Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall

Other discussions

• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – index of previous unsuccessful proposals
• Wikipedia:Administrator recall/RfCs – index of RFCs and unassorted discussions related to this process

Threatening an admin with recall petition

I came across something today (twice) where an admin was directly threatened (by two users) with recall. In the case I saw, there was no history of bad admin actions. It was a difference of opinion about policy and common practice. What we had was an admin with almost 20 years of service being threatened because of others' disagreement with their interpretation of policy (and how the admin phrased it). A philosophical difference.

Admins are allowed to make mistakes; it's literally written into every arbcom ruling on the subject. Similarly admins are allowed to vary in their good faith understanding with our policies and guidelines. None of this is controversial. We have systems for dealing with good faith disputes.

Even saying "I'm going to take you to a noticeboard" or "I'm going to take you to arbcom" are threats, but I believe both are in-bounds because the resolution at those boards takes time and is generally well-attended. Merely saying "I'm going to start a recall petition" or "if a recall petition was on the table I'd vote for it" is quite a different approach. In this situation recall looks more like a guillotine and less like discussion (so far).

In the abstract, how would other admins feel about such threats made against them (compared to threats of ANI or ARBCOM)? BusterD (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I wrote this already in the above thread. If I am taken to Arbcom, I am confident they would listen to me. If I am taken to recall, I am sure I will get 25 votes pretty soon (I guess I can even name 25 editors who would sign), and then I would need to decide whether I want to go through the RfA (likely not). On the other hand, a threat or not a threat, there is nothing I can do about it. Anybody can take me to recall any time. Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Having been taken to ArbCom, I feel that your confidence is misplaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Having watched (with horror) Hawkeye7 being taken to ArbCom, he knows something about it most of us don't yet know. Frankly, I'm glad Hawkeye7 isn't burdened with admin responsibilities. He's the only lead coordinator NOT to have held the privs during their terms, and he takes advantage of the available time in a way the others couldn't. He creates and reviews pagespace. Wikipedia is better for it, with all due respect to Hawkeye7's fine abilities and vast experience. BusterD (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

For me "I will take you to ANI" is less of a threat than "I will take you to ArbCom", but the ArbCom threat is roughly equivalent to "I will start a recall petition against you" for me. In some circumstances such any of the three statements would to me be blockable (frivolous noticeboard threatening could be a sign of NOTHERE, to give an example Buster declared in bounds), while in others they would not. And I say that agreeing that they are a kind of threat in all three cases. The reason I don't agree with recall being different is that it was meant to be a barrier to the discussion (the discussion being the Re-RFA) and to provide a mechanism so the admin has some control over when the Re-RFA happens. Now I get your argument it isn't working that way in practice and I think this step could probably use some reform. But I do think it important to note that the one re-RFA we've had did have meaningful discussion even if it resulted in the admin giving up the tools. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

You could argue that, but in what IMO was the one "bad" recall (Fastily) that we've had so far, no re-RFA took place, because the admin said GFY and hasn't edited since - and I don't blame them. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree never getting to a discussion phase because admins don't go to re-RFA is an issue and is why I suggest some reform. But that is the answer to a different question than whether "I am going to start a recall against you" is a sanctionable threat which is the reasonable question Buster has posed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I blame Fastily for repeatedly and consistently abusing editors both new and old and using their admin tools to actively harm other editors in a blatant violation of WP:ADMINACCT spanning years. But I know we don't share that opinion. Silverseren^C 21:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

No, we don't agree and that's fine, but my bigger issue with this one was the 11th signature (from a_smart_kitten) was long and quite damning, and at least half a dozen other editors signed the petition "per a_smart_kitten" - only for the whacking long list of supposed misdeeds then to be found not to be anywhere as damning as had been made out. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where were the discussions where an admin was threatened with recall? PackMecEng (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Because I'm asking in the abstract, I'm going to decline that query for now. Not to obscure anything, but to ask the question independent of any association. Bbb23's blocking issues went remarkably undiscussed prior to the recall itself (and now it's a community emergency we rehabilitate those accounts). I'd have expected multiple chances to make my case (and demonstrate improvements) in noticeboard threads first if I were to be summarily dismissed after 20 years of loyal dedicated service. I'd hope editors like the ones in this thread would tell me I'd done another editor violence, so to speak. If I didn't make an ideal hypothetical, I'm open to reasonable chiding from Barkeep49 and all others. I don't have the answers myself, and I'm not sure I should know, but when I saw the two threats today it had me reading a boatload of associated pages. I honestly want to know what others think of the mere threat of petition (since so far every started petition has 100% cost us a mop-swinger), distinct from the other ways cases often go. IMHO the recall process has no demonstrated protections against the appearance of impulsive, frivolous, involved, coordinated, or otherwise biased petitions against any of the subjects so far. BusterD (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Further, I don't think we'd be allowed to treat an employee in this manner. How is it we can treat a volunteer in such an extraordinary way? BusterD (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Bbb23 was warned many times over the years, and the conduct had been brought up repeatedly for discussion, but in the past it was too difficult to address admin misconduct and nothing ever came from it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

As coincidence has it we have our first petition which didn't lead to dwadminahip (presuming that's what happens with Bbb) now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Now I don't need to be coy. This was the situation I saw unfolding this morning. (Threat one by User:Mdewman6, threat two by User:SilverLocust) BusterD (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

My edit here at 18:02 preceded the new (now withdrawn) petition by two hours. BusterD (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I should add now that they've both signed the petition, I'm relieved at least these weren't mere threats. It sounds wrong, but I'm glad they filed the petition (regardless of the outcome). I would have thought less of both editors if they wrote these words as threats but didn't act on them. It might have been better if they'd confronted User:Necrothesp on a public board first, but here we are. BusterD (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

A recalled admin whose attitude is GFY or who otherwise refuses to explain their actions or be accountable let alone make a commitment to improve is confirming that they shouldn't be am admin just as an editor who responds that way to a block would be seen by admins as showing that they shouldn't be an editor. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that the most important issue here is whether or not such a threat should be sanctionable. The important issue, for me, is that it is possible to make such a threat and start a petition for insubstantial reasons, and still get enough signatures to force a re-RfA. (And the second most important issue is that there are too many members of the community who choose to wave this concern away.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The point of the petition process is to ensure that recall RFAs cannot be triggered frivolously or needlessly. That a petition can start and end in a matter of hours, with no controls against any signatories being INVOLVED or otherwise biased against the admin, indicate to me that it is not performing this function. The petition stage should be a surmountable hurdle, not a trip hazard. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Possible "fixes" if that problem is agreed to are: increasing suffrage requirement for signing the petition, increasing the number of participant required. I doubt a "minimum time" is going to help, as it only helps if the current participants are convinced to withdraw their support for the petition. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree with each comment above. It's not the time period; it's the "ratchet" itself (to utilize Tamzin's descriptive noun). We have not calibrated this new tool properly, IMHO. I have made a similar (and similarly undefined) assertion before. BusterD (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's a complete list of the possible fixes, but that's another discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I have been mooting the idea of a 24-72 hour "waiting period" from opening of petition to being eligible to sign. I think the very reasons a discussion period didn't work at RfA (everyone signaled what they might do anyone) it might be useful here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

What do you expect would happen in that "waiting period" (other than hounding the petitioner to withdraw it)? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I would expect discussion to occur. And that discussion might impact the petition itself - as it did yesterday. More importantly to me it might encourage admins to go to re-RFA rather than feeling like the deck is stacked against them so what's the point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind some sort of

1. (initiate) which is defacto the originator becoming signer #1
2. 24-hour hold for additional signatories, discussion is open
3. Petitioners may begin signing

process, provided that there is a expectation that hounding the initiator is considered unwelcome. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. That matches what I was thinking about. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hounding is pointless, because the petitioner cannot withdraw the petition. There is no provision in Wikipedia:Administrator recall for that, and it is not allowed for that very reason. The only way a petition gets closed is after 30 days, at the subject's request, or when it reaches the 25 signature threshold. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The most recent petition was withdrawn. See Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Necrothesp. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

There was some discussion last year on an initiator being able to withdraw a petition, though a question on it didn't make it into the RfC being drafted. As I said in November 2024, allowing an initiator to withdraw a petition that has no other supporters is probably the easiest way to quickly resolve the petition. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems like if a petition with NO support can be closed early is being debated some, but I can't see any reason the petitioner can't withdraw their own personal support for the petition. I certainly agree that a petition with any supporters on it would not be able to be closed early. And a petition where the only author is the initial petitioner could potentially be CSD'd. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

IIRC it was proposed that a petition could be withdrawn if it were eligible for G7 speedy deletion (and maybe G6 too?) even if it wasn't actually deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The biggest issue I see with early closing/deleting/etc is: does this grant the six-month recall immunity? That protection is a good reason to not allow early closures except in odd situations where the initial petitioner admits to being confused about the process (as opposed to just rethinking it). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not recall any discussion based on the speedy deletion criteria, just the one to which I linked that you started. I agree with Xaosflux that it would be good to avoid providing an incentive for spurious petitions being started deliberately. That being said, an arbitration request can always be made at any time. isaacl (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Some of the petitions have gone fairly quickly, but I think the community has pretty much shown the restraint we'd expect from them. Fastily's petition was stuck in neutral for days and might not have made it up to 25 if they hadn't gone and done exactly the thing they were accused of yet again. Lots of signatories on the Bbb petition waited until after he had a chance to make a statement, and when he did – and said statement ruined any hope of him actually taking responsibility for his actions – that was what sealed the deal. Necrothesp's petition received immediate pushback and failed. So far, in my opinion, all six recall petitions reached the result they should have (i didn't vote on Graham's RRfA and I'm still neutral, but the reasons for the petition were valid and I'm glad they still went on to RRfA; for what it's worth, i have high hopes on them returning). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean, the sole purpose of the signature requirement, as I understand it, is to serve as a barrier to clearly frivolous attempts to force admins through a RRfAs. The RRfA is meant to be the actual consensus-based / determinitive part. Have we, in fact, had any frivolous recall petitions get past the petition stage? So far, every petition that has passed that stage has led to de-adminship or a functional resignation by declining RRfA. To me, the main sign that the petition process needs to be more of a barrier would be if too many recalls were passing that step and then failing in the RRfA stage; yet unless I'm missing something this has never happened even once. Regarding the BBB case - while people might reasonably disagree whether an RRfA should have or would have resulted in them being retained as an admin or not, I don't see how anyone can credibly argue that the case against them was frivolous. The fact that they passed the petition stage near-instantly was the system working as intended; I don't see how that's an argument for more delays or a higher threshold. --Aquillion (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, the only actual recall so far has been Graham. -- asilvering (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

If there's ever a recall re-RfA that passes, I will eat my hat. Reaching 25 is effectively a desysop, regardless of how logical those 25 are. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

But if that's true - if everyone who reaches 25 signatures does not succeed at RRFA - then the petitions are working as intended. -- asilvering (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I have to wonder, though, if there will ever be a petition that reaches the threshold based on flimsy evidence or reasoning, where the recalled administrator could pass RRFA if they wanted to, but because such an experience might understandably cause one to lose enjoyment in participating here, they decline the RRFA and retire from Wikipedia instead. If only we had a process for removing administrators that is specifically focused on ensuring there is high-quality evidence and where that evidence is reviewed by a group of trusted administrators that are annually elected to serve in that role... Mz7 (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The Fastily one would have been interesting, had it happened, given that a number of the 25 signees gave a criteria as "per another editor" and later on that editor's evidence was found to be not the smoking gun it was presented as. As I said above though, I absolutely don't blame Fastily for retiring from the project in the circumstances. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but Graham's RRfA was impacted by outside links to the RRfA. If another user goes to RRfA, I am currently expecting a similar incident. In the beginning, I thought the 25 signatures was an appropriate barrier, but having seen the process I feel it might be too low a barrier. (It does seem like the number of petitions is increasing again, so maybe that might change my mind or confirm it in a few months.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I certainly did not intend my post to Necrothesp's talk page as a threat, but understand how it could be taken as such, and apologize for that. I was merely following the advice currently given at WP:RECALL: Before initiating a recall petition, it is best practice to attempt to contact the administrator on their talk page. This notice should indicate that recall is being considered, and give the administrator a genuine opportunity to address the concerns before a recall petition is filed. which is exactly what I attempted to do. If this case is an example of how the community does not think this should play out, then the phrasing needs some reform. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Threatening recall is absolutely a chilling effect and even if it was blockable as Barkeep49 alludes to, I fear any admin going down that road would be too afraid of opening themselves up to recall to do it. I would be supportive of his suggestion that after the first signature a freeze should happen, which I would set to the long end of his 24-72 hour period. Only after this delay should signatures beyond the first be allowed. This will help cool heads to prevail and avoid a lynch mentality. Noted that every successful recall petition this year has taken less than 24 hours to get to the threshold.
  I would also suggest increasing the signature threshold to 50, but that's less urgent. Stifle (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  I very much like the idea of a 72-hour pause (on signatures, but not on discussion) after the initial signature. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Someone, I don't remember who, brought up a good point a while back: they're suspicious of any quick quorum formed in the heat of the moment. Their conclusion, that they'd trust a petition certified over the course of two weeks more than one passed in two days, isn't something I agree with. However, if we allow a time for debate, I think the results will be better. The main issue is potentially increasing stress on admins, since they can't necessarily tell how it's going prior to signing beginning. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  As someone who went through one of the trial discussion-first RFAs, I can't really see why a signature pause would make things more stressful. I'm sure many people will show up in support of any petition that has a chance of not succeeding, and if there is no chance whatsoever of a petition not succeeding, and the admin finds waiting another three days particularly uncomfortable, they do have the ability to cut it off earlier by resigning. Someone who has a recall petition started against them that ultimately fails is going to have to wait the whole month out with it hanging over their heads anyway. Not that I think that's great, but we did already get consensus for the 30-day timer. -- asilvering (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• One we should make clear is that there is a difference between a threat and a polite notice that recall is being considered accompanied with an identification of problematic behavior. {{subst:Admin recall notice}} should not be the first time recall enters the conversation. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• I'd like to point to this comment by Stifle, which I think is direct evidence of the potential harm to the administrative workflow caused by recall: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawal of signatures or petitions

Although it's clear from practice that an editor who signs a petition may withdraw his or her signature while the petition is pending, as far as I can tell, the page does not actually say so. Should we add a sentence along the lines of: An editor who has signed a petition may withdraw their signature by striking it out at any time until the petition is successful (having obtained 25 signatures) or is closed as unsuccessful? Relatedly, should we address the question (raised by the recent abortive petition) of when a petition itself may be withdrawn? Perhaps: The editor who opens a petition may withdraw the petition as long as no other editors have signed it, or if all the editors who have signed withdraw their signatures or consent to the withdrawal? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think additional instructions are needed regarding someone removing their signature, since this follows normal collaborative practice on English Wikipedia. Regarding withdrawing a petition: the key aspect that I think should be clarified is whether or not the six-month respite period can be avoided once someone starts a petition. I think having conditions when a petition can be withdrawn and the respite period not take effect would be desirable. isaacl (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

+1 to all of that. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that allowing a withdrawal (and avoidance of the six-month respite period) when all supporters remove their signatures would provide them incentive to always do this when a petition seems unlikely to pass. The consequences of a failed petition in theory should act as a brake to slow quick decisions to support a petition (though I'm not sure how well that works in practice). I think I'm more inclined to support a withdrawal only when no one other than the initiator has signed the petition yet. isaacl (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Isaacl. I think a relatively simple and fair approach would be:

• A petition that is withdrawn before any editor other than the initiator has commented should be treated as if it was never opened.
• A petition that has attracted comments (possibly excluding purely procedural ones?) but no supporters may be withdrawn but the six month waiting period still applies.
• A petition that has attracted support votes may not be withdrawn, even if all the support votes are.
• The nominator may withdraw their vote, but the petition will remain open and will pass if it reaches 25 non-withdrawn supports.

Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a withdrawn petition is withdrawn and so it should not count for the six month period. A withdrawn petition can be a single signer or multiple signers all withdawing support. The process will simply not have played out to the extent that the six month period makes sense. In my mind that all triggers for something that is brought to completion whether through 30 days or through a re-RfA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

There is also incentive for a supporter of the administrator to sign a petition, in support of allowing the process to complete even if everyone else has removed their signatures, in order to trigger the respite. I think it would be better for the process to always run to completion to avoid these incentives, with the sole exception being the initiator withdrawing with no other supporters (to deal with spurious cases). isaacl (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I also thought about that but decided not to raise in the spirit of assuming good faith that people wouldn't do that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that editors can, in good faith, sign a petition in support of a re-request for adminship being made, with a desire to see the admin gain positive support from the community, either through a failure of the petition to pass, or through a successful re-request. isaacl (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the second item will result in rapid comments in support of the administrator in question. There isn't much advantage in having a formal withdrawal procedure if the six-month respite period is going to always be triggered. isaacl (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Barkeep49 I strongly disagree - withdrawing a petition should not be without consequence. We want people to be certain that opening a petition is the right thing to do before they open it, and to thing carefully about their proposal before they make it, and making it hard to withdraw a petition is part of that. If the admin is doing something seriously wrong they can still be taken to arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I think your proposal misaligns incentives. It makes withdrawing of huge importance such that it disincentivizes anyone to withdraw. So if someone opens something they shouldn't have - which I agree we don't want - your method then suggests "well don't even think of withdrawing lest you want to close this process off for others". So we live with a bad outcome. And we know this is likely to happen based on our experience with people filing ArbCom requests despite not at all understanding the reasons and consequences for doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

If I understand Thryduulf's proposal correctly, an initiator withdrawing their petition won't trigger the respite period, so it doesn't close the process. Someone else is free to start a new petition if they wish. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It does but I don't think Wikipedia is worse off that the Necro petition was withdrawn by two people and instead there was a thoughtful discussion at ANI. But I also don't think that immunizes him from future recalls. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree Wikipedia is not worse of that the Necro petition was withdrawn, but it is presently undefined whether the withdrawal makes them immune for 6 months (although hopefully this is moot). My view is that it should make them immune, because this reduces the likelihood of people starting petitions without thinking it through, or withdrawing without thinking it through. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, part of your initial proposal was: A petition that has attracted support votes may not be withdrawn, even if all the support votes are. My interpretation of that is that it would have prevented Necrothesp's petition from being closed early. Just to be clear, is your view on that any different now?

Regarding whether Necrothesp's withdrawal makes them immune for 6 months, it does not. Under the current rules, a petition needs to be open for 30 days and fail to reach 25 signatures in order to grant the 6 month immunity. I also agree with Barkeep49 that it shouldn't grant immunity either. It is already really difficult to withdraw a petition that has multiple signatories. We got lucky with Necrothesp in that there were only two editors and they were both quite reasonable about it. If we have learned anything about this recall process so far, it is that people are quick to pile on: the last four petitions were all closed within 24 hours. The reality is that we will get petitions that are poorly-thought-out in the future, and we should be making it easier for those to be nipped in the bud, not harder. Mz7 (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

While I agree that allowing a withdrawal without triggering the respite period was suitable for this situation, I'm still uneasy about giving the signatories control over the triggering of the respite period. I'd rather take it out of their hands. isaacl (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the simplest way to prevent Gaming the system is to make it so that any petition that is open for X hours is to be considered to trigger the immunity from recall period. What to define X as? Something like 6 hours, 12 hours, or 24 hours would work, I believe. (This would also prevent silliness. For example, a user could post a malformed petition, withdraw it to fix it, and re-posting it 15 minutes later, leading to a messy debate on if the user is immune because it was withdrawn or if the malformation was at attempt at gaming or some other consideration. Given how many malformed requests are posted to Wikipedia, I expect this to happen sooner or later.) Super Goku V (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I like the "any petition that is open for at X hours is considered to trigger the immunity from recall period" idea. I'd oppose anything long than 24 hours or anything shorter than 2 hours. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I think there should be a little time for discussion with the initiator (for example, their mentor or some other experienced editor might be advising them on the best path forward). I appreciate, though, that it is desirable for the initiator not to be hounded into an action. Perhaps a 48-hour period might be more suitable with this approach. isaacl (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Separately from withdrawn petitions, should withdrawn votes count towards the five active petitions you are allowed to support? My first thought is yes, because we do not want to enable people to change their mind about supporting petition X just so they can support petition Y. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Or repeal that entire rule since the way we are using recall now makes it basically a nullity. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally, if there's going to be a limit, I think it's reasonable for an editor to change how they want to allocate their signatures. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

+1 to Pppery. The 5 active petitions rule was mainly added to protect against clearly spurious gaming, because people were seriously worried RECALL will become an axe for everyone to sharpen on. If the community believes RECALL will not be used that way anymore; or that it can self moderate clearly bad faith cases another way, it makes sense to remove that restriction. Soni (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm the guy that initially proposed that and fought for it. When I cooked it up I thought this process might look very, very different than how it turned out. I'm fine with removing it now. We do want to make sure that we have some way to stop recall petitions from being spammed. We can try to do this socially with disruptive editing and IAR, but I'd prefer to modify the rule so that you cannot initiate 2 petitions at the same time. What I don't want to see is someone starting a petition against every member of arbcom after they do something controversial, or recalling every admin whose names begin with a or b because they think that all admins should be re-examined once a year. The 5 simultaneous signature method is a terrible way to do it though based on the way it shook out. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Replacing the "maximum 5 simultaneous signatures" with "cannot initiate more than one concurrent petition" makes sense. It would also make sense to prevent someone opening a petition against admin A but seeing it get no support so withdraw it and immediately start a petition against admin B, or starting a petition against admin C immediately after the petition against admin A reaches the threshold, but I don't know whether we need an explicit rule (7 days after a petition is closed or withdrawn before you can initiate a petition against a different administrator?) or just treat it as disruptive editing? Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There's another way to read that sentence, without even changing it; it's synonymous with "An editor can sign no more than five petitions. Ever." So if, hypothetically, your only edits in a year outside your own userspace were to sign five recall petitions, you've at least got to get a new sock extendedconfirmed. —Cryptic 11:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Confused. The line says An editor can sign no more than five active petitions. (Emphasis mine) Since you can only sign them when they are active, I don't see how there can be a reading where you must only ever sign a maximum of five petitions in your lifetime. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the individual circumstances would have to be examined for situations of an editor starting petitions one after the other. Thus at this point in time I don't think an explicit rule is the best approach. isaacl (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• I agree broadly with what Thryduulf set out above. There could be gaming, as with any proposal, such as a group of three admins with A petitioning to recall C, supported by B, then withdrawn by A and B to give a six-month protection, but I think we're possessed of enough common sense to spot that and deal with it. If my suggestion of a 72-hour freeze between initiation and first support (further up) were to pass, then a convenient marker could be the first support after the 72-hours mark. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  Whether it's withdrawal or another process, there needs to be something that prevents this kind of nonsense we're seeing with Night Gyr. Iggy pop goes the weasel wrote the likelihood of my being shouted down for even bringing it up [at ANI] is considerable. Well, if they knew it would be shouted down at ANI, wasn't finding another forum where shouting down is procedurally forbidden just another way of gaming the system? He also wrote I have no intent to irritate Night Gyr. If they think being at the receiving end of this kind of debate isn't irritating, then I suggest they need to be reminded that there's real live human beings behind our usernames. Treat people as you would like to be treated. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  They still haven't responded so you have no idea how they feel, feel free to ask them though. And AN/I is not the proper venue for discussion of administrator inactivity. Please also stop casting aspersions and assuming bad faith. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  They still haven't responded so you have no idea how they feel. I can't speak for everyone, but if I had to read 14,768 words of drama about my inactivity, it might not make me feel very good. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps we should have just changed the user rights of someone who did not qualify for the tools instead of starting 14,768 words of drama (qualify in this case meaning a consensus among the community that an editor should have the tools). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  You mean like what was going to happen in 2 months anyway? I'm still waiting for someone to explain why this particular case was so urgent that we needed a recall petition. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  We can agree on that point; there are probably a bunch of admins who would be even more strongly opposed if they were to RfA today who should be a higher priority. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  The difference is WP:RESTORATION. Levivich (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  Are we going to have recall petitions for all admins who are nearing inactivity desysops just on the odd chance that some of them may ask to have the tools returned? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  No, just the ones who have lost the community's trust. Levivich (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  Except, of course, that recall is the tool used to determine if an admin has lost the community's trust. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  And that's why there is a recall petition. Some editors have lost their trust due to the lack of communication and editing pattern. Whether the community still has trust remains to be seen. Levivich (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  That seems circular. We will only have recall petitions for admins who have lost the community's trust, but the current recall petition is being used to gauge whether the community agrees with the small handful of editors who have lost trust. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  The petition is to determine if there are 25 editors who think the admin should have to re-confirm that they still have community trust (via RRFA or AELECT). RRFA/AELECT is the process that determines if the admin still has community trust. The petition is a gatekeeping method to ensure no one has to RRFA unless at least 25 extended confirmed editors think they should. Petitions aren't going to be started against every inactive admin, just the admins (active or inactive) where someone thinks they should have to re-confirm they have community trust. And RRFAs will only happen for those admins (active or inactive) where 25 people have certified the petition. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm well aware of how all the processes work. I was part of the discussions when they were set up. But when I asked earlier whether we could now expect recall petitions for every admin nearing inactivity desysops, you replied No, just the ones who have lost the community's trust. I sincerely hope that in the future, the editors who file petitions will be more attuned to the community so that we can avoid having needless petitions like the current one. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  Just because you disagree with this petition doesn't mean anyone did anything wrong by bringing it. I'd be cautious about making any predictions about where consensus lies before the process is through. Maybe this will be the first unsuccessful recall petition. One is not too many to tolerate. Levivich (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm comfortable saying that it was wrong to bring a petition two months before an admin was going to be automatically desysopped. Given that the petition has netted seven signatures over the span of a week while facing strong criticism from quite a few observers, even if 18 more editors do eventually sign it, I don't see how you could call that 'consensus'. And yes, we all know that the admin in question would be unlikely to file (or win) a re-RFA. But I don't see how anyone can credibly assert that this admin has actually lost the community's trust given that the community has shown so little interest in this petition. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  The first two petitions took two weeks to certify, and both also received a lot of pushback initially. They won't all certify in a day or a week. If you don't think this admin would get reconfirmed, then that means, by definition, you think they do not have community trust, because having community trust = would be reconfirmed. It seems like every person who objects to this petition nevertheless agrees this admin would never pass RRFA and thus shouldn't be an admin. I don't understand why people want someone who shouldn't be an admin to be an admin, nor why people think there is something improper about bringing a recall petition for someone who everyone agrees would not pass RRFA. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Levivich, I don't think it's true that every person who objects to this petition nevertheless agrees this admin would never pass RRFA and thus shouldn't be an admin. It's not true of me, anyway - I think they would be unlikely to pass RRFA (though I wouldn't say "never", as I remain open to being surprised), but that does not lead for me to the conclusion that they should not be an admin. I have a short reason and a longer reason. The short reason is that I don't see how removing this particular admin's adminship could improve the encyclopedia.

  The longer reason is that we need more volunteers basically everywhere, and adminship is no exception. There are three sources for increased volunteer hours: people who have never volunteered, people who already are volunteering, and people who have volunteered, but stopped. Increasing participation from group #1 is uncertain and "expensive" - first you have to identify prospectives, but then they need to be trained from scratch. There's only so much you can do to increase participation from group #2 without burning them out. Group #3, however, are pre-trained and already likely align with the mission in some way. That is only increased when we're talking about people who were already administrators. I'm not in favour of things that would disincentivize people from becoming or resuming productive volunteers or otherwise create barriers to (re-)entry. -- asilvering (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps the following explanation will be helpful. As I have pointed out several times now, this particular admin was about to be desysopped through our normal inactivity rules. Therefore, the currently active petition reeks of drama merely for the sake of drama. Thus far, recall has predominantly been utilized in a cautious and prudent manner. As a result, the wild-eyes hysterics that we saw from some editors (mostly admins) during the first days of recall have largely dissipated. I'm envisioning a future a few years distant in which recall has become a normalized process and nobody would seriously suggest that it be jettisoned. In the meantime, petitions like the present one attract undesirable controversy to the recall process, potentially weakening and eroding its long-term viability. I don't particularly care whether Night Gyr retains the tools, but I absolutely care about whether the community retains the power of recall. And with that bigger picture in mind, I reiterate my preference for a future in which pointless petitions like this one are not filed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  Personally with regards to this situation, I think RECALL is harsher than WP:INACTIVITY. From my perspective, with RECALL we are telling the user that they must go to RRfA to retain being an admin or forever lose it without a new RfA. (Basically "Under a Cloud" to me.) With INACTIVITY, the user loses their admin roll on procedural grounds and can get it back under RESTORATION if they fit the criteria.

  If there is anything wrong with what I have said, then please correct it. If not, then to continue, I feel that it is unfair that the current petition singles out one user. There are right now nine other editors who have made less than 100 edits in the last five years. All of them will be eligible under RESTORATION in the future. But, if the current petition passes, then one user in the same situation will not be eligible. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  You are correct. -- asilvering (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  I have been struggling to respond to this for over a week, but I do want to say thank you for the confirmation that I have been following this correctly. I will say that the discussion regarding changing INACTIVITY might end up making this a net positive, despite the contentious last few weeks. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  To get back on track, I kinda feel like some of the discussion has been missing the intent of RECALL. Some of the signers have implied that they are voting because they don't feel the user would be able to pass an RfC. Is that really a loss of community trust or is it just that the activity would not be enough to pass an RfC today? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

  The petition is not a means to find consensus. It is a process to decide whether there's interest in using a means to find consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  I was responding to Levivich's usage of the word 'consensus' when he wrote I'd be cautious about making any predictions about where consensus lies before the process is through. I agree that the petition is not a means to find consensus. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  Reviewing the petition, I see 7 signatures and then more than 3/4 of the page filled with complaints about the petition process and criticism of me for following said process, so I would argue the "14,768 words of drama" really aren't about Night Gyr's inactivity. I would suggest that administrators and others who feel the petition process is unfair build consensus for the changes they would like to make. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  One way to change the process to avoid this kind of situation would be to ban inactivity recalls (via an RFC on this page). That would change the location of all this inactivity discussion from individual recall pages, to WT:ADMIN, where folks could then RFC changing the inactivity requirements. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  What's an inactivity recall? The petitioners are not required to state their reasons. And if some give reasons like "edits have an appalling tenor", "needs to show better judgement", "lack of response on talk pages" or "would not pass RfA today", does this negate other signatures citing inactivity or gaming? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  Those are good questions. But I think it's worth considering making it a requirement that the editor who initiates the petition must state their reasons on the petition page, and have another requirement that inactivity cannot be the sole reason stated in that initiating comment. That would take comments by subsequent signers out of the equation. On the other hand, it might be too easy to wikilawyer an inactivity-only nomination into sounding like it also includes other stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  Also, those changes would combine well with the idea of having a pause on signatures after the first signature, discussed above. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

My concern is what happens all too frequently at ANI, ITN and elsewhere: discussion being shut down before editors in other time zones have a chance to read it. For this reason, I favour the staus quo, which is that petitions remain open for thirty days regardless. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with you on what the status quo currently is. My understanding is that a petition can be withdrawn at any time with the consent of all current signatories. I'd appreciate people chiming in to clarify. If it's clear, then great, but if it's not then it's time for a quick formal/semiformal discussion to figure it out. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

If all the signatories strike their signatures, the petition is withdrawn, because a petition must have at least one signature. This has already happened once. Obviously, we wouldn't keep a signature-less petition open for 30 days "just because." Levivich (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

This has been my understanding since that petition, but Hawkeye7 disagreed with it in the current petition. See here on down. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

You're right and he's wrong. IAR was not applied in the Necrothesp petition close, it's a part of the process, does not need to be specified in the instructions. The user from the distant timezone who would have added their signature to an existing petition can start a new petition immediately. Those who "pressure" signatories to witdraw can express their opinions in a normal way, and if they really start pressuring, they can be warned and sactioned for bludgeoning, possibly incivility, etc. Mz7's close was obvious and timely, and no other action (nor a lack of action) would have been correct. —Alalch E. 16:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It does not seem unreasonable, just undocumented, so we cannot expect editors to know about it, or to apply it. I note in passing that since a withdrawn petition could be reopened immediately, even by one of the original signatories who struck their signature, the new petition would be open for the full period of thirty days. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Revisiting WP:INACTIVITY

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Revisiting WP:INACTIVITY. Soni (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on Recall Petitions

I propose that going forward, all comments and discussion about a petition must be added to the Discussion area and people should not post comments or challenges to signatures below them. Otherwise the petitions become a confusing mess. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

+1, on mobile it's hard to see where the signatures end and the discussion starts without them being numbered. — ^EF⁵ 17:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Using the discussion section for discussing the petition's merits, and the merits of various votes, is appropriate. Moving it a less visible location is not an improvement. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

• Hey man im josh, that's what he's proposing. All comments that are not numbered votes be moved to the "discussion" section. — ^EF⁵ 17:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

That's already what it's supposed to be, as per the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator recall § Signing a petition. For better or worse, no one chose to enforce this in the current petition. isaacl (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Certainly for the worse in my opinion. Maybe the language on the instructions needs to be less ambiguous or something? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The reality on English Wikipedia is that it's hard to get people not to do something they really, really want to do. Many people really want to place a reply to people directly beneath their comment. That makes it hard to enforce a different practice, because lots of people will show up to argue in favour of inline replies. isaacl (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Who would we ask to enforce that? Ask at AN? Clerks enforce process in ArbCom proceedings, for example. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

As with most discussions, anyone can edit a petition to comply with established procedure. (Arbitration committee proceedings are a notable exception, where arbitrators and clerks are specifically designated to manage comments as needed.) I feel, though, that people were inhibited from enforcing theoretical guidance that is contrary to what many people really, really want to do until more experience was gained with actual petitions. Now that there have been some petitions, honestly I don't see anything that will change the minds of those who really like inline replies. isaacl (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Has it ever been enforced that way? This has happened in the first, second, and fifth petitions. All of the others were over in a day or so; so practically too short to have it happen. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Isaacl was there explicit consensus not to have in line discussion or was that just how it happened to be written? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's just how the original draft of this page was written. (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall § Recall petition discussion reached a consensus that signatories should be able to provide reasoning, and that there should be discussion, but didn't establish specifics.) I think it was a reasonable choice to make (some things can just be tried out, rather than trying to get a group of people to write every sentence collectively), but as I mentioned, I think it's understandable that any enforcement would be delayed until more practical experience was gained. isaacl (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not how I interpret those instructions. If we want strictly enforced separation of discussion (and so far it looks like we don't), we'd want to be explicit in the instructions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this is how I read it, which does seem to be different than isaac. I certainly get how/why he's reading it that way but I don't think the discussion being had is an "unenforced expectation". It's why I asked to circle back to the original discussion - which I think reached a decision in-line with what happened at this current one. I raised the issue because by virtue of volunteering to be a crat, if there's enforcement to be done in this regard I'm in position to do so and it's very important to me that crats do what the community has asked us to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a bureaucrat responsibility to manage the discussion. Bureaucrats don't manage the discussions in the open viewpoint request for adminship or the administrator elections, for example, and they have not been given this task in the recall process, either. I agree that I think most people were expecting to be able to make inline replies, which is why there hasn't been any objection to it prior to this discussion thread. isaacl (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree the crats don't do it and that's why the monitors were created. But the community did [[expect it and to my knowledge that consensus still exists so they still do expect it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the community has moved on from trying to put the burden on bureaucrats to do it, and now expect admins to take on the main load. I think it's fine for admins who happen to be bureaucrats to manage discussion, but I don't think the community wants bureaucrats to override anyone else trying to manage discussion on the basis that they're bureaucrats. isaacl (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

You called out people for not enforcing what was written. I was one of the people being called out and I take the criticism seriously. However I'm frustrated by the comment I'm replying to. Because I read it as criticizing me for considering doing what you called me (as part of a group) out for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for how I worded my statement on how the procedure is being enforced. I did not mean to fault anyone for thinking that inline replies were allowed; it's a very normal assumption to make. I only meant to reinforce that the original proposal is in alignment with the current procedure (as I interpret it; I appreciate others interpret it differently). My feedback regarding the bureaucrats role is separate. To take a different example: striking personal attacks is generally the responsibility of administrators and experienced editors with sufficient social capital to manage discussion. This includes bureaucrats as a subset, but is not specific to bureaucrats. I welcome bureaucrats to assume such responsibilities under their administrator role (or, if we ever have a bureaucrat who hadn't been entrusted with administrator privileges at some previous point, under their role as an experienced editor). isaacl (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. As far as I'm concerned, the recent emergence of editors responding to signatures in the signature section has been a very good thing. It reflects the community norm of discussion as a way to consensus. As a result, some editors who have signed the most recent petition have been persuaded to change their minds. That's a good thing. Some others haven't, and just possibly they have found the replies unpleasant to deal with. Deal with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Just an fyi: it's not a recent emergence. The first two petitions had plenty of discussion in the signature section. isaacl (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Yep and both of those were the longest in time taken before now. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

"Deal with it." No. It goes against the stated instructions of the process. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I am striking that part of what I said, because recent comments here are making me think that we need to lower the temperature of this discussion. Sorry for my part in that. You are technically correct about the stated instructions. And I'm substantively correct about how the stated instructions, and the process itself, are an unhealthy deviation from Wikipedia's usual norms of reaching consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. My post here is an attempt to reach consensus. For a complementary example of the existing rules at Petitions: I see in Arbitration cases people also do not retort or debate under the statements of others but in their own Statement areas. There must be some reason for that. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, there are good reasons why they don't do that at Arbitration, but then again, they don't make decisions by petition. (Any number of editors can ask them to open a case, but that isn't binding on the Committee.) And here, we are working towards consensus by editors replying to one another, as you have done in replying to my initial comment. (When I posted that, I actually thought about making a joke, saying that I didn't want anyone to reply to me, but I thought better of it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

If the arbitration procedure had to be determined by community consensus, then we probably would have threaded discussion. However the arbitration policy empowers the arbitration committee to establish arbitration procedures by fiat. isaacl (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is part of the instructions. We didn't apply such a rule during three other petitions that have occurred so far. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

It is a part of the instructions. "Any extended confirmed editor may add their signature to a petition, with or without reasoning. An editor may sign no more than five active petitions at a time. Any editor may comment in a discussion section on the recall petition page. Any signature or comment may be struck based on the same criteria used during requests for adminship." Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't say that the discussion section is the only place that editors may leave comments. All it explicitly does is restrict signatures to extended confirmed editors, allow any editor to make a comment in the discussion section, and allow for comments to be struck based on linked criteria. It does not even prohibit non-extended confirmed editors from commenting on a signature. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

"Any editor may comment in a discussion section on the recall petition page" seems pretty clear to me, given there's a Discussion section in the default Recall Petition template. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Editors that are not extended-confirmed are not allowed to sign the petition, but they are permitted to leave comments in the discussion section. There is no prohibition, explicit or implicit, against extended-confirmed editors leaving direct replies to the signatories. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

"Any editor may comment in a discussion section on the recall petition page" looks pretty clear to me. The sentence doesn't say anything about extended-confirmed editors. If you insist that I am wrong then maybe the language needs to be amended for clarity because right now the first sentence about extended-confirmed editors looks like a completely separate thought from the one specifying where people can comment. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

"Any editor may comment in a discussion section on the recall petition page" is very clear that the discussion section is open to all. It says absolutely nothing about any other part of the page so there is no prohibition, explicit or implicit, against extended-confirmed editors commenting on other parts of the page. There is equally no explicit prohibition on non-extended-confirmed editors commenting anywhere else on the page. The only thing that is debatable is whether there is an implicit prohibition on non-EC editors commenting elsewhere than the discussion section. I genuinely do not understand why anybody thinks this is not the case. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection to amending the language so that it explicitly states that editors can respond to signatures. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The fact that the language is sufficiently unclear as to give rise to this part of the discussion, and the fact that it probably needs further revision, are reflections of the newness of the process, and of it being very far from something that has become a stable part of how Wikipedia does things. And there's an awful lot else about recall that still needs rethinking. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, I'm beginning to agree with you about the need for broader rethinking. Granted, I don't really think this particular discussion was necessary. But the present petition has raised much bigger concerns in my mind. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

A lot of people hate to say that they agree with me. (I'm just making a joke, please don't take that seriously.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a few people who feel the same way about me. (Also joking, I hope.) LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I feel we shouldn't overthink the history. Personally, I think the initial draft of the procedure went beyond the consensus established during phase 2, and many people really like to make inline replies, so it's not surprising that no one chose to enforce it. English Wikipedia tradition is that consensus can be determined by common practice, and common practice so far (with no objection beyond this discussion) is to have inline replies to the numbered signature statements. I think there's been enough petitions held now that it's reasonable to update the procedure. All new procedures are going to undergoing adjustments of this sort as people gain experience with it. isaacl (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with Tryptofish. OP, you made a controversial petition and some of us didn't like it. Get over it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Lep, you don't need to be so consistently hostile in your comments. You gotta find a way to be less aggro. Levivich (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Too much agriculture. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Response does not address the question. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing that by agreeing with me, Lep was also agreeing with the rest of what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

That is correct. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Why should this be any different from RfA, where anyone can comment below any !vote? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, but that's the way the instructions were written. It seems like everyone has ignored them to this point. Maybe they just need to be revised then. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

The instructions do not say anything about replies to votes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure they do. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Iggy pop goes the weasel please quote where, because I've reread them again and can't see any mention at all. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Thryduulf I read it the same way you do, but Iggy isn't the only one to read it that way. See also this discussion upthread. I think the hinge is on how you interpret Any editor may comment in a discussion section on the recall petition page. One way to interpret that is to say you may only comment in the discussion section. Another way to interpret that is that even if you're not extended confirmed or if you've signed five petitions you may still comment in the discussion section even if you haven't signed it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose. The "no comments except in the discussion section" interpretation feels like a big stretch though given that it is permissive language and in context contrasts with restricting signatures to extended confirmed editors, i.e "Only group A can do X, everybody can do Y" does not say anything about who can or cannot do Z. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I can't recall where it was discussed, but there was a thread where some editors commented on how the petition was expected to look like a petition you'd see in the real world, with no inline opposition to signatures. That being said, I think we can move on from the original draft of the procedure, and consider what common practice has established as the current consensus. Inline replies is current common practice. isaacl (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I actually find it easier to follow comment threads below the votes. I don't find it confusing. Long, yes. I generally am reading on my laptop, though, maybe that's why. Valereee (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)