is the new Master Jay recall supposed to be listed under Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current or Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Closed? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

As per the first sentence on the Current page, This is a list of open administrator recall petitions and petitions that passed the threshhold for recall in the past 30 days so the administrator may run for Re-request for Adminship. isaacl (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Soni and Joe Roe: you edited the Graham87 recall, has the Master Jay recall been closed properly? TSventon (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Should it still be also listed on /Closed? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, actually it should since Jay resigned. But should a recently certified petition be listed there? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. There is a suggestion on the talk page of /Closed to expand the scope to cover all petitions, open and closed, which seems sensible to avoid the duplication. Petitions are not happening frequently enough that it would overwhelm things imo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

60% threshold

May I ask why a re-rfa successful threshold is lowered to 60% and not the usual 75%? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 15:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

It's the result of the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall#Reconfirmation threshold, the closing summary of which includes: There is consensus that being haled into an RRfA will put editors at a disadvantage and that the threshold for reconfirmation should therefore be set lower than RfA to correct for that disadvantage. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Notifying BN

Given the crats role after 30 days it seems like a notification to BN (in addition to AN) for successfully closed petitions would be appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems OK. Though I'm quite sure that an ignored petition will be brought to our attention (for summary desysoping) by one of the petitioners should the time lapse. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Notice given to admins

One thing I think went well in the Gimmetrow petition was the notice that Houseblaster gave Gimmetrow here, about a month prior to opening a recall petition. We have a similar provision for requiring a discussion with an administrator before challenging a discussion closure they make. I think we can put something like this into the policy as a bullet under "Requirements to open a petition" as follows (Explicit permission/encouragement given to wordsmith this):

• Before initiating a recall petition, it is best practice to attempt to contact the admin on their talk page. This notice should mention recall, and give the admin a genuine opportunity to address the concerns before a recall petition is filed.

I'm not quite bold enough to just edit it in, however. I worded it as a best practice, and not a hard requirement so that we don't wind up in awkward situations where we have a certified or half-certified petition getting challenged for no pre-notice notice, which is really too bureaucratic. However, I don't want recall hitting admins as a bolt from the blue with no idea it's coming or opportunity to attempt to defuse the situation. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

That is obviously a good idea and I am fine with it being "best practice" (not compulsory) for difficult cases. However, there should be a strict requirement for inactivity recalls where, by definition, there is no urgency and the complaint is nothing to do with bad actions. For inactivity recalls, there should be a much more gentle "Thank you for your service but..." notification. It should almost be a barnstar for previous good work (AGF). If such a notice is not given, anyone should be able to remove the recall and any inappropriate message at the admin's talk. The person opening the recall would have to get it right. Johnuniq (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about trying to codify the idea of recalling admins due to inactivity without a broader conversation of how the community feels the standards for inactivity. Currently twenty-five editors who disagree with the inactivity standards established through community consensus can require an admin to undergo a new request for administrative privileges. This feels like allowing a local consensus to override a larger consensus. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Except the inactivity standards aren't the issue here. Raising them wouldn't fix the inherent problem that led to these recall petitions. The issue is certain admins not doing admin work for years and gaming the inactivity rules to barely squeak by and retain the bit, while clearly not using or needing it in the first place. Raising the standards would just mean the editors doing that sort of thing would just game the system at that new standard level. The issue isn't the standards. Silverseren^C 23:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The community has not reached a consensus that an admin must need administrative privileges to continue to hold them (as it hasn't agreed on what "need" means for volunteers), nor that they must be using them constantly at a certain level of activity. It could decide, for example, that for security purposes, administrative privileges should be removed if left unused for X days. A restoration can be requested as per the current policy. If someone starts claiming they're continually looking at deleted content without making any logged administrative actions, then that can be looked at. I'd rather address concerns about absent admins from a policy perspective, rather than spending time looking at the patterns of behaviour of each one. isaacl (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

This is an option for discussion for the now-shuttered RfC. Without the RfC going, putting it as a "best practice" is a good compromise as it doesn't really bind a would-be petitioner rigidly to it while encouraging one to do so. – robertsky (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that that such a "best practice" edit would be a good thing. That should be true for any petition, whether or not it's related to inactivity, and it would be best to address the inactivity question separately. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and inserted the bullet above into the policy. If anyone thinks I was hasty, feel free to revert/tweak and we can discuss it more. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Recall petitions for absent admins

While I think it would be less contentious and more efficient for the community to devise stricter activity standards than to discuss absent admins one-by-one, I appreciate there may be some difficulty in reaching agreement on what standards to set. In the meantime, though, I suggest that commenters be judicious about using the term "gaming the system". I think there's a connotation that gaming the system is an intentional act of sabotage, while I think many absent admins are just being overly optimistic about one day resuming activity on Wikipeida. I feel it would be less antagonistic to focus on the community's desire for active admins, rather than to speculate on the motivations of absent admins. isaacl (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

If we want stricter activity requirements for admins, we should set them via consensus, instead of doing an end run around that RFC via recalls. If, on the other hand, an administrator is adhering to the letter, but not the spirit of our inactivity policy, recalling them can be appropriate. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I said I think we should set the activity requirements by consensus, and I understand why a recall petition could be a reasonable approach for specific cases. I feel, though, that discussion within such a petition can proceed more effectively by focusing on the admin's pattern of behaviour, without any connotations related to motivation. isaacl (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think the admins who have been recalled due to inactivity should still be admins. But this less-than-one-day recall blitz just feels wrong, even if I can't clearly articulate exactly why. I don't know how we could force it to be a more leisurely process, but for inactive admins there is, by definition, no rush. I missed one day, and saw the announcement that the recall succeeded before I ever saw the announcement that it had been opened. Do we really not want to give people the opportunity, at least, to try to convince supporters to reconsider? It seems like a possibly correct outcome (in this case) has been achieved in a pretty roughshod way. All the recall supporters just seem so angry about someone following the rules. "Gaming the system" = "following the written policy" I guess. Yes, changing the policy would be more honest. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Isaacl:"gaming the system" does not mean sabotage, it means using loopholes or manipulating the rules to one's advantage or technically following the rules to the mininum while violating their spirit. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes; I was describing the connotations of the term, which implies a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. Personally, I think focusing on the behaviour rather than whether or not it was deliberate would avoid unnecessary confrontational language. isaacl (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree with Floq, and I expressed this firmly and repeatedly in the Master Jay petition (and would have done in the Gimmetrow petition had I seen it before it closed). I see at least four possible ways (that are not mutually-exclusive) to amend the recall process to resolve this issue:

1. Require recent discussion with the administrator about the specific issue(s) that form the basis of the petition at the admin's talk page and/or a community noticeboard to be at least attempted before a petition can be opened.
2. Require the administrator to have been active within the last (period) before the petition is opened.
3. Nobody other than the initiator or subject admin may sign or comment on a petition until the earlier of (a) the subject administrator unambiguously acknowledging (on en.wp) that the petition has been initiated; or (b) 24-hours after the subject administrator's first edit after being notified about the petition.
4. The petition must remain open for a minimum length of time, regardless of the number of signatures gathered, before it can be closed as successful (petitions may be withdrawn or snow-closed at any time).

Administrator recall petitions should be explicitly about non-urgent situations (for urgent situations, go to ArbCom) and inactive administrators are not urgent situations. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with what Floq and Thryduulf have said. In particular, I think that more time should pass between the filing of the petition, and when signatures other than the signature of the filing editor can start to be added. It does not have to be a lot of time, but I can envision problems in the future if the petition gets enough signatures to pass, or close to enough, before editors have had enough time to think about both sides of the question. (Alternatively, I guess the number of signatures required could be significantly increased.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, I'll say in defense of the editors who used the phrase "gaming the system" that they substantiated that claim by noting things such as the admin having promised to be more active, and then not keeping that promise. I looked back at the petition page, and I don't think anyone said that in bad faith. On the other hand, I think there's an excellent case to be made that there should have been sufficient time for editors to examine the strengths and weaknesses of such an argument. To some extent, editors repeated the phrase "gaming the system" without there being breathing space for anyone to dispute the term, a pattern that follows what often happens in social media – not a good thing for us to knowingly emulate. As the recall system was being developed, the argument was made that the petition should simply be a petition, and that the discussion would come only when the reconfirmation RfA took place (a way of thinking about it that was imported from the German language Wikipedia). At this point, I think it's becoming apparent that this approach does not fit comfortably with the culture of WP:Consensus here at the English language Wikipedia. We haven't yet had a petition that was initiated in bad faith, but there can always be a first time. Our policies set a minimum amount of time that a community ban proposal at AN or ANI must stay open, before it can be enacted (even if the consensus is clear before then), and I think we should move in that direction for admin recall as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with examining the pattern of behaviour and evaluating potential future behaviour in that light. But to be fair, lots of editors start out with plans to work on some volunteer initiative, and then lose focus shortly afterwards. I think it's fine for the community to say that it wants admins who are reasonably active, without speculating on what motivates them. isaacl (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Kind of feels like the system is working fine if we keep getting correct results. We block new users all the time for gaming the system to get around protections. This is no different. Also I don't really see an enforced minimum time to have much of an effect or benefit for anyone. PackMecEng (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The RRfA is literally the place for the person to put their argument and reasoning on why they should retain the bit. That is that location. The recall petition is not actually the place for that. If the editor feels that they wouldn't be able to provide an appropriate explanation or reasoning in the RRfA, then they are free to decide not to file it and essentially resign the bit by doing so. That is their decision. Silverseren^C 21:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding, "the recall succeeded before I ever saw the announcement" - that's not quite a complete picture. In this example, the actual recall discussion hasn't begun, only a check that the concern isn't completely frivolous has been agreed to by 25 established editors. The petition check is not meant to be a debate, or a consensus building exercise - it is a check to avoid wasting the time of the recall target, and the community at large. The target of the recall has 30 days to start the actual recall discussion at their convenience. This process is still fairly new, if we start getting recalls that show they are a waste (by having the targets pass the recalls) - I think that would be a good time to revisit the opening criteria. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate people would like to discuss other aspects of the recall petition process (I would too). Perhaps, though, it can be done in its own thread? isaacl (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

New editors are indeffed for gaming the system because experience tells us that such contributors will be highly disruptive. By contrast, an old timer who did good work for Wikipedia ten years ago and who now likes to hang on to their badge by following the minimum requirements is highly unlikely to be a problem. If they become a problem, they will be removed by Arbcom if it's an emergency or by recall otherwise. What benefit would arise from having busy bodies look for minimum-activity admins? Interface admins should be policed because their account could cause significant trouble if compromised, but a regular admin can't even delete the main page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

We've had many, many cases of admins who hadn't done any real admin work in years or even decades jumping back into things like bannings and other activity and doing a terrible, horrible job. Frequently leading to them being directly de-sysopped by the community and Arbcom. Because their lack of admin activity also meant they hadn't kept up with policies and expectations from the community in such activities. We refer to them as legacy admins (or at least when using the term in this context) to represent that they are admins in name only, but would likely not come anywhere close to passing an RfA today. Silverseren^C 04:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

So elevate the minimum requirements. What is deeply unpleasant is the idea that contributors who once did good work should be hunted down. I would be sympathetic if the complaint concerned reducing the number of admins to avoid damage from compromised accounts. If people really want to pursue stragglers, the inactivity requirements should be re-written to emphasize the security risk as that would give a dignified rationale for removal. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

If they are great contributors and the community clearly got it wrong with the recall they would sail through RFA. I don't think tweeting the activity requirement just so will ever be as effective as people just looking into it and making a judgement call. Silver is right here. PackMecEng (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Johnuniq here. I find the argument that it's OK to put someone who used to do good work through the experience of a recall petition, on the theory that all will be made right once they supposedly sail through a new RfA, um, unconvincing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

It would help if we had a single example of the recall process being incorrect thus far and forcing someone into an RRfA that they then easily pass again. That hasn't happened. So, despite all the groaning about this process, it appears to function exactly as desired by the community that approved it in the first place. Silverseren^C 23:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Groaning? If I'm groaning, it's because I see people showing a lack of sensitivity to other human beings. There's an old saying, about past performance not being a predictor of future results. We shouldn't have to wait for a provably bad petition, to fix things that are easily fixable. I agree that the process has worked pretty well so far, if judged by the outcomes. Actually better than I expected, and I'm happy to admit that. I could say that it would help if someone were to prove that it's impossible that there will never be a bad petition in the future. Or, more immediately, that a good admin who made some mistakes but who would pass a new RfA won't just decide, screw this, I'm out of here, and we lose someone unfairly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

At least thus far, it seems that getting 25 extended confirmed editors to agree on the unsuitability of an editor as an admin isn't something that happens lightly or easily. And only occurs in cases where there is general agreement on the question. It seems that if we allowed such petitions to continue on with signatures even after the threshold was met, they would likely end up much higher in signatories, especially when it comes to these inactivity related ones. And having a minimum of 25 long-standing editors in agreement that they would oppose an RRfA makes it at least somewhat unlikely that such an RRfA would pass. Generally, I feel that if an admin completely disagrees with the petition and thinks they do good work and that the community would agree with them, then they would do the RRfA. Particularly when they can have other editors be their co-nominator (and even have several editors do so). So, again, I don't see evidence, at least for now, of there being any chilling effect on someone making and then passing an RRfA after a recall petition. If there was even one example to reference and discuss, then there would be more of an argument and conversation to have. There just isn't right now. Silverseren^C 23:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I can partially agree that, so far, there hasn't been a petition about anyone where it was clearly inappropriate. For the most part, I have felt that these admins should have been removed. But I think the empirical evidence so far contradicts your first sentence, that getting 25 signatures "isn't something that happens lightly or easily." The pattern has been that we reach 25 in about a day or so. I'm not assuming that anyone signs "lightly", but as for "easily", that doesn't strike me as particularly difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it's easy for me to picture a situation where an admin who does good work and is generally well-respected does something that pisses off a particular group of EC editors. In the first day or two of the petition, there are 25 signatures, along with a lot of comments objecting to the petition, and arguing strongly that the petition is unfair. That admin might, perhaps, agree to a new RfA and pass it fairly easily, although there would be opposes from those 25, along with other opposes from editors who figure that if there's smoke there must be fire. But that admin might just decide to pack it in, and leave. That's human nature. (I kind of wonder if that's sort-of what happened with Fastily, but we'll never know.) I'm not arguing that we should trash the recall process, but I disagree with the knee-jerk opposition to tweaking it, to make it better. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean we can imagine a lot of situations on both sides. We can only go by facts and data. Also I am not really a fan of well it's not perfect so lets not do it. Lets address issues as they arise and move on from there. Bemoaning fictional situations is not particularly helpful. Won't someone think of the children. PackMecEng (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I just got through saying: "I'm not arguing that we should trash the recall process, but I disagree with the knee-jerk opposition to tweaking it, to make it better." How that leads to "let's not do it" and opposing "address issues as they arise" is quite a feat of illogic. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I guess the problem with what you said was painting all who disagree with you as a knee-jerk opposition rather than the evidence based conclusion it actually is. That kind of hyperbolic rhetoric is not helpful to productive discussion.

The perfect comment was in response to yours above I could say that it would help if someone were to prove that it's impossible that there will never be a bad petition in the future. It's just a silly ask, there is no perfect catch-all. But based on community consensus and every case so far its pretty good. Lets not tweak something working well based solely on vibes as you are suggesting here. PackMecEng (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

You make a valid point, about my having said "knee-jerk". But what you call "a silly ask" was me making a rhetorical point, not an ask. And it should be obvious that all I have been saying here has been in terms of making suggestions about improving the process, based on experience so far. Primarily, I've said that I think the process should be made slightly slower, to allow slightly more time for discussion. When that gets misrepresented as my having said "so let's not do it", which I take to mean that I supposedly said let's not have any more recall petitions, then I have some justification in feeling like editors are taking the position that the process should not be improved in any way. That's not me being hyperbolic. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

It was not a misrepresentation given your hyperbolic statement of I could say that it would help if someone were to prove that it's impossible that there will never be a bad petition in the future. But lets not get distracted by such nonsense. Given the recalls that you have seen do you see extra time changing anything tangible with the outcomes? Because that is what I keep coming back to, it seems like a chance for the sake of change rather than something that would make an impact. Perhaps you could fill me in on what I am missing. PackMecEng (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm all in favor of not getting distracted by nonsense. I've already explained what you are asking me to explain. I've gone out of my way to give you the benefit of the doubt, but at this point you are simply WP:Sealioning. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

When you don't have a cogent argument and you resort to personal attacks. PackMecEng (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Whatever. I guess the truth hurts. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What I am detecting is a profound lack of faith in the RfA process. Instead of fiddling with the recall process, for which there is no evidence that the process is not working well, maybe we would be better off concentrating on making RfA easier and less stressful to pass. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Before recall was introduced, one of the arguments of those in favour was an expectation that its mere existence would (somehow) improve RfA. —Kusma (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Just seeing this thread now; my thoughts as the filer of Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Gimmetrow. I would absolutely oppose editors actively going through Special:ListAdmins, finding people whose activity they are unhappy with, and then filing recall petitions. It's simply not kind to the living, breathing humans who are at the other end of the screen. I knew about Gimmetrow from reading the resysop discussion at BN back in 2023, and was reminded of them when I came across {{PPR}} while cleaning up opaquely-named templates (TFD notification). I was again brought to their talk page when I came across Wikipedia:BRRRRRD (I can't remember how I found that one). This wasn't my looking for someone to make an example of.

I (obviously) think "gaming the system" is a supportable allegation regarding Gimmetrow (a single logged admin action less than an hour before being desysopped, a single edit less than a week before being desysopped for inactivity). I guess mentally, "gaming the system" was not necessarily "bad faith editing". I don't think your garden-variety editor seeking (extended/auto)confirmed is here in bad faith, or wants to cause harm. But it is clear that gaming carries that implication for many people, and I am sincerely sorry, to the community and especially Gimmetrow, that my accusation of gaming carried more implications than I thought it did.

My "problem" with Gimmetrow's inactivity was that it demonstrably led to them being outside of community expectations surrounding the mop (the three-hour block for slurs). If it was just the gaming, I would've dropped my note and left it at that. Security and familiarity with community expectations and norms are the "why" behind why INACTIVITY, and I think a focus on pure numbers is missing the forest for the trees. Yes, they met the numbers we spelled out at WP:INACTIVITY. No, they are not active (in any non-Wikipedia-related sense of the term) and the only time they used the mop in the past decade, it required another admin to clean up after them.

I also think there is difference between "recall for inactive admins" and "recall for inactive admins who were desysopped, got the mop back after persuading the 'crats that they would returned to activity, and then did not meaningfully do so". (Both Master Jay and Gimmetrow fall into the latter category.)

Thoughts about more general reform: I do wish the petition was open for longer, especially to give Gimmetrow had a meaningful opportunity to respond to the petition. I'd support a "must be open for at least [reasonable timeframe]" (unless withdrawn, or it has met the threshold and the admin asks for it to be closed as such). I'd oppose a "the admin must be active in the last [reasonable timeframe]" restriction, because that encourages filers to avoid giving the admin time to respond to any warnings and admins to simply go dark, which is the exact opposite of what we should be encouraging for both parties. Ditto with a "the admin must acknowledge the recall effort for it to proceed" restriction: that drives a stake straight through the heart of ADMINACCT. I also think the petition requirement is not fit for purpose. It was meant to ensure what reaches the actual discussion, RRfA, was not vexatious. It has become a mini-RfA—without the support for the candidate/admin which takes the edge off of opposition—and I don't think I have words to describe how terrible that is. Saying "get consensus at AN(I)" is the obvious alternative, but I'm not sure whether mini-RfA or AN(I) is more shitty. I'd be interested if others have their own thoughts, especially if there is a third idea. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Ditto with a "the admin must acknowledge the recall effort for it to proceed" restriction: that drives a stake straight through the heart of ADMINACCT. That suggestion was to require explicit acknowledgement within 24 hours of their first edit after being notified, with the petition opening fully if that does not happen. I genuinely don't understand why you think that is not in accordance with ADMINACCT? We cannot expect people to respond before they aware there is something they need to respond to, and we cannot reasonably expect people to respond instantly. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I might be misunderstanding what you wrote. Say admin123 stops editing just after doing something recall-worthy. They get brought to ANI, and fail to respond. Then a recall petition is opened. Nobody other than the initiator or subject admin may sign or comment on a petition until the earlier of (a) the subject administrator unambiguously acknowledging (on en.wp) that the petition has been initiated; or (b) 24-hours after the subject administrator's first edit after being notified about the petition. If they don't edit, then they obviously haven't acknowledged it, and they haven't edited 24 hours after the first notification. Thus, I don't see (a) or (b) as satisfied, blocking recall. If we change (b) to (b) 24-hours after the subject administrator's first edit after being notified about the petition. that would address my concerns. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

That would allow someone to be recalled when they are completely unaware of a petition against them, denying the opportunity to speak in their own defence. Potentially they could be desysopped because they didn't initiate an RFA they didn't know they needed to initiate. Recall is never urgent, it can wait until they return to editing - an admin who is not editing is not causing any problems that removing their admin bit can solve. If they consistently game the system such that they wait until the petition expires, make a small number of edits until someone files a recall petition, then goes inactive again until that petition expires, then take them to arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Take them to ArbCom and say what? That they are evading a recall petition? Remember, a recall petition does not necessarily mean that they have done something that ArbCom would normally take any action over. Whereas if the petition succeeds, they get a whole month to file a RRFA. And you're saying that a month is not long enough to satisfy WP:ADMINACCT? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not saying that a month is not long enough to satisfy ADMINACCT and I'm genuinely puzzled how you got that meaning. Consider the following scenario:

• User:Example, an admin, does something user:Foo considers worthy of starting a recall petition about (this could be something egregiously bad or simply disagreeing with someone about something controversial). The petition may be initiated minutes or days after what User:Example did.
• User:Example gets busy at work, or goes on holiday, or gets ill, or needs to attend to a family crisis, or ... so they don't have chance to log in to Wikipedia for an extended period
• Meanwhile 25 people sign the petition (the amount of people who see the petition but do not sign, if any, is irrelevant - there could be 250 people opposing the petition). This could take less than a day.
• User:Admin is desysopped because they don't start an RFA within 1 month.
• User:Example logs in to find they have be desysopped, completely unexpectedly.

If user:Foo went straight to recall without attempting to discuss matters with user:Example (which they are presently permitted to do) then there has been no failure of ADMINACCT.

If there was an attempt at discussion but no recall was initiated, there was a technical breach of ADMINACCT but (absent evidence that they were intentionally avoiding scrutiny of their actions) this would not be held against them because it was clear to all concerned that they were not aware that anybody was seeking to hold them account about something.

Take them to ArbCom and say what? if you are unable to articulate why you think someone should be desysopped then you should not be seeking to have them desysopped (which is what starting a recall petition is). Arbcom's remit includes dealing with administrator conduct issues the community is unable to resolve. If someone is gaming the recall system then the community is unable to resolve the issue that way, and there are no other ways than arbcom to resolve administrator conduct issues significant enough to desysop someone over. If you don't think someone should be deysopped then you should not be starting a recall petition against them. Thryduulf (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Take them to ArbCom and say what? What I meant was, do you go to ArbCom and file a complaint about gaming the recall system or one based on the reason you were trying to file a recall petition in the first place? ArbCom may not take the case, as there is no evidence that the former rises to a desysop offence, or that the latter is a matter that the community has been unable to resolve (although you can argue that a recall petition is how the community resolves issues like this). And of course at ArbCom, there is the chance that the arbs will go after you instead. But once the recall petition succeeds, user:example has a whole month to file an RFA. Now, I have complete sympathy with users going dark; I know of editors who have been shipped to Iraq, or have been fighting bush fires all summer. But user:example can always go to ArbCom, which can restore their admin bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom may not take the case, as there is no evidence that the former rises to a desysop offence If the appropriate and desired outcome is not a desysop then a recall petition is completely inappropriate.

or that the latter is a matter that the community has been unable to resolve If you don't have evidence of trying and failing to resolve the problem by means other than recall, then your recall petition is premature at best. If you do have that evidence then you have evidence for ArbCom.

And of course at ArbCom, there is the chance that the arbs will go after you instead. if you are worried about this then consider whether you are the editor whose conduct is inappropriate. If you have clean hands then there is nothing to worry about.

But once the recall petition succeeds, user:example has a whole month to file an RFA See my previous comment where I explicitly address this.

But user:example can always go to ArbCom, which can restore their admin bit this assumes that user:example (a) knows this, (b) user:example has not been drive away from the project, and (c) ArbCom consider the situation an appropriate one to overturn the wishes of the community. Regarding point (c) - if the consensus in this discussion is that no changes to recall are needed then it would be reasonable for ArbCom to conclude that the community wants such editors to be desysopped and so decline to reinstate. User:Example could of course just stand for RFA afresh, but why should they have to go through a week of hell because of a broken system? Thryduulf (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Suppose that my petition reads, in part: "ArbCom failed to deal with this, so I am initiating a recall petition." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

It will depend why ArbCom did not take any action:

• ArbCom determined the dispute was premature. Either you should be trying something other than recall (it's likely that a desysop is not the most appropriate action) or you will have evidence that additional attempts to resolve the issue have been tried and have failed.
• AbrCom decided that the admin wasn't the one at fault and/or that a desysop was not justified based on the evidence presented. Most likely you should be dropping the stick.
• ArbCom did take action, but it has failed to resolve the dispute. If you have evidence of this and of trying and failing to resolve it since the ArbCom case, then going back to ArbCom is fine (see all the cases with names ending "2").

Whatever the reason though, if the admin is not editing they are almost certainly not causing harm and so things can wait until they either return to editing or get desysopped for inactivity. In the unlikely event they are causing harm while not editing, this is going to involve some non-public evidence meaning ArbCom is the only appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)