Nothing stopping dedicated coordinated disrupters from recalling all admins at once
Based on what we're seeing today, there's no reason dedicated, coordinated disrupters couldn't put the entire admin corps up for recall right now. There appear to be no structural barriers in place to prevent such disruption. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
If that happens, the chance of the petition(s) succeeding is unlikely. Editors can only sign to a max 5 active petitions at time, so the most 25 disruptive editors could do is take 5 admins to RRfA, where it will probably succeed because most editors will realise the petitions were disruptive. The chance of 25+ EC editors all working together to take down a few admins is already very low anyway. And if it does happen, they could be blocked for disruption. fanfanboy(block talk)14:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing you haven't seen dedicated disrupters at work here. There are hundreds if not thousands of sleeper accounts queued up for such purposes. One blocked contributor could do it almost alone. BusterD (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
How many sleeper accounts are EC? I don't like how this process is currently working, but anybody accumulating even dozens of EC sleeper accounts just to sign petitions to nominate admins for recall seems unlikely. Any long-unused account that suddenly turns up to sign up to five petitions (the limit at any given time) is likely to draw scrutiny. Donald Albury15:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
There are disinformation tactics which could be used to get regular wikipedians to vote in good faith for such a petition. Haste is a big part of such tactics. Does nobody imagine consulting companies and intel agencies playing a long game here and acquiring EC accounts to affect our work? It's the commencement of a dubious recall which is disruptive, not the outcome. One dedicated disrupter could do a lot with just a few EC sleepers (saving them for just such a disruption). BusterD (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
If two or more sleeper accounts awaken and sign a petition in their first few edits, I'm confident that a sock puppet investigation will be opened. Accounts found to be sock puppets will be blocked and their signatures discounted on any petition. Why would anyone who has bought EC accounts risk throwing ttem away when they are so likely to be caught? Do you have any evidence for your claims? Donald Albury17:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
My original point was that we had no obvious structural mechanism for preventing dubious recalls. You guys want me to 1) perform invented equations, or 2) point to active disruption. I'll deign not to enter either arena. If I used hyperbole, I was attempting to draw attention to a flaw in our new system. BusterD (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
If you used hyperbole, you damaged your credibility by looking paranoid. How many admins have faced a petition for recall so far? I am aware of one, and he has a clear record of his conduct. Even then, it took two attempts. Admins also have a lot of power. They tend to be well known and have good knowledge of how wikipedia works. This allows them to defend themselves pretty well. I also think accusing opponents of being disruptive editors seeking revenge would be a pretty effective defence. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia has (rolling, up to a year long) recall petitions active against essentially all admins: de:WP:AWW. A lot of these have been signed only by the same three users and are unlikely to ever reach their quorum. Petitions do not have to be disruptive if we do not feed the trolls. —Kusma (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
There are no structural barriers to a co-ordinated group putting up all articles related to topic X up for deletion, or renaming. If it ever happens, the community will figure out an approach to manage it, and move forward from there. There's a tradeoff in making a process sufficiently resilient to misuse, while still making it effective. I agree that tuning this balance for the recall process is still a work in progress. I don't think we need to worry about all admins running re-requests for adminship at once, but it is certainly possible that there will continually be some recall petitions ongoing. Maybe at that point it turns into background noise, and the certification role of petitions will predominate. Alternatively, the community might find it overly distracting, and decide on a different certification method, or revisit the concept of the community requiring an admin to make a re-request. isaacl (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
In your example, if a coordinated group took on a content area, that would be disruptive to the pagespace for a time, but if a group targeted admins they wanted to peel off (say E. Dramatica folks, as an example which won't hurt anybody's feelings), a sudden slate of admin recalls would be a great way to disrupt the whole shebang for weeks. We'd be forced to accept such a slate as AGF. No rules against it. No structural barrier. Perhaps we might limit how many recall petitions could run at once. BusterD (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure, the community can consider putting in restrictions for any process. When running your simulations, though, you get a sense of how likely a given scenario might be, and then you can weigh the tradeoff of mitigating it versus the additional cost. Given that community processes aren't laws, there are existing approaches to deal with being overwhelmed with submissions to any process – the community could, for example, defer the start of a process based on availability of volunteers. isaacl (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure wikipedians expected WikiProject Roads to go "on the road" itself, either. These first two recall petitions aren't representative of the threats I'm concerned about. We're about to watch two longtime sysops each go through 30 day gauntlets. Any LTA they've ever rousted, anyone they were forced to block might be one of 25 signers. Could be a payback time. In any event, 30 days is what we've agreed to, at least until one of the immediately filed tweaking RFCs closes. BusterD (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, that wasn't brought about by a group of intentional disrupters, nor was it a case where structural barriers would have helped (sort of the opposite: fewer barriers in how the standards for having an article are determined might have kept that group interested in contributing). All I'm saying is that I think the extreme case of process overuse isn't that likely, while I do agree that discussing ways to avoid milder cases of overuse is reasonable. isaacl (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you're wrong in between concerned about this; admins active in WP:AE (especially in the ARBPIA area) would appear to me to be obvious targets of malicious petitions created and endorsed by sophisticated bad actors. Ideally, the community would figure out what was going on before any real damage could be done, but we don't live in an ideal world. We live in whatever this one is. I'm not too worried about trolls or revenge petitions- I think those are easy to recognise for what they are and an even easier target for WP:BOOMERANGs. But to get back on track, other processes like SPI, AFC, and ANI can still be abused- I see no reason why recall couldn't be either. I also think I'd like to wait and see how it's being abused before figuring out what safety railings to install. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't think AGF is a suicide pact. If a small group of people decide they need to dump a large slate of admins through the process at the same time, unless the issues that they bring up are blindingly obvious violations of ADMINACCT, they can get a warning or formal restrictions with or without a rule against it. Even if they were acting in good faith, doing something like that is obviously disruptive. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Fully agree. If a ton of sleeper accounts suddenly pop up to drown us in recall petitions, the assumption of good faith quickly flies out of the window. Same if it happened at AfD or anywhere else. We're not blindly committed to following a process if it has clearly been hijacked in bad faith. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
...fuck the recall policy. It has resulted in nothing but drama. Wanna take bets on how long before recall is removed entirely and we go back to ArbCom deciding on if admins get desysopped? LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)23:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the recall process needs tweaks, but I don't think it's going away entirely. My personal opinion is 50 supports over 2 weeks would be more reasonable than the current iteration. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
This process has shat the bed straight out the gate. An open noticeboard thread with no consensus, no formal proposal for anything, and anyone can show up here and single-handedly launch the community into an unstructured, unmoderated, weekslong brouhaha of bickering and dirt-digging? With zero barrier to entry and no red tape to work through beforehand? It's near optimal for high drama generation. Folly Mox (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I do agree that this phase needs some major changes. There are implementation issues, as there are with anything that is new and untested. I don't think anyone is saying this is going prefectly, and it needs major corrections, but as of right now it is a real process that is being used. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today04:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
With zero barrier to entry and no red tape to work through beforehand? The issue is, the petition itself is supposed to be the barrier to entry for the RRfA to begin with. Which is why we're running into a structural problem: how to set up a barrier to entry which won't devolve into the same process as the one for which we're putting up a barrier to entry? Limiting the amount of conversation seems to be a good idea, although the practical implementation of this remains to be fine-tuned. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
We really need to hurry up and get rid of discussion in recall positions. That's where the drama comes from, not the signatures. A petition is not a consensus-building process, it's the prelude to one; discussion isn't needed. – Joe (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Early closure
Discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Requesting closure of Wikipedia:Administrator_recall/Graham87 seems to have reached the clear consensus that the policy does not contain any provisions for ending a petition before it has run its course (currently 30 days, although that might change). Are there any scenarios where it should be allowed to close a petition early? Possibilities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following (not all of which are mutually exclusive):
The petition has reached 25 signatures
The petition has had 25 or more signatures for 24/48/72 hours
The admin has acknowledged the petition is successful, but has not indicated whether they will resign or file an RRFA
The admin has stepped down
The admin has announced their intention to file a RRFA, but not specifically when
The admin has stated they will initiate an RRFA at a specific time (e.g. "tomorrow", "Wednesday afternoon Pacific time", "in about a week")
The admin has initiated an RRFA
The filer wishes to withdraw the petition, and nobody else has signed it
The filer wishes to withdraw the petition, but other editors have signed it
I see that Graham87 indicated he wanted to file the RRFA as soon as possible, but I'd like him to take a month as a kind of probation and prove that he has changed his ways. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
1, 3 and 8 are obviously a yes for me. I see 4/5/6/7 as subcategories of 3, and don't want explicit points for each subpoint. 9 I think the community is against, and 2 seems to be too much bureaucracy. If the 14th vote for recall wants to withdraw their signature, they can do it at any time, waiting for the 25th signature is not needed. There's already enough bureaucracy in play that the simplest solution seems most logical (25 sigs -> close petition -> discuss with crat when they RRFA) without the need for further complications based on edgecases. Soni (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Soni's perspective. The simplest approach is to end the petition once the threshold has been reached, or the admin agrees that the petition is successful, regardless of the subsequent action they choose to take. As per process, they should discuss their plans with the bureaucrats on how they want to proceed. On allowing a filer to withdraw a petition that no one has signed: in practice, it's probably the easiest way to quickly resolve a petition that only one person supports. isaacl (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I also agree. I think it's clear that we should not do 9, and I don't think 2 is necessary. All of the others seem good to me, and I'm not too bothered over the degree to which the admin lays out their plans. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
The second it reaches 25 signatures, I think it should be hatted by anyone with a simple closing statement such as "25 signatures reached. Moving to next stage of WP:RECALL." And I think the clock on the re-RFA should start when the close is made. Keeping it open longer seems like a recipe for drama and unreasonable candidate stress. I don't think I could ever support a recall process that forces an admin to be dragged over the coals for 30 days petition + 7 days re-RFA = 37 days. The shorter the better. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Agree with 1 and 8. I would agree with 3 if the admin acknowledges the success before 25 signatures, on the condition that the acknowledgment be final (and considered equivalent to a successful petition). Either way, once the petition reaches 25 signatures, there's no need to keep the discussion open for longer to avoid a pile-on. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
What if the admin pulls the pin and asks the bureaucrats for a voluntary de-sysop? This would qualify as under a cloud, right? And the petition could be closed early? Hawkeye7(discuss)23:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
That's what 4 is asking, which I support (as a subset of other points). I would also consider resigning during an ongoing recall petition as under a cloud. Soni (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Whether or not voluntary removal would be "under a cloud" depends on the strength of the reasoning the petitioners have given. If the reasoning is flimsy, or the petitioners don't give any – which the policy's current wording allows them to do – it wouldn't be fair to consider the voluntary removal "under a cloud". SuperMarioMan (Talk) 08:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
It has to always treated as a WP:CLOUD situation even if the petitioners don't give any reason. The distinction is impractical to handle and no one can make the call whether it's one or the other. —Alalch E.16:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Cloud determinations currently are and should continue to be made when restoration of adminship is requested. The presence of a recall petition is strong evidence that a cloud exists, but it is not a guarantee. I trust the bureaucrats to make a judgement call in the cases where it's not immediately obvious that there's a cloud. I can construct situations where petition does not equal cloud, but they are rare. A note of the petition at the bureaucrat noticeboard when a de-adminship request is made is probably appropriate. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
(Forgot to add earlier that the WP:CLOUD question is decided before restoration, not upon resignation.) I disagree. It shouldn't be considered automatic; it needs to be assessed case-by-case. The wording of Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of admin tools is "serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator..." For WP:CLOUD to obviously apply, the petition would need to raise such questions. A petition consisting entirely of signatures and no reasoning doesn't do that. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I see. (I was answering only on WP:CLOUD, I hadn't considered the early closure options.) That in mind, I think early closure should be limited to 25 signatures + 1 day (to allow time in case any signatories change their mind); the subject proceeding straight to RRFA; or the sole signatory withdrawing. So numbers 2, 7 and 8 above. If there are concerns about administrators resigning promptly to evade scrutiny – rather than the whole petition page being closed early, perhaps only the signatures section should be closed early and the discussion area left open for comments until the petition window closes. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, acknowledging that the petition is successful and resigning is acknowledging that, for whatever reason, you are choosing not to contest the views of the petitioners. I appreciate it kind of sucks for an admin who just wants to avoid controversy and step down quietly and then later wants to help out with administrative tasks again, but I don't think it's practical to try to resume the petition. So while I don't think it should be assumed there were serious questions about the appropriateness of the former admin's status as an administrator at the time of resignation (from Wikipedia:Administrators § Restoration of admin tools), I think the resignation should be treated as one that relinquished the right to request restoration of administrative privileges without re-obtaining community approval. isaacl (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I'd say a petition may be closed:
By any editor after 30 days have elapsed.
By any editor, after 25 extended confirmed signatures have been added.
As successful at the request of the admin. This can be explicit (the admin closes the petition as having enough support) or implicit (they start a RRFA or hand in the tools)
At any time if no valid editors are supporting the petition (someone withdraws their own unsupported petition, the initiator isn't extended confirmed, all the signers are socks, etc)
Agree with the first three here, whatever that comes under (I assume 1 and 5-7 or original questions). "At any time" in the last bullet point is problematic, as some editors might think that within a few days of no signatures it'd be acceptable to close. If there are no signatures there should also be little to no issues/drama continuing the petition for the required time frame. CNC (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
We don't have to specify "any editor". And a reference to the petition failing is made further up in the text: If a petition fails ... —Alalch E.16:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
See edit: Special:Diff/1255982999: "If during the petition stage the administrator does the same [makes a re-request for adminship or becomes a candidate in an administrator election] prior to the signatures reaching 25, the petition is immediately closed as successful." —Alalch E.16:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort to put all of these questions in one place, but many editors have already commented on these issues (and at least one RfC has started. I would not want those comments lost in a second (or third) discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree that open and closed petitions should be categorised separately. I also wonder whether the categories should have "Wikipedia" in the name somewhere, I can imagine people categorising articles about e.g. politicians who have faced recall petitions in Category:Recall petitions, especially if any individual petitions are notable (I have no idea if they are, but it's plausible). Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Definitely rename to include "Wikipedia". Probably if a real-world recall petition succeeds the article on it will end up being merged with that of the election it triggers. But I could totally see a failed recall petition becoming notable and deserving its own article. * Pppery *it has begun...19:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you think they should be subcategories of closed petitions, or should open, closed (successful) and closed (unsuccessful) all be at the same level? Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm thinking we'll want to be able to look in one place to know who's inoculated against RRFA because of a recently-closed RRFA, so we might want one single category for closed RRFAs, and then subcategories for the failed and successful ones?—S MarshallT/C12:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
No. The idea of the petition is to see if enough people independently discover misconduct sufficient to warrant a recall before it fades away. Keeping it one life support like that is contrary. * Pppery *it has begun...21:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Notification templates
There seem to be two templates to be used when starting a petition ({{Admin recall notice}} and {{Admin recall notice/AN}}), but there are no corresponding templates to use when closing a petition according to the question I asked above in #Discussion; so, I'm going to ask why this is the case here. Personally, I think it would be better to have some community agreed upon wording that could be used every time a petition is closed instead of leaving things up to the person closing the petition; this seems not only a good idea for the sake of consistency, but also to avoid any potential misunderstandings. Should there be boilerplate closing templates for notifying administrators who are the subject of a recall petition that it has been closed and for notifying AN that a petition has been closed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
These seem fine to me other than perhaps the use of the word "cetified" (but that's being discussed in #Concerns about the word "successful". Whatever the final wording turns out to be, a boilerplate template seems to be preferrable to leaving things up to individual closer to decide. It's not that the notifications so far have been inappropriate, but it just seems better (at least to me) that any administrator recalled by this process receives the same notification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Technical implementation of RRfAs
Making a list of things that need to be updated/created
I think RRfA and its subtemplate should include the default RfA questions, albeit with Q 1 slightly modified. Graham87 opted to replace it with 1. Why are you interested in being an administrator?. I'll let others weigh in before I add that.Sincerely, Dilettante22:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Now that the first RRFA for a an administrator successfully recalled by petition has started, I'm wondering about the a couple of things. FWIW, I rarely comment in RFAs so I don't all the details as to how they work. So, my apologies in advance if some of these seem silly.The user who nominated the recalled admin for reconfrimation mentioned and linked to the petition about the admin in their nomination statement. Was this just by chance or is it something that's required? It was also mentioned in several other comments, but I'm wondering if there should be an official link to the petition itself somewhere in the formatting for the RRFA akin to the "RFAs for this user" box near the beginning of the "Discussion section". Some other questions I have are as follows: (1) Can two RRFAs for recalled admins simultaneously take place? (2) Can the same person simultaneously monitor two RRFAs of recalled admins? (3) Can the same person be a nominator or co-nominator in two RRFAs of recalled admins simultaneously ongoing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: not at all silly! lemme take a whack at answering these:
No, it's not required to link to the recall petition in the nomination statement.
Yes, I would support adding a link on the RRfA page, we should add that to {{RRfA/readyToSubmit}}.
Yep, there's no rule against as many simultaneous RfAs or RRfAs as are validly launched at the time.
Yep, there's no rule against someone nominating multiple people at RfA/RRfA.
Thank you. Just a few more questions if you don't mind. Each RRFA should in principle be about the admin in question, right? Do you as moderator get to "remind" people to stay on topic if they start to stray too far outside the lines? Does a moderator need to step aside if someone questions their impartiality? Can a recalled admin !vote in the RRFA of another currently recalled admin? Does it open the door for comments about them if they do, i.e. a WP:BOOMERANG kind of thing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Can a recalled admin !vote in the RRFA of another currently recalled admin? Does it open the door for comments about them if they do Yes and no. The only restriction on who can comment in a Re-RFA is that they must be extended confirmed, which all admins and former admins are. Outside of their own Re-RFA anybody standing at for Re-RFA (or indeed RFA) is exactly the same as any other editor - people may choose to agree or disagree with the rationale given in a (re-)RFA by someone currently standing for Re-RFA, just not because of who left the rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
The "General comments" section for the RRFA for the first admin to be recalled via this process already sort of seems (at least to me) to be moving slowly in a direction that's less focused on the concerned admin and more focused on the recall process as a whole. Some have expressed concern that some support !votes are WP:IDL cast mainly in opposition to the petition process itself. Is this kind of thing (discussing whether a !vote should count, whether a policy which is referred to in the RFA should be changed, etc.) commonplace for a RFA in the "General comments" section. Is this where a moderator can step in and try to keep everyone focused on the RRFA/RFA itself and possibly suggest other venues for such a discussion? Can a moderator strike a !vote that they feel is inappropriate? Are WP:PERNOM !votes acceptable in this type of discussion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
If you look at the other currently open RFA (Worm That Turned's) you will see (as of the last time I looked) at least most of the opposes and all of the neutrals expressing opposition to the process (in this instance not just requesting the tools back at WP:BN). Personally I would suggest all !votes (of all flavours) that address the process rather than the candidate should be moved to the talk page, but that's not my decision to make. I don't see an issue with PERNOM votes, but then I have much less issue with them generally than many people (if you agree with what the nominator says and the reasons they give, why should repeating them using different words make your opinion more valuable than just saying you agree?). Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how moving !votes to the talk page could be made to work．I've seen !votes made at XFD discussions being stricken because of sockpuppetry, but I've seen !vote flagged as being made by an SPA account left to stand. Of course, it's perfectly within the discretion of the closer of the discussion to either ignore them completely or give them less weight. Who would get to decide what !vote needs to be moved to the talk page? The moderator? What happens if someone moves the !vote back? I'm not sure but it seem a !voter is allowed to modify and clarify their !vote after the fact, right? What if the !voter re-!votes by modifying their !vote to still mention their general concerns but also further clarify their position on the admin being discussed? One of the things pointed out in the Fastily petition is that people wanting to sign should be able to do so without having their reasons picked apart or otherwise challenged. That's a fair point, but it would also seem to be something that should apply to any RRFA that is the result of a petition. Shouldn't people be allowed to !vote as they see fit, and then all the !votes assessed accordingly by whoever closes the RRFA once it has run its course. Perhaps this is where "bureaucrat discretion" should come into play. If anything, it seems to me that the "General comments" section of any RFA/RRFA is for more suited for the talk page than it is for the main page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we could add the default questions hidden in comment tags with a brief message explaining why? I'll do that later today if no-one objects or has a better idea. Sincerely, Dilettante17:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
On second though, I'm reading the rules about RRfA being identical to an Rfa with a different threshold as mandating the 3 questions. I'm adding them without any comment tag or input that hides them.Sincerely, Dilettante21:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Currently no. There needs to be some moratorium to discourage frivolously starting and withdrawing petitions, but 6 months is too long in my opinion - too long a moratorium will encourage gaming, and a good-faith but premature or poorly thought-out petition should not block a better petition for that long. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Why is that relevant? Disruptive editing is only one of many reasons why a petition might be withdrawn, and we don't want disruptive editing to hamstring productive editing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I definitely should not be able to file a petition, withdraw it 30 seconds later after "changing my mind" and grant any immunity period for that admin. I also definitely shouldn't be able to open a petition, let it go for 29.9 days without attracting support, withdraw my support, close it, and immediately open up a new 30 day petition. We can probably cover this with our current rules on disruptive editing, but if someone has a clean way to formalize this, that's even better. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we should distinguish between petitions that get no comments at all from other editors and petitions that get comments but no support. Certainly any petition that could be deleted under G7 (regardless of whether it is so deleted) should not grant immunity, but I don't think that is the complete set of such petitions. For example if the only comments are along the lines of "this is a complete mess" and "Your rationale is just gibberish" probably shouldn't grant immunity either, nor should ones from people who have clearly not understood what the petition is for. However petitions that get opposition on and/or detailed constructive examination of the merits probably should grant some immunity. I don't know how to formalize this, but if some withdrawn petitions grant immunity and some don't we need some way of figuring out which is which. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
The way I'd phrase it is that petitions that result in "substantive community evaluation of the admin's conduct" grant immunity. The poor Bureaucrat who has to figure out if that happened or not in a gray area would probably be displeased with me though. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Your second sentence is why I don't like that idea.
AFAICS, there are only three ways this can go:
Petition is withdrawn before it gets any signatures beyond the first. These would not trigger immunity.
Petition gets more than 1 signature. These cannot be withdrawn.
The real weird scenario: petition gets multiple signatures, but later the signatories all strike their signatures, and the original petitioner withdraws.
If the third scenario triggers immunity, then it'll discourage people from striking their signatures, which probably isn't a good thing. If the third scenario doesn't trigger immunity, then it'll encourage people to strike their signatures when they think the petition won't be successful in order to avoid immunity, which also probably isn't a good thing. Between these two bad choices, I'm not sure which one I prefer. Levivich (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Could even go a layer weirder - if I see a badly argued petition for an admin I like, should I sign it to ensure that they get immunity when it fails? Tazerdadog (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi Raladic. You have created this page and transcluded it onto the recall page, but I have removed the transclusion. Namely, there's no need to advertise RRfA like this, because like all RfAs they are highly visible, and there's no need to mirror what was done for the petitions (transcluded list) which aren't advertised anywhere else; a list of RRfAs is already at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Closed petitions -- updating manually at an additional place is unnecessary and duplicative. This makes the page orphaned, so I believe that it should be deleted. If you agree that it should, G7 should still work. —Alalch E.12:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
RFAs are advertised, but since these are RFAs as a result of the recall, I do feel that having them listed at the WP:RECALL page is worthwhile for convenience.
And another editor @Stephen helped fix the sentence case, which I take as agreeing that this sentence s a useful addition to the page.
That's a good suggestion. I've added it as a transclusion now. Since right now the list is short, this doesn't take much space, so it's probably a good compromise and achieves what I was trying to do, simplify navigation instead of people having to go to another page. Raladic (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) on the talk page I have floated the idea of making that a list of all petitions with relevant ones have a status of "Open". If the list gets long then we can also have a separate list of currently open petitions Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
That was inherently what the new subpage was that I created, but it appeared no one else wanted it. @Levivich just reverted the transclusion.
What's wrong with the status quo: (1) listing current petitions and RRFAs at /Current, (2) transcluding /Current to WP:RECALL, (3) listing closed petitions and RRFAs at /Closed, and (4) linking to /Closed from WP:RECALL? Levivich (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Current Re-RFAs are not listed at /Current, only the petitions that may or may not trigger one. So some people may not be aware that there is right now an active re-RFA ongoing, so for convenience, it seems appropriate to include it on the main page. Raladic (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
If the current re-RFAs are listed at /Current, then you'd have them out of order.
I was trying to solve this with the sub-page, but people seemed to thing another separate page requires more work.
So that's why @Patar knight then suggested to instead just transclude the /Closed petitions page, so that the re-RFAs are showing up, since they are already on that list. Raladic (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
1) Petition for Recall open - /Current
2) Petition for Recall closed, still within the 30 day window - /Current, status is "within 30 day post-petition period" or something like that
3) Petition for Recall closed, RRFA open - /Current, status is "RRFA pending" with a link to the RRFA
4) Petition for recall closed, RRFA closed or no RRFA - /Closed
The table in the /Close petition currently acts as tracking the progress from after petition closing.
So now instead, you'd have people have to update both the /Current and the /Closed to keep them up to date, which I believe is what people were primarily wanting to avoid with the separate page I created.
So I think instead we can have:
1) Petition for recall open - /Current
2) Petition for recall closed /Closed
3) Re-RFA started /Closed (in subsection to transclude)
Which keeps the workflow simple of current is just for current petion and keeps the /Closed page for closed petition, but active RFA. Raladic (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Looks like you just deleted your comment right as I was about to hit reply - you're saying rename /Closed petitions to /Closed recalls or so.
Since petition is just the first step and the current page title implies it's only about the petition state..
Sure, we could do that.
I do absolutely agree with your note in the edit summary that it shouldn't be a wall of shame, so I'm fully on board with just a partial transclusion, or as you now made clearer, a change on what the /Closed page should actually track.
No worries about your earlier comment, looks like we're trying to get to the same thing and were just talking past each other because of the slight confusion between petition and recall of the titles. :)
Why the extra red tape? I literally posted the above to see if others felt like it would be useful or not. Since it seems no, I am fine to just G7 it. It would have been better if you had just pinged me rather than just starting an Mfd.. Raladic (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I presume it is completely uncontroversial that petitions closed as invalid because they don't meet the requirements to start a petition should not grant any immunity from subsequent petitions, regardless of why it is invalid? This is currently stated for petitions begun against an inactive administrator, but the policy is silent on petitions closed as invalid for any other reason (e.g started by a non-ec editor, too soon after a previous one, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I have a slight concern about the phrasing of when a petition is "closed as successful", especially when notifying the admin who the petition is about. Telling them that the recall petition was "successful" to me seems rather crass: "congratulations, the petition to fire you was successful!" Is there a better phrasing we can use, or are we stuck using positive words for something most would view as negative? Primefac (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I've asked about what makes a petition successful above in #Discussion, and one person responded that would consider meeting the threshold to be a "success". To me, though, things are a bit more nuanced than that. For example, a petition could be a success if it leads to the recalled admin deciding to resign, falling sort in an RRFA or even if it leads to a major changes by the administrator who passes RRFA but sincerely pledges to do better. In my mind, whether a petition is a "success" probably won't be known right away, which is why I agree with the suggestion to change the wording to something more neutral. Perhaps the best thing to do is to simply state what happened, i.e. the petition achieved the required threshold to move to the next stage of the recall process. FWIW, if the wording change to replace "success" maybe "unsuccessful" should be changed as well because an administrator subject to a recall petition could see it as constructive criticism and modify their behavior in a way that reflects the concerns raised even if the petition fails reach the required threshold of signatures. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Though I'm uneasy about "certified" because it may be interpreted as though the statements in the petition are being certified, it can also emphasize that the objective of the petition is to find enough people willing to certify that there are significant concerns which, in their view, warrant a re-request being filed. isaacl (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
...that is the objective of a petition: to see if there are 25 people who agree there are significant concerns which, in their view, warrant a re-request being filed. The "certification" is the closer certifying that there are the sufficient number of editors who meet suffrage requirements to certify the petition and trigger the RRfA. Levivich (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Not fond of either "successful" or "certified", the latter of which suggests that the closer is certifying that the concerns raised are justified; "met the threshold" seems neutral and informative. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I've been using "certified" as a concise way of saying "the petition has met the threshold of signatories who agree that the admin should either resign or get confirmation that the community still has trust in them as an administrator". The certification being done is that at least 25 people who are eligible to sign the petition have done so. I agree with the concerns about "successful" but I don't like "passed" or "failed" either because that's unclear - did the admin pass because 25 people did not agree to sign their petition or is that a failure of the petition. At WP:CARP I wasn't planning on using "succeeded", "passed" or "fail" for the outcome of the RFA either, but something like "retained"/"revoked". Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
"Revoked" has punitive connotations to me. I appreciate of course that the outcome is indeed punitive, but personally I think using the same language as for requests for adminship would lessen the emphasis on that aspect. isaacl (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I think "certified" would make sense to me if, for example, whether a petition meeting the threshold was confirmed either by an uninvolved admin or bureaucrat since "certification" does, at least to me, imply some kind of formal review/assessment. Even though it might be a bit wordy, I think something along the lines of "has met/achieved/reached the community-determined threshold for recall/a RRFA". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC); post edited -- 08:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Call me a pedant, but to certify is to make (a thing) certain [...] in an authoritative manner or to declare or attest by a formal or legal certificate,[1] which doesn't fit here. Usually the way out of these problems is to stop trying to be concise, as Clovermoss suggests above: "met the required threshold" or "gained the required number of signatures", etc. – Joe (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I can't put my finger on exactly why but I'm not a big fan of either of them. I guess "Adopted" makes it sound like a policy proposal, it is a proposal (that $admin needs to reconfirm their adminship) but it doesn't quite sit right. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
+1 Adopted seems really unintuitive. If certified and ratified are problematic, 'passed' is the best word and 'met/reached the threshold' is obviously the best phrase. Sincerely, Dilettante20:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
For now I've changed the "Certified" header at WP:CARP to "Threshold reached" (which I prefer to "Threshold met" for completely subjective reasons). That isn't the only place we need to use a phrase to indicate that status, but it is somewhere that needs to be concise, and is somewhere I'm unconcerned about being bold. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
If we reworded the petition as a motion, then adopted could fit, but it feels too parliamentary to me. I don't like qualified; usually people are trying to qualify for something, but no one is trying to qualify to file a re-request. isaacl (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Another possible term is enacted: Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Example has been closed as enacted or Petition enacted. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
"met the threshold for..." is best, "passed" is acceptable. Petitions are not "enacted", "certified" or "adopted". Zerotalk10:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
My preference would be for the recall petitions and results to be covered as part of a table, with each row separated by columns under headers such as "Recall Page", "Date Submitted", "Signature Total", etc. Think along these lines:
User resigned adminship during recall; petition closed as null
N/A
Now obviously, the table that winds up being used should be better thought-out than the one I just threw together, but that's an example of how I think we should list past recalls. On the petition pages themselves, I think we should close them as "Threshold reached" or "Threshold not reached", with the former accompanied by an explanation of the recall's aftermath (e.g. "Threshold reached; re-RfA submitted"). Kurtis(talk)20:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Should a new subpage of WP:FORMER be created for administrators who fail an RRfA (perhaps called "recalled"), or should that be bundled in with "for cause"?
Graham87 has indicated that he is considering withdrawing his RRfA (see Q18). If he does this and is thus desysopped, would he be included under "resigned" (since it was a voluntary decision to relinquish one's adminship), or under whatever subpage admins who fail an RRfA fall?
I think there probably needs to be three separate categories for former administrators who are former due to recall: one for those who choose to resign without standing again, another for those who withdraw during a reconfirmation RFA and a third for those whose re-RFA does not result in them retaining adminship. What to call the third category may be best left until the discussion about "success" etc terminology above is concluded. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reason this is useful? I'm open to it if so, but it feels kind of mean to call this out without a good reason. Valereee (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
@Pppery In principle I agree their cases are closer to "for cause", but a list like that page needs to follow consistent rules, and technically either of them could have won their RRfAs. Plus, Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/resigned already states that it includes administrators [who] resigned in recognition of the community's dissatisfaction with their activities. Mach6117:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with placing them both in "for cause", especially Fastily. They resigned while their conduct was being discussed but without a consensus that they did anything wrong. It is a category that is neither "resigned in good standing" nor "desysopped for cause". Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Historically, I believe we've listed admins who resign "under a cloud" under the "resigned" category. I think Graham should be in "for cause" because that's exactly what happened--admins with an unsuccessful RRFA should be put under "for cause" whether they withdraw the RRFA or not. Fastily should be under "resigned", albeit under a cloud, which is where admins who resign during or after a (successful threshold-met) recall should be listed, along with other admins resigning under a cloud. If we're going to pull "under a cloud" out from the "resigned" category, we should do it with all admins who resigned under a cloud, not just Fastily. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the two comments above. The rationale for this whole process has been that the petition does not, by itself, establish anything equivalent to a "cloud". I've heard over and over again from apologists for this disaster of a process, that if a good admin gets a petition that reaches the threshold, then everything will be set right when we have the reconfirmation RfA, because the community will rally behind the admin, and the admin will pass the RfA. So Graham, whose RfA was unsuccessful, can be considered "under a cloud", similar to an admin who was desysopped by ArbCom and instructed that a new, successful, RfA would be needed in order to regain the tools. Fastily had a petition that reached threshold, and the process stopped there. The forecast of clouds was premature. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Disagree pretty much 100%. If there's an open petition and you resign during it: As long as there is one valid signature and as long as there was some prior dispute resolution meaning that the petition is not entirely premature or frivolous and very likely disruptive, bureaucrats should not restore adminship. —Alalch E.20:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. Graham withdrew his RRFA at 45% passing -- he was desysoped for cause, there is no doubt about this. Fastily had a petition that met the threshold and opted not to RRFA, resigning instead. He resigned "under a cloud." A successful petition is certainly a "cloud." A "cloud" does not mean a finding of fault. It's exactly analogous to an admin who resigns while there's an WP:ARC pending against them, or during an open arbitration case, or during an open ANI against them. Just as in those cases--e.g., an open ANI--there isn't yet a finding of consensus, but it's still "under a cloud." Levivich (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Since a petition can be raised without any reason being given for it at all, in what way is it, by itself, a "cloud"? FOARP (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I had no idea about this discussion until now. As the main maintainer of the former administrators subpages, I wasn't sure myself what to do and am OK with whatever changes others want to make. I put myself under "resigned" because I withdrew my RFA early, four days before it was supposed to end, thus cutting short my own adminship. But ... really, I see it as a distinction without a difference in this sort of case, because either way, there's no way I'll get adminship back without an RFA. Graham87 (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Bureaucrat discretion
The wording "at their [bureaucrat] discretion" appears at the end of the second paragraph of WP:RECALL#Re-request for adminship. Similar wording was also used in User talk:Fastily#Petition passed. I'm not totally sure what this means; so, I'm wondering whether it needs to be clarified. Does it mean that there's still one final stage of the process to go in cases where a recalled administrator fails to respond within 30 days of the close of a successful petition? Could bureaucrats still decide in such cases that the recalled administrator's conduct might've been problematic but not to the level of desyoping? Would that mean in such cases that the process has finished and the administrator has been reconfirmed just as if they had been successfully reconfirmed through an RFAA? Please advise if it's better off discussed somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for responding because I didn't know what that emoji meant. A petition can potentially run for 30 days and a successful petition means potentially 30 more days before things land on the doorsteps of the bureaucrats. So, I'm not sure why additional wiggle is needed since I guess I'm assuming that at least some of the bureaucrats will know about ongoing petitions or at least successfully closed petitions and, thus, likely be monitoring things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
It allows for things like the administrator starting their re-RFA a couple of days late due to (communicated) personal circumstances or waiting a few extra days because that is when the next admin election is scheduled. It also allows for the crats not to act if there is consensus the petition was not actually successful for some reason (or if discussion about that has not reached consensus yet). It's not discretion to ignore the community. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. I do have a question though about the part of your post about there being a consensus that a petition isn't successful or an ongoing discussion about such a thing. WP:RECALL#Petition seems to imply that a petition is successful as soon as it meets the 25 signature threshold. It also seems that a petition can be closed and the admin in question notified as soon as the petition reaches that threshold. Is also seems that if 30 days pass and the threshold isn't reached, then it's not successful. There doesn't seem to be any consensus involved in either case. How does consensus come into play in determining whether a petition is successful? A consensus would seem to imply that there was a discussion taking place, but it's been pointed out to me before by you that a petition isn't and shouldn't be a discussion about admin behavior but rather just a way of requesting to have such a discussion. I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm just trying to understand what connection there might be a consensus and a petition. Can a closed successful petition be challenged by someone in some way other than RRFA? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree I could have been clearer there. I was thinking of scenarios where there is dispute about whether 25 signatures were or were not reached, e.g. if it got to 25 and then one was withdrawn, or one of the signatories (or maybe the filer) was subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet, or there is a dispute about who closed it or whatever (there is literally no limit to the things Wikipedians will argue about).
Can a closed successful petition be challenged by someone in some way other than RRFA? this is undefined. In theory any action (other than an Office Action) can be challenged, but that doesn't guarantee the challenge will be successful.
Also undefined is whether, if a petition is closed as successful and that close is challenged (for whatever reason) but not overturned, whether the 30 day timer starts at the time of the original close or the time the challenge was closed. For a frivolous challenge that's not going to make much difference, but for one that was contentious it might be a week or more's difference. In my opinion rather than trying to codify every possible scenario in this regard it would be better to just state that its up to the crats to determine what is fairest to all parties in the given circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
With respect to the above discussion though: "If this does not happen, they may remove the administrator privileges at their discretion." states in plain English that the bureaucrats have discretion over removing the tools at all, not discretion over the time frame. If that was the intent (allowing the crats time to consider any issues), the wording needs to be clear that the discretion only extends to when, not if. E.g. "If this does not happen, they will remove the administrator privileges as soon as they able to, subject to any extenuating circumstances." Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
No one can ever be forced to perform a future edit or action. The "at their discretion" part is a bit superfluous though and could just be removed - the point is to ensure that it is clear this is an action 'crats may do, not that it is only discretionary. — xaosfluxTalk11:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
@Only in death I believe I was the one who introduced the "may remove" wording, and it was very much intentional as a catch-all.
RRFA is untested, but crats are not. If a petition is suddenly taken over by socks, or suceeds then fails due to withdrawals, or just the admin has IRL circumstances that keep them away for 2 months, or any number of similar circumstances... We want to allow flexibility for those cases instead of trying to write each of those into stone. WP:IAR exists, but this is a simple safety net, with crats explicitly given discretion to use. RECALL is still evolving and is supposed to help weed out the worst admins, not tie bureaucrat hands into doing an action no matter what.
RFA also operates similarly, and WP:RFA says discretion twice. Crat-chat is not mandatory below 75%, nor is 65% auto-fail. We have gotten admins below the lower range before, the discretion works fine there. So I see no harm in keeping the wording as is, we'll evolve community understanding of things and how far that discretion stretches, as and when the process gets tested. Soni (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I like the idea of allowing for exceptional circumstances. Bureaucrats have not yet had to step in so far. I think the wording is fine. OXYLYPSE (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Waiving the 12-month immunity period after a successful Re-RFA?
Does what's written in WP:BADNAC also, in principle, apply to closes of petitions by non-administrators? This is related to a something I asked above in #Discussion about who can close a petition, and the response I got seemed to imply that it does. There's some instruction on how to start a petition and who may start one given in WP:RECALL#Petition, but there are no instructions given on how to properly close a petition or who may close a petition. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC); posted edited to add the word "one". -- 08:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
The first time we do something, we often discover things we overlooked or uncover faulty assumptions we made. It's unfortunate when the thing we're doing for the first time affects someone this profoundly, but I'm not sure there's a way to do a test run for something like this. A lot of people did their best to think of everything they could. Valereee (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with the closes. Only mentioning that there don't seem to be any instructions given for closing petitions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
These petitions are in no way difficult or contentious closes. I don't see any reason why it even needs an experienced closer, much less a bureaucrat. Valereee (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
The only thing a closer does need to do which is out of the ordinary is verify every signer is extended confirmed. This isn't hard to do, but can open a can of worms I'd like to keep shut if it's not done. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
There are so many people watching these petitions that it would be unlikely anyone would sign and no one would notice they weren't ECR. I suppose it's possible #25 signs and someone too-inexperienced jumps in too fast, but that's probably not a huge risk either. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I think it best that it is closed by someone uninvolved and not completely inexperienced (basically someone who could close it if it were an RFC), but hopefully that's common sense. Separately I'd prefer it not be closed immediately it hits 25 signatures, but that's something for the forthcoming RFC (see Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop#Closing a petition). Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I closed the last petition. I checked whether everyone is ECR and I read the entire signatures section to see what the signatories wrote to eliminate the possibility that any among them have simply misformatted their comment and left a numbered comment resembling a petition signature when the content of their message suggests that they had no intention for their comment to be a signature. —Alalch E.04:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. My thinking is that while it does take a bit of care, BADNAC should not be understood apply to this type of close. I don't even think that "closing" a petition is a close in the sense of WP:CLOSE because a recall petition really is a WP:PETITION and not a WP:CONSENSUS-based decision-making process. The closer, however, can get it wrong, but anyone should be able to correct the error. —Alalch E.16:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
+1. Also WP:BADNAC is just an essay, not a policy, and it contradicts our other policies/guidelines about non-admin closes (such as WP:ADMIN). The entire notion that non-admins shouldn't close certain types of discussions is just some folks' opinion, it doesn't have consensus. Levivich (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware that the page is an essay; I'm also aware that essays are often brought up during discussions; even though a petition is technically not supposed to be a discussion, a discussion about its "close" seems possible based upon some of the things posted above in #Bureaucrat discretion. Anyway, I'm not suggesting that non-admins not be allowed to close petitions; only whether what's written in BADNAC could (or at least could be argued to), in principle, apply to petition closes because at some point someone is likely to try to do so. If, as Alalch E. seems to assert above, closing a petition is a "different kind of close", perhaps something along those lines could be adding to instructions for closing petitions. Similarly, who can close a petition and when it can be closed could also be added to such instructions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
As part of the approval RfC, consensus was that a bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. It was overturned by LOCALCON. I still think that that decision robs the community of a voice, since we did agree to have a 'crat certify the results as valid (or at least as valid as possible without a checkuser FISHING). If we allow non-crat closes, we're blatantly bucking consensus. Sincerely, Dilettante21:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
The concern there was that two parts of the RfC contradicted one another. I don't think we can call that blatantly bucking consensus. It was more, "Oh, this part appears to be internally contradictory...what do we do?" and the decision was between solve the issue one way or the other, or start another RfC. Valereee (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
My point is that asking a 'crat to start the RRfA makes no sense. We should still have 'crat closes because there's consensus for something akin to that. Sincerely, Dilettante17:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
My opinion is that all closes of the petition are BADNBC (bad non-bureaucrat closures), but no-one who hasn't been following the process closely could know that so I don't fault Alalch E. We shouldn't overturn the two closes, but we should require all closes from now on to be done by a 'crat, if only because consensus at the most recent RfC is that 'crats should be involved with the certification. Sincerely, Dilettante18:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that there is a consensus for bureaucrats to close the petition. There was no mention of this in the phase 2 discussion. isaacl (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I searched that discussion to confirm what I remembered: there is no mention of bureaucrats closing the petition in that discussion, either. That discussion was about how to proceed forward with the results from phase 2, including subsequent discussions on this talk page, and not about further changes to the process. isaacl (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Reiterating my first post, there is a mention of bureaucrats starting the RRfA. My point is that having a bureaucrat transclude the RRfA doesn't work. However, there needs to be an equivalent action where they rubber-stamp the results i.e. closing the discussion. Sincerely, Dilettante18:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Then why ask? The term succesful is ambiguous as to whether it's been closed or merely reached 25 signatories. It's clear we disagree over whether 'crats need to be involved because the RfC was poorly planned and written, and equally clear I'm in the minority here. Sincerely, Dilettante19:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: I think it's unnecessarily verbose. Although the sentence before the first bullet list says The following are some rules of thumb for determining whether a petition is invalid as a bad-faith petition:, the first bullet point is not a rule of thumb. It's also redundant, since there is no closure criterion in the process based on viability of the petition. The other bullet points cover various reasons that a petition should not be considered bad-faith. As there are many reasons why this is the case, I think for conciseness, it's better to focus on the specific reasons why a petition may be in bad faith. I suggest removing the first bullet list, with appropriate rewording to the surrounding text of the second bullet list. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree and have removed it, pending further discussion. I don't think repeating parts of the linked guidance on good faith or personal attacks is needed. For better or worse, the more words used on this page, the more people look at it and think it's overly complicated. isaacl (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
That's okay, the most important part for me was to switch the link and adjust wording a little to connect the text to the NPA policy which has the language "usually in the form of diffs and links", which is good. —Alalch E.19:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm in favor of keeping this page as absolutely short as possible per the principles of WP:CREEP and the general rule that the longer a page is, the less likely it will be read. Perhaps some of the longer explanations could be moved to a subpage? If WP:RECALL is a {{policy}} or {{procedural policy}} (remains to be seen), the subpage could be an {{information page}} or {{supplement}}. Levivich (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with the way it is now. You are probably not referring to the current state when referring to "longer explanations"? (This state: permalink.) —Alalch E.19:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean to be dismissive of the work you've put into drafting the language, but I think the current version is too long, and prefer this shorter version. Even that version is too long, I think this earlier version is even better. Instruction creep is the idea that we shouldn't try to explain or account for every single permutation or possible problem, etc. etc. So I think the additions/footnotes about "active" administrators, and what's "bad faith," and how long should you wait until after the previous ANI closes, etc. etc., all of that is instruction creep, in my view. Levivich (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
No problem, I would not take as your being dismissive. Feel free to revert any additions you think are unnecessary or you disagree with. I'm stressing that if you remove the second paragraph ("how long you should wait...") I favor reverting to the even earlier version, before the paragraph about the invalid petitions, because if there's an explicit mention of "invalid petitions", and the only firm conclusion from reading the text is that petitions started at the wrong time are invalid petitions, that will not be helpful when looking for an explanation or guidance on when to close the petition when there's a problem with it. Better not to have a reference to "invalid petitions" then. So for me: current version yes, "shorter version" no, "earlier version" yes. —Alalch E.19:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm currently intrigued as to whether this sentence in the lede can be wielded to fend off bad faith petitions "In most cases, disputes with administrators should be resolved with the normal dispute resolution process outlined at WP:ADMINABUSE. Other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted before a recall petition is initiated." Perhaps add a few words to make that law? Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
There is no law involved here. In my experience, an editor who is acting in bad faith isn't dissuaded by words. They ignore them and then argue about the literal meaning of them. isaacl (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't hope to dissuade bad faith editors, but to provide a clear enforcement clause, if the consensus is in favor of it. I'm boldly adding the phrase "after sufficient attempts at dispute resolution" before the phrase "if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community." Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
There's already the sentence "Other methods of dispute resolution should be attempted before a recall petition is initiated" in the introduction and we're not even close to the point where the introduction is summarizing the entire page, so merely restating is redundant at this time. —Alalch E.20:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. I just checked that the paragraph providing for invalidity has also been reverted, perhaps a consensus is needed on whether invalidity rules should exist. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
OK, I took it back to the earlier version, taking out the parts about invalid and also active admins (I don't think it's likely anyone will file a petition for an inactive admin; if it becomes a problem, we can add it back in), but keeping other interim copyedits/fixes (combined diff showing what was kept from the earlier version); feel free to further revert/tweak. Levivich (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do think we need some mention of invalid and bad faith petitions on the page, just not as extensive as what was here. It should basically "say petitions that are invalid and/or unquestionably frivolous or in bad faith may be closed by anyone other than the subject. They don't grant any immunity." We don't need to define everything, but we do need to give a couple of short examples. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's why I disagree:
if the page says "invalid" "unquestionably frivolous" "in bad faith" can be closed by anyone, then people will close petitions that they think count, and then people will argue about whether or not that petition was invalid, unquestionably frivolous, or in bad faith
but if a petition actually was unquestionably invalid, frivolous, or in bad faith, then everyone would know it, and would know that it could be closed by anyone, even without the page saying so
So I think it's a net negative to have the page say what to do with obviously invalid petitions: it creates something to argue about without actually giving any necessary instructions. Also, the page doesn't currently say who can close valid petitions (which is at WP:REWORK#Closing a petition), and so I don't think it should say who can close invalid petitions. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I haven't contested many of your previous revisions, because the discussion cost of building consensus can be high, and there is a lot of discussion ongoing already. But I agree with Levivich that, in my view, the guidance shouldn't have excessive detail trying to cover every scenario (I previously wrote an essay on avoiding specialized rules which is akin to this). isaacl (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
The impetus for this particular change comes from Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop § Provisions for bad-faith nominations. Personally I feel it would have been better to discuss the change first (as I had suggested), but I appreciate others like to just edit boldly and wait for reverts or comments. I agree with trying to make commentary on bad-faith petitions as short as possible. I'm concerned that more wording included on this page only causes those opening petitions in bad-faith to hyperfocus on those words, rather than stepping back and understanding the overall concerns of the community regarding their actions. isaacl (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the current state has reasonably covered bad-faith petitions. What about nonsensical petitions, perhaps April Fools ones or absolutely baseless ones? Treat it as vandalism? Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
These scenarios are already covered by existing guidance. We don't need to include discussion about all possibilities on this guidance page. isaacl (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm also thinking about people submitting petitions to fine legacy admins that they think got it easy and won't pass today's RfA, perhaps because of grudges that they themselves must submit to a harsh RfA to become an admin today. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there is existing guidance on assuming good faith, so that guidance can be applied in the situation you raised. This guidance page doesn't need to try to cover every possible intersection of other guidance pages with this one. isaacl (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Ultimately, I agree that no content on this is needed. If the perspectives on what exactly to do about bad-faith petitions really conflict as could be believed from Hawkeye7's statements, concrete proposals can be made in due course. The specific wording brought up in the reworkshop including construing Nominations that have no reasonable chance of passing as bad-faith petitions and closing them on those grounds is something I feel has no sticking power and can only hope that that is not what anyone really wants to add to the page. —Alalch E.20:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
We have Wikipedia:Rules for April Fools. Rule 2 (humour must be explicitly tagged) at the very least would apply here. Rule 3 Jokes that are hateful, discriminatory, and/or intended to make others feel unwelcome will not be tolerated. could also apply. We don't need to spell anything else out here. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Serious question: What is the point of this talk page?
If we're not allowed to propose improvements to the RECALL process (that's apparently done here), and we're not allowed to even talk about the RECALL process without any specific improvement in mind (that's apparently done here), then what exactly is this Talk page for?
Besides that, the "reworkshop" pages have 46 watchers, the project page has had 4350 pageviews (in 30 days), and the talk page has had 850 pageviews. Whereas this page has 146 watchers, and 10300 pageviews. A discussion on this page will almost certainly get more engagement. Do we really have to police the creation and storage of simple, vague discussion threads?
This page, WT:RECALL, is for discussing WP:RECALL except for discussing/proposing changes to the recall process, which should be done at WT:REWORK (with future RFC questions listed at WP:REWORK). Levivich (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I answered that in my first sentence: this page is for discussing RECALL except for discussing/proposing changes to the recall process, which is at another page. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
If you're looking for examples, look at the other threads on this page that haven't been moved. Those are examples of what this page is for. Levivich (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Does the six-month moratorium on petitions after a failed petition apply to withdrawn petitions? if not, can we add that? sounds suspiciously like a discussion about changing the process, yet it remains. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
That's asking a question about the current process (and documentation of it), not proposing or discussing a change to the process. Levivich (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
There's inevitably some overlap between talking about a process and talking about changing a process. Yes, the "if not, can we add that?" could be placed onto either page. You'll have to AGF that someone who has moved a gigantic discussion hasn't done so for nefarious reasons. If you think a discussion ended up on the wrong page, move it. Or start/continue that discussion at the new page. But please AGF. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Planning for another request for comments is being done on the reworkshop page. The talk page for the reworkshop page should be about logistic details of the reworkshop (so I agree that proposals for questions to be asked belong on the reworkshop page). This talk page is for discussions about the recall process. For now, since an RfC is being planned and there is a dedicated page for it, ideas for changing the process are better placed on the reworkshop page. Once that RfC is done, the reworkshop page will become inactive, and discussion for changes can resume on this talk page. isaacl (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Now, a temporary staging area to prepare for some RFCs makes at least some sense.
Though, my point remains that this page has more watchers and sees more pageviews. If discussion happens here organically, and gets good input, must it be ported over to the other WP or WT page? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
There is a lot of sprawling discussion on multiple pages. For practicality, it's better to plan the RfC on one page. It could have been this talk page, but a dedicated page was created. This does help separate out discussion about the documentation for the current process in effect from discussion of proposed changes, which could be easily confused. isaacl (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I also strongly object to the idea that any discussion *has* to happen on a centralised page and should be moved there. I agree that this makes sense most of the time but sometimes it just serves to bury the discussion beneath 20+ other proposals ranked higher because they were brought earlier, not because they are actually more relevant. Attempts to aggressively manage discussion are getting OTT. FOARP (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion can of course take place anywhere. As a matter of practicality, though, keeping RfC planning discussion in one place makes it easier for someone to find the relevant discussion threads, for discussion not to be duplicated, and for the threads to be acted upon. No matter where the threads are held, weighing their effect by relevancy is needed, and it's not made easier by having to gather similar threads from different places. isaacl (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
We don't need the same discussions in half a dozen places all at the same time. It is way harder to track down conversations on a specific topic if they are spread out on random pages. PackMecEng (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Add a link the RRFA to the recall petition close
I'm surprised this is not already standard procedure (maybe it is and just wasn't done), but it seems obvious that the petition close should be edited to add a link to the RRFA once it is started. (Or desysop if choice is not to RRFA). Ben · Salvidrim!✉08:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
