General discussion (before RFC opens)

Okay! I have done a lot of work scrapping this into shape, and I want to hear people's thoughts on what should be added, scrapped, modified before showtime. We simply do not have time to make everyone perfectly happy – and this RfC needs to avoid trainwrecking – but if there are consensuses on what could be better about the structure, what questions are being asked, etc., happy to implement. I made a bunch of copyedits that I don't really have time to list, but the big changes, based on the REWORK talk page opinions and trying to put together a coherent RfC:

Restructured the "general process" to "consensus-based process"
Cut Qs 2 and 3 of "Opening a petition"; i see some pushback to Q2 and it doesn't seem to be urgent/need an RfC. for Q3, i feel like contingency questions should be handled as contingencies, instead of trying to preempt every possible question.
Closing a petition: no consensus to run (consensus against, arguably, but i'm involved) Qs 2 and 3, cut for now.
Admin inactivity: Merged them into one more focused question.
No consensus at re-RfA: cleaned up language
Waiving immunity: no consensus to run, cut.
Alternatives to RRFA: don't see a concrete question here, not included as of now.

Hopefully we get this on the road soon! Looking forward to everyone's feedback :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding opening a petition: perhaps it could be clarified that all options are applicable only when the respite time after a previous establishing of community trust has lapsed. isaacl (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed section 1 from "consensus based process" to "first stage of admin recall" as a clearer question. I think it's a more direct framing and allows editors to clearly understand the status quo and what is the proposed change. Soni (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that makes sense :) as long as we're still clear that "no consensus" means no change. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made one more pass on wording and clarity. Kept the options the same but tried to water down wording to be simple and understandable. Soni (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Opposition section is still a mess and there's no difference between Option 4 and 5. I think they're better merged into An opposition signature section should exist. It has no operative effect on the required number of signatures for the petition to pass.

I think even that is not functionally different from Option 1, so can be further merged. I suggest Option 1 - Opposes have no operative effect on the required number of signatures for the petition to pass. Soni (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what "Withdrawn petitions" section is asking. It feels like it does not talk about all petitions but just "Petitions where no signatures currently exist so are considered withdrawn". Is that right?

Or do you mean "How soon after a failed petition may a new petition be initiated against the same administrator?"

If it's just the former, we really do not need a question specifically for it. I'd rather just have one fewer section.

No matter which meaning it is, we should probably just word the section better. Soni (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably start sometime after Phase II of AELECT is finished. I don't think these two important discussions should overlap with each other. fanfanboy (block_talk) 14:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a final general comment, I think where possible, we should probably summary the current process or status quo in a clearer manner. Like "Closing a petition" section could probably link the most recent "no consensus" RFC somewhere in the question. Same for other sections, summarise current status + link latest discussions/RFCs. Soni (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding a trainwreck

I've made two or three passes on the overall wording of every question so far. And I think as a whole, this RFC still currently risks being a massive trainwreck because the options presented are too broad and change too many dimensions of Recall. I think Phase II felt hard to follow for too many editors because it was too many things at once. I currently believe this RFC also risks the same.

To fix it, my suggestion is to remove the sections for "Closing a petition", "Administrator inactivity" and "Withdrawn petitions and subsequent petitions".

Soni (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i hear that, any objection? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously stated that I think we can wait for more experience with the process before considering if it is necessary to codify rules about withdrawn petitions, and I think the same regarding inactive administrators. Regarding closing a petition, I've previously discussed that I think the question should be simplified by not distinguishing amongst all the different ways an administrator can concede that a petition has passed the necessary threshold to trigger a re-request for adminship. I think based on the experience of the first two petitions, there is a default expectation that petitions will close immediately when the threshold is reached, or when the admin concedes that the petition has met the necessary threshold, by whatever means. Thus I also think further consideration of the matter can wait until more experience has been gained. isaacl (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with isaacl on all three counts. Additionally, I think that the 'Opposition' question is totally bad. See the thread starting with "Option 2 overlaps with Option 3 in § Opposition" and the discussion toward the end of its Reworkshop section for an explanation why. There was agreement that at least the final option is redundant. The essentially-straw-poll idea was questioned in general as one weird specific model of a consensus-based process, when the first question asks whether the first stage should happen by a consensus based process without defining the specifics of that process. —Alalch E. 14:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I've removed the inactivity and withdrawn petition sections and reworked the opposition section. @isaacl: do you think there's a way the 'closing a petition' section can work with fewer options? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I previously stated that I agreed with Soni's perspective that the process only needs to describe the option of an administrator conceding the result of a petition, without enumerating all the different possibilities. That collapses options 4–7 into one. Personally, though, given the existing default expectations I described, I don't think it's a high priority to ask this question until more recall petitions have taken place and we can better understand the relevant considerations. (Exactly when an admin concedes is just wikilawyering around the start time of the next phase, which can be handled by the bureaucrats, so I feel the primary issue would be the potential effect and practicality of having a delay before a petition is closed.) isaacl (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Latest (in)activity

So far, the RFC proposals are not yet opened, and a couple months have passed since the last edit on the page itself. Is there still interest in this re-workshop? George Ho (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is still interest. What I assume is that it has been overshadowed by the AELECT RfC so there was no time for this RfC. fanfanboy (block_talk) 13:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AELECT Phase II began on 7 January, about four days after most of the discussion here died down. I wasn't a part of those discussions, so I won’t try to answer George's question myself. @Fanfanboy: Are you referring to there being interest in the RfC itself or in the talk page discussion about improving the wording of the RfC? PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 17:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC itself mostly. fanfanboy (block_talk) 18:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we still try to remove an admin? 2001:BB6:779F:F300:76D4:23FF:FEC2:F14 (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an admin in mind to petition against? George Ho (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The latest petition being initiated without any attempt to discuss the matter with the admin concerned beforehand has reignited my interest in this RFC. I haven't reviewed exactly where we're at, but I seem to recall it was just about ready to go? If so, then we should launch it, although ideally not while the current petition is open. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think we need another mega-RfC on this (interest in them in general seems to have been waning). This is titled the "January 2025" RfC but it's now March 2025 and there has been very limited discussion on this talk page. To the extent the issues on the main page need to be discussed, could we not just handle them with normal consensus-building processes like talk page discussions and single-question RfCs? – Joe (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the mega-RFCs were being drafted, we had come off the first 2 petitions, so there seemed to be a lot of energy towards making radical changes and adjustments to RECALL. As such, a wholesale process was strictly better if we wanted to not make a mess out of Frankenstein-ing the adjustments.

N weeks/months later, that energy seems to have naturally died out. AELECT had a mega-RFC planned and executed around similar timeframes, some stakeholders got busy, others just lost interest. Often the people with the strongest (positive/negative) opinion on RECALL are opining. And the starting kneejerk reactions have had some time to see things in action.

I agree with @Joe Roe on this now, we are better off seeking changes, if any, via regular consensus and single-RFCs. There are probably changes that could still be made to RECALL, I am not convinced they should be large scale. Soni (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still think some of the questions are important ones to ask, particularly about what (if any) discussion needs to happen before starting a petition, but also whether the numbers are right, whether there should be oppose votes, etc. If there isn't appetite for a major RFC then I think we should start the preparation for the first of a series of smaller ones. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If all of these questions "need" to be asked, then I would suggest just launching a mega-RFC (perhaps just this one). Those are one too many changes to the fundamental balance of RECALL that it's better to seek it at once instead of trying to replace one piece at a time. Else we may end up with a 30 day recall petition that also has N weeks of discussions before the petition, which I am fairly confident nobody wants. Soni (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that another mega-RFC would be a fruitful use of community time. The fears expressed by some in response to the first two petitions have not come to fruition, and the community has proven quite capable of self-regulating the use of recall. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is surprised by the rarity of petitions thus far. LEPRICAVARK (talk) LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, let's let a few more of more these run, then we can discuss possible changes. fanfanboy (block_talk) 19:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there's an element of "too many things going on, and not enough community bandwidth", so I don't think anyone knows for sure how satisfied or dissatisfied the community as a whole might be. I don't think we know enough to conclude that the view that things are working well is really widely held. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This "mega-"RfC is not very mega and was intentionally designed to be as lightweight as possible. I think it could run without causing any obstruction.—Alalch E. 00:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the page

It's been 4 months since this page was started, and nearly a month since the last comment on this. I'm going to use WP:SILENT and claim that this isn't getting off the ground. I have marked the page as closed. If an editor seriously disagrees, in stead of reverting my Bold action, I request you to start the mega-RFC itself, or perhaps a smaller set of changes in a different RFC. Soni (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect many of the most interested parties expected theleekycaudron to drive the initiative forward and so didn't hold back on their level of involvement in the discussions. With theleekycaudron becoming an arbitrator, though, I think they may be less able or willing to be the main driving force for a request for comments on administrator recall. Is there someone else who is both sufficiently motivated and whose involvement isn't strongly associated with a specific position who would like to co-ordinate an RfC? isaacl (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was that person, except I did not see the point of this mega-RFC if there was no strong community demand for it. Between that and some distasteful comments on the earlier parts of recall.. I elected to back away a fair bit from the "central coordinator" role, unlike I originally planned to.

Regardless, I continue to believe there's a lack of community appetite for massively restructuring every part of Recall, though I am perfectly fine if someone co-ordinates this and proves me wrong. Soni (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong, and in retrospect, I think this was something I didn't handle all that great (understatement of the year). Some combination of me having to set aside time for ArbCom, not having as much energy in the first place, the way RFA2024 shook out, and not being sure that this RfC was the right thing to do in the first place just made me nervous about launching, and nervous about shutting it down, so i just kind of... let this sit. I think a better move would have been to recognize that i didn't have the energy to make this work and to pass the role to someone else, but it wasn't until this month or last that i fully realized what was going on with me. Hoping to start turning it around, but for now i'll just say that I'm sorry for not getting this to launch.

I do still think recall needs work, but the questions we settled on didn't actually address what was raising so much protest, which is another reason I balked. I think the most significant improvements we could make would allow for more due process in the system. We could require that the community first attempt to resolve the issue at other noticeboards and give the admin time to respond at the beginning of the petition rather than allowing an immediate flood of 25 signatures. Neither of these were things we ended up touching on because this discussion got very sidetracked towards trying to foresee and close loopholes. So if we're looking for things that need fixing, I'd start with those, and there are some good ideas on the RfC page as it stands. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions is for everything to be decided in large, unmoderated group conversations, which makes it hard to get people to remain engaged long enough to set priorities. I understand why many people like it that way, but as a result progress tends to move in uncertain circles, rather than in a straightforward direction.

I think there is a significant portion of the community who wants to revisit various aspects of the process. It might not be a majority, which is why there wasn't a strong clamor to get an RfC underway. As more petitions are created, there may be more impetus to re-examine how the process can be improved. isaacl (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there is value in letting that re-examination happen when they do happen. We would certainly know more about the actual problems facing petitions than trying to guess.

Before RECALL passed, many people worried about every admin getting petitioned. That didn't happen. After Petition 1 and 2, there was a massive "This is too sudden" clamor. Petition 3 happened a fair few months later, and I believe nobody had that issue. After Petition 3, some people were not happy with not notifying the admin first. Petition 4 gave the admin a full month to reply, and nobody raised that issue.

Maybe the community needed to get used to RECALL just as much as RECALL needed to be modified itself. The community continues to improve and set better (explicit and unspoken) expectations from the editors participating in the process.

I'm sure there's improvements still to be found, but I'm not convinced we know where yet. Soni (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You and I have been actively following the discussions on administrator recall, so it's easy for us to say let's see how the current process fares and consider adjustments based on more experience (which we did, in fact, say). There are a whole set of editors, though, who only want to weigh in when a request for comments is initiated, and I understand from a time management standpoint why they would make that choice. They're the ones who may feel deprived of an opportunity to adjust the process when a long-expected future RfC (as stated by theleekycauldron) doesn't take place. isaacl (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the process as a whole is more stable than it was 4 months ago when this RFC was being drafted, and we can consider running RFCs one issue at a time as needed instead of needing a mega-RFC to fix everything right now. With the benefit of hindsight, recall feels a bit like a sledgehammer that has been sitting on the family coffee table for the last few months, although fortunately everyone seems to have been responsible with it so far. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as one of the editors who had expressed reservations about the recall process, I think that I should say that I've somewhat moderated my view, based on experience. As other editors correctly said above, there had been concern that admins would be recalled for insufficient reasons, but the experience of the past few months has shown that this hasn't happened yet. I've been noticing that, and I regard it as a good thing. I felt I should say that. Personally, the main issue that concerns me after seeing how it has been working is that it feels like very little time passes from when a petition is started, and when it reaches the threshold to close. When I logged on yesterday, I first learned of the newest petition, and it was already a hair away from passing. For that particular case, it didn't bother me, because it was very clear what the outcome should have been, but there could still be recall petitions in the future where it would be better to allow more than a day between the initial raising of the issue, and the discussion being closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late to the party, but I'd like to endorse the close. I've updated Wikipedia:Administrator recall/RfCs accordingly Sincerely, Dilettante 23:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

First stage of admin recall

It occurred to me that the binary choice in this question could become a problem. Editors who are OK with having a petition, but who also want to have room for discussion, including but not limited to threaded replies and comments about opposition, may feel that being asked to endorse a petition-based procedure instead of an undefined consensus-based process is asking them surreptitiously to vote for a simple petition with just a list of signatures, and against a petition that includes discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening a petition

Is there really no option that would allow the target admin the opportunity to accept a rebuke for an action/their behavior and adjust accordingly before recall is initiated?

Option 2 comes close, but without a requirement for some time delay between noticeboard thread closure/archival or consensus found of misbehavoir or something else to this effect, a petition can still be opened against an admin before they have any chance to take on feedback and adjust. And one can't honestly say "the first instance of a complaint from any editor is the time to take feedback and adjust" - not all complaints have merit, and noticeboards (like ANI or AARV) are where the community typically gets to weigh in on the validity of such complaints.

Options 1 and 3 are incredibly similar, and both effectively allow petitions to be opened on any admin, at any time, by anyone - with no regard to the merit of the complaint.

I'd either like to see Option 2 amended with a qualification along the lines of what I proposed above, or otherwise a new option devised that gives admins more chance to adjust before going to recall. Anyone else?

Number of editors

I've been quietly watching the discussions that led into this draft RfC, and didn't want to interfere much. So I'm aware of the reasoning behind not asking here, how long the petition should be open for, with 30 days being the default. But I want to give you the feedback that having a petition open for 30 days (unless a reason for earlier closing kicks in) is going to be very controversial when this RfC reaches a community-wide audience. "Having an admin live with an open petition for 30 days – that's inhumane!" Please don't underestimate the risk of this being a train-wreck. There is a very real possibility of a non-normal distribution in the responses to the question of number of editors, with one distribution of responses around the lower numbers, and a separate and distinct set of responses around 50–100, with the latter largely motivated by editors responding who object to keeping petitions open longer than 7 days. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing a petition

discussion goes here ...

Administrator inactivity

discussion goes here ...

Withdrawn petitions and subsequent petitions

discussion goes here ...

No consensus outcomes

When regular RfAs go to Crat Chats, the phrase "no consensus" is typically used to mean "no consensus to promote", ie, the RfA is unsuccessful. That could lead to confusion here. Is this a question about re-RfAs where the result is below the passing threshold, or about re-RfAs where it is difficult to assess whether or not the result has reached the passing threshold? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's about what happens when either the community or the 'crats do not come to a consensus about whether the admin should remain an administrator. "No consensus" could mean "no consensus to remain an admin" or "no consensus to remove adminship"/"no consensus to change the status quo" (the latter two being identical in practical terms). Both are reasonable interpretations of policies and relevant precedents. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's equivalent to where the discussion winds up in the discretionary zone, and goes to a Crat Chat, and the Crats are deadlocked. I suppose that could happen in theory, but I don't think it has ever happened in practice with regular RfAs. I get the feeling that you want to ask, in the RfC, whether there needs to be an affirmative consensus to remain an admin, or whether there needs to be an affirmative consensus to remove the admin rights, but if that confuses me, it is likely to confuse other respondents. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely concerned about this question as-worded. The status quo as I understand it based on the prior RFCs is that if there's a consensus either way, retain or remove the admin. If there's not a consensus, but there's meaningfully more support than opposition, retain the admin. If there is not a consensus, and there is meaningfully more opposition than support, or the community is very evenly split, remove the admin. I think the best way to measure this is not with consensus at all, because we want to do different things with a RRFAs that end up without a consensus. If I was rewriting from scratch I would have the crats decide like this: "If there's a consensus, follow it. If there's not a consensus, but after factoring in closer issues like strength of argument, late movement, or striking votes, the majority of the community sentiment supports retaining the admin, then retain the admin. If a majority support removal, or it is unclear where the majority of community sentiment lies, remove administrative privileges." Tazerdadog (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recall discussion

discussion goes here ...

Opposition

discussion goes here ...

Word limits

discussion goes here ...